So Sanders won in W.Va and Hillary won the Superdelegates

The delegate math is daunting. Period. Someone should post how it's figured. And I am not saying it hasn't always been shadowy. It has. If it's not shadowy, I dare someone to describe its logic. There is nothing predictable or  intelligible about it. 

springgreen2 said:

Enough with the insults. Kornacki just said the math and the awarding of delegates is "daunting." 

Daunting means nothing.  Please explain why it is unfair.  Everything I have seen suggests that the primary structure of West Virginia is favorable to Sanders which, in your book, should mean it is more fair.

Per NYT, "Sanders has won West Virginia, according to A.P.". They have the breakdown as:

Sanders: 49.8% of the vote, 14 delegates

Clinton: 39.6% of the vote, 10 delegates

Other: 10.6% of the vote, 0 delegates

Now what's interesting is that 10+14 = 24 delegates, but 14/24 = 58% of the delegates. 

Sanders only got 50% of the vote, but 58% of the delegates? It's obviously rigged, right?

PVW said:

According to NYT, "Sanders has won West Virginia, according to A.P.". They have the breakdown as:

Sanders: 49.8% of the vote, 14 delegates

Clinton: 39.6% of the vote, 10 delegates

Other: 10.6% of the vote, 0 delegates

Now what's interesting is that 10+14 = 24 delegates, but 14/24 = 58% of the delegates. 

Sanders only got 50% of the vote, but 58% of the delegates? It's obviously rigged, right?

That is so grossly unfair.  I don't see how Clinton can expect to get a fair shake anywhere.  And 10% of voters were totally disenfranchised.  We might as well be living in North Korea.

in other words,  you have no clue. 

The real point is he needs 80% of the remaining delegates and since west Virginia is in fact a "fair" state with proportional representation, winning with 55% will only net him one or two extra delegates.  There are only 24 total in the state.

FilmCarp said:

There is a system in place.  It was  there before this election.  To say it is unfair makes it sound like grade school.  Fair is what kids get.  The rest of us get the real world.    Both of these candidates know the system and how it works.

Conveniently, the system being "unfair" is also what Trump had claimed when things didn't go his way. 

PVW said:

Per NYT, "Sanders has won West Virginia, according to A.P.". They have the breakdown as:

Sanders: 49.8% of the vote, 14 delegates

Clinton: 39.6% of the vote, 10 delegates

Other: 10.6% of the vote, 0 delegates

Now what's interesting is that 10+14 = 24 delegates, but 14/24 = 58% of the delegates. 

Sanders only got 50% of the vote, but 58% of the delegates? It's obviously rigged, right?

Rich people math.

tjohn said:

PVW said:

According to NYT, "Sanders has won West Virginia, according to A.P.". They have the breakdown as:

Sanders: 49.8% of the vote, 14 delegates

Clinton: 39.6% of the vote, 10 delegates

Other: 10.6% of the vote, 0 delegates

Now what's interesting is that 10+14 = 24 delegates, but 14/24 = 58% of the delegates. 

Sanders only got 50% of the vote, but 58% of the delegates? It's obviously rigged, right?

That is so grossly unfair.  I don't see how Clinton can expect to get a fair shake anywhere.  And 10% of voters were totally disenfranchised.  We might as well be living in North Korea.

Clinton, her campaign and the Clintonistas will not be whining its unfair. Its called maturity. They recognize the math of how the system is set up. 

Now, if the situation were reversed, we would have the Sandernistas crying and braying "unfair" to the whole world, over and over and over. As usual.

The more I see of the Sanders campaign's constant whining of "unfairness" the more disgusted I get. The level of immaturity and bs is simply astounding.

In all fairness, it is not the campaign that is complaining, it is supporters on the internet.

It would also be fair to point out that, were the primary based only on the popular vote in aggregate, without the daunting task of allocating delegates and recruiting super delegates, Clinton is still winning, 12,512,563 to 9,408,232 (Clinton +3,104,331).*  But since that is not the way the system works, Bernie is still in the race and I will get the chance to vote for him.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

* http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/democratic_vote_count.html#!

librarylady said:

Maybe one should wait for an explanation before starting a rabid rant  You know, like get the facts first  Ugh!

+1

(And I'm a Bernie supporter!)

Except that the popular vote figure is misleading, as some caucuses don't report vote totals at all, and the ones that do can't be compared with primary numbers. Even the primaries can barely be compared as some are open, semi-open, and others closed.

max_weisenfeld said:

It would also be fair to point out that, were the primary based only on the popular vote in aggregate, without the daunting task of allocating delegates and recruiting super delegates, Clinton is still winning, 12,512,563 to 9,408,232 (Clinton +3,104,331).*  But since that is not the way the system works, Bernie is still in the race and I will get the chance to vote for him.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

* http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/democratic_vote_count.html#!

librarylady said:

Maybe one should wait for an explanation before starting a rabid rant  You know, like get the facts first  Ugh!

+1

BG9 said:

tjohn said:

PVW said:

According to NYT, "Sanders has won West Virginia, according to A.P.". They have the breakdown as:

Sanders: 49.8% of the vote, 14 delegates

Clinton: 39.6% of the vote, 10 delegates

Other: 10.6% of the vote, 0 delegates

Now what's interesting is that 10+14 = 24 delegates, but 14/24 = 58% of the delegates. 

Sanders only got 50% of the vote, but 58% of the delegates? It's obviously rigged, right?

That is so grossly unfair.  I don't see how Clinton can expect to get a fair shake anywhere.  And 10% of voters were totally disenfranchised.  We might as well be living in North Korea.

Clinton, her campaign and the Clintonistas will not be whining its unfair. Its called maturity. They recognize the math of how the system is set up. 

Now, if the situation were reversed, we would have the Sandernistas crying and braying "unfair" to the whole world, over and over and over. As usual.

The more I see of the Sanders campaign's constant whining of "unfairness" the more disgusted I get. The level of immaturity and bs is simply astounding.

I only see 1 or 2 unreasonable people on MOL but I'm not listening elsewhere.  

springgreen2 said:

The delegate math is daunting. Period. Someone should post how it's figured. And I am not saying it hasn't always been shadowy. It has. If it's not shadowy, I dare someone to describe its logic. There is nothing predictable or  intelligible about it. 

It is not daunting or shadowy.  It does require people to (1) be patient and (2) be sensible and (3) learn the rules.  

springgreen2 said:

The delegate math is daunting. Period. Someone should post how it's figured. And I am not saying it hasn't always been shadowy. It has. If it's not shadowy, I dare someone to describe its logic. There is nothing predictable or  intelligible about it. 

Have at it.

http://frontloading.blogspot.com/p/2016-democratic-delegate-allocation.html?m=1

I remember "Neat and clean for Gene".  Nothing changes

Clinton won the Nebraska primary and got NO  delegates

Oh the horror!!

librarylady said:

Clinton won the Nebraska primary and got NO  delegates

Oh the horror!!

The rich people bought them  

So in the end Sanders won 51% of the vote and 16/29 delegates which is way more than 51%  . AmIright?   (Just did the math. 55.2%.  Not fair!))

librarylady said:

So in the end Sanders won 51% of the vote and 16/29 delegates which is way more than 51%  . AmIright?

What about the rich Superdelegates in WVA?  

Query: Is West Virginia the most anti-Obama state? 

Senator Sanders made disparaging comments about voters in southern states, with respect to the results, so it's a fair question.

Keith Judd suggests the answer is yes.

In WV exit polling 39% of Sanders voters said that they would vote for Trump over Sanders in the GE, so I don't really have a problem with Clinton getting more superdelegates there. 

runaway1 said:

In WV exit polling 39% of Sanders voters said that they would vote for Trump over Sanders in the GE, so I don't really have a problem with Clinton getting more superdelegates there. 

Open primary in WV, so Sanders probably got more than a few Republican voters that will almost certainly vote for Trump in November.

Has Trump claimed he's going to save the coal industry yet?

With an open primary you get the other side's most rabid members coming in and voting for the "softer" more easily beatable candidate. Why should anyone who is not a member of the party get to select its candidate? Maybe Sanders won so overwhelmingly because they think he is  easier to beat in November. No need to vote in the Repub primary as their candidate is already decided.

mjh said:

Open primary in WV, so Sanders probably got more than a few Republican voters that will almost certainly vote for Trump in November.

Has Trump claimed he's going to save the coal industry yet?

Yes. Apparently scientists are liars because when he started wearing hairspray nobody said it was bad for the environment, but now scientist say it is bad for the environment. So they must be lying since it wasn't bad when he started wearing it. Just like how coal wasn't bad when we started using it, but now suddenly it is bad! How can that be?!

I kid you not, that was his argument for coal at a rally in WV. However, it is coming from a guy who thinks that China invented Global Warming to make American manufacturing less competitive, so what can you do. 

mjh said:

Has Trump claimed he's going to save the coal industry yet?

Yup!

Donald Trump Says He’ll Bring Back Jobs For Coal Miners But He’s Just Blowing Smoke

Trump recently said in coal country:

 “Let me tell you: the miners in West Virginia and Pennsylvania, which was so great to me last week and Ohio and all over, they’re going to start to work again, believe me. You’re going to be proud again to be miners.”

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2016/05/04/3775234/donald-trump-coal-industry/

Donald Trump: Make America Choke Again.

Multiple entendres intentional.