-1000

Close to half of those don't actually count yet

Clearly there's a reason why lots of media outlets include them in their tallies, though. Could someone explain why that is?

Because they have promised to support one candidate or the other. But they haven't locked in the way pledged delegates have.

Also, cynically, because it gives Clinton the appearance of an overwhelming lead.

The verdict in UK news was that Michigan gives Bernie a good momentum for these next 2 though?

The Democrat party is fucked. Yesterday, ANOTHER DEMOCRAT VOTER DISENFRANCHISEMENT OCCURED AT THE HANDS OF THE DEMOCRAT PARTY ITSELF. Bernie wins Michigan....and Hillary will get more delegates because of the "super delegate" process of the utterly corrupt Democrat party.

NOW we know why Democrats yell and scream sooooo loud and soooo often about voter disenfranchisement, etc -- because THEY are the party of voter disenfranchisement, and they can't possible imagine that other parties actually have a little more integrity than they do.

Sorry...Democrats BY THEIR NATURE AND POLICY are *vote stealers*....and even if/WHEN Bernie wins the overall vote, he will *never* get the nomination because of the corruption within the Democrat party machine.


All you whiny little liberals ought to be marching in the streets over this!!

They may not be locked in, but are Democrat superdelegates in the habit of breaking their promises? Am I right in assuming a State's superdelegates can only make such a promise after the State has voted?

@Wjessop "momentum for these next 2 though? "

LOL.....idiocy. Bernie can have all the momentum he wants, because ultimately he would ned to 100% sweep the board to be able to override the fucking coorupt super-delegate process.

Your Mrs. Wanna-Be-Felon-In-Chief awaits her anointing.

@krellin: it's cold out though.

Krellin does raise a good point. The very existence of these superdelegates makes the Democrats look like prats.

I'm struggling with the comments some of you are making about delegates not counting; what exactly is hard to understand about the term OFFICIAL PLEDGED DELEGATES

PLEDGED Delegates 1238 - 572

Bernie is favored to lose Florida and Ohio by massive margins, he has no ground game in North Carolina, I dont see how Michigan changes much of anything at all. Bernie spent more in Michigan than Hillary, by nearly a 2:1 Margin. Of course he pulled the upset.
Now if he wins North Carolina, Illinois, Ohio, and Florida. Okay, I will shut my mouth and say I was an idiot.

(not gonna happen by the way)

The superdelegates were a similar story in 2008, and it never materialized. Superdelegates switched en masse from Clinton to Obama after it was clear that Obama had won more votes and more pledged delegates.

They were created after the 1972 process led to the nomination of McGovern and the devastating loss the Democratic Party suffered to Nixon in that election. While they can provide party actors some influence in a crowded and divided convention, no one believes they will decide the race this year. I would bet all the money in my pockets that the superdelegates will support whichever candidate wins the most pledged delegates and votes (extremely likely to coincide as every state awards pledged delegates in proportion to the vote).

As far as how they work mechanically, they are able to change their choice up to and until they vote in the Democratic National Convention, and since they are merely individuals, they're allowed to announce or pledge their support whenever they choose (even before their state votes).

Seems like you're confused, brainbong.

Pledged delegates are those assigned as a result of the actual ballots cast and caucus delegate equivalents earned.

Unpledged delegates are the superdelegates. Most have expressed a preference for one candidate or another, but they are *supposed* to vote proportionately with the will of the voters in their states.

You keep posting the totals for all delegates, pledged and unpledged, and it is misleading.

Superdelegates can state who they're going to vote for whenever they want, regardless of where the primary process is at, and they have no obligation to stay true to their word. It's likely that if Bernie wins the popular vote, many of those promised to Hilary will follow the will of the people rather than risk pissing off their base, meaning that superdelegates will only come into play if the race is close to tied.

Krellin is right that the Republicans don't have this specific brand of awfulness, but they can change whatever rules they want to suit themselves right before the convention, like they did when they set a delegate threshold to keep Ron Paul supporters quiet in 2012. There's really nothing good about any of them.

"Now if he wins North Carolina, Illinois, Ohio, and Florida. Okay, I will shut my mouth and say I was an idiot."

Come on, BERNIE!! :)

North Carolina? Pfft. Not in play for the Democrats anyway. Who cares?

If Bernie wins Ohio and Illinois, that will be HUGE. I don't really see him winning Missouri or Florida either, but you never know.

Yeah, ghug is right. I would caution Clinton supporters against using her lead in superdelegates as a sign that she is winning the race. The actual 200-delegate lead she has among those awarded in the primary process so far is convincing enough to show that she is winning, especially since, in the improbably not implausible scenario that Sanders sweeps Wisconsin, Florida, Ohio, California, New York, and a few others states by wide margins, the superdelegates would support him.

Superdelegates have never decided a Democratic primary. They won't start now precisely because the party is terrified of what would happen if they did. I mean, holy shit, guys, you think the Democrats are going to throw this election in a fit of pique when all they have to do to beat the Republican slate is not puke on their own dicks? Come on.

Well Kooter, since the tally to win is over 2300 delegates your completely a fuckwit. The PLEDGED delegates to date are 1238 - 572 in favor of Hilary. Feel free to find me evidence, refuted numbers, different media outlets reporting differently, or proof they are just feeding a Pro-Hillary Narrative, whatever conspiracy theory you wanna push on the webdip community; well, hey thats fine these are a bunch of psuedo intellectuals anyway. You're talking about a community that cant discern satire from substance.

And no, Bernie would have to sweep nearly every remaning state to even come close to those totals. The numbers, polls and data do not show any such course of events happening. In fact the only people pushing that scenario as a reality are diehard Bernie supporters, and his campaign manager.

What percentage of delegates consists of superdelegates for the Democrats?

I also happen to be a Bernie supporter FYI. Evidently I am one of the least naive among them however.

There are approximately 4768 total delegates. Of these, 717 are superdelegates, or unpledged delegates, in the official parlance of the Democratic Party.

There will be a lot of disillusioned idiots around here in about 3 weeks. I wont be one of them, the numbers dont lie, and you can only pull so many upsets before eventually you just get flat out crushed. Its a shame, but the bigger shame is a naive electorate that refuses to study the facts as they are.

Brain, the pledged delegate count is 770-551. That's nearly insurmountable in itself, but it's not what you're claiming it is.

Saying you will pledge yourself to someone and actually doing it aren't the same thing; otherwise marriage starts the moment you get engaged.

"The Democrat party is fucked."
All parties are fucked. Don't join a party.

Man Prado you're so edgy.