Well HR, thats an interesting analogy, how many engaged couples break off their engagement and also stay together? I would say marriage ceremonially is just a gathering of witnesses. The Engagement itself is the promise.

"The PLEDGED delegates to date are 1238 - 572 in favor of Hilary."
No they literally aren't. Only about 700 of that 1200 number are actually pledged.

So think of it like this.

There are a total of 4051 (give or take) delegates awarded by votes in primaries and caucuses and 717 unpledged delegates which traditionally vote as their state does but can do as they please.

Clinton was won 770 pledged and delegates and Sanders has won 550 pledged delegates. 2,731 pledged delegates are still be awarded. (Around 400-500 of the unpledged delegates have committed to support Clinton, but they can change their mind whenever they want.)

So if Clinton and Sanders split all of the remaining states 50-50, Clinton would end the race with approximately 53% of the pledged delegates, or 2,135.

Doing some simple math: for Sanders to have a majority of pledged delegates, he needs to win around 70% of the remaining delegates, or beat Clinton (on average) 7-03 in every state. Excluding superdelegates, that would give him 1,601 plegded delegates to Clinton's 1,589 after all states have voted.

Is it edgy if I'm right, ghug?

Okay so on CNN its 1238-572
Fox News is 1238-572
MSNBC its 1238-572
Google 1221 - 571 (Associated Press)

Okay so all those media outlets are lying to feed a Pro Hillary narrative to upset the webdip community. k, got it. cool.

Since when did the Republicans and the Democrats manage to constitute "all political parties" anyway

That should read *70-30.

Fivethirtyeight.com correctly reports Clinton's pledged delegate total as 770. The other media outlets count unpledged delegates which have announced their support as "pledged" even though they are not formally bound to a candidate. I would consider this a poor practice by the press.

You know what none of those numbers say, brain? Pledged. Calling them all pledged is a misinformation based on the data.

http://www.politico.com/2016-election/results/delegate-count-tracker

theres another posting 1221-571

WOW ALL THE MEDIA IS LYING. CRAAAAAAAAAAAZYYYYYYY! EVERYONES GONE CRAZZZZZYYYYYYY

Those media outlets have manipulated at least one of the webDippers, beta-bombed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016

Yeah, wikipedia. But all the numbers are broken out.

By my count, Sanders needs to win 54% of the remaining 2736 delegates to be pledged by election results to tie Clinton. A tall order indeed, but stranger things have happened.

Brainbomb, are you being intentionally obtuse?

"Since when did the Republicans and the Democrats manage to constitute "all political parties" anyway"
I didn't mean just those 2. I meant all parties in the US. All parties, at least in the US, must be abolished.

Yes, CNN refers to the numbers as Pledged, (drawn in the sand, settled, not up for discussion.) If you have a problem with that, feel free to write CNN and bitch at them for lying. I am sure they will take you seriously.

Superdelegates are by their very definition not drawn in the sand. 2008 is fundamental proof of that...

@Prado
Good luck with that; though at least you limited it to the US. Partyless politics ain't gonna happen in any democracy of today.

Yes, CNN is technically wrong. Their reporting deserves an asterisk. This has been pointed out to them by observers of the press. But the "unpledged delegates" (this is what the DNC officially calls them) are not plegded.

Oh, and Jeff Kuta is right. I made a mistake and my spreadsheet wasn't evaluating formulas. Sanders needs to win (on average) 54-46 to tie Clinton from here on out. Every state where he performs below this, his benchmark in the remaining states gets higher.

Okay so MSNBC is lying also?

I would say they're being sloppy.

This source has a decent explanation on what they are: http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/D-Unpledged.phtml

The media has, by convention, treated an announced unpledged delegate like a pledged delegates. But as has been explaind ad nauseum, they can change their mind any time and they did so in 2008. You should focus only on the pledged delegates. Or, if you continue having a conniption fit over the word "pledged," on "delegates awarded by votes in primaries and caucuses".

BBC: http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-35734982

You probably wont go check though... they are lying too. Its all clearly an agenda.

"Her advantage among pledged delegates - those awarded according to how the states have voted - is substantially bolstered by the hundreds of so-called 'super delegates' who have said they will back her at the convention."

I am not denying that statement just FYI. The word Pledged is obvious what that means. If you want to get angry at me (a Bernie supporter), angry at the media, angry at the superdelegates, angry at the system.... maybe the problem isnt all of these things at all...

Just saying, the superdelegates are picking the candidate they think give their vote the most meaning. That is their business. I disagree with that but trust me, I will not shy away from voting Democrat regardless of what Democrat is up for election. To act bitter and whiney about Bernie maybe not winning is exactly the kind of negative sentiment Republicans and Trump Supporters are hoping for.

For the record, I'm not American but I'd support Clinton if I were. I just believe that the conventions the media has adopted to report on the Democratic race distort what is actually occurring.

And remember, in 2008, the unpledged delegates did, in fact, change their mind en masse after initially supporting Clinton helmingly. This would happen again if she were passed in the pledged delegate total. That is why the only thing that really matters for the dynamics of the race are the pledged delegates.

*overwhelmingly

Not surprised the Clinton News Network is misrepresenting things.

Brainbomb, please simply google "Democratic Primaries" and you'll have all the information you need about the differences between "pledged" delegates and "super" delegates.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Democratic+Primary

Brain, that's a giant straw man. Literally all anyone is telling you is that there aren't as many pledged delegates as you claim. Nobody is saying that that means they'll refuse to vote for Hillary in the general if she wins the primary.

I wonder about the superdelegates though - the 2008 Dem. Primary Wiki page says that Hilary had more votes in 2008 than Obama did, yet the superdelegates voted Obama since he had won more "pledged" delegates. So it's not fair to say they haven't decided an election - Obama won 2008's primary.

Sure, they don't follow strict popular vote, but it's something to think about.

"Her advantage among pledged delegates - those awarded according to how the states have voted - is substantially bolstered by the hundreds of so-called 'super delegates' who have said they will back her at the convention."

Yes, bb, what that means is her 200-odd pledged delegate advantage is bolstered by her 400-odd superdelegate advantage. If you keep reading the BBC article, you notice:

"Totals and individual state results include unpledged "superdelegates"--party members free to back the candidates of their choice--who have told The Associated Press whom they support."

Chaqa, the difference between popular vote and pledged delegate count is different from the difference between pledged delegate count and total delegate count.