6 ms·

I don't think looking at their emails between winning and losing as if they are equivalent is a fair comparison. Bernie won New Hampshire by 22%, Hillary won Io

I don't think looking at their emails between winning and losing as if they are equivalent is a fair comparison. Bernie won New Hampshire by 22%, Hillary won Iowa by 0.2%. Delegates in the primaries are allotted proportionally so winning by 22% gives you more delegates than winning by 0.2%(ignoring the different quirks of comparing a primary to a caucus, and super-delegates). Obviously any candidate would take a more triumphant tone after winning by 22% than by 0.2%.

kevmo 11y ago
And there was a lot of questioning over whether she had won when she was sending those defeatist Iowa emails. A few days later, the Des Moines Register - which endorsed Hillary - called for a top-to-bottom audit of the primary in an editorial called "Something Smells in the Democratic Party" http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/opinion/editorials/caucus/2016/02/03/editorial-something-smells-democratic-party/79777580/ http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/opinion/editorials/ca...
Someone1234 11y ago
You forgot to say that Clinton has 394 delegates and he has 44. He has 11% of her delegates even after he "won" NH by 22%. Plus nobody is polling a Sanders win. He will lose in South Carolina by up to 30%, Florida by up to 40%, and just barely scrape by in Nevada (within margin of error). He will be out after Super Tuesday. He just doesn't have the right demographics (people who actually go out and vote). Even if he is super popular with all of the wrong demographics.
- wolf_cook 11y ago
  I think it is a little misleading to claim that Clinton has the 394 super delegates already. My understanding is that 1) super delegates can change their mind whenever and 2) these super delegate counts tend to even out over time if the race is close.
  - rconti 11y ago
    Agreed. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/superdelegates-might-not-save-hillary-clinton/ http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/superdelegates-might-not...
  - wcummings 11y ago
    It seems unlikely the super-delegates would decide the nominee, if they did, they'd have a lot of disenfranchised voters on their hands and it'd hurt them in the general. The electoral college has rarely diverged from public opinion [1], even though individual electors can and have voted "incorrectly". I can't find a similar figure for the democratic nomination. [1] http://www.factcheck.org/2008/03/presidents-winning-without-popular-vote/ http://www.factcheck.org/2008/03/presidents-winning-without-...
    - jharger 11y ago
      I think you mean disenchanted[1], not disenfranchised[2]. [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disenchanted http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disenchanted [2] http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disenfranchise http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disenfranchise
      - leereeves 11y ago
        Both could apply. Overruling the result of a popular vote with votes from party insiders would be like denying people the right to vote by allowing the ritual of voting then ignoring the votes.
- carb 11y ago
  That's a very cynical way of looking at it. S̶a̶n̶d̶e̶r̶s̶ ̶w̶a̶s̶ ̶p̶o̶l̶l̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶a̶ ̶N̶H̶ ̶l̶o̶s̶s̶ ̶u̶n̶t̶i̶l̶ ̶m̶i̶d̶ ̶J̶a̶n̶u̶a̶r̶y̶. (EDIT: I'm wrong apparently) And if you think Clinton is going to win SC and Florida by +30% you must be in some echo chamber you're not aware of. As well, super delegates always vote with the popular vote. They are in no way locked to Clinton, just stating that they would prefer if Clinton won the nomination.
  - Someone1234 11y ago
    > And if you think Clinton is going to win SC and Florida by +30% you must be in some echo chamber you're not aware of. I follow the actual polls, not the most optimistic imaginings of where a candidate might be. Why don't you link to a poll that has Sanders ahead in SC or Florida? Seriously, you're implying I am mistaken, so present your facts. > They are in no way locked to Clinton, just stating that they would prefer if Clinton won the nomination. Currently those are the delegate counts. And furthermore it is a clear endorsement by the democratic establishment.
    - 1stop 11y ago
      Just a reminder: polls aren't facts. They are sample based estimates. But you are right it'd be good to see the poll numbers on sanders. And the margins for error. You are stating the delegate count as if it is in stone, when in fact it doesn't work the way you imply, as others have pointed out.
      - Someone1234 11y ago
        > polls aren't facts. Yes they are. You mean to say that polls aren't conclusions within themselves. Polls are a piece of data, a fact.
        rosser 11y ago
        This kind of "Nuh-uh!" pedantry isn't productive discourse. The GP's point, as you were clearly able to recognize, is perfectly correct.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- gkoberger 11y ago
  You can be a fan of any candidate you choose, but please don't be disingenuous. Sanders leads Clinton in pledged delegates (36 v 32). Superdelegates are meaningless at this point; they will shift to whomever is winning by the time the convention comes around. For example, Bill Clinton changed his superdelegate vote from his own wife to Obama in 2008. As for your percentages, currently 538 puts Sanders only 20% (not 30%) behind in SC, 24% (not 40%) behind in Florida, and tied (with a slight advantage) in Nevada. Additionally, the 538 polls have consistently underestimated Sanders for the two primaries we've seen so far due to the large turnout from younger voters. [1] Hillary is the heir apparent, while Bernie is a relative unknown. Both are great positions to be in. She has nowhere to go but down, and he has nowhere to go but up. Polling is in Hillary's favor, but momentum is in Bernie's. There's no way of knowing who will win at this point. You may support whomever you choose, but please try to remain truthful. [1] http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/primary-forecast/nevada-democratic/ http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/primary-fo...
  - Someone1234 11y ago
    > As for your percentages, currently 538 puts Sanders only 20% behind in SC, tied in Nevada and 24% behind in Florida (note that I have no confidence in these polls, but they're all we have). Speaking of disingenuous, the very same site lists her as having a ">99% chance" of winning SC. I said "up to 40%" because that is exactly what the polls have said, they've changed from the 20-40%+ over the last month. See: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/sc/south_carolina_democratic_presidential_primary-4167.html#polls http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/sc/so... > And the 538 polls have consistently underestimated Sanders for the two primaries we've seen so far. Indeed, but not by enough for him to win SC or Florida. > You may support whomever you choose, but please try to remain truthful. You've presented zero corrections to anything I've said. I stand behind "up to 40%" because I can link you to a poll which shows 40%+ right now. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/sc/south_carolina_democratic_presidential_primary-4167.html#polls http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/sc/so... Don't accuse me of being untruthful because you disagree on interpretation, which you clearly do.
    - 11y ago
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- ori_b 11y ago
  > You forgot to say that Clinton has 394 delegates and he has 44. He has 11% of her delegates even after he "won" NH by 22%. If the superdegates (who are free to change their minds at any point) end up overriding the popular vote by any significant margin, I would fully expect the USA to have a republican president.
  - jljljl 11y ago
    There's a pretty good analysis by 538 about when superdelegate advantage actually becomes relevant, and when the superdelegates would be likely to execute their power: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/superdelegates-might-not-save-hillary-clinton/ http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/superdelegates-might-not... Briefly, it would only happen in the occasion of a virtual tie between the two candidates (average of 5% points or less across states), and only if the party insiders believe there is a strong electability case to be made: "What you’re likely to see in close cases like these is competing claims to legitimacy, with Democratic party elites showing their bias by interpreting the evidence in favor of Clinton. Suppose, for instance, that Sanders is slightly ahead in elected delegates but slightly behind in the overall popular vote, which could happen if he overperforms in caucus states.3 Clinton supporters will argue that popular votes are the truer measure of support. More exotic options might include citing national polls (if Clinton is still ahead in them by June) or the number of states she’s won (if she’s won more than Sanders). If Clinton starts out well behind Sanders but then narrows her deficit, the elites may argue that momentum was in her favor."
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > You forgot to say that Clinton has 394 delegates and he has 44. Superdelegates are fluid; the only delegates that either candidate really has are the committed ones produced by the Iowa Caucus and New Hampshire primary; superdelegate "commitments" aren't real counts of delegates that a candidate concretely "has" in any meaningful sense, they are just a measure of support from the establishment (in an election year in which for both parties, being associated with the "establishment" is a liability that candidates are actively running away from, this may be a negative signal.)
briandear 11y ago
And yet Hillary is up by 350 delegates. I am a Cruz guy, but overriding the will of the voters is something for which I can not abide -- regardless of the ideology involved. I may be wrong in my politics but I certainly hope that the will of the voters is respected.
- enraged_camel 11y ago
  Not sure why you got downvoted (probably for admitting you support Cruz) but you're entirely correct. As a Bernie supporter, I will be seriously pissed -- not to mention disillusioned and discouraged from supporting the Democrats in the future -- if Hillary wins the nomination despite losing the popular vote.
  - voidlogic 11y ago
    The super delegates "votes" don't count for anything until they are cast at the convention: they are not bound. They have never voted against the popular vote winner, most think that would be political suicide for the party. So I think a lot of the super delegate drama is baseless.
    - pklausler 11y ago
      Clinton is likely to get some of those superdelegate votes for free simply because she is, unlike Sanders, a member of the party, and a case can be made that the leaders of the party should not cast their superdelegate votes for an independent candidate. But I agree that there would be consequences if the superdelegate vote were to reverse the popular choice. EDIT (correction): Sanders was an independent until 2015, and is now a Democrat, so my point does not apply.
      - voidlogic 11y ago
        True. To nitpick, technically Bernie isn't independent anymore.
        11y ago
dawnbreez 11y ago
...man, the election system is stupid-complicated. What the heck is the point of delegates, anymore? And what on earth is a "super-delegate"?!
- roguecoder 11y ago
  It used to be that the candidate was simply chosen by the party, with no open election at all. Delegates are used to distribute influence, which is by party membership rather than population or simple voter representation. Super-delegates were introduced after the first two Democratic nominees picked by a purely popular process were a disaster (McGovern, who won only two states, and Carter, who was a wonderful person and a terrible president who paved the way for Reagan.) Sanders supporters are correct that superdelegates exist to potentially keep people like him from getting nominated. They are wrong that that is a bad thing. When Obama ran, his ability to win over superdelegates was a strong sign of his capabilities to bring together the party and win in the general. If Sanders can't do that, he's not going to be effective in office even if he could get there.

kevmo 11y ago

And there was a lot of questioning over whether she had won when she was sending those defeatist Iowa emails. A few days later, the Des Moines Register - which endorsed Hillary - called for a top-to-bottom audit of the primary in an editorial called "Something Smells in the Democratic Party" http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/opinion/editorials/caucus/2016/02/03/editorial-something-smells-democratic-party/79777580/ http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/opinion/editorials/ca...

Someone1234 11y ago

You forgot to say that Clinton has 394 delegates and he has 44. He has 11% of her delegates even after he "won" NH by 22%. Plus nobody is polling a Sanders win. He will lose in South Carolina by up to 30%, Florida by up to 40%, and just barely scrape by in Nevada (within margin of error). He will be out after Super Tuesday. He just doesn't have the right demographics (people who actually go out and vote). Even if he is super popular with all of the wrong demographics.

wolf_cook 11y ago
I think it is a little misleading to claim that Clinton has the 394 super delegates already. My understanding is that 1) super delegates can change their mind whenever and 2) these super delegate counts tend to even out over time if the race is close.
- rconti 11y ago
  Agreed. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/superdelegates-might-not-save-hillary-clinton/ http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/superdelegates-might-not...
- wcummings 11y ago
  It seems unlikely the super-delegates would decide the nominee, if they did, they'd have a lot of disenfranchised voters on their hands and it'd hurt them in the general. The electoral college has rarely diverged from public opinion [1], even though individual electors can and have voted "incorrectly". I can't find a similar figure for the democratic nomination. [1] http://www.factcheck.org/2008/03/presidents-winning-without-popular-vote/ http://www.factcheck.org/2008/03/presidents-winning-without-...
  - jharger 11y ago
    I think you mean disenchanted[1], not disenfranchised[2]. [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disenchanted http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disenchanted [2] http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disenfranchise http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disenfranchise
    - leereeves 11y ago
      Both could apply. Overruling the result of a popular vote with votes from party insiders would be like denying people the right to vote by allowing the ritual of voting then ignoring the votes.
carb 11y ago
That's a very cynical way of looking at it. S̶a̶n̶d̶e̶r̶s̶ ̶w̶a̶s̶ ̶p̶o̶l̶l̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶a̶ ̶N̶H̶ ̶l̶o̶s̶s̶ ̶u̶n̶t̶i̶l̶ ̶m̶i̶d̶ ̶J̶a̶n̶u̶a̶r̶y̶. (EDIT: I'm wrong apparently) And if you think Clinton is going to win SC and Florida by +30% you must be in some echo chamber you're not aware of. As well, super delegates always vote with the popular vote. They are in no way locked to Clinton, just stating that they would prefer if Clinton won the nomination.
- Someone1234 11y ago
  > And if you think Clinton is going to win SC and Florida by +30% you must be in some echo chamber you're not aware of. I follow the actual polls, not the most optimistic imaginings of where a candidate might be. Why don't you link to a poll that has Sanders ahead in SC or Florida? Seriously, you're implying I am mistaken, so present your facts. > They are in no way locked to Clinton, just stating that they would prefer if Clinton won the nomination. Currently those are the delegate counts. And furthermore it is a clear endorsement by the democratic establishment.
  - 1stop 11y ago
    Just a reminder: polls aren't facts. They are sample based estimates. But you are right it'd be good to see the poll numbers on sanders. And the margins for error. You are stating the delegate count as if it is in stone, when in fact it doesn't work the way you imply, as others have pointed out.
    - Someone1234 11y ago
      > polls aren't facts. Yes they are. You mean to say that polls aren't conclusions within themselves. Polls are a piece of data, a fact.
      - rosser 11y ago
        This kind of "Nuh-uh!" pedantry isn't productive discourse. The GP's point, as you were clearly able to recognize, is perfectly correct.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
gkoberger 11y ago
You can be a fan of any candidate you choose, but please don't be disingenuous. Sanders leads Clinton in pledged delegates (36 v 32). Superdelegates are meaningless at this point; they will shift to whomever is winning by the time the convention comes around. For example, Bill Clinton changed his superdelegate vote from his own wife to Obama in 2008. As for your percentages, currently 538 puts Sanders only 20% (not 30%) behind in SC, 24% (not 40%) behind in Florida, and tied (with a slight advantage) in Nevada. Additionally, the 538 polls have consistently underestimated Sanders for the two primaries we've seen so far due to the large turnout from younger voters. [1] Hillary is the heir apparent, while Bernie is a relative unknown. Both are great positions to be in. She has nowhere to go but down, and he has nowhere to go but up. Polling is in Hillary's favor, but momentum is in Bernie's. There's no way of knowing who will win at this point. You may support whomever you choose, but please try to remain truthful. [1] http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/primary-forecast/nevada-democratic/ http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/primary-fo...
- Someone1234 11y ago
  > As for your percentages, currently 538 puts Sanders only 20% behind in SC, tied in Nevada and 24% behind in Florida (note that I have no confidence in these polls, but they're all we have). Speaking of disingenuous, the very same site lists her as having a ">99% chance" of winning SC. I said "up to 40%" because that is exactly what the polls have said, they've changed from the 20-40%+ over the last month. See: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/sc/south_carolina_democratic_presidential_primary-4167.html#polls http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/sc/so... > And the 538 polls have consistently underestimated Sanders for the two primaries we've seen so far. Indeed, but not by enough for him to win SC or Florida. > You may support whomever you choose, but please try to remain truthful. You've presented zero corrections to anything I've said. I stand behind "up to 40%" because I can link you to a poll which shows 40%+ right now. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/sc/south_carolina_democratic_presidential_primary-4167.html#polls http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/sc/so... Don't accuse me of being untruthful because you disagree on interpretation, which you clearly do.
  - 11y ago
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
ori_b 11y ago
> You forgot to say that Clinton has 394 delegates and he has 44. He has 11% of her delegates even after he "won" NH by 22%. If the superdegates (who are free to change their minds at any point) end up overriding the popular vote by any significant margin, I would fully expect the USA to have a republican president.
- jljljl 11y ago
  There's a pretty good analysis by 538 about when superdelegate advantage actually becomes relevant, and when the superdelegates would be likely to execute their power: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/superdelegates-might-not-save-hillary-clinton/ http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/superdelegates-might-not... Briefly, it would only happen in the occasion of a virtual tie between the two candidates (average of 5% points or less across states), and only if the party insiders believe there is a strong electability case to be made: "What you’re likely to see in close cases like these is competing claims to legitimacy, with Democratic party elites showing their bias by interpreting the evidence in favor of Clinton. Suppose, for instance, that Sanders is slightly ahead in elected delegates but slightly behind in the overall popular vote, which could happen if he overperforms in caucus states.3 Clinton supporters will argue that popular votes are the truer measure of support. More exotic options might include citing national polls (if Clinton is still ahead in them by June) or the number of states she’s won (if she’s won more than Sanders). If Clinton starts out well behind Sanders but then narrows her deficit, the elites may argue that momentum was in her favor."
dragonwriter 11y ago
> You forgot to say that Clinton has 394 delegates and he has 44. Superdelegates are fluid; the only delegates that either candidate really has are the committed ones produced by the Iowa Caucus and New Hampshire primary; superdelegate "commitments" aren't real counts of delegates that a candidate concretely "has" in any meaningful sense, they are just a measure of support from the establishment (in an election year in which for both parties, being associated with the "establishment" is a liability that candidates are actively running away from, this may be a negative signal.)

briandear 11y ago

And yet Hillary is up by 350 delegates. I am a Cruz guy, but overriding the will of the voters is something for which I can not abide -- regardless of the ideology involved. I may be wrong in my politics but I certainly hope that the will of the voters is respected.

enraged_camel 11y ago
Not sure why you got downvoted (probably for admitting you support Cruz) but you're entirely correct. As a Bernie supporter, I will be seriously pissed -- not to mention disillusioned and discouraged from supporting the Democrats in the future -- if Hillary wins the nomination despite losing the popular vote.
- voidlogic 11y ago
  The super delegates "votes" don't count for anything until they are cast at the convention: they are not bound. They have never voted against the popular vote winner, most think that would be political suicide for the party. So I think a lot of the super delegate drama is baseless.
  - pklausler 11y ago
    Clinton is likely to get some of those superdelegate votes for free simply because she is, unlike Sanders, a member of the party, and a case can be made that the leaders of the party should not cast their superdelegate votes for an independent candidate. But I agree that there would be consequences if the superdelegate vote were to reverse the popular choice. EDIT (correction): Sanders was an independent until 2015, and is now a Democrat, so my point does not apply.
    - voidlogic 11y ago
      True. To nitpick, technically Bernie isn't independent anymore.
      - 11y ago

dawnbreez 11y ago

...man, the election system is stupid-complicated. What the heck is the point of delegates, anymore? And what on earth is a "super-delegate"?!

roguecoder 11y ago
It used to be that the candidate was simply chosen by the party, with no open election at all. Delegates are used to distribute influence, which is by party membership rather than population or simple voter representation. Super-delegates were introduced after the first two Democratic nominees picked by a purely popular process were a disaster (McGovern, who won only two states, and Carter, who was a wonderful person and a terrible president who paved the way for Reagan.) Sanders supporters are correct that superdelegates exist to potentially keep people like him from getting nominated. They are wrong that that is a bad thing. When Obama ran, his ability to win over superdelegates was a strong sign of his capabilities to bring together the party and win in the general. If Sanders can't do that, he's not going to be effective in office even if he could get there.