4 ms·

What? Five thirty eight has them at: HRC: 2,218 BS: 1,833 This includes >700 superdelegates which are not tied to primary contests. Hillary won almost all of

• tptacek 10y ago
  Not only does that count not include the superdelegates, but the page you linked to, in the only mention of superdelegates, below a count labeled "pledged delegates" (who are not superdelegates), specifically says they aren't. Further, by the logic you just used, had the count included "superdelegates" that Hillary Clinton won entirely, you would be suggesting that Bernie Sanders would have won the Democratic Primary without them (he would not have). Bernie Sanders lost decisively. But because Wikileaks strategically leaked the right hacked emails, his supporters believe instead in a false alternative history. It's Wikileaks you should be angry at.
  • vonklaus 10y ago
    Point ceded, Clinton did win without super delegates. I misread that. That said, I believe sanders would have beaten Trump. I also believe the wikileaks emails and do not believe it was a fair contest (primary or general election). Again, I agree you are correct Hillary won, however I do not believe this was "fair". I believe the emails to be genuine as they were not disputed, and some were released by the government itself. I won't try to convince you how to interpret the content, but much of it certainly seems clear to me that between the non-agression pact, references to keeping in check due to their "leverage" over him, and the entire internal DNC scandal with DWS, ect. that this was anything but a typical primary.
    • tptacek 10y ago
      Sanders would have gotten his ass kicked against Trump. I can't make that argument as conclusively as I can the argument that the DNC didn't steal the primary from him, but I personally believe it just as firmly: * Turnout was lower for both the D's and the R's this cycle. R turnout would not have been lower if the D's had run an avowed socialist. Suburban/exurban voters --- a natural R cohort Clinton actually outperformed with in this cycle --- would have turned out in force for the GOP. * Sanders policy proposals and the language he uses to talk about it aren't in sync with the white working class (really, any part of the working class); it's "let them eat college tuitions". Unemployed tool & die engineers aren't looking for college subsidies, and they already survive on handouts ("long term disability"). That's why they're angry. * Sanders did terribly at engaging the African American vote, so much so that insider stories got written about how messed up their African American outreach was. The narrative of this election is that Clinton lost in part because she failed to mobilize Obama's coalition. But Clinton crushed Sanders in the primary with exactly that coalition, so the evidence suggests Sanders would have done even worse with the hand Clinton was dealt. * Sanders was terribly vulnerable. His supporters like to believe that HRC gave it to him with both barrels during the primary. But she did not: she was a complacent candidate who believed (correctly) in the inevitability of her nomination and (incorrectly) in the inevitability of her election. It is simply a fact that Sanders did not receive a serious vetting during the primary, and to see that, you only have to see what stories didn't come up during the primary: --- Sanders chaired Senate VA during the Veterans Health Scandal and was on VA during the Walter Reed scandal. Unlike Benghazi, these were real failures of oversight that harmed large numbers of American veterans. Not only that, but Sanders has in part built a Senate career on support for veterans benefits, so the attack ads write themselves. How culpable was Sanders for any of this? Fuck if I know. That's not the point. --- Sanders wrote an essay that stated women fantasize about being raped by three men simultaneously. Does that really matter? Almost certainly not. That's not the point. --- While Trump was starting his real estate "empire" with help from his father, not only was Bernie Sanders not winning victories for the working class, he was collecting employment (in his mid-30s) and stealing electricity from his neighbors. Does that matter? Not to me; to me that makes him more relatable. But that's not the point. --- Sanders is not only a supporter of, but personally profits from, a scheme to transport toxic waste from Vermont and dump it in Latino communities in Texas. Does that make Sanders an "environmental racist"? Well, in fact, yes it does. Are all of these things dispositive? No. But they give the lie to the idea that Sanders would have crushed Trump because Clinton had too much baggage to run with.
• notahacker 10y ago
  You're misreading FiveThirtyEight. Quite how you're misreading it I don't know, considering since "Because superdelegates can change their preferences before the convention, we are not including them in our delegate targets" isn't particularly unclear even without the emphasis I've added. As it shows, she was nearly 400 ahead in pledged delegates based purely on primaries even before considering that expected most of the additional 700 superdelegates not tied to primary results were expected to vote for her as well. Of course she influenced the superdelegates deciding to vote for her before all the other votes were counted. Influencing people to decide to vote for you and publicly endorse you is what people running for office are supposed to do...