Hillary Clinton is Dominating Bernie Sanders After Picking Up 87 More Superdelegates

[misterhighwasted]

Hillary Clinton is Dominating Bernie Sanders After Picking Up 87 More Superdelegates

By Jason Easley on Thu, Feb 18th, 2016 at 2:46 pm

Hillary Clinton has picked up 87 more superdelegates this week to 11 for Bernie Sanders. The new wave endorsements have powered Clinton to a 481-55 delegate lead according to the AP.

Snip
Clinton is crushing Sanders in the delegate primary. While pundits and supporters are focused on the popular vote, Hillary Clinton has been cleaning up with delegates. Thanks to her superdelegate advantage, close defeats are as good as victories for Hillary Clinton.South Carolina will award 59 delegates to 43 for the Nevada caucuses, and Clinton remains poised for a double-digit victory in South Carolina.
More...

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/02/18/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-picking-87-superdelegates.html


BTW, We Dems know that the onigination of the Dem Super Delegates was set up as a firewall against usurpers coming into the Dem Party with nefarious intent.
This is the strength & solidarity of the Dem Party.

[Tommy2Tone]

1. Good post mister

K and R

[BlueMTexpat]

2. The wailing and gnashing of teeth

about SuperDs will no doubt rise WAY beyond fever pitch if Hillary actually does win in NV.

I am cautiously optimistic about that.

[misterhighwasted]

4. Hillary will be one great MPOTUS for all the people..

She will be our great, proud Dem nominee in August, & our Madam President in Nov.

Pretty amazing what a mere "uterus" can accomplish.

[BlueMTexpat]

5. And those talented

voting vaginas as well!

[misterhighwasted]

6. haahaaa You Are Correct BlueMTx

When one campaign contender reduces the Office of the President of the USA to a vagina or a penis..then that contender has no business in public taxpayer funded office at all, e v e r especially one with a generous retirment + benes.

Seriously, how stupid.

I'll vote for the candidate with the most solid resume'.
And that is Sec Hillary Clinton.

[BlueMTexpat]

8. That is so clear that

it is almost incomprehensible to me that the newbies - or the self-styled "progressives" (I prefer "liberal" myself) can't see it.

[fleabiscuit]

13. Hmm, MADPOTUS gives me a chuckle. :-) eom

[Treant]

3. "But they'll defect for Sanders when he wins!"

Just getting ahead of that inevitable argument.

1) He's not going to win. If you think he's going to win, check back with me on March 8th or so and we'll reassess the number of delegates won via caucuses and primaries. Until then, there's no point in bothering to discuss it. Actually, there won't be any point in bothering to discuss it at that point because he'll be on the way out.

2) This is unprecedented; no candidate has EVER achieved this level of imbalance in the superdelegates, nor done so BEFORE Iowa. Which means...

3) They're sending a signal on what is and is not acceptable to Democratic elected officials in Congress. Which means...

4) Sanders is not acceptable. Which means...

5) A very close loss for Clinton--the absolute best Sanders can hope for--results in her being the nominee. Which is not unprecedented because...

6) See 2008. Clinton won the popular vote, but Obama won the nomination due to two states being thrown out without delegates. So therefore....

7) This has happened before.

[BlueMTexpat]

7. One thing: Hillary

released her SuperDs before the Nominating Convention, which was because Barack Obama had a majority of pledged delegates even if she did have more of the popular vote. She did it with her usual class and poise.

Should there be a similar situation in 2016, with Hillary getting a majority of pledged delegates but with Sanders having won the popular vote (highly implausible but certainly possible), I do not see the more strident SBS supporters allowing Bernie to go as quietly into that good night as HRC supporters did in 2008.

Like you, I do not see a plausible scenario where Bernie gets a majority of pledged delegates, principally because he will not win the majority of remaining primaries - unless a whole pile of state poll results are outliers. Not winning the majority of remaining primaries would likely also mean that he would be far from winning the popular vote.

The SuperDs are most important now - not for their count at the Nominating Convention, which is still far in the future - but for the fact that they and their own campaign resources, allies, and support systems will work to support the candidate they have endorsed at the local levels. That is so much more important that spiriting in numerous outside resources who do not know - and in some cases, do not even care to know - the local populations and their issues.

This is what those who are new to the political process are missing: that a perfect magical unicorn of a candidate cannot just pop up at the last moment (e.g., 2015) and push everyone who has been working on the ground for years out of the way to snatch the prize.

[Treant]

9. It's very fortunate

that he has so few superdelegates, then. With a clear win, and with already holding more than half the superdelegates, Sanders' potential interference and/or inability to actually concede when he loses simply doesn't matter!



And, of course, what with the machinery granted by those superdelegates (as you mentioned), a loss grows ever more unlikely--and the polling simply doesn't bear out a Clinton loss at this time.

Plus many superdelegates don't declare until the eve of their state races--and some don't declare until after. The remaining neutral ones won't universally break for Sanders...about the best he can hope for is an even split, and that's magical thinking in and of itself.

[peggysue2]

10. Yes, this has happened before

And as I recall Hillary supporters in 2008 did not receive much sympathy. It's somewhat ironic that the whole thing has flipped but Hillary Clinton, the super delegate lead now, is being accused of cheating or taking unfair advantage or. . . whatever. Even more ironic? Sanders own main guy, Tad Devine, was a main architect of the superdelegate rules.

Lot of heartache coming down the pike because the outcome is . . . inevitable.

[Treant]

11. In 2008,

I was a Clinton supporter (but also supportive of Obama and really very happy with his win). I was also not terribly sympathetic...you play the game, and you play it well, or you lose. She lost, fair and square, by the rules. Obama won.

This time around, my sympathies have not changed. Sanders can play the game, and play it well, or lose. So far, he's losing badly.

[Cha]

12. Jason Easley has been pro BS, too.. Thank you for this news, mister!

[displacedtexan]

14. The similarity to the 1968 primary is fascinating.

Kennedy and Humphrey both agreed not to primary the president, but McCarthy jumped into the race and challenged the sitting president anyway. And McCarthy ran as the candidate against the war. In March, President Johnson beat McCarthy in New Hampshire but not by much. Later that month, Kennedy joined the race, and Johnson dropped out.

The primary continued into June, and Kennedy went into the barrios and ghettos while McCarthy, Humphrey and Smathers concentrated on college campuses. Kennedy had just won California when he was shot after his victory speech, as he was moving through the kitchen where he had previously met with kitchen workers about their hardships.

McCarthy, the self-proclaimed anti-war candidate, did not secure the nomination, and I've always wondered... Had McCarthy NOT challenged the sitting president, what might've happened? I know Johnson was not in good health, but wouldn't it have been better for his VP to keep the party in power if he died in office? Just something I've been pondering lately.

[Lucinda]

15. I'm glad to see more endorsing!

I read something in passing the last day or so Sanders team has been working hard on the supers - I didn't save the link though.
Guess he doesn't mind the process too much.