"Bernie Sanders may not have won Colorado after all" - From Hillary Group x-posted to GD:P

[PoliticalMalcontent]

Original post: http://www.democraticunderground.com/110762413

Bernie Sanders beat Hillary Clinton by a 19-point margin in Colorado caucus straw polls this week, but the delegate count is starting to tell a different story.

Clinton now looks likely to tie the Vermont senator 38-38 in the state's delegate count, according to projections from The Denver Post, Bloomberg Politics and The Associated Press. That includes a potential 38-28 split in Sanders' favor in projections based on Tuesday's preference poll results, plus 10 superdelegates (out of 12) who have committed to Clinton, the former secretary of state.

http://www.denverpost.com/election/ci_29587219/bernie-sanders-may-not-have-won-colorado-after

{note: I wanted to cross-post this piece because any time anyone questions anything over on the Clinton board they are told, "This is the Clinton board" and that is that. I have no problem with that in theory and don't have any problem with the people, but this avoidance of and refusal to discuss reality bothers me. Soooo I'm bringing the content of the post here.

Does claiming a victory or near victory on the back of super-delegates seem absolutely ridiculous to anybody else? It's a way of driving the media narrative, but not all delegates are equal. Being proud of a group of politicians that don't represent their constituents is just weird to me.}

[Kentonio]

1. Of course its ridiculous.

Having a 19 point lead erased by 10 people is a joke.

[JaneyVee]

2. I wouldnt really worry about the SuperDels.

[PoliticalMalcontent]

5. It is concerning though.

I'm sure you'd agree if the situations were reversed.

[jfern]

3. You don't win superdelegates

[FarPoint]

4. This definitely makes a lot of sense.

Thanks for the update and clarification.

[Lucinda]

6. You could have just posted the Denver Post link yourself. n/t

[PoliticalMalcontent]

7. I wanted to bring about a bigger point about sides refusing to have rational discussions

on the mere basis of "They're speaking negatively about my candidate".

Discussion is important in a healthy democracy. So many people here seem to have made up their minds and all differing opinions are dismissed or laughed off.

I'm just looking for people to have an open mind, and that goes both ways. If people want to try and explain what makes Clinton such a great candidate, I'll listen.

[Mike Nelson]

8. She's playing to win...

Bernie would have happily accepted the super-delegates. Obama did, too...

Hillary's using the Obama playbook. She won the vote in 2008, but lost the contest. Hillary is going to win states big or be close. No "winner take all" states, but she's worked the ones for the big margins.

[MisterP]

9. I had to send "Budspy" back: Robert Harris without the interest

[Barack_America]

10. Translation: "Democracy, feh. We'll just let party insiders decide"