2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumThe Democratic Primary Score is BERNIE SANDERS: 36, HILLARY CLINTON 32 (anything else is baloney)
FACT: Bernie Sanders earned 21 delegates in Iowa; Hillary Clinton earned 23.
FACT: Bernie Sanders earned 15 delegates in New Hampshire; Hillary Clinton earned 9.
THUS FAR, DELEGATE TOTALS ARE:
**BERNIE SANDERS: 36
**HILLARY CLINTON: 32
Any inclusion of Superdelegates into the scores is irrelevant. Superdelegates always end up throwing their support to the candidate that has won the most delegates in the state primary contests.
Hillary Clinton had the vast majority of Superdelegates in her corner in 2008 too. The Superdelegates fell Obama's way after it became apparent that he would win. That's just what happens.
The Superdelegates will always follow the will of the Democratic voters. Anything suggested beyond that is silly spin.
Bernie is ahead by 4 delegates. PERIOD.
(post was updated to reflect up-to-date delegate counts on this site: http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/D-PU.phtml
http://www.startribune.com/n-h-primary-results-vote-totals-and-delegate-counts/368305001/
senz
(11,945 posts)Beautiful!. Thank you, Coffee Cat!
Matt_in_STL
(1,446 posts)Should just stay home and let the nominee be selected for them.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)is to reinforce the 'inevitability' meme.
Hillary's new campaign slogan should be "RESISTANCE IS FUTILE. YOU WILL BE ASSIMILATED."
frylock
(34,825 posts)This has to be the worst campaign ever. They couldn't run a worse campaign if they tried.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)are necessary to prevent un-Democratic interlopers (i.e. that nasty Bernie Sanders) from subverting the will of the Party.
I have a hard time treating such people with any kind of respect.
nxylas
(6,440 posts)It's always written in ALL CAPS in that thread , for some reason. Bernie may be the Democratic socialist in the race, but the people talking about the PARTY, the PARTY, the PARTY remind me of rather less benign forms of socialism.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)under which Party power-brokers decide who represents us, what is important to us, and ultimately how we vote.
I won't join such a Party.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts).. they will come unstrung and fall towards the pull of gravity.
CoffeeCat
(24,411 posts)No pearl clutching in our primary, right?
I akin the Superdelegates to "vapor votes." You think you have them, but they can quickly evaporate if you don't win the state contests. So really, you never had them in the first place.
So bizarre to count what may not be yours in a few weeks, right?
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)now they are gone, gone gone,, "
Bernie's campaign simply needs to give SDs a string of good reasons to switch over,
so they start feeling the Bern.
Ligyron
(7,633 posts)no matter what they do - gonna wind up in the middle of that rock n roll stew...
retrowire
(10,345 posts)Whoop THERE IT IS!
WAIT: I thought Bernie earned 14 in NH? http://www.cbsnews.com/elections/2016/primaries/democrat/new-hampshire/
Binkie The Clown
(7,911 posts)mythology
(9,527 posts)And so aren't included in this count right? That has been known for a while now.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/wtf-happened-at-the-iowa-caucuses-explained-20160202
http://m.koat.com/politics/no-hillary-clinton-did-not-win-iowa-because-of-a-coin-flip/37786214
Binkie The Clown
(7,911 posts)It makes a better story the way I told it, but truth is more important in the end, isn't it. Thank you for keeping me honest.
Alfresco
(1,698 posts)CoffeeCat
(24,411 posts)which was timestamped at 10:39.
I'll add two more delegates onto Bernie's total!
Thank you.
CentralMass
(15,265 posts)Usurp
[yoo-surp, -zurp]
verb (used with object)
1.
to seize and hold (a position, office, power, etc.) by force or without legal right:
The pretender tried to usurp the throne.
2.
to use without authority or right; employ wrongfully:
enid602
(8,620 posts)Agree. Thx for recap. Looks good as the contest heads into Hill contry.
Cal Carpenter
(4,959 posts)this early in a primary season, if at all.
Can anyone clarify that for me? Is it normal that every online election page from HuffPo to the NYTimes, and apparently all the talking heads (based on what I read here - I don't have cable or anything) are including the superdelegates?
The NYT election 2016 says Hillary is winning 394 to 42. I don't remember this from past years. I feel like they are usually treated as an aside, or an occasional 'what if...?', but never to this extent where they are already showing up in someone's column 6 months away from the conventions.
I have never seen this much confusion about superdelegates - about when their votes count (at the convention, no?) and how rarely any of them buck the will of the people.
I am not a tinfoil hatter, nor do I participate much in GD: P, but it really seems like there is a concerted effort to confuse people about the real state of the primary contest and sow FUD.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)When the supers were tallied, they were stand alone. Not this bullshit, Hillary picked up 6 NH super delegates. No, fuck that.
Hilary's handicap. Any and everything to perpetuate the facade that she is inevitable.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)Cal Carpenter
(4,959 posts)I was starting to question my memory. I think the result of making Bernie look so far behind may end up increasing the turnout for him, rather than making Hillary more inevitable. Especially since he seems to be picking up a lot of first time voters and folks who don't always turn out for primaries and such. Time will tell...
(and thanks to the other folks who replied too!)
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Including superdelegates so prominently is new this year. Previously, they were treated more like an asterisk.
CoffeeCat
(24,411 posts)Hillary Clinton always threw around her "But I've got the Superdelegate" meme. It was a threat to make us give up.
The media never went this far. They included the hard-count totals won in the state primaries. They never, collectively, used the Superdelegate numbers to cloud the win.
It's really bizarre that media members are a bunch of lazy lap dogs who report in the manner that Clinton instructs them.
It's pathetic.
Duval
(4,280 posts)jkbRN
(850 posts)CoffeeCat
(24,411 posts)Those Superdelegates were constantly thrown in our faces, "Obama can't win." or "Doesn't matter, Clinton has the Superdelegates, Obama can't win."
This was an intentional tactic---used to demoralize Obama supporters and to quell his momentum.
Furthermore, this talking point was designed to suppress voter turnout. If people thought he had no chance of winning, it was likely that they wouldn't show up to vote.
They're repeating this same talking point---but this time the media is helping them to disseminate this nonsense.
Every time you see this disinformation--you should correct it.
questionseverything
(9,656 posts)in the past the earned delegates were reported separately and the super delegates reported as an aside process
this is just more msm helping along the 1%er
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)CoffeeCat
(24,411 posts)Polls have margins of error. Final votes don't.
stillwaiting
(3,795 posts)A LOT more in at least one of the two.
mythology
(9,527 posts)You can assume, you can believe, you can wish, but you can't know.
It's one of the reasons caucuses should go away.
stillwaiting
(3,795 posts)things were handled at the end.
I'd be willing to bet quite a bit of money that he/we won Iowa.
HRC will NOT win the General Election.
NiteOwl1
(87 posts)When in reality it should be a landslide in favor of Clinton... not a great showing so far for Hillary.
Personally... I love it. It is the best thing that could happen. We don't need any presumptive candidate...regardless of who prevails.
rocktivity
(44,576 posts)The problem is that the MSM is picking up on it. But you can't blame them -- as candidates, go, Hillary has more advertising money to spend.
Nor can you blame Hillary for trying it a second time, since it worked so beautifully for her in 2008:
rocktivity
Same old same old.
Sheesh, we don't even get original tactics from her. We just get the same old power moves. Love the point of your post.
Cher
Gothmog
(145,293 posts)restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)Super Duper Delegates will desert a loser like rats desert a sinking ship.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)CoffeeCat
(24,411 posts)If they need to count the super delegates in their "We're winning" manipulations--then this does show incredible desperation.
And, as you said, "denial."
She played this same super delegate schtick in 2008. You would think that she would learn from experience.
Gothmog
(145,293 posts)Time will tell.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)What, exactly, do you think will happen to turnout in November if the party leadership overrules the voters?
CoffeeCat
(24,411 posts)that Sanders will be the best thing to happen to the Democratic party in the past few decades.
This match has been lit. Bernie is catching fire, and the electorate will be so ignited and galvanized--I predict record turnout for the GE against Trump.
And we will shred Trump.
All national polls show Bernie beating Trump (by wider margins than Clinton), and Bernie has only begun.
Hold on to your hats!
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)yep
stillwaiting
(3,795 posts)jillan
(39,451 posts)something like that.
in_cog_ni_to
(41,600 posts)PEACE
LOVE
BERNIE
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)I understand it, their principal role is to prevent 'brokered conventions' that fail to secure a nominee on the first ballot. They serve as a 'tie-breaker' force.
I wish someone with more institutional memory than I have would weigh in on this.
in_cog_ni_to
(41,600 posts)Window dressing and props - to make it look like HRH is inevitable. They don't come into play until the convention.
PEACE
LOVE
BERNIE
Duval
(4,280 posts)Superdelegates worked.
NowSam
(1,252 posts)I believe it makes it look like she doesn't care what the will of the electorate is.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Especially after this:
Keep in mind that they're buddy buddy with the Bush Crime Family.
NowSam
(1,252 posts)fbc
(1,668 posts)If Hillary's supporters want to trumpet the idea that they will steal the election from the voters, why should we stop them?
It's not our fault if they are as tone deaf as their candidate.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)He's a Clintonite; Bill Clinton hosted a fundraiser for him in 2015.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)LongTomH
(8,636 posts).....and all over the world!!!! The rest of the world is watching this election closely.
When I was in Iowa last week, I saw a team from Italian TV at Bernie HQ. People told me I just missed the Japanese and South Korean TV reporters.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)That's why it's so stupid when someone says we can't do it.
SoapBox
(18,791 posts)for this bottom line OP. Excellent.
Thanks for the clarity.
On to Nevada and South Carolina!
jalan48
(13,870 posts)HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)But to not do so would create a deep divide, if not civil war within the party.
jalan48
(13,870 posts)ismnotwasm
(41,988 posts)Aldo Leopold
(685 posts)This is great news indeed!
Stuckinthebush
(10,845 posts)Keep telling yourself that.
[IMG][/IMG]
CoffeeCat
(24,411 posts)2008--We constantly heard that it wouldn't matter if Obama won. Hillary had the NEARLY ALL of the Superdelegates.
Oh wait. What happened? Obama continued to win those state-primary contests and the Superdelegates did what the Superdelegates always do.
They fell in line behind the winner.
If your candidate Hillary wins, she'll get the Superdelegates. If Bernie wins, he'll get the Superdelegates.
Superdelegates will always respect the will of the majority of the Democratic Party. Always.
PERIOD.
Stuckinthebush
(10,845 posts)You see, Obama was a democrat. Also he had the support of a wide swath of the party. Bernie is not and does not. March is going to be a wake up call for his campaign. But, congrats on the decisive victory in NH. He did very well there.
CoffeeCat
(24,411 posts)bucking the will of the Democratic voters?
That's a bet I would not want to make.
Bernie's campaign has momentum. He's also got a clear, concise message that is resonating with Americans. His camp is picking up steam.
Your candidate is fumbling; still trying to find a clear rational for her campaign and for why she's running. Not exactly a winning combo, after months into this campaign.
We'll see you in Nevada, where Bernie is ahead of where Obama was, at this point, by 6 points. Obama made up a 25-point deficit in NV and went on to earn more delegates than Clinton in NV. And Obama didn't have the amazing NH win that Bernie just garnered.
I think that many of you, who believe in Clinton's fairytale "firewall" are going to be in shock. Sanders did very well with Hispanics in Iowa. We may not have a large percentage of minorities, but the Hispanics in Iowa were behind Sanders all the way. Sander's message appeals to people. Black, white, hispanic--when they're exposed to his message, they gravitate toward it. Your candidate has no coherent message.
Stuckinthebush
(10,845 posts)Keep the faith. You'll need it.
freebrew
(1,917 posts)according to the hillary group, anyone not supporting her isn't a real Democrat. I thought that type of talk was to be discouraged here.
Maybe I should post something there and get banned. If they don't want feedback why are they on the GD-P?
Just wonderin'...
Cassiopeia
(2,603 posts)The powers that be, which includes superdelegates , may choose to burn the party to the ground instead of risking the change Bernie is fighting for.
I hope the superdelegates do continue the tradition of following the will of the voters, but I won't count on that tradition holding on this primary election. Bernie needs to win this with big majorities for us to be safe.
LiberalArkie
(15,719 posts)behind. All that money in the super pacs would start flowing to the news media.
abakan
(1,819 posts)azurnoir
(45,850 posts)Uncle Joe
(58,364 posts)Thanks for the thread, CoffeeCat.