How Hillary Clinton Might Actually Win In N.H., Even Though She Lost Big

[BlueMTexpat]

This truth is, of course, giving some on DU fits. Some call it - as one might expect - a DNC/Dem establishment conspiracy; some call it much worse. Some are calling for revolution - or for swarming Superdelegates with petitions (or worse) to change their endorsements from Clinton to Sanders - based on the results in NH.

But what none will admit is that these are the rules that Bernie chose to play by. They want the rules changed midstream for their candidate, even though the rules have worked perfectly well for ALL other Dem candidates since the rules were adopted.

http://www.npr.org/2016/02/10/466283748/how-hillary-clinton-is-actually-winning-in-n-h-even-though-she-lost-big

There were 24 delegates to be allocated out of the New Hampshire Democratic primary, based on the vote statewide and by congressional district. Sanders, obviously, won more of those, 15 to her 9.

And yet ...

Add in the "superdelegates" who have already committed to a candidate, and Clinton moves into the delegate lead. Six of the state's eight superdelegates have publicly said they will vote for Clinton at the Democratic National Convention in July. (Two are uncommitted.)

That brings the delegate total out of Tuesday night to a 15 to 15 tie.

This is what makes Clinton so powerful in the Democratic race — even while she and Sanders battle it out among rank-and-file voters, she has a massive lead among superdelegates. Altogether, she already has 394 delegates and superdelegates to Sanders' 44 — a nearly ninefold lead.

[dchill]

1. Yeah, not so fast...

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-08-28/clinton-s-superdelegate-tipping-point

Superdelegates were added in the 1980s for two reasons. One was practical: It was the only way to ensure that those party leaders could get to the convention, at least as delegates. The other was political: Democrats were concerned that their new system didn’t place enough weight on electability, and believed a larger voice for politicians and formal party leaders would tilt the nomination in that direction.

In the event, the “supers” have never tilted the nomination; they always line up with the candidate who won the most delegates in the caucuses and primaries. That’s essentially what happened in 2008: Clinton had an early lead in superdelegates, but as Barack Obama started winning caucuses and primaries, he wound up picking up almost all the undecided supers and even some defectors from Clinton.

[OKNancy]

3. It won't come to that. ( btw this is the Hillary group for supporters only)

You are not telling us anything we don't know. No need to educate us.

[dchill]

4. I know what group it is, now.

Still, truth is truth, is it not?

[Tarheel_Dem]

6. Well, there's truth, and then there's "BS" truth. This is not 2008, and BS is no Barack Obama.

[BlueMTexpat]

13. Not the whole

truth by a long shot. See my response to your earlier post.

You BS supporters post your selective version of facts everywhere else. Here we like to post the actual ones.

[CajunBlazer]

9. I have used this line in other circumstances: Bernie Sanders is not Barack Obama!

In 2008 super delegates saw in Barack Obama someone who was not too extreme to be electable. And in fact they were proven right. I can't see these ole political pros believing for a moment that Bernie is not to extreme. By objective measure he is more extreme than any other Democratic nominee in history, including Barack Obama, by a factor of at least 2. If Bernie is not too extreme, then they will never reject anyone for being too extreme.

In addition, they have to consider the damage Bernie could do to the party even if somehow he would be able to win the The Presidency. Nothing puts a President into disfavor more than being totally unable to deliver on promises. Not only do they have to deal with the opposition, they have to deal with the disappointed members of their own party and this makes them extremely vulnerable at reelection time. Why do you think that Republicans became the party of "NO!" under Obama. Bernie is promising the world and will have the ability to deliver absolutely nothing. Even members of his own party will not follow his lead on many issues in Congress - that's why they are not supporting him.

If ever there has been a situation which the super delegate concept was developed to handle, this is it. Don't judge by the past, this is an entirely different situation.

[BlueMTexpat]

12. A big reason that Hillary did NOT win

the nomination in 2008 was because she had NOT locked in superdelegates.

I am not sure where your information about her having "an early lead in superdelegates" in 2008 comes from but, if that is correct at all, it would have been at the outset when only a couple had declared. Barack Obama very quickly surpassed that and she learned from that experience, locking them in very early this time around.

For an overview of what actually happened in 2008 as opposed to what you said, check this out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Democratic_Party_superdelegates,_2008

At the time of Hillary Clinton's campaign suspension on June 7, 2008, the count was 246½ for her and 478 for Barack Obama,[2] with 99 still 'Uncommitted' of the 823½ total then existing, although this number represents the realignment of around 50 superdelegates who switched their support from Clinton to Obama when he had gained the majority of delegates. Clinton released her delegates during the convention.

The facts don't bear out your - or Bloomberg's - post facto spin.

Right now, Hillary Clinton already has 466 superdelegate commitments - very close to the number declared for Prez O by June 2008 and significantly less than that June number if one subtracts the 50 who switched support after he had gained the majority of delegates in the primaries. http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-endorsement-primary/

Live in your ivory tower if you must, but please stay away from posting inaccurate information here in the Hillary Clinton Group.

[OKNancy]

2. Were they howling when Hillary CLinton had the most votes in 2008?

but lost the delegate count?

--- Also, when all is said and done, Hillary will have a commanding lead and won't even need those delegates to win the nomination.
We are moving on to states that are more diverse, and states where only Democrats can vote for the DEMOCRATIC nominee.
Additionally, the press is starting to look into Sanders and his record. He has had an easy time of it compared to Hillary.

[peggysue2]

5. Were they howling . . . ??

Amen on all counts. Time for a Bernie Sanders' vetting and an acknowledgment of the rules. Which do not get changed for Bernie supporters or anyone else. Sanders knew the rules when he entered the campaign. Hillary Clinton knew them in 2008 and came well prepared this time out.

[BlueMTexpat]

14. Bernie can do no wrong and

Hillary can do no right. That sums up their entire argument.

[Thinkingabout]

7. The super delegates are some of the people both Hillary and Bernie worked with in Congress,

we know how our co-workers work with each other and especially in a positions of working with others matters a lot. If some dislike the decisions which have been made by the super delegates who are congressional members then it need to be addressed to the source. This are the rules of the DNC, no one has been forced to run as a DNC primary candidate, don't complain now.

[BlueMTexpat]

15. Amen to that! eom

[Starry Messenger]

8. That's why Clinton didn't pour out $ in NH.

Bernie spent over 2 million there, she spent about 800,000 (I saw this yesterday, sorry no link.) He needs every last delegate he can get, and he's going to have a hard road Super Tuesday. I thought those folks knew all of this. I guess that explains all of the "landslide" and "blowout" talk last month.

[BlueMTexpat]

16. Thanks, Starry Messenger!

That is also one of the big facts that has mostly been left out. Hillary was outspent nearly 3:1 in NH.

But she was out there fighting the good fight to the very end and that will serve her well in the long run.

[justhanginon]

10. If Sanders and his supporters do not like the Democratic party

rules and since he is really a "Democrat" only for his own political convenience, they are free to switch over to the Repubs. Since the Democratic party is reluctant to change their rules for the Senator and his supporters, I am sure the Repubs would be most accommodating and switch their party rules around for them. I understand they have two brand new openings.

[BlueMTexpat]

17. LOL

[UtahLib]

11. Cry babies abound and their whining is becoming very tedious. nt

[BlueMTexpat]

18. This. eom