Make No Mistake, Sandersism Has Defeated Clintonism

[Triana]

. . .

If you’re wondering how Clinton could perform worse in the second half of the election cycle in 2016 than she did in 2008 and still be in a position to win, there’s a good explanation for it that goes beyond the fact that the neck-and-neck Democratic primary race we’ve had for over two months started with a brief but solid run for Clinton. In 2008, both Democratic candidates were sanctioned by Party elders, so super-delegates were free to pick whoever they thought was the stronger candidate without fear of reprisal. In 2016, super-delegates are expected to go with Clinton even if the insurgent Sanders has clearly shown himself, by mid-June, to be the stronger general-election candidate in terms of both head-to-head match-ups with Drumpf, favorability ratings among independent voters, and performance in the second half of the nominating season.

Super-delegates will fall into line — the thinking goes — not because Clinton is a strong general-election bet, or liked by many people, or a real spokeswoman for the ideology of the Party base, or able to win independents, or nearly the same candidate in May that she was in February, or capable of winning over her current Democratic opposition the way Obama did after the primary in 2008, but because Democrats in Washington have made clear that any super-delegates who back the now-stronger horse in Philadelphia this July — Sanders — will be ostracized from the Party. Fear, then, is what could make Clinton the Democratic nominee even if (a) super-delegates are officially charged with voting for the strongest general-election candidate, and (b) Clinton goes on a historic losing streak in the back half of the primary season election calendar.

But all that’s horse-race nonsense, and won’t matter very much to political historians looking back at this period in American history from the vantage point of, say, 2116.

They won’t care that in 2008 Hillary Clinton won Kentucky by 36 points over then-Senator Obama, but in 2016 only managed to beat a 74-year-old independent socialist with no super-PAC and exponentially less name recognition by 0.4 percent — despite her making 11 trips to the state, having a much larger advertising budget, and daily receiving on-the-stump aid from a popular former President who won Kentucky twice.

We used to say that Hillary Clinton, for all her flaws, handily wins closed Democratic primaries.

Well, we can’t say that anymore.

THE REST:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-abramson/make-no-mistake-sanderism_b_10008136.html

[ViseGrip]

1. They even said Hillary could not get all to a rally if she tried. So how does she

translate this into a party that works while she's in office? She does not have that type of support. Only people who know her name, and don't volunteer at all!

[griffi94]

2. Except for the most votes and delegates part

[anotherproletariat]

3. Yup...that's how it looks from here.

[CrowCityDem]

4. "Brief but solid" LOL! She opened a cavernous lead, but go ahead and lie to yoruself.

[Gothmog]

5. Which explains why Sanders is 274 pledged delegates and 3 million popular votes behind Clinton

[boston bean]

6. LMAO.

[senz]

7. May good always defeat evil.

[Tarc]

8. +272 pledged delegates, +3,033,824 votes says otherwise