Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: Democrats Are Considering Dropping Superdelegates Altogether [View all]karynnj
(59,502 posts)2008 was by far the closest and basically showed the super delegates would not tilt the nomination even to a very entrenched politician over a relative newcomer. I think one obvious reason is that it would cause the party to fracture. Consider the anger over the DNC emails in 2016 that were far more innocuous preferences. 2016 was more like 1984 rather than 2000 or 2004 where the winner got over 50 percent of the pledged delegates long before many contests happened.
I think she made a clear effort to make the case as you note on the popular vote, the EC, and BILL even floated HRC as a VP, who would be almost a co president in the last months of the primaries. She conceded ONLY when it was clear she had nowhere near the support needed to get the superdelegates to support her.
I agree that she would have been attacked had she continued beyond when she did. There were some from her team who continued to suggest things could change, though not Clinton herself. Sanders claimed he was working to impact the platform.
I disagree with both the popular vote WHICH DOES NOT REALLY MAKE SENSE or the argument that it should be looked at through the EC map. In fact, doing that correctly means not looking at anything but the swing states because either Democrat wins all solid blue states and loses all solid red states. In 2008, Obama did better in many swing states. (Oddly, in 2016 Sanders, who had no reasonable claim to winning, did better in many swing states. ) The point is NEITHER were the rules for getting the nomination.