Quote:
Originally Posted by troutman
Didn't Clinton have a bunch of super-delegates in her pocket before Obama turned the tables?
After Sanders' Big Win in New Hampshire, Establishment Figures Want to Scare You with Superdelegates. Here's Why It's Bull####
http://www.pastemagazine.com/article...tablishme.html
http://www.npr.org/2015/11/13/455812...e-over-sanders
It's true that Clinton also led in the superdelegate race in the 2008 presidential cycle and eventually lost to Barack Obama. But Clinton's support is far greater than what it was around this time in 2007.
Back then, AP found that 169 superdelegates were for Clinton; Obama had 63 of the 90 percent they contacted in December 2007. That's a nearly 3-to-1 advantage. Her lead this year is 45 to 1. |
My old memory is getting bad, I think I went through the same questions back in the Obama - Clinton race. The result is to just ignore the superdelegates as they won't vote against the populace. In the meantime it's a number put out there to intimidate Sanders supporters. The real numbers are Sanders leads 34-32.