"Well, if I were him I’d want to debate me too. He’s got nothing else to do.”

  • I_Has_A_Hat@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    I remember all the networks showing the number of delegates he and Hillary had, and they showed all the super delegates going to Hillary. Not only had they never shown votes like that before, but the super delegates hadn’t even voted at that point. It was all just based off the assumption that they would all vote for Hillary. Thumb on the scale.

    • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      10 months ago

      Hillary had bought their support from the beginning. She learned from 2008 that she couldn’t compete in an open field, so she wrangled all challengers before the primaries started. Sanders was the only one who couldn’t be bought.

    • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      Thumb on the scale.

      That’s the whole point of super delegates. The consequence in 2016 being that Hillary only needed about 30% in a given primary to “win” that state.

      EDIT: Curious about the downvote. Superdelegates made up a large enough share of delegate that to win a majority of delegates for a given state she only needed about 30% of the primary vote plus the superdelegates. Do the math yourself if you’d like to confirm. Hell, I’m from a state where Clinton only got about 35% of the vote in the primary, which meant she only got one more delegate than Sanders, who had closer to 51%.