2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumH. Clinton did not end her 2008 campaign until after Obama had CLINCHED the nomination
Hillary did not end her 2008 campaign until June 7. But her supporters now screech that Sanders MUST drop out now! for the good of the party. LOL.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
UglyGreed
(7,661 posts)happen as Hillary once said. 
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)Stay in it Bernie, make these HRC SOBs spend their money and work for it!
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)John Poet
(2,510 posts)Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)tabasco
(22,974 posts)
ieoeja
(9,748 posts)Which is why Obama racked up a string of victories with 60% to 80% of the vote. So while Hillary was better placed in the delegate count in 2008, Bernie is better placed on the campaign trail.
I assume Hillary actually has a primary campaign still in place this time which will prevent Bernie getting that 60% to 80% of the vote.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)Hillary didn't base her achievements on losses and ties.
Hillary wasn't 320 delegates behind half way through.
Hillary actually could have won until she conceded.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2008
karynnj
(59,504 posts)left to win. She could not win with superdelegates as a very large group said they would go with the winner of the pledged delegates and there were some who endorsed Obama.
Your link absolutely does not say that she could have won when she conceded.
Now, even though incredibly unlikely - Bernie mathematically could win. Mathematically, he could win EVERY pledged delegate not yet assigned -- he won't, but it is possible. In fact, all he would have to do is win the other half by a better margin than she won the first half. Nothing suggests he will, but it is not impossible .... as it was in June 2008.
Improbable and impossible are two different words with very different meanings - Sanders winning is NOT impossible, but it is improbable.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)Which is why oh so conveniently, a little bit before that race Jeremiah Wright had a news conference where he doubled down on his nastiness, promoting Obama to angrily shoot him down.
That new conference? Brought up by a Clinton surrogate.
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)joshcryer
(62,276 posts)karynnj
(59,504 posts)she conceded.
StevieM
(10,500 posts)the pledged delegate count would be the nominee.
Hillary brought up other issues: the popular vote, the electoral college map (the primary race viewed the the prism of the November election), winning a majority of congressional districts. Obama also brought up winning the most contests.
There was also discussion about the fact that places like Texas districts that had low voter turnout in 2004 were penalized with fewer delegates in 2008.
Finally, nobody had said that the PD winner should automatically be the nominee before the voting started. Hillary made her campaign decisions based on the rules of the party and precedent from history.
By historical standards Hillary ended her campaign at a stunningly early point in the race. Every other race that close had always gone to the convention.
My point is that things changed in 2008. Obama supporters insisted that the PD count winner be treated as the rightful nominee and that the SDs be treated as honorary guests. (Never mind that without the SDs there might well have been different rules for awarding the PDs). Ultimately, this point of view prevailed.
For better or worse, a precedent was set in 2008. The PD winner is now expected to be the nominee and both candidates knew that going in.
Besides, Bernie isn't expected to finish the race with a down-to-the-wire, neck-and-neck popular vote count the way that Hillary did against Obama. He is going to be a clear second, using any metric. Or at least that's the way it looks right now.
I'm not writing this to suggest that Sanders should drop out. I just want to offer my perspective on the matters you raised regarding 2008 vs. 2016.
karynnj
(59,504 posts)It was the Clinton message, after they under performed on the huge super Tuesday when 23 states had contests, that they floated the idea that if there was good reason to consider that the person who narrowly lost the pledged delegate count was "better" , the super delegates would make up the difference. They also started speaking of the popular vote, which makes no sense with caucuses.
That balloon was easily countered by top Obama surrogates immediately saying that the surrogates would not overturn the will of the people. An easy position for them as there would have been no move to give it to Obama if Clinton won.
Not to mention, there were a very large number of super delegates including people like Pelosi who rather than endorsing one of the two had said they would vote for the winner of the pledged delegates. Therefore, on June 3, Obama was BOTH the winner of the pledged delegates but had the support of far more than half the super delegates. It took a few days for the Clinton team to actually concede.
However, a better point now is to look at the fact that John Kerry was far better positioned in mid February than Clinton is now. Dean and Clark had dropped out and Edwards had won only SC. Kerry polled ahead in all the future states coming on March 2, except Vt where Dean was ahead. Did DU or Daily Kos push people to stop supporting Edwards? No. Did Kerry supporters put up threads demanding he drop out? No. Did the main stream media try to push Edwards out? No, in fact on the weekend before the March 2 contests, the NYT printed on oped suggesting that Edwards could still win.
Edwards dropped out on March 3 because Kerry had almost half the delegates with many states to go because Edwards had no way to get the needed delegates. No one spoke of superdelegates because Kerry won on pledged delegates alone.
The fact is that there was no race as close as 2008. In all other cases, it would have taken an even more lopsided superdelegate thumb on the scale to change things. What we do not have is even one example where the winner of the pledged delegates lost.
StevieM
(10,500 posts)Last edited Sat Mar 19, 2016, 05:50 PM - Edit history (1)
to the efforts to push Hillary out of the 2008 race. I'm talking about the national conversation on the news, not here on DU (although I think the DU efforts were also greater in 2008).
Edwards vs. Kerry isn't a good comparison because that wasn't a seriously competitive race. Edwards wasn't winning much, or putting up close contests. Although I think Kerry liked having him stay in the race because it let him keep racking up wins. (And again, I am not calling for Bernie to leave the race).
Second, we also don't have even one example--until 2008--where a candidate did not have enough pledged delegates to guarantee a majority of all delegates to the convention and the race ended before the convention. Hillary's departure was stunningly early, by historical standards.
Admittedly, we are talking about a small sampling size here. It is only since 1972 that the people really began to be the ones who picked the nominee.
But this argument about the PD count winner being the automatic winner, and the SDs basically being honorary guests, was brand spanking new in 2008. Nobody told Hillary before the voting started and Barack never asked for it. And it certainly didn't go without saying--it had never been said before. It was a new understanding of the system, albeit one that ultimately prevailed.
If it was OK for Obama supporters to call for ignoring the rules that included SDs then IMO it was also OK for Clinton supporters to call for ignoring the 1988 rules changes that eliminated the winner-take-all voting in the primaries. In other words, to ask the delegates to vote in accordance with who would have won the nomination under the old rules, the ones that included neither super delegates nor proportional representation voting.
Again, to be fair, we are working with a limited number of elections to call upon for historical reference. The people started picking the nominees in 1972, and I believe the SDs were added in 1984, while the elimination of winner-take-all voting was established in 1988. (And I believe that those changes were made at the conventions, starting in the next election cycle). My point is that you seem to be implying that Hillary behaved unethically, and acted in a manner that no other candidate had ever acted before. In reality, Ted Kennedy, Gary Hart and Jesse Jackson took much less close races all the way to the convention. And in the case of Mondale vs. Hart is was not 100 percent clear that Mondale was the presumptive nominee (although it was assumed to be quite likely).
Hillary announced that she planned on suspending her campaign less than 24 hours after the final votes were cast in Montana and South Dakota. The speech were she formally suspended took place a few days later, but it was understood to be coming the day after the final votes.
I actually do believe that Obama would have gotten the nomination if he had won in all the places where Hillary had won, while she had won everywhere that he had won. The argument would have been that in states holding primaries Obama was winning in the more moderate-to-conservative congressional districts, while Clinton won in the safer, more solidly Democratic areas. Obviously we can never know for certain. But that's my point--we just don't know. It didn't go without saying and it had never gone without saying in any previous election.
I'm not lamenting the fact that a change was made, or that a precedent was set, but I don't like people acting like Hillary had done something unheard of and demonstrated herself to be a dishonorable person.
I agree that it is difficult to calculate the popular vote in a primary, between the caucuses, a couple states holding both primaries and caucuses, not to mention figuring out how to include, or not include, Florida and Michigan. But it is not insane to be talking about it, and for a delegate to come up with figures that sound right to them, because we are discussing how the delegates to the convention should interpret the will of the people. And this argument about PDs being the only real ones, and the sole measurement of public support, with SDs as honorary guests, was brand new in 2008.
karynnj
(59,504 posts)In fact Daily Kos said 2 weeks ago, that March 15 puts them on general election footing with HRC as the presumptive nominee. That was even before last Tuesday! Half of the pledged delegates are for contests not even done yet.
This is FAR FAR earlier than any one suggested Clinton leave. The worst thing about this is that - especially on top of many already perceiving the DNC and especially DWS favoring Clinton, is that it will leave a very bad taste on HRC's win for many of the people needed in November to help GOTV.
I was absolutely not saying that HRC acted unethically by saying in when there was no chance of winning. I simply contrasted it with the demand that Bernie stand down now - when half the delegates are assigned. I know that Kennedy stayed in until the convention.
As to the PD, the point was that whichever side won them would have a strong argument that it was wrong for the establishment to overrule the vote of the people. I do not know how close it would have to be for that argument not to resonate. Not to mention, as I said a large number of SD in 2008 announced they would go with the winner of the PD. Note that did NOT make it a rule, but they were a large enough group that they effectively meant the winner of the PD would win.
StevieM
(10,500 posts)It was not indisputable fact in 2008 that the PD winner had to get the nomination. That is the case in 2016, by virtue of the precedent set eight years ago.
If the Super Delegates had wanted to clearly establish that the inevitable PD winner, Obama, was entitled to the nomination they could have all rushed over to him right away. He didn't have enough SDs to lock up the nomination until June, although he probably had them lined up a couple weeks earlier.
I disagree that not having the PD count winner as the nominee necessarily means that the will of the people has been overturned. There are other categories that I have referenced, and that Hillary supporters referenced eight years ago: the popular vote, the electoral college map, the most contests, and a majority of congressional districts.
2008 was a unique election. It was the election that established the new standard concerning what constituted winning the nomination.
I'm sorry if you think that Bernie is being pressured out of the race, but I just don't see it. Isn't Clinton already preparing for the series of losses that are about to take place? The next 8 states, except for Arizona, and possibly Utah, are going to be rough for Clinton and her surrogates are already handling the spin cycle that all candidates do. That's not exactly ignoring your opponent and acting like he has no business being in the race.
Eight years ago Hillary was made out to be a terrible person for staying in the race. Keith Olberman was particularly nasty. I have yet to hear any Clinton supporters attack Bernie personally.
People may be suggesting that the race is effectively decided at an earlier juncture this time around, but I think there are three reasons for that. First, Hillary has a wider lead than Obama did. Second, Hillary's arguments as to why she outperformed Obama, if metrics other than the PD count are looked at, aren't there for Sanders. Third, and most importantly, this race is being conducted in the aftermath of the precedent that was set in 2008.
An elaborate conversation took place in 2008, one that had never really happened before, about whether the PD winner represents the choice of the people, the winner of the competition, and the rightful nominee. The debate was settled in Barack Obama's favor. It was resolved in the manner that Obama supporters advocated, an affirmation of the decisiveness of the PD category. Therefore the current race, in 2016, is taking place within the context of the resolution that was reached in 2008.
karynnj
(59,504 posts)- and I would have far preferred someone like Warren running.
As to your reasons, half of the pledged delegates have not yet been chosen. I agree that HRC is favored to receive far more than she needs.
However, just as Bernie is further from HRC than she was from Obama - he is FAR closer to her than John Edwards - who won 2 states, his home state and the neighboring state. This would be similar to Bernie winning just NH and VT.
Not to mention, in the Obama case, no one suggested Clinton leave the race when less than half the delegates were selected or even later when she could still have won had she pulled off huge upsets.
StevieM
(10,500 posts)He has run an outstanding race.
Also, please understand that I like Sen. Sanders, just as I liked Governor O'Malley. Most Sanders voters like Clinton and most Clinton voters like Sanders.
I am not calling for Bernie to drop out, nor am I upset that he hasn't. I admit that I might be upset if he doesn't endorse her, provided she is the presumptive nominee, when the primaries are over. I don't think a convention fight would be good for the party. Hillary showed me that eight years ago when she exited the race after the voting and used the convention to rally her troops around Barack Obama.
I totally agree that Elizabeth Warren would have made an outstanding nominee. I think Elizabeth Warren is amazing and I absolutely love her. I'll even admit that she most likely would have defeated Hillary had she run. But she chose not to.
Warren could still be president someday. If Hillary loses she is the instant favorite for 2020. If Hillary wins we don't know for certain that she will seek a second term (although it seems likely). Finally, I see no reason why Warren could not run in 2024, even though she will be 75. She would be a terrific president at any age.
tabasco
(22,974 posts)Sanders will not be 300 delegates behind.
Your post indicates your bias and lack of critical thinking.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Given how Arizona is shaping up, he'll likely be at least 315 delegates behind.
TM99
(8,352 posts)Obama was not declared the presumptive nominee until June 3rd. Clinton suspended her campaign on June 7th.
Give it a rest. Sanders is not leaving. We aren't going away. The fucking voting started in January and it is only March for fuck's sakes!
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)I don't expect them to have any bearing on anyone's opinion.
TM99
(8,352 posts)contradistinction to your conclusion.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Just a suggestion...
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)
Big difference between then and now.
TM99
(8,352 posts)as there are still more than half the delegates remaining.
Shall we dredge up Bill Clinton's 1992 graphs as he also stayed in late and won?
Karma13612
(4,553 posts)legend states
"Clinton12"
"Sanders12".
If the number is supposed to mean the year, like in the lower graph, I would love to know what the "16" graph says.
thanks if you can just post the one for "16" since that would be much more accurate.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)Hillary 1,586.
Bernie 823.
I don't even want to see that graphed!!!
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/D-PU.phtml
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)So when Hillary has 2382 total delegates, including super delegates, do you concede she has clinched the nomination.
That should happen by May 17.
So will you concede the Senator has lost when the same conditions from 2008 exist and Hillary has 2382 total delegates?
democrattotheend
(11,605 posts)Everyone had had the chance to vote. At this time, almost half the Democratic voters around the country have not yet had the opportunity to have our preferences registered.
Had Hillary ended up ahead after all the primaries in 2008 based solely on an advantage with superdelegates, with Obama leading in the pledged delegates, I think it is highly unlikely that enough superdelegates would have stuck with her to override the will of the primary voters. I am less confident they would not do so this time, but I still believe that superdelegates should not be counted until they actually vote, or at the very least, until after primary voters in all 50 states (plus DC/territories) have had the chance to vote.
tabasco
(22,974 posts)That's exactly two months from now.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)You may have even figured out the definition of "impossible." Golly, you must be so proud! I'm darn near giddy thinking I might have played a small part in your remedial education.
Giddy, I tell you!
democrattotheend
(11,605 posts)In addition to both Democrats (and thus the Democratic message) getting a lot more air time while McCain was largely ignored, having competitive primaries in every state got more Democrats registered, reduced voter suppression by giving new voters a "practice run" in the primaries, and caused both campaigns to build ground organizations that helped Obama win unexpected states like Indiana and North Carolina.
tabasco
(22,974 posts)I am not optimistic about Sanders' chances but all of these demands that he drop out are nonsensical. I won't have the chance to cast my ballot until next month. I want there to be more than one candidate when I do it.
democrattotheend
(11,605 posts)My state votes in April and I would really like to have the chance to vote for Bernie while he is still in the race.
To her credit, Hillary herself has not called for him to drop out. Doing so would be really stupid and make her look really hypocritical. She's smarter than that.
AzDar
(14,023 posts)
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)For anyone suggesting Bernie should drop out, this should be required viewing:
vintx
(1,748 posts)AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)
Cleita
(75,480 posts)Facts matter.
DesertFlower
(11,649 posts)a great message that should be heard.
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)that she needs seven months for her GE campaign.
corbettkroehler
(1,898 posts)
kgnu_fan
(3,021 posts)John Poet
(2,510 posts)'just in case anything happens' ~ Hillary Clinton
Medical emergency, FBI indictment, she runs off to the restroom and never comes back..
Ya just never know.
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)In fact, Clinton actually won the popular vote. Of course, there was the matter of her being the only one who had votes counted in Michigan. Still, 2008 was a much closer race. Clinton's lead over Sanders is just going to keep growing.
bigwillq
(72,790 posts)HassleCat
(6,409 posts)She's being careful to say it's up to Sanders.
Loudestlib
(980 posts)The democratic donor base is with Bernie. She's going to be broke half way through the GE.
Smarmie Doofus
(14,498 posts).... still lobbying delegates.
Long after EVERYONE had agreed that Obama had a mathematical LOCK.
It ( i.e. the disconnect from reality) prompted a radio talk show host here (probably a RWer; is there any other kind?) to quip that there were some kind folks afoot who were preparing a room for the sad couple at "the nervous hospital."