# Sanders saved by supers? **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [March 10, 2016, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanders-saved-by-supers/748545 "2016-03-10T15:21:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2016, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanders-saved-by-supers/748545/181 "2016-04-14T01:20:12Z")
> [@asahi](#): > > Clinton is ahead in the popular vote – for now. But as I pointed out, she actually won more votes than Obama in 2008. Yes, Michigan didn’t vote, but it wouldn’t have mattered. She’d still have won the popular vote. The party supers switched sides once it became clear that minorities and white youth were more enthusiastic to vote for Obama than Hillary. That happened much sooner than in this election. My point is, that switch could still happen. It might be possible to see this now, but we’re still 2 months from the end of the race and there’s a lot of voting left. NY and MD seem to be locks for Hillary. Everything else, though, is up for grabs. Clearly _incorrect_ - see cite. Even not counting caucus estimates Obama won the popular vote. And again, had won the pledged delegate vote, which led the superdelegates to follow. If Sander could catch up in the popular vote from here he would be far ahead in the pledged delegate vote as a result. [538’s best guess](http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/bernie-sanders-is-even-further-behind-in-votes-than-he-is-in-delegates/) is that he’d need to win 60% of the popular vote from here (more than the delegate percent as these states are overweighted, as discussed in a previous post) to catch up there. And that is before the probable loss, possibly by double digits, to come in very populous NY. So even more than 60% from NY on. ---
**Author:** ![Ulf\_the\_Unwashed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Ulf\_the\_Unwashed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ulf_the_Unwashed)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2016, 3:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanders-saved-by-supers/748545/182 "2016-04-14T03:45:03Z")
Adding to **DSeid** ’s post– Sanders won 56% of the popular vote last weekend in Wyoming. Caucus state Wyoming. Heavily white Wyoming. Wyoming, where Clinton didn’t even bother to campaign. Based on this information and the earlier votes of surrounding and similar-ish states, you’d expect him to have waltzed away with an enormous victory. 56% is solid, it’s okay; but it’s not what Sanders needed, and it certainly isn’t an enormous victory. Maybe this result is the beginning of a downward trend. I don’t know that this is necessarily the case; could easily be that it’s an outlier. But if it has any meaning at all, it makes it really hard to see Sanders winning 60% in states like California and Pennsylvania, to say nothing of New York and Maryland. If he can’t even get that high a percentage in favorable-as-can-be Wyoming, how can he expect to win votes at that level in non-caucus states (often featuring closed primaries) with high proportions of Hispanics and blacks? ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2016, 5:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanders-saved-by-supers/748545/183 "2016-04-14T05:14:07Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > What do you mean, “the statement clearing her”? The way they clear someone is by not saying anything at all. You know, just like they’re doing right now. There is going to be a statement of some sort, and it’s going to be issued in the summer. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Ace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/6bbea6/32.png) [@Johnny\_Ace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Ace)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2016, 7:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanders-saved-by-supers/748545/184 "2016-04-14T07:00:13Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > There is going to be a statement of some sort, and it’s going to be issued in the summer. So are you psychic or just a member of the investigation team? I buy this prediction like I buy any of your other ones. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2016, 7:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanders-saved-by-supers/748545/185 "2016-04-14T07:31:02Z")
I read. > **[FBI's Comey: No rush on Clinton email probe | CNN Politics](https://www.cnn.com/2016/04/05/politics/hillary-clinton-email-probe/index.html)** > > FBI Director James Comey said Tuesday he does not see a need for urgency in completing the ongoing investigation into Hillary Clinton's email server. But he did say that he is staying "close to this one to make sure we have the resources to do it... ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2016, 9:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanders-saved-by-supers/748545/186 "2016-04-14T09:55:33Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > I read. > > [http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/05/politics/hillary-clinton-email-probe/index.html](http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/05/politics/hillary-clinton-email-probe/index.html) That says nothing about this summer or any other time estimate. ---
**Author:** ![asahi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asahi/32/8693_2.png) [@asahi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asahi)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2016, 12:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanders-saved-by-supers/748545/187 "2016-04-14T12:35:52Z")
> [@Do\_Not\_Taunt](#): > > The supers switched in 2008 because Obama had won a majority of pledged delegates, and because his wins in low-turnout caucus states suggested that his victories represented more voters, despite receiving fewer votes. It’s possible a similar trend will occur this year, but it’s doubtful based on any currently available data (votes already cast + polls of upcoming states.) Hillary, as expected, took the first two races, one of which was controversial because Obama wasn’t on the ballot. Obama stunned Hillary with an impressive Super Tuesday showing, but there was still the hope that she could at least stop his momentum. That didn’t happen, as Obama destroyed Clinton in race after race between Feb 9 and Feb 19. It has been posited by some posters here that Clinton’s success in big states is a statement that discredits the Sanders campaign. However, Clinton won big states in 2008, just like she’s doing now. In fact a lot of Obama’s victories were racked up in small states just like Sanders has been doing. If Sanders somehow stuns Clinton in California and Pennsylvania, he would have accomplished something that Obama never did. But like Obama he would be able to say that he has won more individual contests, competed well in battleground states, and won states with diverse populations. I think a lot of Hillary supporters are just hoping she gets to the finish line and haven’t really considered how things might look on the other side of June 7. The dynamics can shift dramatically between now and then. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Ace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/6bbea6/32.png) [@Johnny\_Ace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Ace)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2016, 1:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanders-saved-by-supers/748545/188 "2016-04-14T13:28:03Z")
> [@asahi](#): > > If Sanders somehow stuns Clinton in California and Pennsylvania, he would have accomplished something that Obama never did. But like Obama he would be able to say that he has won more individual contests, competed well in battleground states, and won states with diverse populations. To me that makes about as much sense as getting less electoral votes but saying, “I won more states! I should be President!” ---
**Author:** ![Jophiel](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jophiel/32/66_2.png) [@Jophiel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jophiel)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2016, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanders-saved-by-supers/748545/189 "2016-04-14T13:39:42Z")
The difference between Obama and Sanders is that Obama was winning caucuses _while keeping Clinton to a tie in large primary states_. Sanders has won caucus states but failed to stop Clinton from making large primary wins in southern and swing states, only really keeping it to (near) ties in some blue states. As a result, he trails badly in both delegates and popular votes and he’ll be lucky to draw close in Pennsylvania and California. Thinking that he’ll pull out sweeping wins there is a pipe dream. Sanders tried to use Obama’s caucus playbook, he was just outmaneuvered by Clinton who learned better from 2008. ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2016, 2:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanders-saved-by-supers/748545/190 "2016-04-14T14:01:25Z")
Lemme get this straight … In 2008 Clinton started out as the presumptive nominee. And came out of the chute OK. Then the Obama steamroller got going and never looked back until after he’d passed the finish line. Sure, Clinton won a few along the way, but the delegate count just kept leaning more and more Obama’s way. In 2016 Clinton started out as the presumptive nominee. And came out of the chute OK. Then the Clinton steamroller got going while Sanders pretty much got stuck behind and has been slowly falling further behind ever since. Sure, Sanders won a few along the way, but the delegate count just kept leaning more and more Clinton’s way. And here we now in April 2016 entering the third turn of this one-lap race and Sander’s people are using the 2008 narrative to predict a Clinton fade and Sanders win? Other than both narratives containing the word “Clinton” they’re polar opposites of one another. The supers shifted away from Clinton in 2008 because she was losing. They’re not therefore going to shift away from Clinton in 2016 because she’s winning. Somebody (actually lots of somebodies) in the Sanders camp are engaging in a lot of wishful to the point of delusional thinking. Having said all that I agree the race is not over. Clinton is well ahead, but is also a particularly flawed candidate. And this is a particularly crazy year with wild cards and jokers popping up all over the place. Much _might_ yet go wrong for her. But confidently extrapolating from 2008 is a mugs’ game. Whatever happens, it won’t be a replay of 2008’s Clinton fade from (almost) pole to pole. ---
**Author:** ![Dangerosa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Dangerosa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dangerosa)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2016, 2:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanders-saved-by-supers/748545/191 "2016-04-14T14:09:43Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > IT’s FBI policy to not take the campaign into account at all, but just to do the investigation right. I’d bet its FBI policy to release the investigation as a matter of fact - did she or didn’t she break the law and this is why - and not to make ethical, much less scathing commentary. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Ace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/6bbea6/32.png) [@Johnny\_Ace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Ace)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2016, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanders-saved-by-supers/748545/192 "2016-04-14T14:20:27Z")
> [@LSLGuy](#): > > Somebody (actually lots of somebodies) in the Sanders camp are engaging in a lot of wishful to the point of delusional thinking. They’re mostly young, and True Believers. Rainbows and unicorns. The rest are mouthing it because, well, it’s what campaigns do. ---
**Author:** ![Jophiel](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jophiel/32/66_2.png) [@Jophiel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jophiel)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2016, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanders-saved-by-supers/748545/193 "2016-04-14T14:21:11Z")
> [@LSLGuy](#): > > Other than both narratives containing the word “Clinton” they’re polar opposites of one another. Well, in both scenarios, the losing camp kept making new and innovative metrics for who is really winning beyond “who has the most delegates”, pointed to strings of too-late late contest wins as “momentum” and gave petulant threats that they were going to go home and pout in November if their person wasn’t handed the nomination. So, you know, not _entirely_ different. ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2016, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanders-saved-by-supers/748545/194 "2016-04-14T15:14:05Z")
Good point. Losing teams are all alike in many ways. Humans being humans and all that. One of the interesting things I learned from **DSeid** in the last couple days is that the delegate apportionment rules already include a factor for momentum. A win counts for more delegates in a late contest than an identical win in an identical state does in an earlier contest. Precisely for the purpose of rewarding late momentum. So anybody arguing for extra points for late momentum are actually arguing for extra, \*extra \*points and are on shakier ground than they probably realize. ---
**Author:** ![Do\_Not\_Taunt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/do_not_taunt/32/2968_2.png) [@Do\_Not\_Taunt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Do_Not_Taunt)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2016, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanders-saved-by-supers/748545/195 "2016-04-14T15:50:31Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > That says nothing about this summer or any other time estimate. It’s funnier than that. Adaher claimed two things: the FBI would make a statement of some sort, and it would happen this summer. This article says nothing at all about the former, and specifically contradicts the latter: > [@](#): > > Comey, in a visit to the FBI’s Buffalo, New York, field office, said it’s the agency’s priority to complete the investigation “well and promptly” but that **“well” comes first.** > > When asked by reporters whether he felt any pressure to wrap up the investigation prior to the Democratic convention in July, **Comey said no** ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2016, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanders-saved-by-supers/748545/196 "2016-04-14T16:17:52Z")
If one assumes for a moment the FBI leans R (good bet), and one leans towards Clinton being chargeably guilty of something (also an R trait), then it’s probably more destructive to the D cause to release (or leak) the damning report after Clinton is nominated rather than before. Said another way, nothing the FBI man said directly supports what \*\*adaher \*\*claimed. But neither does it refute it. A damning report released in late Aug is still “summer” and still fulfills the R wish / dream of the FBI dropping a house on the Wicked Witch. And one can cynically interpret the “we’ll release the report when it’s good and ready” as “we’ll release the report when it’s most beneficial to us (= most detrimental to the Ds).” The problem with cynical conspiratorial thinking is that sometimes the plain obvious interpretation really is the truth. And when it is, the cynics/CTers get it all backwards every time ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2016, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanders-saved-by-supers/748545/197 "2016-04-14T16:47:00Z")
> [@LSLGuy](#): > > Good point. Losing teams are all alike in many ways. Humans being humans and all that. > One of the interesting things I learned from **DSeid** in the last couple days is that the delegate apportionment rules already include a factor for momentum. > > A win counts for more delegates in a late contest than an identical win in an identical state does in an earlier contest. Precisely for the purpose of rewarding late momentum. So anybody arguing for extra points for late momentum are actually arguing for extra, \*extra \*points and are on shakier ground than they probably realize. To be fair I am not sure it was designed that way _in order to_ reward momentum. My guess was iit was as much to give later going states an incentive to go late: they will more often no longer matter but when they do matter they matter lots more - a trade off. But it does nevertheless have that result: momentum is built into the pledged delegate count, an up to 35% (!) bonus impact for a late state ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2016, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanders-saved-by-supers/748545/198 "2016-04-14T17:39:00Z")
> [@Dangerosa](#): > > I’d bet its FBI policy to release the investigation as a matter of fact - did she or didn’t she break the law and this is why - and not to make ethical, much less scathing commentary. In my experience, the FBI either recommends charges or says nothing. Rarely do they say they cleared the suspect. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2016, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanders-saved-by-supers/748545/199 "2016-04-14T17:41:25Z")
> [@LSLGuy](#): > > One of the interesting things I learned from **DSeid** in the last couple days is that the delegate apportionment rules already include a factor for momentum. > > A win counts for more delegates in a late contest than an identical win in an identical state does in an earlier contest. Precisely for the purpose of rewarding late momentum. So anybody arguing for extra points for late momentum are actually arguing for extra, \*extra \*points and are on shakier ground than they probably realize. cite? ---
**Author:** ![Jophiel](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jophiel/32/66_2.png) [@Jophiel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jophiel)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2016, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanders-saved-by-supers/748545/200 "2016-04-14T17:47:59Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > cite? [See here from Greenpapers.com](http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/D-Timing.phtml) Later voting states get a delegate bonus for coming in at the tail of the contest. Whether intentionally or not, it would reward late game momentum since the states you’re winning are worth more (by standard allocation metrics of size, legislature makeup, etc) than earlier voting states. > [@](#): > > Delegate selection primaries, caucuses, and conventions will begin on the first Tuesday in March (Stage I - 1 March 2016). The Democrats will award states who begin their process in April (Stage II) with a 10% bonus. For those beginning in May or June (Stage III), a 20% bonus. Starting on the Tuesday 22 March 2016 (Stage I cluster), a 15% bonus is awarded when clusters of 3 or more neighboring states begin on the same date. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanders-saved-by-supers/748545.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanders-saved-by-supers/748545.md?page=11)