As of March 2nd the “earned” delegate count is Clinton 595, Sanders 405
Where I come from, we call that a close race, especially this early on when we’re not even at the halfway point. Obviously in the coming weeks, things may change, but for now, it’s still close.
The South is virtually the Clinton’s backyard, and no one at all should be surprised that Hillary did well there. But, many of the upcoming primary states will be more favorable for Sanders.
And while I’m on the subject, nothing beats going outside and actually voting, or getting face-to-face commitments to vote from family and friends, but anyone who wants to help make the next round of primary states more favorable for Sanders can phone bank here: https://go.berniesanders.com/page/content/phonebank
AGAIN, for clarity: Super delegates do not actually cast their votes until this summer in Philadelphia, at the Democratic National Convention, in JULY. And unlike “earned” delegates (that’s regular people like you and me) who have already voted in the primaries, THEIR “votes” (the ones they that haven’t made yet) can still change from the candidate they pledged, to the candidate who has popular support.
Until very recently, most reputable media outlets did not include super delegates in their overall delegate vote counts, or at least they made it a point to clarify the difference between unalterable “earned” delegates who have already cast a ballot, and “pledged” super delegates who haven’t even voted, and who may yet change their pledge to vote with the people.
(If you still think that a promise to vote is the same thing as an actual vote, then consider this analogy: an acquaintance asks you PayPal them $500 today, and they “promise” to pay you back. But they quietly add the condition that they’ll pay you back IF things go well for them. Only then will they repay you. Later on. In July. Probably. Suddenly that promise doesn’t seem quite as secure, does it?)
ALSO: Please note that on Super Tuesday, Hillary Clinton largely won the reliably red states, the same states where Democrats don’t have a prayer of winning in the general election. On the other hand, Bernie Sanders won in traditionally Democratic states. More importantly though, he won in some hotly contested swing states. This is an extremely salient (and under reported) point, because it punches truck sized holes in the false, but popular media narrative that Sanders is somehow a “risky” vote for women and/or Black people; or that Sanders is somehow unelectable, despite the fact that Hillary has much higher unfavorability rates than does Sanders, and despite the fact that in poll after poll, Sanders repeatedly does better than Clinton against Trump, Cruz and Rubio.
Contrary to the Clinton campaign’s slick political messaging, the fact is that Bernie Sanders is the candidate who has a better chance of beating the Republican nominee in November.
Finally: Yes, Hillary won Massachusetts, a traditionally blue state, by razor thin margins. But the impact of Bill Clinton illegally campaigning for Hillary INSIDE of polling places cannot be over-emphasized, especially in close races. His Secret Service detail caused voters additional wait times, and may have turned some voters away for security reasons. I have no doubt Sanders would have won the state if not for Bill Clinton’s “accidental” tampering.
It’s a no-brainer that he intentionally used his Secret Service entourage to manipulate the outcome, beyond simple pro-Hillary campaigning.
kianamaiart
snowghoul
pixelskylines
andulkaphoto
vaporwave
gracieabrams
