As usual, you have no clue what you're talking about.
In 2008, Clinton started with a considerable superdelegate lead. It wasn't until Obama starting winning that he peeled off superdelegates.
Why in the world would Obama start with more supers? He was the new face while Clinton represented the party establishment.
From the article:
Hillary Clinton is starting to lose her overwhelming lead in superdelegates, the Democratic party officials whose votes she is counting on to help her close the gap with Barack Obama. He has received a steady flow of backers in recent days while building a streak of 11 straight primary victories. After once leading Obama by a 2 to 1 ratio in the superdelegate chase, Clinton now has 241 to his 181, according to the latest Associated Press tally.
Again you prove to know absolute nothing and also try to read what i wrote.
But As everyone knows who follow american politics , Obama had a comfortable lead already in Mid Feb and by march he was ahead and never looked back and funny enough Clinton was the one talking about how the system is bad with super delegates.
Also who began with what is as meaningless as 90% of the posts you make.
lol. Somebody's angry. Looks like I hit a nerve.
My point was simple: Obama managed to win despite the fact that Clinton started with the superdelegates in her pocket. Clinton had an early delegate lead in 2008 just as she had this year. Obama managed to overcome it and persuaded superdelegates to his side by winning more pledged delegates than Clinton whereas Sanders did not. What I was arguing is that an early lead in superdelegates can be overcome (as Obama did), so it is not an excuse for Sanders' shortcomings.
The point I was making was clear to everyone but you. You misunderstood the point being made and are now trying to save face. My advice to you is to man up and admit it. There is no shame in admitting that you didn't understand something. That is how people learn. Not every exchange on the internet has to be "won."
Or you can keep nursing your ego. It really makes no difference to me.
Just a friendly reminder, your post about Obama was a response to my opinion about the system being unfair. Unfair is still unfair, you Obama example will not change that.
Now, you can go back assuming someone is getting angry. Good luck.
I'm not assuming he's angry. He clearly IS angry.
And yes, I can see the argument for the superdelegates being unfair. I don't particularly care for them either. But a good candidate will adapt. In the end, Bernie just didn't have broad enough appeal.
Log in to comment