> Plus, the rules that interacted with establishment support to facilitate Clinton's win in 2016 were abolishes almost immediately due largely to the influence the Sanders factions gained in the DNC despite not winning the nomination, so even a Clinton clone with an electorate with no hindsight to 2016 failures would have a harder time.
Hillary won the primary with 16.9M votes to Sanders’ 13.2M, are you telling me Democratic Party has changed its rules such that someone wins the vote like that won’t win the nomination?
> Hillary won the primary with 16.9M votes to Sanders’ 13.2M, are you telling me Democratic Party has changed its rules such that someone wins the vote like that won’t win the nomination?
Elections that have coverage of results during voting are known to experience very strong positive effects from perception of success already attained (and in US Presidential nominating contests particularly this is known to affect voting both directly and by effecting fundraising, endorsements, etc.), and the coverage of the 2016 primary featured reports of delegates “won” in the nominating contest to date including both pledged delegates secured by voting and superdelegates who had made public commitments, on the basis that those were the expected first ballot votes. Because of her strong early establishment support, the absence of significant establishment competition, Clinton had huge superdelegate commitments at the outset of the nominating contest.
They've changed the rules to prohibit superdelegate voting on the first round unless the result is already determined, and to exclude superdelegates from the total on which the majority needed to win on the first ballot is needed.
Hillary won the primary with 16.9M votes to Sanders’ 13.2M, are you telling me Democratic Party has changed its rules such that someone wins the vote like that won’t win the nomination?