Democratic Super Tuesday results thread (first polls close at 7pm ET)

[Xing]

Clearly, Sanders' performance in CO/MA/MN/OK/VT wasn't bad at all. It was his crushing losses in the South that made it a bad night for him. Case in point, the biggest mistake of the Sanders campaign was only focusing on states he thought he could win. In a proportional system, it's worth your while to invest in Texas, even if it's not a state you can win. Better to lose by 15% than 35%.

[Boston Bread]

The benchmark in VT was for him to win by margins that would be  out of the reach of most dictators.

[Sorenroy]

Thank you Massholes! No way this can be spun as anything other than an amazing night for Hillary now.

Bernie got 4 wins, and should shut Hillary out of delegates in Vermont.

Pledged yes, supers no.

Ah, yes. The Superdelegate Defense. Basically implying that if Clinton doesn't win the nomination democratically, she'll win it undemocratically.

Dude, she's gonna be up ~250 pledged after tonight. That's basically insurmountable in a proportional system. Might need to update those talking points.

I'd argue that anybody who still talks about superdelegates needs to update their own talking points first.

Uh, in the 2008 primaries Hillary won over 300,000 more votes than Obama, but he still won because of superdelegates.

I agree that they are unnecessary, but they do matter and it's not some kind of anti-Sanders/pro-Hillary "anti-democracy" conspiracy.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html

Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA

Obama - 17,869,542

Clinton - 17,717,698

Either way, superdelegates (and Caucuses) are an affront to the democratic system.

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

CNN spinning it as Bernie making it a race.

Yeah according to them Bernie is going to win everything from here on out...

The entire former confederacy except for Kentucky will be done voting by the 15th.

And then we move to the Midwest and the coasts, where Hillary going to rack up more delegates and votes in big states!

[IceSpear]

Clearly, Sanders' performance in CO/MA/MN/OK/VT wasn't bad at all. It was his crushing losses in the South that made it a bad night for him. Case in point, the biggest mistake of the Sanders campaign was only focusing on states he thought he could win. In a proportional system, it's worth your while to invest in Texas, even if it's not a state you can win. Better to lose by 15% than 35%.

Bingo. Skipping a state here and there might be worthwhile, but for the most part you want to fight for every delegate in a proportional system, especially for something YUGE like Texas. His strategy makes me think he doesn't actually intend to win.

[RFK Jr.’s Brain Worm]

The benchmark in VT was for him to win by margins that would be  out of the reach of most dictators.

[Asian Nazi]

Clearly, Sanders' performance in CO/MA/MN/OK/VT wasn't bad at all. It was his crushing losses in the South that made it a bad night for him. Case in point, the biggest mistake of the Sanders campaign was only focusing on states he thought he could win. In a proportional system, it's worth your while to invest in Texas, even if it's not a state you can win. Better to lose by 15% than 35%.

Wins keeps the money flowing.  Most of his supporters don't understand how the process actually works and will just keep throwing money at him based on his "strong" performance tonight.  And as long as he has money he thinks he'll be able to come back and win.

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

Thank you Massholes! No way this can be spun as anything other than an amazing night for Hillary now.

Bernie got 4 wins, and should shut Hillary out of delegates in Vermont.

Pledged yes, supers no.

Ah, yes. The Superdelegate Defense. Basically implying that if Clinton doesn't win the nomination democratically, she'll win it undemocratically.

Dude, she's gonna be up ~250 pledged after tonight. That's basically insurmountable in a proportional system. Might need to update those talking points.

I'd argue that anybody who still talks about superdelegates needs to update their own talking points first.

Uh, in the 2008 primaries Hillary won over 300,000 more votes than Obama, but he still won because of superdelegates.

I agree that they are unnecessary, but they do matter and it's not some kind of anti-Sanders/pro-Hillary "anti-democracy" conspiracy.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html

Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA

Obama - 17,869,542

Clinton - 17,717,698

Either way, superdelegates (and Caucuses) are an affront to the democratic system.

I wouldn't trust RCP to have their numbers updated. I'd use Wiki instead: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2008

[Antonio the Sixth]

I agree, it's a shame Bernie didn't put up a fight in Texas. I think he could have held Hillary under 60.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Thank you Massholes! No way this can be spun as anything other than an amazing night for Hillary now.

Bernie got 4 wins, and should shut Hillary out of delegates in Vermont.

Pledged yes, supers no.

Ah, yes. The Superdelegate Defense. Basically implying that if Clinton doesn't win the nomination democratically, she'll win it undemocratically.

Dude, she's gonna be up ~250 pledged after tonight. That's basically insurmountable in a proportional system. Might need to update those talking points.

I'd argue that anybody who still talks about superdelegates needs to update their own talking points first.

Uh, in the 2008 primaries Hillary won over 300,000 more votes than Obama, but he still won because of superdelegates.

I agree that they are unnecessary, but they do matter and it's not some kind of anti-Sanders/pro-Hillary "anti-democracy" conspiracy.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html

Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA

Obama - 17,869,542

Clinton - 17,717,698

Either way, superdelegates (and Caucuses) are an affront to the democratic system.

Also if you don't estimate the caucus states like that, if you just exclude Michigan, where Obama wasn't on the ballot, he wins.

[afleitch]

Whoo! You go Bernie; ride that wave on white voters and no one else...FEEL THE BERN on your pasty skin.

[Ogre Mage]

Clearly, Sanders' performance in CO/MA/MN/OK/VT wasn't bad at all. It was his crushing losses in the South that made it a bad night for him. Case in point, the biggest mistake of the Sanders campaign was only focusing on states he thought he could win. In a proportional system, it's worth your while to invest in Texas, even if it's not a state you can win. Better to lose by 15% than 35%.

Ironically, the Sanders Campaign mistake in 2016 was the same mistake the Clinton Campaign made in 2008 (although it was the caucus states she ignored in 2008 rather than writing off a region).  She learned from last time.

[Panhandle Progressive]

FEEL THE (CLINTON) BURN! PLUS, IT WILL ONLY GET STRONGER!

[Pyro]

Not a horrible night for Sanders, but not very good either. Considering the expectations game, I think he managed to hold on for now. Kudos to Clinton for slamming out wins in the South. Massachusetts was very close, expected 6+ Clinton so somewhat surprised.

Michigan comes next, and if Sanders fails to win that, it will be difficult to recover to eek out wins on March 15th.

[Boston Bread]

FEEL THE (CLINTON) BURN! PLUS IT WILL ONLY GONNA GET STRONGER!

Demographically, the Clinton burn will be stronger today than at any other time. She can look forward to getting these margins in MS, LA, and DC, but nowhere else.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Whoo! You go Bernie; ride that wave on white voters and no one else...FEEL THE BERN on your pasty skin.

A lot of people just don't know Bernie well enough. He won big with Vermont minorities.

[/]

Final American Samoa Result - 68.4% Clinton; 25.7% Sanders

[Holmes]

Super Tuesday is also deceptive in determining who will win. Clinton has an obvious advantage in the South.

It's a national campaign, and Sanders lost in the South as a whole by at least 35%. There's no recovering from that, even if he wins small white caucus states like Kansas and Nebraska, which will net him like 15 delegates.

[Panhandle Progressive]

FEEL THE (CLINTON) BURN! PLUS IT WILL ONLY GONNA GET STRONGER!

Demographically, the Clinton burn will be stronger today than at any other time. She can look forward to getting these margins in MS, LA, and DC, but nowhere else.

MOMENTUM is what I was referencing. Not % margins, although I see how that could have been misconstrued.

[Reginald]

Whoo! You go Bernie; ride that wave on white voters and no one else...FEEL THE BERN on your pasty skin.

A lot of people just don't know Bernie well enough. He won big with Vermont minorities.

He won big with Vermont minorities.

Vermont minorities.

[Holmes]

Whoo! You go Bernie; ride that wave on white voters and no one else...FEEL THE BERN on your pasty skin.

A lot of people just don't know Bernie well enough. He won big with Vermont minorities.

This is the most embarrassing post I've read on this site.

[IceSpear]

FEEL THE (CLINTON) BURN! PLUS IT WILL ONLY GONNA GET STRONGER!

Demographically, the Clinton burn will be stronger today than at any other time. She can look forward to getting these margins in MS, LA, and DC, but nowhere else.

She doesn't need those massive margins anymore due to her massive delegate lead. Even in the worst case scenario, she just needs to keep most contests remotely close. Easy peasy.

[The Other Castro]

Whoo! You go Bernie; ride that wave on white voters and no one else...FEEL THE BERN on your pasty skin.

A lot of people just don't know Bernie well enough. He won big with Vermont minorities.

He won big with Vermont minorities.

Vermont minorities.

As in he won 4 of the 5 black people in Vermont?

[Sorenroy]

I know it's only by 0.1% but, in a race he's loosing by 34.1 points, why is Sanders leading in Austin?

[Panhandle Progressive]

I know it's only by 0.1% but, in a race he's loosing by 34.1 points, why is Sanders leading in Austin?

Weird hipsters.