Can we admit finally that sexism was a huge problem in both 2008 and 2016 elections

[GaryCnf]

140. The qualifier "statistically speaking" obscures a greater truth

"Statistically speaking" then-Senator Clinton and President Obama were indeed "neck and neck" IF you are speaking about their respective number of pledged delegates or their respective misleading (because it radically undercounts voters in caucus states) number of "popular votes."

Both you and I know, even when candidates AREN'T "neck and neck," even when they are just relatively close in those two categories, who becomes are nominee is not determined by pledged delegates. It is determined by that group of political professionals (as defined by criteria upon which reasonable minds could differ) called "super-delegates." I recognize that "super-delegates" has, for some, become a dirty word, but the fact of the matter is that there is something to be said for the idea that our nominee shouldn't just be the most popular person running in the Democratic primary, it should be the person who can win in the general election. (I can hear even now many of my fellow Sanders supporters gnashing their teeth over the gentle click, click, click of my keyboard).

Considering those super-delegates, then-Senator Clinton had no more of a chance to win the 2008 Democratic nomination than Senator Sanders had of winning the 2016 Democratic nomination. I know it hurts to admit it, because it hurts me to admit the same thing now, but the fact is that the people who live, breathe, and finance this party decided in 2008 that Barrack Obama was a far stronger candidate that Hillary Clinton.

We can debate until the sun drops below the horizon whether they were correct in 2008 or any other year, but the fact is that the 2008 primary was not "close."