Inside Hillary Clintons Secret Takeover of the DNC (By DONNA BRAZILE November 02, 2017)

[karynnj]

153. If you count ONLY regular delegates - as superdelegates can change their positions - she had NOT

clinched by March. She was 320 regular delegates ahead after super Tuesday - the high point for the difference between the campaigns in March. (Sanders actually did better in late March/early April). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016#March_1.2C_2016:_Super_Tuesday

If you define "mathematically clinching" as her having over 1/2 of the regular delegates to be cast, she was not there in March. It is ONLY if you add in the superdelegates, who were nearly 100% behind Clinton, that you can say that she mathematically clinched the nomination. Yet, superdelegates are not pledged and can change.

Imagine that her opponent were a more mainstream Democrat, who was at the same point against her as Sanders was in March. Assume that he/she had the momentum that Sanders had, without the same limitations. Had that candidate's momentum accelerated and held even or won on SuperTuesday III (with NY and other big states), then had a big win in CA, he/she could have had slightly more regular delegates than Clinton. Like in 2008, the superdelegates would NOT have stayed with the person who did not win the majority of the regular delegates.

However, Sanders was NOT Obama 2. He lost SuperTuesday III in mid April and he lost the June California primary. Just as even the worst baseball team is not "mathematically eliminated" until they could not be in the playoffs, even if they (improbably given their record) were to win all remaining games, Sanders could not be "mathematically eliminated" until he lost California.

It was always incredibly probable that Clinton would be the nominee - starting a year before a single vote was cast. The surprise was that she did not get to half the delegates until June 2016, after California voted. Yet, there was never a point where she was the not by far the most likely person to win the nomination. In many ways, 2016 was more like the cases where a VP from a successful 2 term presidency ran - so compare the fact that Gore won every primary against a far more mainstream opponent, Bill Bradley. If you want to compare open races, Clinton had more trouble clinching the nomination against Bernie than Kerry did in 2004 where he won all but 4 states - 2 of which were lost to home state candidates, Edwards and Dean, who had already conceded.

In fact, the three big shocks of 2016 were:
1) That the Democratic primary was not like the one in 2000, where Clinton would have won state after state.
2) The Republican party elected someone who was completely unfit to be President.
3) The biggest shock -- Clinton lost to Trump!