The DNC superdelegate argument is tough because Hillary still won the popular vote.
But Obama beat Romney by 5 million. The greater the difference in the popular vote, the less likely we’ll see flukes in the electoral vote. Hillary appealed to the wrong areas. Sanders had more universal appeal and seems like he would have likely garnered more electoral votes.
I actually meant that she won the popular vote against Sanders in the primaries.
The Sanders what if is a tough question. On the one hand it does seem like he was more liked in the places Clinton ultimately lost. But we have no idea what the discourse would have been like. Hard to imagine a self proclaimed socialist having more universal appeal in the US.
Oh I see. I agree that we don’t know that he would have won. I think people are latching on too much to what I did not actually say, however. I did not say Bernie would have won, though I’m pointing out that he might have had a better shot. The point of my original comment is meant to place more emphasis that the DNC’s system is screwed up and undemocratic and that they damaged their moral standing with their own people in 2016.
I do believe Bernie may have fared better in a primary election with all things being equal aside from the superdelegates. Remember, whoever wins the first four primary elections stands a good chance to win the entire primary race, even if other candidates are more popular in other states. This is because a candidate is seen as having momentum and his/her win seems inevitable, even if it is not necessarily so. Sanders was gaining momentum and nearly caught up to Hillary in terms of elected delegates. However, with the superdelegates making his win appear impossible, he started to slide back, and ultimately could not mathematically win the nomination. I’m merely speculating, but I believe he could have won the nomination had the superdelegate process not made his cause look futile.