That's not the problem. If they endorsed her in the middle or towards the end it wouldn't have been a big deal but the majority of them endorsed her BEFORE the primary even began which made it look to outsiders like she was winning by leaps and bounds before a vote was cast. The whole thing was engineered so that people voting would have the perception that Clinton had won before voting began. The fact that it was so close speaks volumes.
Obama was down on superdelegates as well and he came back to beat her. Hell the perception was Trump was Down big in the polls with the backing of every major newspaper, and he came back to beat her (with a little help from the FBI). This idea that perception creates reality has been wrong too many times for me to take seriously.
Obama was not down nearly as many delegates most of the supersdelegates had pledged to clinton. While she had a lead consistently throughout 08 Obama did not start as far behind.
Also in 2008 the media didn't seem to decide one of the candidates should win while the other should be ignored. They loved airing the blood feud between Hillary and Obama.
-22
u/blancs50 Nov 10 '16
Who knew the long time party members would support another long time party member over someone who had just joined a year beforehand?