Browse By

Reality Check: Hillary Clinton Won The New Hampshire Primary

Yes, it’s true that Bernie Sanders got over 60 percent of the popular vote in yesterday’s Democratic presidential primary in New Hampshire. That’s nice. It’s impressive.

Bernie Sanders got to give a victory speech, and Hillary Clinton gave a concession speech.

“Sanders Won New Hampshire,” declared The Guardian.

“Bernie Sanders Wins One For Revolution In New Hampshire,” writes U.S. News and World Report.

“Clinton Loses New Hampshire To Bernie Sanders,” says the U.K.’s Metro.

Despite these narratives, in the most concrete sense, Hillary Clinton won the New Hampshire primary last night.

She has earned 15 delegates from New Hampshire who will vote for her at the Democratic National Convention this summer.

Bernie Sanders has only earned 13 delegates from New Hampshire.

2 delegates from New Hampshire remain uncommitted, so it’s possible that Sanders could come out even with Clinton in New Hampshire, eventually, but that’s the best he could hope for.

How did this happen? The Democratic Party presidential nominating process isn’t just based on the vote of rank and file Democrats. Political party insiders are also awarded slots to this summer’s convention as superdelegates, and most of those delegates are supporting Hillary Clinton, rather than Bernie Sanders.

So, even though Bernie Sanders came in practically even with Hillary Clinton in the Iowa popular vote, and won the popular vote in New Hampshire, he is still far behind Clinton for the nomination.

According to the Associated Press, Clinton has the support of 394 delegates so far. Bernie Sanders has the support of only 42.

11 thoughts on “Reality Check: Hillary Clinton Won The New Hampshire Primary”

  1. ella says:

    Which proves Democratic Democracy does not work. Well other than the way Democrats accuse Republicans of doing things. When the truth comes out (say it louder) Democrats will wonder how come their party has lied to them all of these years. What? The Democrat Party chooses the nominees? What about the general election? So why do we vote? Even Democrats believe in “We The People”.

    1. Korky Day says:

      I agree with you, ella.
      The Republican Party is no better, of course.
      The whole country is a pseudo-democracy.

      On a small point: ella got the party name wrong. It’s Democratic Party.
      The other version is the Republican derogatory version.
      Like saying Nigger instead of Negro.

  2. Al Hopfmann says:

    This once again shows that the Democratic Party is in many ways the least democratic of all the political parties.

  3. Frank says:

    Get used to it: Trump will be President in 2016 and the whole miserable 8 yrs of Obama will be cancelled from history. You liberals should be ashamed of yourselves..a corrupt millionaire crook and a Socialist? Really? Can you folks can go any lower? Is this the “vibrant” Democrat party? Are these two old morons your “new ideas”?

    1. Korky Day says:

      Trump is good, but Sanders is better.

    2. J Clifford says:

      Donald Trump would certainly be an example of how to go lower than Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders.

  4. Mark says:

    Why should a political party necessarily have a fully democratic method for selecting its candidate? The Republican party is no different in that not all the delegates are selected by popular vote. The parties’ political operatives have a great deal of say in who gets nominated to represent the party in the general election. And, why shouldn’t they? They are the people who are discussing in depth the platform for their party. If you want more than a peripheral say in what a political party stands for then you need to get involved much more.

    I’ll even go so far as to say that I disagree with most states that have open primaries. If you do not care enough to identify yourself with a particular party, then why should you have a vote in who that party nominates for their candidate in the general election? Conversely, if I’m a member of the Democrat party, I really don’t want Republicans voting in my primary in order to mess up my party’s vote.

    1. Mark says:

      By the way, 85% of the total number of delegates in the Democrat party are pledged by votes in the state primaries. Only 15% are unpledged. Clinton is leading by so much now because most of the unpledged delegates have already stated for whom they plan to vote. If Sanders continues to place close to Clinton in state primaries, we’ll see the difference in total delegates awarded will become a lot less.

    2. Korky Day says:

      Mark, the correct name of the party is Democratic Party. The other version is a slur. See Wikipedia.

      1. Mark says:

        You’re right. My mistake. I meant no slur.

  5. Tom says:

    What Obama Did While You Were Watching Elections

    http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/02/obama-watching-elections.html#disqus_thread

    Through the course of this marvelous election thus far I’ve been trying to get any human being to ask any candidate to provide just the most very basic outline of the sort of budget they would propose if president, or at least some hint at the single item in the budget that takes up more than half of it. Do they think military spending should go up, go down, or stay right where it is?

    Who knows! Aren’t elections wonderful?

    I’d even settle for the stupid “gotcha” question in which we find out if any of the candidates knows, even roughly, what percentage of the budget military spending is now.

    Why is this topic, although seemingly central, scrupulously avoided?

    The candidates all, more or less, agree.
    None of the candidates brings it up.
    Nobody in Congress, not even the “progressive” caucus, brings it up.
    Nobody in the corporate media brings it up.

    The corporate media outlets see war profiteers as customers who buy ads.
    The corporate media outlets see war profiteers in the mirror as parts of their corporate families.
    The fact that the military costs money conflicts with the basic premise of U.S. politics which is that one party wants to spend money on socialistic nonsense while the other party wants to stop spending money and build a bigger military.

    Those seem like the obvious answers, but here’s another. While you’re being entertained by the election, President Obama is proposing a bigger military than ever. Not only is U.S. military spending extremely high by historical standards, but looking at the biggest piece of military spending, which is the budget of the Department of so-called Defense, that department’s annual “Green Book” makes clear that it has seen higher spending under President Barack Obama than ever before in history. [more]

    [great comments too below the article]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Psst... what kind of person doesn't support pacifism?

Fight the Republican beast!