Hillary Clinton has now been declared the Democratic Presumptive nominee, after winning seven out of the last eight contests. Of course, this is with the help of the Superdelegates(Which are only present on the Democratic side)-However, Walter Mondale needed help with the Superdelegates in 1984, and Barack Obama needed help with the Superdelegates in 2008, so this is nothing new.
A Presumptive Nominee is a presidential candidate who is guaranteed to be the candidate for his/her political party, unless something catastrophic happens.
It should be noted, Bernie Sanders hasn't officially dropped out. There is still one contest remaining(Washington, District of Columbia votes on Tuesday, June 14th), and he could still win the Democratic Nomination; It's just extremely unlikely to happen, unless a miracle occurs(And unless miracles begin with the word email, his chances appear to be toast). It takes a miracle because he is mathematically eliminated, and Hillary Clinton has now won a majority of pledged delegates, a majority of contests won, and will officially have the popular vote won-By big margins too.
Hillary Clinton isn't the first female presidential nominee-Not even close. Actually, there is currently another female Presumptive Nominee of the Green Party who goes by the name of Jill Stein. With this being said, she is the first female presidential nominee of a major political party. In other words, there has never been a female nominee of a Democratic, or Republican party.
So, how did she break this gender barrier for a major party? Here is what I think.
Reason One: There were only six people who ran on the Democratic side
Sometimes, it's a numbers game. There were only six people who ran on the Democratic side opposed to the 17 who ran on the Republican side-And three of them suspended their campaign before the nomination process even began. Martin O' Malley dropped out after the first contest in Iowa, so it was virtually a two person race between Hillary Clinton, and Bernie Sanders-And Bernie Sanders wasn't even a Democrat until 2015. Hillary Clinton is the most well known, and certainly won many votes on name recognition, especially since her husband(Bill Clinton) has already been the president before.
You have to think, if there were more than two viable candidates who ran through the primary season, they could split the votes more, and the results could have been much more different.
Reason Two: She generally had a huge support among African-Americans, and Latinos.
If this was a Republican nomination, this wouldn't matter as much, since the Republican party generally lacks racial diversity. However, this is a Democratic nomination, so winning these key minority groups in big margins is crucial for success.
On March First, 2016, the first "Super Tuesday", we had now concluded the demographic patterns which persisted. These patterns continued throughout the entire nomination.
Hillary Clinton won anywhere between 68 percent(low end in Missouri) to 88 percent(high end in Mississippi) of African-American voters nationwide-Which is a larger margin than Barack Obama won Black voters in the 2008 Democratic Nomination. She also won anywhere between 58 percent(low end in Nevada) to 72 percent(high end in Texas) of Latino voters, depending on where she competed. Age, nor gender played much of a role when it came to these two ethnic groups.
This would explain why she won the southern region of the United States in such huge margins, as well as Maryland, Delaware, New York, New Jersey, as well as ethnically diverse California. The most important states with the highest delegate totals are also the most diverse, which includes California, Florida, Texas, New York, Georgia, and North Carolina. It's a no-brainer why she was able to rack up delegates.
This is why I was able to predict this nomination, and I predicted it after the New Hampshire results(Which I wrote a "MyTake" on as well). I knew if Bernie Sanders relied mainly on White voters, he wouldn't win the nomination. Just look at the map below of race in the United States, and there is almost a direct correlation between racial minorities, and Hillary Clinton victories.
Aside from race, there was also a big gender divide, since many women wanted to see their first female candidate for presidency. However, the gender divide wasn't as prevalent among Caucasians (Sources say she won White women in 55-45 margins nationwide). There were other sources which claim she won around 90 percent of Black women, and up to 75 percent of Latina women nationwide.
Reason Three: The mainstream media favored Hillary Clinton compared to Bernie Sanders.
Even if you're the most avid Hillary Clinton supporter, you have to admit this obvious fact. Whether it was CNN("Clinton News Network"), NBC("Nothin' But Clinton"), MSNBC, or even Fox News, they were all biased against Bernie Sanders. Bernie Sanders didn't get near as much media coverage as Hillary Clinton, and they enjoyed reporting the positive vibes about Hillary as well. The media has been bashing Donald Trump for months, and been dismissing Bernie Sanders as if he didn't exist.
This is ironic, because in the 2008 Democratic Nomination, the mainstream media clearly favored Barack Obama to Hillary Clinton. If the media is on your side, it makes it much easier to win.
Reason Four: Hillary Clinton has been a Democrat her entire adult life
I'm going to throw it out there right now: Bernie Sanders isn't a Democrat. He ran as a Democrat for the first time in his life solely to have a realistic chance to win the presidency. The problem is, this caused him to lose registered Democrats in huge margins. Despite what the media claims, he's not that liberal either(nor is Hillary). He was also bold for admitting he's a Socialist, and even many Democrats here in the United States reject Socialism. His platform confused many voters, and many people didn't trust him as a Democrat. It's hard to win a Democratic Nomination when you didn't become a Democrat until 2015. Even the contests which allowed independent voters to vote, he lost more of them to Hillary Clinton-Simply because Democrats outnumber independent voters on the Democratic side.
Maybe Bernie Sanders should have ran as an independent voter in the General Election instead.
Conclusion: Bernie Sanders did much better than experts last year predicted. He won 23 contests(22 states), compared to Hillary's soon-to-be 34 contests(28 states). This is why I think this "election fraud" claim is nonsense. Hillary wouldn't have taken until June to clinch it, and Bernie wouldn't have won so many states.
Most Helpful Opinions