C-Span just showed Bernie winning Vermont so far by 90+% but CNN won't show that graph

[Uncle Joe]

they just keep replaying Virginia and Georgia where Bernie is down.

C-Span has been trailing CNN on the polls so CNN must have access to it, what gives, CNN?

[onehandle]

1. Less than 1/2% of the country.

If it was his home state (New York), we would be hearing a lot more.

[morningfog]

4. Biggest margin of victory of the primary.

Perhaps ever in modern primary two-way races, a delegate shut out. Ouch.

[Uncle Joe]

12. It makes no difference CNN sat on it for the better part of the hour while they continuously showed

Virginia and Georgia.

CNN knew that Vermont's; (the state that knew Bernie best) overwhelming approval of Bernie would carry positive psychological ramifications for him in states further West that haven't voted yet.

Just another case of propaganda manipulation of the people by corporate media conglomerate CNN.

[Hortensis]

27. It's evil plot #67 gainst Bernie today alone,

#760 for the week, and yes, if those numbers seem particularly meaningful and sinister, it's because they are.

[Uncle Joe]

28. You have no logical counter to my argument. n/t

[Hortensis]

34. Logic? Do you want insertion of rationality too?

[LisaM]

2. They have it on their website, I just saw it there.

It was only 1% of precincts, though.

[Uncle Joe]

22. Virginia and Georgia had only counted 1% of their results when CNN started publishing their

results.

[scscholar]

3. CNN says less than 1% of the vote is in!

Why are they publishing those misleading numbers? They're going to fluctuate hugely.

[BernieforPres2016]

6. They're not "publishing" anything.

They're just scrolling through numbers for each state and clearly show what percentage of the vote is in.

[anigbrowl]

26. Nothing misleading

That's how they're reported by the Secretary of States' offices, and even a small percentage is usually a pretty good proxy for the final result because of statistics, although you have to be aware of things like cities tending to return votes later than rural precincts and so on.

[BernieforPres2016]

5. I'm now watching CSPAN's coverage

It will keep me from screaming at the TV. CNN and MSNBC are unbearable, Fox is out of the question.

[Octafish]

7. People who know Bernie best really, really like him.

If he wasn't what he seems, they wouldn't cross party lines to vote for a "Democratic Socialist."

Gee. Sounds like Vermont knows a New Deal Democrat when they see one -- a REAL Democrat.

[MelissaB]

9. ^^^^^^^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^^^^^ +1000

[ozone_man]

32. Yes, that's how we feel about him.

Lets hope we can teach the rest of the country in time.

[liberal_at_heart]

8. Yeah, what's up Clinton News Network?

[displacedtexan]

10. CNN has the total % for each candidate &state at the bottom left. 89.2% - 10.6%

[Uncle Joe]

14. They put that ongoing graph of Vermont up 30-45 minutes after continuously posting

Virginia and Georgia results.

Like I said C-Span results of the votes trailed CNN but they put it up long before.

[jeff47]

11. Keep in mind if Clinton doesn't get to 15%, she gets zero delegates.

Zero delegates from proportional voting is damn near impossible in a contested primary.

[displacedtexan]

16. She gets her superdelegates, plus she ended up getting more than Sanders in NH.

It all works out sooner or later.

[jeff47]

20. Only if the superdelegates don't change their vote.

And that has literally never happened. In ever election since we created the abomination of superdelegates, some have changed their vote.

[displacedtexan]

23. So true. Especially if Sanders starts supporting their campaigns & party positions.

I suppose it could happen.

[jeff47]

24. Or if the superdelegates want to keep their seats

For example, in 2008 John Lewis pledged his vote to Clinton. Then he changed his vote to Obama when Obama won his district.

[UglyGreed]

13. MSNBC

has not given that stat either.

[DCBob]

15. I saw it on CNN several times.. it shows up at the bottom every few minutes.

There is no conspiracy. Good grief.

[Uncle Joe]

17. They sat on it for the better part of the hour long after C-Span started showing it, while

CNN continuously showed the results from the Virginia and Georgia races, the polls closed at the same time but the latter two favored Hillary.

[DCBob]

18. I didnt see that but maybe because those races were closer.

There is no conspiracy. Good grief.

[Uncle Joe]

21. They instantly called all three states immediately after the polls closed, while VA and GA are

closer that's no excuse to not show Vermont results.

The only primary difference was that Hillary was leading by great margins in Virginia and Georgia while Bernie was swamping her in Vermont.

[Go Vols]

19. Turn on RT English

Ed is telling it straight.

[anigbrowl]

25. What gives is that Vermont has only 16 delegates

It's great that Bernie has a huge victory there, but then it's his home state so that's not a big surprise. But the effect on the delegate count is tiny, because Vermont has fewer delegates than any other state that voted/caucused today, even Alaska, which has almost twice as many.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/03/01/super_tuesday_cheat_sheet_on_delegate_allocations_129835.html

~90% of 16 delegates is probably 14 (depending on final totals and so on). In the overall scheme of things, Vermont is just not a very big deal. If I ran for mayor I might be able to score 90% of the votes on my own block and the few surrounding it, but the rest of the city will be indifferent to that.

[tymorial]

29. Sanders winning Vermont is about as news worthy as Trump making yet another offensive comment.

This would be the case even if Sanders won 100% of the vote.

[Uncle Joe]

30. It wasn't just the win it was the % of the win and Hillary isn't doing as well in Arkansas. Also it

wasn't a question of "news worthy" it was a question of consistency.

As I posted up thread, CNN instantly called all three states as the polls closed in those states.

Their little graphs continued to reflect Hillary's great margins in winning Virginia and Georgia with less than 1% of the vote actually counted, they stated that Bernie won Vermont but sat on that overwhelming graph for the better part of an hour.

At one point on C-Span Bernie was up 90+% now whether it's your home state or not, that's a pretty impressive % but CNN didn't show it although C-Span whose keeping up with the voting results actually trailed corporate media conglomerate CNN did reflect it.

CNN wanted to tout Hillary's impressive win %s but put off reflecting Bernie's for the better part of an hour and time in this case is of the essence.

[anigbrowl]

31. You're seriously overthinking this

There's only around 600k people in the whole of Vermont, and Bernie is the sitting senator whereas Hillary Clinton hasn't been based in Arkansas since 1992. I happened to be watching C-Span earlier and even commented to my wife that the 90% (as it was then) result in Vermont was nice for Bernie, but when you get down to it Vermont is very small potatoes.

[Uncle Joe]

33. Perhaps you're underthinking it, as Vermont is "very small potatoes" that would mean the people

of Vermont know their political leaders more intimately than the constituents of most larger states.

So even if virtually every politician from Vermont endorses Hillary or the news papers of that state do likewise, Vermonters would inherently know which is the best leader to support despite endorsements that might serve to sway people in larger states where the citizens aren't as connected to their political leaders.

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=leahy%20endorses%20clinton

The people of Vermont know Bernie and whether one considers them "small potatoes" or not, they have spoken clearly to the nation.

[jfern]

35. The Clinton News Network doesn't pretend to not be biased