Has the media regularly included super-delegates in the count in past elections?

[Matariki]

During the primaries?

I don't remember them ever doing so. Anyone remember if that's how it's always been done, and if so can you point to links that prove it?

Thanks.

[TM99]

1. No.

It didn't happen in 2000, 2004, 2008, but it sure is happening today. I wonder why?!

[Matariki]

2. I'm trying to research this, with little luck

What you're saying is what I remember too. But would love some cold hard facts.

[NYtoBush-Drop Dead]

14. IT sure did happen in '08!

Because Barak was getting them all and there was no path to the nomination for Hillary.

[TM99]

15. No.

There were discussion, a few about, how Clinton had numerous SD's to start. And then at a certain point after Obama surpassed her in pledged delegates, the SD's switch leaving no path for Clinton.

But this relentless propaganda that includes breathless the SD's from the beginning Clinton's delegates has never been done before.

[restorefreedom]

3. i never remember it from the past

what a stunner, only this year!

[Dr Hobbitstein]

4. During the Obama/Hillary election, yes.

But that's the first one I remember actually paying attention to.

It was the talk of the town, as if it was brand new and was never done before.

[Matariki]

5. Thank you.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

6. I think that's when they started using the term "Super-Delegates"

That's a media-invented term, and I'm pretty sure it first came about in 07-08. The proper term has always been "unpledged delegates", which were probably used in totals in the past as well, with less fanfare.

[Matariki]

8. I'm finding archives of final counts from previous elections

Looking at CNN for instance, they have the pledged & unpledged separated.

What I'm not finding is archived news articles from before the election. Although I *just* remembered the 'internet way back machine'. Maybe I'll have luck with that.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

9. Good luck.

I'd like to know what you come up with. As a Clinton supporter, I get frustrated when I can't see the actual pledged count (like on Google's main election page). That's the important number, IMHO.

[pat_k]

7. Just my impression, but...

Last edited Tue Mar 8, 2016, 12:02 AM - Edit history (1)

...they usually seem to stick it in somewhere, with no explanation. It would be nice if they just didn't include it, with the same caveat the fivethirtyeight uses for excluding.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/delegate-targets/

Sigh.

All we can do is voice our objection to sources that report delegate counts that way -- if contact info can be found -- particularly with the worst offenders, who don't distinguish at all.

[BlueMTexpat]

11. Sorry, didn't see your

post and posted the same link below.

[BlueMTexpat]

10. According to this, it was done in 2008.

http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/superdelegates/

And yes, I remember discussion of SuperDs in 2008. But the race between Clinton and Obama was closer in pledged delegates in 2008 at this point of the campaign, in part because other candidates, e.g., Edwards, had also qualified for them. SuperDs can choose for themselves and more have committed so far to Hillary than to Bernie. So far, there is no reason for them to change because Hillary leads both in pledged delegates and in the popular vote.

In 2016, Hillary is already ahead by 180+ pledged delegates (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/democratic_delegate_count.html) and by >1.5 million in popular votes (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/democratic_vote_count.html).

Given that she has significant leads in the polls in most upcoming delegate-heavy states through March 15, she will more likely than not have enough of a lead in pledged delegates for the primaries effectively to be over by then.

An excellent tool that has already been posted in DU is the FiveThirtyEight Tracking. It has an excellent graphic that shows what is happening, when it happens, and what to watch for. http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/delegate-targets/democrats/

The tracker takes only pledged delegates into account and shows how the candidates have performed so far with respect to target goals they must meet in order to win the nomination. Hillary has overperformed (114%), meaning that she has exceeded target goals, while Bernie has underperformed (86%).

If you scroll down to the graphic in the Tracker link, you will see the chart with all dates and the states or territories where primaries or caucuses have been or will be held before the process has run its course. When a candidate has met or exceeded the target goals, that is highlighted in blue. When the target goals have not been met, the highlighting is in pink. In one case so far (VT), where Hillary received no delegates whatsoever because she didn't meet the 15% threshold, the highlighting is in beige.

Bernie would have to meet - even to exceed - every single target goal in all remaining states/territories to remain a viable candidate.

That is the math and the odds are not in his favor.

[pat_k]

12. fivethirtyeight.com is a good site, so duplicating that one is probably a good thing. (nt)

[onenote]

13. I don't know if they did so "regularly", but it took less than a minute to find this example

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/04/march.4.dems/

[ebayfool]

16. NY Times has stopped including super delegates in their count.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/primary-calendar-and-results.html?_r=0

'Bout damn time too!

[liberal_at_heart]

17. good. You're right. It is about damn time.

[Matariki]

18. Glad for that!