Delegate count double standards

[NewHampshiriteGuy]

I keep seeing posts here and on social media where folks are insisting that the super-delegates don't count until the convention and therefore shouldn't be included in the counts and estimates used by news outlets...

Why was this totally okay back in 2008, but is suddenly unacceptable now? Barack Obama was declared the presumptive nominee by the media back on June 3, 2008 based solely on the super-delegate vote being included in the estimate.

You do realize that the AP and other outlets contact all the super-delegates throughout the process and ask them who they will support. This has happened in every democratic election in my memory.

Why should the standard practice this year be different? Hillary Clinton will be declared the presumptive nominee no later than this Tuesday based on the same journalistic standard that has been used for many decades.

If you legitimately think Bernie Sanders can convince the super delegates to change their minds between now and the convention, it shouldn't bother you what the media counts or doesn't count.

[onecaliberal]

1. Obama didn't purchase 400 delegates before one vote was cast.

[Doctor Jack]

2. Link?

Where is the news report about Clinton bribing 400 delegates. That is a major scandal. Why haven't I heard about that?

[apcalc]

52. Because it didn't happen...

[NewHampshiriteGuy]

3. Prove to me that they were "purchased"

What I stated in my OP was entirely factual, your response is entirely hyperbole unless you can prove it. Your disdain for Clinton does not make your talking points true...just like Fox News' disdain for Obama has never made any of their talking points about him true.

Proof, or I call B.S...

[onecaliberal]

6. I don't give two fucks what you call bs a simple search of this site or google

Will inform you. #Blocked

[KingFlorez]

10. Two words: anger management

Although, it won't change that fact that Bernie Sanders LOST! LOL

[Tarc]

11. U Mad?

The notion that the supers gave an unfair advantage to Hillary is demonstrably false.

Superdelegates are free to endorse whoever they like, long before convention time. Many endorsed Hillary early in 2008 as well, but they flipped when she lost the pledged delegate count. If Bernie has won the pledged delegates this year, they would've flipped to him too.

[JimDandy]

21. In 2008, Hillary threatened to go to the convention to woo Obama's delegates away.

She was steamed about not just the super delegate situation, but pledged delegates too.

Magically, the SOS position was offered to her.

[boston bean]

46. That is BS. You have some evidence to back up that claim?

You know, precisely where you state,

"Hillary threatened to go to the convention to woo Obama's delegates away"?

[NewHampshiriteGuy]

14. In other words...

...no proof exists

[leftynyc]

48. Go ahead and block

everyone who will be happy to remind you of FACTS - unlike your pathetic charge that Hillary bought the superdelegates.

[Txbluedog]

9. Hillary led in supers in 2008 as well

Before they eventually switched to Obama. I am sure if Sanders had won more PD they would have switched to him as well

[moriah]

27. Obama didn't steal a diamond with McCain and Palin, either...

... while we're talking about fiction about candidates like your suggestion the 400 supers like Lottie Shackelford who stated initial support were all bought.

http://southpark.cc.com/clips/209737/my-phones-going-ringy

[ContinentalOp]

40. LOL, wait a minute

I thought the talking point was that those SDs endorsed Clinton before anybody else even entered the race? Why would she need to buy their votes at a point when she was the only one in the race?

[thesquanderer]

55. re: "Why would she need to buy their votes at a point when she was the only one in the race?"

To help insure that she would have no serious competition.

I'm not arguing for whether or not she bought votes, only that there would be an answer to your question about why.

[CrowCityDem]

4. As always, a woman has to win by twice as much for it to count. At least to Bernie.

[MFM008]

5. They won't wait

This time either

[nadinbrzezinski]

7. Process

the SDs do not count until either of 2 things happen

1. Either candidate steps down, which is what happened in 2008. She suspended her campaign. Call it math, call it whatever you wanted to call it. She suspended. (Then there is the fact she did not finish paying off her debt until 2012)

2.- Jul 25, at the Convention,

These are actually Democratic Party rules, and they were the same in 2008. So if Sanders or Clinton for whatever reason suspend, then the SD can basically go, I support you, whichever you happens to be. For the record, I suspect the Ds would try everything not to have Sanders become the Nominee even if for whatever reason he was the only one standing. That is another discussion.

You want to go argue with DWS?

<iframe width="630" height="354" src="

" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[NewHampshiriteGuy]

12. Do you understand what "presumptive" means

I'm talking about the butt hurt that I've been seeing about the media declaring a presumptive nominee based on supers...not about the formal voting process at the convention.

Yes, it's true that super-delegates don't vote until the convention, nor do the pledged delegates. It's also true that the electoral college doesn't vote on election night, but no one gets pissed when a candidate declares victory on that night in November either.

Presumptive...as in, based on what is known at this time, this person is presumed to be the nominee.

[nadinbrzezinski]

13. Yes and the AP does not do that

I know they do, journalistic lack of ethics, but nope, it is not the AP that does that. It is the party. This is why the fucking party told the fucking media to stop counting them. It is amazing that I run a very small independent media outlet. I am listening to your party. Nor are we endorsing anybody.

[NewHampshiriteGuy]

15. So, then the AP is lying on their web page?

So this page on the AP website where they clearly say super delegates "told us" who they intend to vote for...AP is referring to someone other than the AP when they say "us"?

[nadinbrzezinski]

18. The AP is vioplating journamistic ehtics

they were told specifically by the party to stop doing that,

They are, what in the business is known as making news. If the party, as it's own rules said, go ahead, add them, we would as well. But in this case the certifying authority is the party and they gave clear instructions. Oh this is one that chaps my hide. And CNN knows this. They did not add the SDs a few months ago when I was visiting my mom in Mexico City,

It was bizarre to watch, CNN-I, they went to Sanders, and the reporter did a just the facts hard news, did not include SDs, 10 minutes later they went to Atlanta and Wolf threw it to him, same reporter, same location, SDs were mentioned and the report was more opinion than fact. Yeah I was able to tell him just how much I loved his work on CNN-I, back in March at the San Diego Convention Center, But how much did not like his work on CNN. This is a known problem. Just not among the general public.

The US media, this is just an example, is no longer doing news. There are many a times that it is rank propaganda. And Americans are not the wiser since most americans are not aware of this.

That report back in March... I wish I recorded both pieces, and gave them to my local school of journalism. It was that crass

[NewHampshiriteGuy]

26. Hardly...

It's a violation of journalistic ethics for the AP to pursue information against the request of a political organization????!

You can't honestly believe that.

My bachelors degree was in journalism...it's not an ethics violation of any kind.

Sorry that the facts don't fit your narrative in this case...but your assertion that polling the super delegates is somehow an ethics violation is astounding to me.

[nadinbrzezinski]

30. It is against ethics to create an impression of any thing and create news yes

and it is also against ethics to engage in propaganda. SDs started SORT OFF, to become an issue in 2008. They were not an issue in 2004, or 2000. For that matter they were not an issue in 1992, or 96, or the 1988 election.

They were something that people mentioned but did not add. The report that CNN reporter gave on CNN-I was old school Now I really do expect you to get this, But until either of them steps down, or the final vote in Jul 25 is done, I will not count them. This is a hard core, editorial decision based on ethics, I do not create news, I do not tell you how to vote, I really do not care how you vote. I just give you the info and SDs are not relevant to the primary process until July 25.

By the way, media is manipulating you about everything not just the electoral process, and after the Gulf War II, I was hoping Americans would become more critical of their media... I know I was dreaming. People are still too comfortable though many of us have indeed reached the mcpravda point, They say anything, I check it.

[ContinentalOp]

41. There's nothing I hate more than a vioplation of journamistic ehtics

[lmbradford]

54. Its a poll.

If its ok to count Supers based on a poll, then it must be ok to count CA for Bernie since he is winning a poll. No? Because we need to let them vote first. Duh???

[onenote]

17. The media and Obama both declared him the presumptive nominee before she suspended her campaign

or even said she was going to suspend.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/04/obama.nominee/index.html?iref=nextin

So let's stop pretending there isn't a new standard being tossed around here. Cause there is.

[nadinbrzezinski]

20. Because she likely informed folks

and they knew due to negotiations behind closed doors, the kind I guarantee are ongoing right now.

Did DWS tell the media to quit it? Yes or no, it is a simple answer. Did she?

[onenote]

23. Did you read the story?

Just because it doesn't fit your narrative you can't make shit up.

And yes, DWS told the media to quit it. And as a journalist, I would hope you would exercise your own editorial judgment about what to report and how to report it rather than jump to someone else's tune.

Clinton will be the presumptive nominee as soon as she has a combination of pledged delegates and commitments from supers that top 2383. How strong that presumption is may change -- if she continues to add supers and win more pledged delegates, the presumption grows stronger. If Sanders begins flipping supers the presumption will get weaker. If by some chance Clinton fails to get a majority of the pledged delegates the presumption may shift entirely.

But at the moment in time that she does what other candidates have done -- capture pledged delegates and commitments from supers that top the 2383 threshold, she is indeed rightfully considered the presumptive nominee -- the person presumed based on the facts at that time to be the one who will be formally nominated at the convention.

[nadinbrzezinski]

24. yes I did and Jack Tapper was told on CNN the same

by another party of the DNC

And trust me, this is to the point that I really despise the media.

[onenote]

25. I don't care if God on High told CNN what to do.

Journalists (and I too was one, albeit only for a short time in my life) exercise independent judgment -- or at least they should. And if in their journalistic judgment, a candidate having pledged delegates plus commitments from supers above the threshold to win the nomination at the convention makes it more likely than not that the candidate will indeed win the nomination at the convention, then it is well within journalistic ethics for them to so describe the candidate.

[nadinbrzezinski]

28. So you did certify elections?

okie dokie, you ever read the SPJ code of ethics? You do not make news. Which is what they are doing in this case.

[onenote]

34. In your opinion.

I don't think they're making the news. They're reporting the facts. And it is a fact that the candidate who first gets to the threshold number through a combination of pledged delegates and commitments from supers, especially where the journalists have been doing their jobs and checking with the supers to see if their commitments are in any way "soft" -- is likely to be confirmed at the nominee.

[nadinbrzezinski]

39. And the view of other critics of the media

And when she gets confirmed on July 25, or Sanders steps down (after the negotiations that I guarantee have started) I will refer to her as presumptive and then nominee. But presumptive only applies when one of the two steps down, or highly unlikely, either crossed the pledge delegate county, sans suppers though.

You are free to do whatever you want to do by the way

[geek tragedy]

8. Because they're not counting the birds' vote. nt

[JimDandy]

16. Hillary objected in 2008. And she was threatening to go to the convention to woo his delegates away

[NewHampshiriteGuy]

19. And four days later...

On June 7, 2008 she conceded to Obama.

[JimDandy]

22. Magically, Obama offered her the SOS position.

[onenote]

33. and why was it magic? because you don't like her?

Was it "magic" that FDR picked primary rival John Nance Garner to be his running mate in 1932?
Was it "magic" that Eisenhower picked primary rival Earl Warren to be Chief Justice?

[JimDandy]

35. Magic is... magic, because of course it is against Federal law to offer a quid pro quo

to the losing candidate in exchange for bowing out, say?

[onenote]

36. and the evidence of such a quid pro quo is where?

[JimDandy]

37. Magic!!!!! You've got to believe...

Where's Tinkerbell when you need her?


And on that note, I shall disappear....

[geek tragedy]

44. so you're accusing President Obama of committing a federal crime based

on nothing more than your personal hatred of Hillary Clinton.

Despite the fact he didn't make the offer until the fall.

10 more days until it's Democrats and our allies here. Happy trails.

[grasswire]

29. But Hillary said PLEDGED DELEGATES can switch!!

.
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- For the second time in three days, Sen. Hillary Clinton told reporters that the pledged delegates awarded based on vote totals in their state are not bound to abide by election results.

Sen. Hillary Clinton lags behind Sen. Barack Obama in the popular vote and in pledged delegates.

It's an idea that has been floated by her or a campaign surrogate nearly half a dozen times this month.

Sen. Barack Obama leads Clinton among all Democratic delegates, 1,622 to 1,485, in the latest CNN count. Among pledged delegates, Obama leads Clinton 1,413 to 1,242.

"Every delegate with very few exceptions is free to make up his or her mind however they choose," Clinton told Time's Mark Halperin in an interview published Wednesday.
"We talk a lot about so-called pledged delegates, but every delegate is expected to exercise independent judgment," she said.

Clinton's remarks echoed her Monday comments to the editorial board of the Philadelphia Daily News.

"And also remember that pledged delegates in most states are not pledged," she said Monday. "You know there is no requirement that anybody vote for anybody. They're just like superdelegates."

Clinton also made similar comments in a Newsweek interview published two weeks ago

[NewHampshiriteGuy]

31. So, because of this...

So, because of this history, the media is not allowed to count super delegates to determine who is the presumptive nominee?

Again...the word is presumptive...

A presumption can later change if the evidence supports it...but in that moment the presumption is still totally valid based on the facts.

[LexVegas]

32. The nominee is a woman. Thats why. nt

[grossproffit]

45. This!

[NewHampshiriteGuy]

38. Aaaannd....

...absolutely no one who has replied so far has been able to disprove my argument that this anti-counting of the super-delegate mouth breathing is anything but a complete double standard.

Years of historical journalistic precedent suddenly flushed down the toilet...because?

[apcalc]

56. Because Sanders himself keeps it going....

We will find out alot about his character and personality in the coming days....

[senz]

42. Neither canidate will have 2383 pledged delegates before the convention.

The superdelegates don't VOTE until the convention.

We'll have a nominee before the convention is over.

[NewHampshiriteGuy]

43. Talking points...

Are you a paid shill for the Bernie campaign?

This is exactly the double standard I'm talking about. So Obama had the requisite delegates (pledged and super) before the convention in 2008 to be called the presumptive nominee, but Hillary Clinton does not?

Of course we will have a nominee after the convention, and like every nominating process in recent memory we'll have a PRESUMPTIVE nominee beforehand.

[senz]

50. It is not a talking point. It is a fact. Do you trust wikipedia?

A candidate must win 2,383 delegates at the national convention, in order to win the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016

Neither candidate has 2,383 pledged delegates. Primary voting is not finished. We have seven remaining primaries: CA, MT, NJ, NM, ND SD, DC

It is highly unlikely (nearly impossible) for either candidate to reach 2383 pledged delegates from the remaining primaries.

The superdelegates do not vote until July 25. We will not have a nominee until they vote. "Presumptive nominee" is a dishonest term designed to create psychological inevitability for the establishment favorite.

I seriously doubt that the Bernie campaign has paid shills. I am a retired woman who happens to be politically aware and morally concerned about the well being of my country, particularly the young, the elderly, and the poor and struggling middle classes. Other than donating money, I am not connected with the Bernie campaign.

[Lucinda]

47. Miranda was on FOX over the weekend and clarified his comments.

BYE BYE BERNIE? CLINTON SET TO WIN NOMINATION AS SUPERDELEGATES TO BE COUNTED ON TUESDAY


"A Democratic Party official has changed his tune on whether superdelegate support should be counted on election night much to the chagrin of Bernie Sanders, who doesn’t want Tuesday night to turn into an ‘anointment’ of Hillary Clinton .

In April, DNC Communication Director Luis Miranda said, ‘the superdelegates should not be included in any count on a primary or caucus night ,’ a quote Sanders repeated yesterday to stall Clinton from claiming the nomination.

But today Miranda appeared on Fox News and said, ‘the point I was making at that time is you have to count them separately,’ he stated, ‘that could wrongly have the effect that the delegate totals aren’t matching the percentage of the vote totals in the state.’

Counting how superdelegates plan to vote at the convention, however, looked to be fine which means Clinton could be called the Democrats’ presumptive nominee after Tuesday’s set of primaries..."

More at Link:
http://mnfaindia.com/bye-bye-bernie-clinton-set-to-win-nomination-as-superdelegates-to-be-counted-on-tuesday/

The supers count as they always have. He just didn't want the networks lumping the supers in with states delegates when reporting primary/caucus results because it confused people.

[senz]

53. Superdelegates do not vote until July 25.

To claim them before then is dishonest. However, dishonesty from the Clinton campaign does not surprise me.

[pdsimdars]

49. SDs don't count until the convention

"I keep seeing posts here and on social media where folks are insisting that the super-delegates don't count until the convention and therefore shouldn't be included in the counts and estimates used by news outlets... "

Because this is what the DNC keeps saying. The guy was on CNN and told them right to their faces that is was misleading to include the SDs in the count. If you disagree with him, maybe you should contact the DNC.

Also, here is how they say it works.

If a Democratic primary candidate can win 59 percent of the Party’s “pledged” (primary- and caucus-won) delegates or more, the primary is decided by pledged delegates; if a Democratic primary candidate fails to meet that threshold, they are considered by DNC electoral processes to be a weak front-runner and the nomination is finally decided, instead, by “superdelegates” — who can express support for a candidate at any time, but cannot commit themselves to anyone (i.e., cast a binding vote for any candidate) until the Democratic National Convention in July; superdelegates are unlike pledged delegates in this regard because, while pledged delegates also do not vote until the Party’s convention, they cannot change their votes from what their state’s voting results pledged them to be — though it has been argued by some that in fact they can change their votes at the Convention, with this argument most recently having been advanced by Hillary Rodham Clinton in 2008.

[tonyt53]

51. This isn't somewhere over the rainbow. It doesn't work to keep saying it over and over.

[senz]

58. It's a hard, cold FACT of the Democratic Primary.

You can't change the rules, tony. The Democratic primary is conducted through a process of primary elections in which pledged delegates are assigned to the candidates based on votes. If a candidate reaches 2383 pledged delegates before the convention, that delegate will have won.

If neither candidate has reached 2383 pledged delegates before the convention, then the superdelegates vote at the convention, and the first candidate to reach 2383 at the convention will have won.

That is how the Democratic primary works.

[lmbradford]

57. Basing votes on a poll is dumb.

Just wait for the voting to finish. Even the Supers votes. Geez, how hard is it?