the AP is not helping Clinton by declaring her the nominee based on undisclosed superdelegates

[geek tragedy]

It feeds into the inaccurate perception by some that she's winning the nomination by back room deals instead of at the ballot box.

I would hope Clinton's people would deny that they think they've won this, until tomorrow.

[virtualobserver]

1. if they do...textbook plausible deniability

[geek tragedy]

3. this seriously does not help Clinton, they should be pissed in Brooklyn

their victory night is tomorrow night, and the AP is jumping it.

[virtualobserver]

4. I think that an argument can be made either way

[geek tragedy]

6. to be blunt, I don't think this helps anyone but the AP, which is going

to get a lot of attention for this stunt

[thesquanderer]

38. Actually, Hillary may benefit...

...in that, if she doesn't do very well tomorrow (i.e. loses CA), she may claim that this announcement depressed voter turnout among her supporters.

[thesquanderer]

25. I agree with you, GT. This takes some of the wind out of the "8 pm Tuesday" sails,

and gives Sanders some more leeway in how to handle it. This "pre-announcement" doesn't do Hillary any favor.

[DCBob]

2. Yeah, I think I agree with that.

This just doesnt sound right.

[yallerdawg]

5. Different rules for Hillary!

Why not ?

[MineralMan]

7. Doesn't matter. Tomorrow, she'll have

Far higher numbers to support this. The elections go on.

[geek tragedy]

10. yes, but tomorrow was planned to be her night to declare victory, she was asking

superdelegates to STFU about this for a very good reason

we all knew it was pretty much locked up, but this isn't helpful, imo

[MineralMan]

15. Helpful? Who cares?

It doesn't matter one bit, really. AP got a beat on this, based one their own SD survey.

[geek tragedy]

16. the AP should be reporting news, not manufacturing it nt

[MineralMan]

26. They're reporting their survey information.

That's news they collected. Reporters go out to get stories, or we'd have no news.

[texstad79]

32. I agree! n/t

[bigdarryl]

8. If this was any other candidate but Hillary this primary race

Would have been over a month ago. The left has become Clinton's primary enemy even more than the right wing

[TimPlo]

14. "If this was any other candidate but Hillary this primary race Would have been over a month ago."

So true if it was a better honest person than Clinton who had same known name as her Sanders who was a no name Senator from VT would of not even had a chance. But he has won nearly half the delegates even though 1 out 100 people(guesstimate) in the US even knew who Sanders was back in Dec 2015.

[PepperHarlan]

36. If the field had been bigger Bernie would have been an also ran

Bernie benefited greatly by the unusually small field. Had Warren gotten in, or had 2-3 more solid candidates been in the race, Bernie would have been broke and in his usual back bench spot in the Senate by the end of February.

[Beacool]

9. Why should Hillary be treated differently than Obama was in 2008?

Obama was ahead by only 102 pledged delegates and the popular vote was also razor thin. Yet, on June 3rd he was declared the presumptive nominee.

Hillary has almost triple Obama's pledged delegate advantage and is ahead by several million votes, but she shouldn't be called the presumptive nominee after NJ closes its polls tomorrow night?

Why is that, because she's a woman or because her last name is Clinton???

Screw that!!!! Hillary will be the nominee because she earned it.

[geek tragedy]

12. the AP is reporting it based not on an election return, not on superdelegates announcing their votes

but on their reaching out to superdelegates to get them to spill the beans about whether they had committed to Clinton.

I am pro-Clinton in this, I just don't think this is helpful to her. Clinton didn't want her victory declaration to be this way.

We're on the same side.

[Beacool]

24. I know we are on the same side, but I'm sick and tired of people treating her hard won win

as a coronation. She earned the right to that nomination, it wasn't given to her on a platter.

I don't think that anything that the party says to the media is going to stop them from declaring her the presumptive nominee after polls close in NJ tomorrow night. They are already saying it today.

[texstad79]

33. Yup!

Much ado about nothing IMO! It doesn't change anything in the grand scheme of things.

[geek tragedy]

40. I hear ya, just wish that the media would stick to reporting commitments that are made public.

if the campaign doesn't go public with them, they don't belong on the scoreboard.

there's a real transparency issue there. unknown delegates are giving someone the one?

that looks shady.

Clinton won this fair and square. She won it because she got the most votes.

[thesquanderer]

20. re: "Obama was ahead by {less}...Yet, on June 3rd he was declared the presumptive nominee"

One big difference is that, on June 3rd, the primaries were over, there were no states left to vote.

[Beacool]

28. Yes, but her pledged delegate advantage is a lot larger than Obama's was in 2008.

Mind you, I'm not advocating that the media do this tomorrow night, but they already started doing so by saying that Hillary only needs 23 delegates to clinch the nomination.

[Peacetrain]

11. The AP did the same thing with the Trump announcement

Rachael was talking about this just a few days back.. how odd it was.. on a Thursday night the AP announced that Trump had arrived at enough delegates..

[KingFlorez]

13. There are people who are going to believe that regardless

This report isn't going to make much of a difference in the end. After tomorrow night, the game really is completed.

[MohRokTah]

17. The AP would have been calling the Super Delegates who have not committed for months

Some of the 40 she holds in reserve obviously told the AP they were voting for Hillary.

Thus, they were able to make the call tonight.

[geek tragedy]

21. Yes, and they're not supposed to do that. The campaign is supposed to make that

announcement.

I would imagine the Clinton people are annoyed.

[MohRokTah]

23. Probably, but the AP wants to be the first with the story.

Wadayagonnado?

[Rosa Luxemburg]

18. smoke filled rooms

[MyNameGoesHere]

19. I am surprised it took a new agency this long to state

What has been obvious since March.

[BKH70041]

22. They just want the headlines.

This is why I don't trust the media.

Don't see it as an advantage for either side. Clinton voters are just as likely to say "she's already won so why vote" as Sander's supporters are to say "he's lost so why vote." Really dumb reporting from where I stand.

Clinton will be the nominee. Just let the whole process play out and quit trying to make the news, you stupid media fucks.

[Blaukraut]

27. This doesn't bother me as much, but I wish they had waited until after tomorrow's primary

It's almost like the AP did this on purpose to create some doubt as to the voice of the voters. Although the AP did do the same thing when Trump clinched the nomination.

[Mohammed_Lee]

29. Voters are not that important when you have SUPER Delegates...n/t

[panader0]

39. I read here on DU that supers have as much clout as 10,000 "regular" voters.

[ucrdem]

30. I think most California voters who are going to vote for Hill have.

Vote by mail here is very popular, above 65% as I recall. Haven't seen stats but that's what I've been hearing a lot this week.

[YouDig]

31. I agree. She'll clinch tomorrow, with the majority of pledged delegates and the

majority of total delegates and the majority of popular votes.

[Dem2]

34. I just repaired my SO's laptop and this story was the 1st that popped up when machine started

I was kind of shocked.

[Gothmog]

35. Clinton did state that she still has some primaries to win

I agree with your analysis and I believe that the Clinton campaign would have preferred this to be announced tomorrow

[morningfog]

37. It didn't stop them from padding the delegate lead before the first vote.