Even if you support Clinton, you should also be appalled by the media Bigfooting the voters

[Armstead]

Democracy is a process. The processes are annoying and frustrating. But they are there to provide a backstop to keep everyone accountable.

News is news. If Clinton is ahead, she is ahead.

But the media just set a precedent to take a step like declare the "presumptive nominee" on the night before Big Primaries and before other smaller primaries. It has short circuited the process. Comcast, the AP and otehr Big Media are not supposed to be the arbiters of that.

Let's suppose the show is placed on the otehr foot.

Let's say in late October, on the eve of the election. Trump is significantly ahead of Clinton. The media decides to "Call it" for him while the campaign is still underway. They put his picture up with a little checkmark -- simply because the indications and polls indicate that he is the "likely winner."

"We have to report this because it is the news," they say.

And thus they imply it is all over before the votes have been cast. Thus helping to create a self-fulfilling prophecy, depressing Democrats, and making it likely that many will just stay home rather than waste time on a lost cause.

Would you be happy? I don't think so. Would you complain and challenge it as undemocratic? Probably.

This is no different. Sanders is behind, and Clinton has been the likely winner. But the process ensures that everyone has a chance to weigh in. That's why we have a democracy. Or used to.

[Trust Buster]

1. This is well within historical precedence and norms. We have waited a long time to celebrate.

[AuntPatsy]

12. That does not answer the Ops question....

thats telling people to except the status quo, and that it's because people are tired of waiting for the process to be completed?

[reformist2]

31. No. Not on the night before one of the biggest round of primaries of the season. Unprofessional.

And very, very partisan.

[tblue37]

41. THIS! nt

[leftinportland]

32. Could you provide an historical example...

and seriously you can't wait until the polls close tomorrow...

[TwilightZone]

53. 2008

Obama was declared the presumptive nominee. Sanders endorsed him before Clinton had even dropped out.

[leftinportland]

63. All primaries were over at that time...

California's primary represents the largest number of delegates from a single state, to jump ahead of millions of voters and announce a winner on the eve of the primary is wrong. Superdelegates don't vote until the convention...sorry you have to wait, such an inconvenience.

[puffy socks]

2. Hypocrites

None of you had any problem in 2008 calling the race.....including Sanders.

In '08, Sanders Endorsed Obama - Before Clinton Formally Exited Race


As Bernie Sanders and his supporters argue that Hillary Clinton can't clinch the Democratic nomination on Tuesday - because superdelegates don't count until the convention - it is worth noting that Sanders endorsed Barack Obama two days after Obama crossed the magic number (pledged + superdelegate), saying he had become Democratic nominee.
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/08-sanders-endorsed-obama-clinton-formally-exited-race-n586556

[Armstead]

4. Someone endorsing is not the same as the media calling an election on the noght before a vote

If you fail to understand the difference, that's not my problem.

[Trust Buster]

20. You're kidding, right ?

[puffy socks]

21. Oh please.

Sanders called it for Obama when he reached the total with super delegates..and now has a double standard from his own lips.

trying to pretend he is not a total HYPOCRITE! by mincing words is dishonest and you know it.



Keep posting though the whining and reaching is pure entertainment.

btw


HILLARY WON!!!!
BERNIE LOST!!!!

[azurnoir]

51. sanders was a Senator and a number of Senators have endorsed Clinton

it is quite different from the media announcing the race is over Hillary is the nominee

[puffy socks]

59. Those senators werent running for president and whining about

having SDs included in the count.
Bernard has been whining about SDs since NH.

He's a hypocrite no matter how the Berners try and justify it.

[azurnoir]

61. Bernie wasn't running for POTUS at the time he endorsed Obama either

so no big deal

[TwilightZone]

46. Well, the media can count.

The AP counted to 2383 and declared Clinton the presumptive nominee. They don't wait until any upcoming primaries are held. They never have.

Just like they don't wait until all states have voted on election night to declare a winner. They wait until one candidate has enough electoral votes and call it then. That often generates similar consternation by people who can't count, like Karl Rove in 2012.

You act like this is your first rodeo, but I'm pretty sure it isn't. Intentional obtuseness is not a terribly compelling argument.

[leftinportland]

35. Two days after all primaries were over...that is when Sanders endorsed Obama...

2008 Obama was ahead by 100 pledged delegates and all primaries were over. This is the eve of the largest single primary of the campaign.

[puffy socks]

56. He endorsed when Obama had the nomination wrapped up.

Hillary has the nomination wrapped up regardless of any remaining primaries.
Its over... Bernard is a hypocrite and he lost.

[democrattotheend]

60. Sanders endorsed Obama after everyone had voted

Last I checked 6 states plus DC have yet to vote.

[Demsrule86]

67. It was much closer in 08

The primary was not over...Obama did not have the numbers until the end. And then the supers moved just like today.

[bettyellen]

3. They all will "project" winners before the election, yet will cover the returns coming in as always

and yeah, some states might get called to early, but again.... NONE OF THIS IS NEW. THYE CALLED THE GOP PRIMARY ALREADY TOO. IT'S MATH- GET OVER IT.

[mac56]

10. "The Republicans do it too!!!!!!11!!1!"

Not exactly a strong defense.

[bettyellen]

29. The press has been doing this to DEM AND GOP RACES FOR YEARS!!! FOR YEARS!

Are you new?

[mac56]

44. FOR YEARS?? FOR YEARS??

So that means IT'S GOOD?? IT'S GOOD??

[bettyellen]

54. It is what it is. The press withholding information would be unethical.

[Armstead]

11. Sorry if you do not appreciate the difference

It's not the media's job to declare winners the night BEFORE a big vote.

And, if they're honest, many Republicans really regret Trump being designated the presumed nominee, considering his crazier than usual behavior over the past week.

[Lord Magus]

22. They regret the outcome, not the fact that the outcome was reported.

Meaning those Republicans have something in common with you.

[bettyellen]

23. this is the night AFTER a weekend of two votes that put her over- DO PR and VI not matter?

I saw reports it was likely to happen all last week because of PR and VI.

[Armstead]

37. Jesus Christ -- It could have at least waited 24 hours. Let people vote without that skew.

I'm done arguing with you about this. I've stated my thoughts to you elsewhere.

[TwilightZone]

50. Sitting on the results would be irresponsible.

If she has the numbers, they should be reported. If she'd had them last week, they should have been reported then.

You're seriously arguing that the AP should have just sat on the results and not reported them? That's significantly more irresponsible than just reporting the facts when they became available.

[bettyellen]

52. Your advocating for the press to withhold information they know due to the timing of an election?

Seriously?

[Armstead]

55. Yes

For the same reason they don't call elections on election night until the polls close, even if they already know the data.

[bettyellen]

65. I don't see how that would be a good precedent. I'm all for making it easier to vote but no one

is waiting for Hawaii. If it is so important to the states they can vote days earlier and report earlier on election day.

[anigbrowl]

83. Why does the rest of the world have to wait 24 hours to accommodate your feelings?

Me, I like having the most up-to-the-minute information. We'll still be going to vote in CA tomorrow morning.

[mia]

5. But this is not a Democracy.

It's the will of the financiers. Whatever suits them. Hillary is their champion.

[MADem]

39. This is a political party, choosing their nominee by rules they have established.

The 'democracy' bit comes when our choice goes up against the GOP choice.

[mia]

74. "The 'democracy' bit" tomorrow's voices and is trying to sway their votes.

Saying otherwise is just denying the power of the media.

[MADem]

82. Political parties are not, by their nature, democratic in their own

dealings. They have viewpoints, and all viewpoints aren't equal. Donald Trump doesn't get a voice in the Democratic Party--neither does Jill Stein. If you're not in the club, or allowed in by their grace and favor, you don't have a voice.

The libertarians didn't hold fifty state primaries to pick Johnson and Weld.

The "democracy" (small d) begins when each party selects their standard bearer and they go up against each other. But political parties can come to that decision as to who their standard bearer will be by methodologies of their own choosing.

[OctOct1]

6. My Mom is huge Hillary supporter and does not like this at all

She says something smells. She wants a fair elections. Not something that smells of foul play

[LonePirate]

7. All Democrats should not be happy with the media tonight.

I'm sure we all prefer when the news media reports the news and not when the news media makes the news like they did today. Sitting on that information for 24 hours wouldn't have impacted the race whatsoever and the AP could still have reported the information shortly before the New Jersey polls close on Tuesday.

[Lord Magus]

19. Burying the news because it might impact an election is not good journalism.

It's the opposite of good journalism.

[LonePirate]

27. I agree with your point. I just don't think it would have any impact on the elections.

[Armstead]

40. You do not know the effect it will have.

As I stated in the OP, this is not just about what candidate benefits or is hurt.

Journalism used to take the effect of their actions into account. It's called ethical behavior. Not anymore.

[LonePirate]

47. I have no idea what effect it will have. I simply think the AP could have waited 24 hours.

This mostly seemed like a rush to scoop others to what everyone knew was a foregone conclusion on Tuesday. I'd call it unethical but it wasn't my decision to make.

[Armstead]

49. I'll make that decision for you. It's unethical.

It is a case of wanting scoops.

I don't know if the Clinton Campaign or Democtratic Establishmenthad a hand in it.

But at the very l east, they should have waited until all voters had a chance to vote before making such a pronouncement.

[Surya Gayatri]

87. "This mostly seemed like a rush to scoop () a foregone conclusion..." -- nothing more, nothing less.

Yes, AP could have sat on the updated delegate count for 24 hours, but news hounds will be news hounds.

It's what they DO.

[tblue37]

43. They are like little kids--all they care about is being the first to tell. nt

[onenote]

8. You got one thing right at least. News is news. And what AP investigated and reported is news.

Just not news you wanted to hear tonight.

Or tomorrow. Or the night after.

But you were going to hear it sooner or later.

[tblue37]

48. Not only could this suppress Hillary's vote, as well,

thus making her seem less popular than she is, but it could hurt her in other ways, too, so Hillary supporters should not be doing the end zone dance about this call. Calling the race before the last states get to vote--especially California, the big one--(1) could motivate annoyed Bernie supporters to get out and vote against her, just to send a message and (2)alienate people who are on the fence.

They have been hearing about supposed primary shenanigans from Bernie's supporters, and if they think Hillary's campaign is responsible for trying to preempt the voters in California and other late primaries, that could turn squishy voters against her, not just in the primary, but also in the GE.

I am a Bernie supporter, but I know Hillary is virtually certain to be our nominee, and I do not like the potential this has to turn some voters against our nominee in the GE.

I am glad she had the wisdom to push back against the premature call.

[msongs]

9. tomorrows primaries are still going on and Sanders says he still has the delegates to win so

today's media pronouncements have no effect on any outcomes

[passiveporcupine]

13. Very well said

Thank you!

[Lord Magus]

14. This is not any new precedent.

The media has always called a presumptive nominee whenever somebody gets to a majority of delegates.

[BainsBane]

15. Were you appalled when Kerry was declared the nominee months before California?

Somehow I expect this outrage is a one time thing.

AP surveyed the superdelegates and got the delegate count from PR. That gave Clinton 2383, which is the number for nomination.
The notion that they should pretend she hasn't reached the threshold because it upsets some of you is absurd.

That said, I don't think the Clinton campaign was particularly happy about the call. They sent around this message:

Dear Women Leaders and Friends,

We wanted to share Robby Mook's statement on the AP's announcement tonight:

"This is an important milestone, but there are six states that are voting Tuesday, with millions of people heading to the polls, and Hillary Clinton is working to earn every vote. We look forward to Tuesday night, when Hillary Clinton will clinch not only a win in the popular vote, but also the majority of pledged delegates."
-- Campaign Manager Robby Mook
Please continue to help us make calls tonight and tomorrow as people head to the polls in California, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, and South Dakota.

Thank you!

I made calls to CA tonight and plan to do more tomorrow. People are still voting, as they well should.

[KingFlorez]

16. A media call does not trump votes

The media has been calling primaries for years once a candidate crosses the threshold. This is not anything new or nefarious.

[Armstead]

30. Self fulfilling prophecies

There has always been IMO too much of the horse race coverage that shapes attitudes, instead of letting peopel make up their own minds based on their own impressions of the candidates.

I have felt that way for decades.

[rhett o rick]

34. Sure, and the media has no influence. Corporation give them millions for nothing.

[DURHAM D]

17. I am livid.

This is an attempt by the media to keep the Democrats divided and help Republicans.

[rhett o rick]

42. So you admit that the Democrats are divided. Yes we have the Progressives that support

helping the 99% and the Non-Progressives (Corporatatists) that only want to see corporations make more profits. The media isn't causing this nor "keeping" this. We progressives will fight the corporatists and their idols the Big Corporations until we drive them out of our Party. There are two sides in this war and you seem to side with the Big Money. Shame

[Waiting For Everyman]

18. There's nothing ethical about the media influencing an election.

And that's exactly what they did. They did it tonight blatantly and they have been doing it all season less obviously. They are pure propaganda now. They don't deserve the title of news anymore.

[geek tragedy]

24. I'm pissed too. nt

[Cheese Sandwich]

25. why are you guys all blaming the media?

The media are all competing for a scoop. If the AP didn't announce it, some other news agency would have. It's built into the logic of their industry.

The timing of this story was controlled by 20+ superdelegates all coordinating together to make their choices known to the press on the night before the California primary.

[Lizzie Poppet]

57. hit.nail.head

I give up. I'm done. Fuck this failed state, this de facto oligarchy. Local issues and Cascadian secession...everything else can pound sand.

[Cheese Sandwich]

73. That sounds pretty reasonable to me

[MADem]

26. Team Sanders should be ecstatic--the announcement might serve to depress the Clinton vote in CA.

So I'm not sure what you mean by "bigfooting."

If anything, what they did was crunch the numbers and see that there was no way Bernie could win. No Freakin' Way. None. It's IMPOSSIBLE.


And it's been thus since NY.

The "Sanders story" has gone stale, too. All he's doing now is griping about math he can't overcome.

It's boring.

[lunamagica]

28. If this was Sanders, the whole board would be "berning" with joy, and celebrating

Reportedly, neither campaign is happy with this. Hillary was ready for the announcement and celebration tomorrow.

The guy from NBC basically said they do their job, regardless what the campaigns feel.

As for your scenario, I'd hope support wasn't so weak that an announcement like that would make people stay home

[Armstead]

33. Wait'll it happens to a candidate you support

We all have our emotional preferences in tension with our belief in what's actually right in an objective sense.

In 2008, I was strongly for Obama and wanted Clinton to leave. I was angry at for fopr not conceding.

But I don't think the side of me that is somewhat objective would have liked them calling the election on the night before a major vote.

[lunamagica]

80. This is just the media making a call. Everyone is free to vote, jus as they were before

[anigbrowl]

84. LOL, do you think this is our first rodeo?

I've been following primary elections since 1984 and been disappointed often. That's why I'm not impressed by your histrionics now - I went through that sort of thinking a few decades ago.

[TDale313]

36. Calling a race over does suppress turnout.

It's a well established fact that Californians are very familiar with. I would have voted tomorrow regardless (I voted early) but yes, saying "It's over folks" will hurt turnout- possibly for both candidates. This was not good.

[lunamagica]

79. If that's true then support is really weak. Neither of the campaigns wanted this to happen

I actually think this may hurt Hillary more. People may think she has it in the bag, and not vote.

[rhett o rick]

45. No, we are not like you. We want to help those struggling among us and not the Big Corporations.

So don't project your behavior on us.

[lunamagica]

78. ome on, every time there was even a tiny good new about Sanders, you gloated and gloated

That holier-than-though attitude is really off putting

[tblue37]

38. +1. nt

[asuhornets]

58. I'm pissed off..they should have waited until Tuesday night...nt

[LuvLoogie]

64. In all my posts reviewing the state of the primary, I never included

the super delegates in the totals. I felt the proper target was a majority of the pledged delegates, which is 2026. That is the primary finish line, and it is directly affected by the voter/candidate dynamic. Super delegates are affected by a party/candidate dynamic where the primary vote is also weighed.

But in a two-way race, the role of the Super delegates are more an affirmation of the primary. Why I don't like APs announcement as a Hillary supporter is that she won this nomination by campaigning across this country for those primary votes. The supers didn't hand her this nomination; the voters did.

I truly think that tomorrow's tally would have put the exclamation point to Hillary's real popularity. The AP announcement negates the months, the miles, the meetings, the years, the relationships Hillary has worked and developed to get here.

AP seems to have interjected itself. Kanye West comes to mind. LOL!

OK Hillary. I'ma let you finish, but the supers gave you this.

[Demsrule86]

66. She had the delegates so why wait?

It is reality.

[Raine1967]

68. I say this from a truth i felt in 2008.

the math wasn't there for HRC.


It's not there for Sanders now.

Talking about the GE in October WRT (any) the nominee is nonsensical.


This was/is a process, but the math is simply not there.

Let's say we wait until the 15th and the results are the same?

Some things are inevitable. Believe me, I was/am an O'Malley supporter.

I am good with this. I want to get on with the General election.

[Armstead]

70. Clinton was given the chance to concede after the last vote

[Raine1967]

72. She also suspended her campaign. This is a really important point for me.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/07/AR2008060701029.html

She asked people to vote, she also knew the race was over.

[stillwaiting]

86. In 2008 Obama was not facing an FBI investigation (or 2) or possible indictment.

Things are different.

He shouldn't concede.

The party is split, and it is an unavoidable result relating DIRECTLY to how the Party has behaved over the past years leading up to this primary.

The split is not going to be papered over. Especially with HRC leading us. She has made multiple overtures towards Sanders supporters indicating she is not going to try to get their support, but she expects Bernie to deliver his supporters votes to her anyways. How presumptuous. How ridiculous.

[Voice for Peace]

69. I believe we can confidently expect a disaster

of one sort or another.

[Buzz cook]

71. I have been saying the media

Is the biggest problem we have from 1990 at least

The media has set it self up as king maker and we poor mortals just have to follow its lead.

[BootinUp]

75. Bullcrap. Blame the SD's for not falling for Bernie's story if you want.

[Agnosticsherbet]

76. The Media have done this in every Democratic Primiary since 1984.

[Hoyt]

77. Facts are news. Hard to take sometimes. I was in a funk for months when Kerry lost to

george war bush. It's tough when a candidate you like loses.

[anigbrowl]

81. This is an absurd argument

The claim that Clinton has effectively won the nomination is based on the number of pledged delegates already won plus superdelegates willing to go on record as being definite supporters. After that it's just counting. There is nothing untoward about this and the same thing has happened in many election cycles. There is no precedent being set here that I can see.

[eastwestdem]

85. Agreed...disgusted Hillary supporter here. No one wins when voter turnout is surpressed.

I would rather have seen what was going to happen tomorrow without any outside influence. Now we will never know. No one wants to go into a general election this way.