The media "calling it" yesterday was good for nobody at all.

[Maru Kitteh]

It set Senator Sanders back on his feet, kicked him when he was down and unprepared. It left him in a very awkward position, and a very defensive one. This was no benefit certainly to him, and I don't think putting him on the defensive did Hillary any favors either. I think it left his voters with an iron will to show up today. Not that that's a bad thing! Everyone should show up. Everyone should vote! I'm just saying, it seems to me like it's more beneficial to his turnout.

It also was terribly unfair to Secretary Clinton. It robbed her of a very important and special moment with her voters and with her volunteers. It probably depressed her turnout at least as much as Sen. Sanders. I think probably a little more. She should have been able to celebrate this milestone - earning more than half of the pledged delegates, with her voters, her volunteers, and her family. No matter who your candidate was, this night is historic, and it wasn't just taken from her, it was taken from all of us.

[Thinkingabout]

1. One of the factors of putting Hillary over 2383 was the delegates from PR and VI. In this case

it does not matter when the call was made, we need to realize the number has been met.

[Maru Kitteh]

2. I know it was inevitable, but the effect was graceless.

the AP robbed everybody.

[GoldenThunder]

16. Hillary won 30% fewer votes in California than she did in 2008

Clearly this media trick suppressed the vote.

Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
-John F. Kennedy

The revolution will remember what happened here.

You have my sympathy.

[Thinkingabout]

20. And Sanders got less votes than Hillary, it must have been because Obama was running in

2008, this year it was Hillary and Sanders, not voter suppression.

[Raster]

3. I know you mean well, and I appreciate that...

...However, I don't for one minute believe the Clinton camp was unaware of of what AP was doing, or was going to do. Seriously, think this one through... the minute the first SD got their call or their email, they were UNDOUBTEDLY on the phone or emailing the Clinton High Command. There really are no coincidences in politics, nor are there "surprise" unscripted moments. Hillary Clinton and her advisors are very smart people. And no matter Hillary's attempted "downhome just-one-of-the-girls" persona, she is one of the most connected persons on the American political scene, and many, many people would do anything for any type of advantage or influence in all things Clinton.

Hillary Clinton and her Team were well aware that AP was going to prematurely call it.

[Maru Kitteh]

5. All I can tell you is, I disagree. That's not so bad, right?

I remember when we could do that without hating each other here on DU. I'd love to give that kind of thing a go again.

[Garrett78]

14. Being given a heads-up is different from wanting something to happen, though.

If you're Clinton, you'd much rather have the news broken during prime time on election night, rather than late the night before. Her becoming the presumptive nominee was inevitable, and it wouldn't make any sense for her campaign to want that news broken when it was. Not when it could potentially weaken the post-clinching bump that candidates always get. Not when it could have been broken during prime time (with early New Jersey returns) on a night when people are expecting election news.

But the media does what the media does. It's all about being the first to break news, and others follow suit so as to not appear like they're behind. Given how close to 2383 Clinton was following her weekend victories, and given all of the Obama endorsement rumors, of course reporters sought out superdelegate holdouts. And with the list of superdelegates being public information, that wouldn't have been difficult.

[Lucinda]

4. Agreed

[Hortensis]

6. Yup. All the news coverage in the middle

of the night was how unfortunate this was likely to be for both.

[Maru Kitteh]

8. And it was. Yes we're moving forward, but I though it was important to realize this

was a pox on both our houses.

[Hortensis]

10. Because there is so much of this stuff,

I posted on conspiracy theories on a large thread. Turns out this kind of thinking has become normal for populist movements on many continents, to the point that those movements can morph to pose a threat to democracy. We have conspiracy-prone left- and right-wing anti-establishment "populist" movements going in the U.S. right now.

What counts is that the traditional rules of the political game are questioned and the legitimacy of representative democracy is put into doubt. Part of the appeal of conspiracy theories is their simplicity. In a complex, changing world, it is tempting to reduce multifaceted issues to the us-and-them narrative. It is a vision that meets little contradiction because reasoned facts are sidelined by emotion. It is a binary scheme, with “the people” on one side and “the system” on the other.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/dec/18/conspiracy-theories-extreme-right-far-left-threaten-democracy

[Lord Magus]

7. In the end the media's job is to report the news whether it's good or bad for anybody. -nt-

[Maru Kitteh]

11. I don't disagree, I just wish ti would have been different.

[AgingAmerican]

9. Its how the Oligarchy rolls

[democrattotheend]

12. Well said

It also was terribly unfair to Secretary Clinton. It robbed her of a very important and special moment with her voters and with her volunteers. It probably depressed her turnout at least as much as Sen. Sanders. I think probably a little more. She should have been able to celebrate this milestone - earning more than half of the pledged delegates, with her voters, her volunteers, and her family. No matter who your candidate was, this night is historic, and it wasn't just taken from her, it was taken from all of us.

This is what I have been saying. I am pissed as a Bernie supporter but I think I would have been even more pissed I were a Hillary supporter. If this had happened in 2008 I would have felt cheated. I'm genuinely sorry the AP put a damper on what should have been an even more exciting night for you.

[Maru Kitteh]

13. Thank you! I appreciate that.

[democrattotheend]

15. Let me put it this way

If she did help orchestrate it, it was a terrible blunder on her part. She could have locked up the nomination before the polls even closed in California, had her big moment, then let Bernie end on a high note with a victory in California (which I believe might have happened if the AP had not jumped the gun), and he probably would have been more likely to concede. But now he and his supporters are rightfully angry, angrier than we would have been and less likely to "get on board." Most of us probably will, but what the AP did made it a lot tougher.

She and her team are probably smart enough to recognize that it wasn't worth it just to prevent being potentially embarrassed in California. So I am giving her the benefit of the doubt on this.

[Tom Rinaldo]

17. It's our Super Delegate system that allowed AP to call this election before the Tuesday primary

...rather than having actual voters put Hillary over the top. I made a case elsewhere why I thought it actually suppressed the total vote for Sanders (outside of his hard core backers who may have become more motivated to vote, but would likely have voted anyway) but I concede Hillary would have won either way. Whatever our views of who may have been helped or hurt most by it, it was anti-democratic to have a secret poll of anonymous unelected delegates become so influential on the eve before real elections where multiple matters were at stake.

[democrattotheend]

18. Well said

What makes it worse is that the superdelegates were put in place primarily to prevent candidates like Bernie from getting the nomination. After McGovern's big loss in 1972 they added superdelegates to prevent or at least make it harder for candidates who were "too liberal to win" but appealing to the party base to get the nomination.

[onenote]

19. Maybe so, but in the larger scheme of things it didn't change anything

On May 31 Sanders gave a much-reported speech in which he declared that neither candidate would have 2383 pledged delegates and that he would be taking his case directly to the SDs who would ultimately decide the nomination. Part of his case, he claimed, was the enthusiasm of his supporters compared to Clinton's.

Why, before last Monday, was he publicly urging the media not to proclaim Clinton the presumptive nominee based on pledged delegates plus SD commitments? Because he knew they were going to do that. When they did it really didn't matter to his strategy. Whether it was last Saturday, Monday, or Tuesday -- it didn't matter. His strategy was built entirely on arguing that the proclamation was wrong and that his support, as he hoped would be reflected in the outcome of the Tuesday primaries (plus GE polls) would sway the SDs.

He needed his supporters to come out strong for him on Tuesday whether or not the media had already made the proclamation he knew was coming. And his supporters let him down.

To say he was knocked on his feet by a pronouncement he had long anticipated would come notwithstanding his urging the media not to make it, is to give him far too little credit for being prepared for what was coming.

[Tom Rinaldo]

21. I'm looking past this specific controversy now

We can debate, and maybe should later, whether Hillary would have ever become our nominee if there wasn't a Super Delegate system in place from before day one providing her with a constant tail wind. Maybe so, it can't be known with certainty either way. I already said I thought it may have effected ultimate allocation of pledged delegates, though based on the results Hillary would have won California with or without the AP call.

But a bad system should not be left in place even if one argues that it wasn't responsible for bad results in a given specific instance. This should at least serve as a wake up call.

[onenote]

25. To be clear, I'm not defending the SD system.

Indeed, while the DNC's rules and procedures are published for all to see, the process and rationale by which the number of pledged and SDs allocated to each state is determined is transparent but not particularly clear or easily understood.

Whether SDs are retained or not, improvements are definitely in order.

[Equinox Moon]

22. I agree! We All were robbed of a clean primary yesterday

It was so unfair for all Americans that the M$M called it BEFORE people voted from SIX States.

Both Bernie and Hillary were cheated out of a fair process yesterday. It was not fair for Hillary's historic win to be clipped by M$M. And we will never know what it did to the voter turn out. I think a lot of people stayed home, fed-up with our system.

I think M$M AP called it before people voted, so they could make the money off the 'clicks'. It was hurtful and anticlimactic for everyone.

Thank you for posting truth.

[Bluenorthwest]

23. I agree with you.

nt

[Nonhlanhla]

24. I agree

I was very annoyed with AP. Typical media. It's all about the scoop. Neither Hillary nor Bernie was well served in this way. For me as a Hillary supporter it was very anticlimactic. It's not like we did not know that she was going to clinch, but I wanted it to be a great moment, when she does not only go over WITH superdelegates, but won the majority of pledged delegeates. I wanted the voters to push her over, and for her to be able to stand proud on election night as the first woman to be nominated by a major party. AP's sneaky little announcement really took the shine off.

Any Bernie supporter who thinks we Hillary supporters (or our candidate) wanted it this way, is not paying attention. Neither candidate was well served this way.

[bigwillq]

26. Hillary was going to win nomination with or without the call (nt)

[HughLefty1]

27. AP put a damper on everything here in CA.

And I'm sure the HRC camp was in on it. Everything has to be planned. Nothing is organic.

Seriously I've had enough.

I'm out..