2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumThe AP Announcing Clinton's "Victory" Was an Embarrassment to Journalism and U.S. Politics
How one man can throw an election...
[link:https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2016/06/the-ap-announcing-clintons-victory-was-an-embarras.html|
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Chasstev365
(5,191 posts)jack_krass
(1,009 posts)Bernie supporters were disheartened by the AP pronoumcement and stayed home.
I also think HRC and her campaign orchastrated this
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)"I also think HRC and her campaign orchastrated (sic) this..."
What specifically leads you to believe this?
jack_krass
(1,009 posts)democrattotheend
(11,605 posts)But it probably depressed turnout in the last 6 states. Turnout in California was down 32% from 2008.
I don't think the AP did Hillary any favors either. Before all the fighting kicked into gear after the announcement, several Hillary supporters on here expressed disappointment. If they had done it in 2008 I know I would have been pissed.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Also hard to compare Cali 2016 to Cali 2008--Obama/Clinton was a much bigger draw for voters than Clinton/Sanders and Cali was on Super Tuesday, so it was dead certain to make a difference that year).
I suspect it depressed turnout in rough proportion to how the actual voting went--of course there's no way to prove or disprove it, but the Clinton people were pissed that it was going to depress their turnout.
democrattotheend
(11,605 posts)It sucks for both candidates and their supporters.
reformist2
(9,841 posts)Demsrule86
(68,556 posts)Much ado about nothing.
highprincipleswork
(3,111 posts)choie
(4,111 posts)the 24 hours before a definitive primary..
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)They did nothing different than usual. You're simply looking for excuses. Anything other than accept the fact that voters prefer Clinton.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]
TwilightZone
(25,471 posts)It's not any more complicated than that, regardless of how you try to make it so.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)The Sushi Bandit
(5,560 posts)that is the important thing!
Baitball Blogger
(46,703 posts)still_one
(92,187 posts)decided to not wait until after Tuesday for several reasons.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)apnu
(8,756 posts)Polling showed Hillary up by 10 in CA going into last weekend. AP came out on Monday. Most Californians made up their minds before the AP article. Polling showed Hillary way up in NJ. The AP, while odd and early, didn't impact things. Maybe someone at the AP wanted to, but even if that's true, they failed. The AP is a distraction for those who are gullible for conspiracies.
onenote
(42,700 posts)On the one hand, it admits that "Sure, Hillary has more votes, and yes, she was going to win eventually." He also acknowledges "weve known" Hillary Clinton would be the presumptive nominee "for a long time."
Those admissions completely undercut his argument that one person "manufactured" Clinton's win or that reporting she had actually reached the threshold everyone had known "for a long time" that she would reach wasn't newsworthy.
Plus, if as he admits, Clinton was going to win eventually and it was long known that she would be the "presumptive nominee" how does acknowledging it when it happens change much of anything. If it was known on Sunday, or Saturday or the week before that she was going to be the presumptive nominee, wouldn't that knowledge alone be dampening turnout? Wouldn't the fact that Clinton won handily in two races over the weekend had something to do with it? Should the press not have reported those results because it might "dampen" turnout?
What if on Saturday night, after the win the VI put Clinton closer to the nomination, AP had reported 40 new SD commitments, putting her over 2383? Would that have been journalistically wrong to do?
No. Journalists go out, gather information and report it. That's what they do. If anything, the fact that the press didn't sit on the information that they had is more consistent with the notions of an independent press than one that tries to manipulate a story by sitting on information.
Proud Liberal Dem
(24,412 posts)I cringed a bit when I got that news alert on Monday evening. That being said (as other people have pointed out), it didn't change the outcome nor was it out of touch with reality. However, it would have been better for them to wait until after last night to pull the trigger IMHO.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)That's their problem, not mine...
Sanders was dead in the water -- You know it, and I know it...
BobbyDrake
(2,542 posts)in the first place. These excuses just get more and more outlandish over time, especially since they only exist as a crutch to avoid acknowledging that the losing candidate lost. As long as they can point to conspiracies and theories about why Sanders lost, instead of the basic fact of "he won less votes than his opponent," we'll have to listen to these rationalizations.
Brickbat
(19,339 posts)bigwillq
(72,790 posts)It didn't change the end result.
Hillary Clinton was going to be the DEM nominee with or without the "call".
floppyboo
(2,461 posts)and no one cared when the wolf showed up. and the moral of the story is... never cry wolf or the bubbles in the champagne will have all popped. or is that pooped? you do know that bubbles are yeast farts? just in case you needed to know. Hey, I'm a mom and share trivia whenever I can. Keeps learning fun!
Demsrule86
(68,556 posts)You all are obsessed with Bernie.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)some dreamers couldn't handle the truth. As far as it might have caused some to stay home, chances are they were Clinton voters if but by a few percentage points.