http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512134443Oh my.
This just won't go away, the Bernie bullies thinking that if certain delegates aren't included in a count, their votes at the convention won't matter.
Geezuz.
But first up, the rational point:
NewHampshiriteGuy (56 posts) Sun Jun 5, 2016, 10:48 PM
Delegate count double standards
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.
nadinbrzezinski (153,909 posts) Sun June 5, 2016, 11:00 PM
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?
after which a youtube of some woman
NewHampshiriteGuy (56 posts) Sun Jun 5, 2016, 11:05 PM
response to the cousin, above
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 (153,909 posts) Sun Jun 5, 2016, 11:07 PM
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 ****ing party told the ****ing 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 (56 posts) Sun Jun 5, 2016, 11:12 PM
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 (153,909 posts) Sun Jun 5, 2016, 11:18 PM
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
*<<<doesn't think the cousin ^^^ knows what that means.
NewHampshiriteGuy (56 posts) Sun Jun 5, 2016, 11:35 PM
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.*
*get used to it, dude; much of what the cousin says astonishes.
nadinbrzezinski (153,909 posts) Sun Jun 5, 2016, 11:41 PM
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 (5,277 posts) Mon Jun 6, 2016, 12:19 AM
41. There's nothing I hate more than a vioplation of journamistic ehtics
More nadin, then the other idiot on the thread:
grasswire (49,834 posts) Sun Jun 5, 2016, 11:39 PM
29. But Hillary said PLEDGED DELEGATES can switch!!
WASHINGTON (CNN) [news article from 8 years ago] -- 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 (56 posts) Sun Jun 5, 2016, 11:44 PM
response to Judy grasswire, above
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.
Thanks for that, dude, but really, trying to explain something to mentally-retarded Bernie bullies is pointless.
