Clinton and media outlets are still counting superdelegates in voter tallies, despite pleas from DNC
This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by LostOne4Ever (a host of the Latest Breaking News forum).
Source: NY Daily News
On April 28, Luis Miranda, communications director for the Democratic National Committee, did an interview with CNN's Jake Tapper to formally clarify the official position of the Democratic Party on when superdelegates are, and are not, supposed to actually count in public vote tallies.
snip
Tapper, seemingly shocked by the candid honesty of Miranda, then asked, "But when we do our totals, do you think it's OK to include them?"
Miranda then doubled down — and completely blew my mind. "Not yet," he said. "Because they're not actually voting (until the convention in late July) and they are likely to change their mind. Look at 2008 and what happened then was there was all this assumption about what superdelegates were going to do and many of them did change their mind before the convention and it shifted the results in the end."
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/election/king-clinton-media-counting-superdelegates-dnc-pleas-article-1.2655752
Much more at the article. Worth reading!
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
stopbush
(24,801 posts)Hillary released her delegates to vote for Obama. That was the only shift - Obama won by more delegates than he would have had she not released her delegates.
That's a far cry from super delegates ignoring the winner of the pledged delegate and popular vote counts to vote for a person who has lost the race by every metric that actually matters.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)stopbush
(24,801 posts)switched from Hillary to Obama in 2008.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)I heard from Hillary supporters that the party wanted to make history with Obama.
Black men got the vote before white women so they thought it was a message of lingering oppression.
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)You act like she owned those voting. Which implies they were bought. Wow. What a piece of work. Digging your own grave.
JumpinJehosaphat
(22 posts)Gomez163
(2,039 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)Gomez163
(2,039 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)Was it not his own damn fault? Heck, everytime I submit a paper it goes through a checker. Bad idea to even think about copying or stealing the work of others. I usually just quote them if I like what they said. Smh
KoKo
(84,711 posts)by Dylan Byers @CNNMoney
April 19, 2016: 8:06 PM ET
The New York Daily News has fired one of its editors for removing attribution from columns by writer Shaun King, which made it appear as though King had plagiarized the works of others.
On Tuesday, Daily News editor-in-chief Jim Rich told CNNMoney that the editor in question had "made a series of egregious and inexplicable errors," and on at least three occasions "deleted attribution that made it appear passages from Shaun King's columns were not properly credited."
"These mistakes are unacceptable and the editor in question has been fired," Rich said. The Daily News did not identify the editor, but a source with knowledge of the situation said it was editor Jotham Sederstrom.
Sederstrom could not be immediately reached for comment by CNNMoney.
Rich also said that "because of the recurring nature of this editor's specific mistakes," the Daily News was "currently reviewing all of the columns he edited."
The announcement came after a chaotic day in which King had vehemently defended himself against mounting accusations of plagiarism.
Justin Miller, a senior editor at The Daily Beast, accused King of plagiarism on Tuesday after it was discovered that his most recent article included two paragraphs that were identical to those in a Daily Beast article. King's article included no quotation marks and no mention of The Daily Beast.
Related: NY Daily News hires columnist and activist Shaun King
In an interview, King told CNNMoney that the appearance of plagiarism in the article was the result of errors by an editor. King said he provided proper attribution in his drafts, but that the citations and quotation marks were removed by an editor without his knowledge.
"Someone really f****ed up here," King said of the editor. "Someone dropped the ball."
Rich corroborated King's explanation, calling it "an editing mistake." The Daily News also added an editor's note to the article.[/b
http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/19/media/shaun-king-daily-news-plagiarism-accusations/index.html
MADem
(135,425 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)
LiberalArkie
(19,753 posts)The editor must have had it in for King.
On Tuesday, Daily News editor-in-chief Jim Rich told CNNMoney that the editor in question had "made a series of egregious and inexplicable errors," and on at least three occasions "deleted attribution that made it appear passages from Shaun King's columns were not properly credited."
bravenak
(34,648 posts)LiberalArkie
(19,753 posts)knock someone else down instead of bringing themselves up. I guess it is part of our human condition.
Gomez163
(2,039 posts)where's the fun in life????
Response to Gomez163 (Reply #34)
Post removed
Gomez163
(2,039 posts)
thesquanderer
(12,995 posts)Textbook example of an ad hominem attack.
Gomez163
(2,039 posts)thesquanderer
(12,995 posts)As for the rest of the text there, it is his take on it. You can agree or disagree with it. Even if he ripped it off from someone else.
And I wouldn't dismiss a person's thoughts in their entirety based on a plagiarism incident. Biden is still okay, for example.
Response to Gomez163 (Reply #13)
mac56 This message was self-deleted by its author.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)
shenmue
(38,597 posts)
merrily
(45,251 posts)seriously.
DemMomma4Sanders
(274 posts)The DNC as much as the other party fight to make sure that independents are not allowed to vote in primaries.
Usually this helps them, this election it skewed the results. Hilary only wins when independents are not allowed to vote.
She will hand Trump the keys to the kingdom....all because she is an arrogant, entitled disingenuous elitist.
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)
liberal N proud
(61,194 posts)Just because Bernie Sanders doesn't like it, too bad. You don't get to change the rules in the middle of the game.
thesquanderer
(12,995 posts)It's about what the DNC considers to be the appropriate way to report them.
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)It says the rules state super delegates don't vote till the convention. Those are the rules. I get it. Your proud to support a centrist while calling yourself a liberal. That's great and all but you should pay more attention to details. Media outlets aren't the rules. That are tallying votes that aren't there. They don't get cast till July. Your scorched earth, say anything regardless if it's true might be a helpful chapter in the Art Of Negotiating but complete nonsense as far as primary rules go.
liberal N proud
(61,194 posts)Do the Berners have a problem when all liberals don't feel the bern?
SunSeeker
(58,240 posts)Hillary won the popular vote by a LOT- 3 million votes.
dembotoz
(16,922 posts)SunSeeker
(58,240 posts)
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)But you can shape your narrative however you want to disenfranchise cast votes however you want.
SunSeeker
(58,240 posts)
elljay
(1,178 posts)And in large part from the South. That is one group in America, but not representative of other people of color and minorities. The very diverse state of California is basically disenfranchised because the DNC values conservative Democrats over us progressive Democrats.
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)Bernies policies support women and minorities more than Hillary but you're going to paint him as anti-women and anti-Black? You have a lot of nerve. You better make sure you aren't derelict recruiting independents after the primary if Hillary wins because you will be blamed for not working hard enough if you fail. Your welcome for the hundreds of thousands of voters Bernie registered. I hope the unaffiliated mostly apolitical voters can keep from throwing up in their mouth and pull the democrat lever by ignoring Clinton activists who poisoned the well.
SunSeeker
(58,240 posts)All those women and people of color who voted for Hillary in the millions more than for Bernie don't know what's good for them, so the super delegates shouldn't reflect their vote?
It is not me who has "a lot of nerve" and is committing a "disgusting attack."
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)
riversedge
(80,712 posts)
pnwmom
(110,254 posts)And guess who was one of the creators of superdelegates? A young Tad Devine.
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/5/29/1532358/-What-Does-It-Mean-to-Clinch-the-Nomination-When-Superdelegates-Are-Involved
After reading a number of impassioned defenses of why the Democratic presidential nomination should not be called next week on June 7th, I got curious. What’s the history here, since the superdelegates were added to the process? When a Democratic candidate hits the magic number of pledged delegates plus superdelegates, are they the nominee?
The answer: history says the first person to get to the magic number is the presumptive nominee, and says it unambiguously, even if the losers often disagree.
Here’s how it has gone since the superdelegates were added to the process.
SNIP
annavictorious
(934 posts)King has quite a reputation as a "journalist" here in NY.
Just ask the colleagues of the long-time and much respected editor who took a bullet for him over that pesky plagiarism charge.
Do you always agree with DNC spokesman Mr. Miranda?
Are you sure? Didn't think so.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-dem-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/04/will-there-be-a-contested-democratic-convention-221876
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Shaun King (@ShaunKing)
5/30/16, 10:46 PM
17 point turnaround for the @warriors since @BernieSanders showed up at the game!!!! pic.twitter.com/mYviOsFgDq
LiberalFighter
(53,544 posts)Interview held April 28th.
beachbumbob
(9,263 posts)Of every democratic primary sense super delegates were created....she is wrong...Hillary can count them and the media will proclaim the presumptive nominee next Tuesday night at 9pm est...regardless of what sanders or and of his follows think or believe..
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)It's what the DNC thinks is the right way to operate. I happen to agree. You cannot have a non-voter-tied delegate determine who wins the nomination before the primaries are all over and one candidate goes to the convention with the majority of pledged (voter picked) delegates (or reaches the required number of pledged delegates to win ahead of time).
You should not be able to count the superdelegates in that "required" total until the convention, after they've actually voted.
Even if it is done this correct way, Hillary is still most likely going to have the majority of pledged delegates; but if voters decide to give Bernie enough to pull into the lead (meaning all voters in the country) then it is only fair it not be decided until the convention when the votes are final.
If Bernie wins enough votes in California, to actually move ahead of Hillary in popular votes and pledged delegates (which I don't expect to happen), why shouldn't he win?
What kind of world to some of you want to live in? I thought this was a democracy, not a contest with rigged rules.
I suspect that in the past, once the "media" decided to call a "presumptive" nominee (note, presumptive does not mean actual), the candidate who was not called, conceded to the presumptive nominee, labeling them the winner and the nominee.
Has anyone ever stood up to this "media" determination before? Maybe not. Maybe this is the first time someone had the guts to say wait till the race is over. In which case, the media might be wrong and the DNC is right is saying don't include the superdelegates in the count until the convention. But they should have clarified this sooner.
Ford_Prefect
(8,598 posts)passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)Last edited Tue May 31, 2016, 10:09 PM - Edit history (1)
My post you referred to did not mention that the DNC tried to call quits to counting superdelegates over a month ago, and both the media and Hillary campaign have kept on doing it in spite of that request and attempt to stop the inappropriate use of superdelegates.
Including Hillary members here who are just trying to scare Bernie supporters into not fighting for or donating to Bernie anymore, which is nasty in my view. They think the media can call a "presumptive nominee" and it will scare Bernie into quitting. He's said repeatedly he will not do that. He's going all the way to the convention. I'm behind him 100% and would be delighted if he pulled a win out of this (and yes...it is still possible, even if not probable... up to the superdelegate votes at the convention).
George II
(67,782 posts)
wallyworld2
(375 posts)It's as if the pledged delegates were not voted for by a democratic process and were the same as appointed non-committed super delegates.
They are not the same and they are called pledged for a reason.
That reason is they were voted in to represent a certain delegate by the will of the people voting.
George II
(67,782 posts)....the people will obviously favor Clinton nationwide and in most individual states, to the tune of 3+ million votes and 300+ PLEDGED delegates, that has changed to the superdelegates should vote for the so-called strongest candidate, based on continuously changing and hypothetical polls.
So, which is it?
wallyworld2
(375 posts)Where that 3 million number comes from when states that held caucuses cannot be counted
I still don't understand why super delegates like howard dean and jim McDermott can vote against the will of the people of their states and vote for Hillary
I still don't get how you cannot see the difference pledged delegates that were voted into their posts by people who actually voted for them.
And super delegates that were appointed and uncommitted to vote for any delegate and may vote as they please.
Super delegates that can only vote at the actual democratic convention in July.
When they will be counted.
Allow the process to work.
They are called primaries/caucuses for a reason
And if allowing the process to work hurts the candidate, then there is something wrong with the process or we have a very weak candidate.
Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)pledge to a candidate any time they want to.......Bern u lost,,,,,,
wallyworld2
(375 posts)Before the primary/caucuses even started
Doesn't sound very democratic to me
Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)or go to work inside the Democratic party and change it
Gman
(24,780 posts)The OFFICIAL position of the party IS that super delegates count now. i wish Sanders would quit trying to move the effing goalposts. It's desperately pathetic.
NobodyHere
(2,810 posts)would not be giving the full story.
Sorry DNC, just because you have a flawed system doesn't mean you get to control what journalists say about you.
JesterCS
(1,828 posts)LiberalFighter
(53,544 posts)Ford_Prefect
(8,598 posts)
Gothmog
(179,352 posts)Great article on how in every primary contest since the creation of super delegates, the winner was declared the presumptive nominee based on the inclusion of super delegates. http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/5/29/1532358/-What-Does-It-Mean-to-Clinch-the-Nomination-When-Superdelegates-Are-Involved
?1464557557
The answer: history says the first person to get to the magic number is the presumptive nominee, and says it unambiguously, even if the losers often disagree.
Here’s how it has gone since the superdelegates were added to the process.....
Summary
Anyway, I started this research 12 hours ago to answer a question for myself, so that as everyone on TV is spinning things this way and that on June 7th I have some context. What, if anything, have I learned?
First, most non-incumbent candidates have needed superdelegates to win, and the history of superdelegates has been that once a Democrat hits the magic number and becomes the nominee, superdelegates are more likely to flow to the nominee than from them.
Also, in the history of the superdelegates, they have always ended up supporting the decision of the pledged delegates, and their most important contribution has been to amplify leads of the pledged delegate winner so that they can be assured success on a first ballot, and avoid the sort of messy convention that harms a general campaign.
The major thing I’ve learned is that the press declares, and has always declared, the winner after they hit the magic number, and has done so in far more nebulous circumstances than this. Even in 1984, in which Hart won by a number of other metrics, in which the delegate count was the arbiter, and Mondale announced himself as the nominee, even with 38 percent of the popular vote to Hart’s 36 percent—even then, Hart may have claimed he still had a cunning plan, but no one begrudged Mondale the fact he was, for all intents and purposes, the nominee.
When you think about it, that simply has to happen. Things need to get done, and they need the nominee to do them. Except for Reagan in 1976, who chose a running mate after Gerald Ford was made the nominee, there aren’t a whole lot of non-nominee candidates going to the convention with their own vice president picked out. You get to do that because the numbers say you’re the nominee.
Meeting this number also allows the nominee to do the work of campaigning before the convention, establishing a message, building capacity on the ground, etc.
The press, for its part, has always understood this, from 1984 onward, and has named the nominee (or the “presumptive nominee”) the minute the candidate crosses the line with their combination of pledged and supers, and usually said something to the effect that they had “clinched” the nomination. They did that when Mondale had won far fewer states than Hart. They did that when Dukakis did not have 50 percent of the pledged delegates. They did that when Obama had not won the popular vote (yes, I know, Michigan—I hope we’re still not fighting this?).
This is a well researched article and confirms that the nomination process will be over on Tuesday June 7, 2016 when the results of the New Jersey primary are announced.
Sanders wants special rules and treatment.
LostOne4Ever
(9,749 posts)[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=crimson][center]It is the consensus of the Hosting forum at this time to LOCK this thread as OPINION/ANALYSIS.[/center][/font]
[div class="excerpt" style="background-color:#dcdcdc; padding-bottom:5px; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-bottom:none; border-radius:0.4615em 0.4615em 0em 0em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=about&forum=1014[div class="excerpt" style="background-color:#f0f0f0; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-top:none; border-radius:0em 0em 0.4615em 0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]Post the latest news from reputable mainstream news websites and blogs. Important news of national interest only. No analysis or opinion pieces. No duplicates. News stories must have been published within the last 12 hours. Use the published title of the story as the title of the discussion thread.