2016 Postmortem

hill2016

(1,772 posts) Sat Mar 5, 2016, 06:10 PM Mar 2016

NYTimes is showing the delegates between Clinton/Sanders as 1066-432. No mention of superdelegates

http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results

I think it's a bit misleading though.

15 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

NYTimes is showing the delegates between Clinton/Sanders as 1066-432. No mention of superdelegates (Original Post) hill2016 Mar 2016 OP

Ridiculous, isn't it? HerbChestnut Mar 2016 #1

MSNBC is doing the same thing. MgtPA Mar 2016 #3

whats the count with out un-pledged supers? awake Mar 2016 #2

Listen, these Dem rules on super delegates were in play for the last several elections. Jitter65 Mar 2016 #4

Apparently you we not born in 2008. Kip Humphrey Mar 2016 #5

People were angry about it in 2008 nadinbrzezinski Mar 2016 #11

What else would one expect from the Clinton Times. n/t Skwmom Mar 2016 #6

I actually am thrilled Bernie has 432! We'll deal with the superdelegates when the time comes. reformist2 Mar 2016 #7

most of them are currently voting for Clinton though hill2016 Mar 2016 #9

Of course they are. Fascists. Ed Suspicious Mar 2016 #8

It is irresponsible actually nadinbrzezinski Mar 2016 #10

I think it's intentional. Creating the narrative they want to use as reality. Ed Suspicious Mar 2016 #12

Correct, I saw it with my sis nadinbrzezinski Mar 2016 #13

I know this. . . I'll never look at the news media the same way again. Ed Suspicious Mar 2016 #14

I am part of the media nadinbrzezinski Mar 2016 #15

HerbChestnut

(3,649 posts)

1. Ridiculous, isn't it?

Reply to hill2016 (Original post)

Sat Mar 5, 2016, 06:12 PM

Mar 2016

I've had to explain superdelegates to a number of people already. Many just don't understand the difference and assume SDs are locked in. It's helping to feed the narrative that Hillary has won already.

MgtPA

(1,022 posts)

3. MSNBC is doing the same thing.

Reply to HerbChestnut (Reply #1)

Sat Mar 5, 2016, 06:13 PM

Mar 2016

awake

(3,226 posts)

2. whats the count with out un-pledged supers?

Reply to hill2016 (Original post)

Sat Mar 5, 2016, 06:13 PM

Mar 2016

Jitter65

(3,089 posts)

4. Listen, these Dem rules on super delegates were in play for the last several elections.

Reply to hill2016 (Original post)

Sat Mar 5, 2016, 06:16 PM

Mar 2016

No one bitched about them until now when it goes to Hillary's benefit. If you want to change the rules, get involved, take action to become a part of the Dem committees. But please stop bitching. If the supers decide to switch, as they have done in the past, all you whining would stop.

Kip Humphrey

(4,753 posts)

5. Apparently you we not born in 2008.

Reply to Jitter65 (Reply #4)

Sat Mar 5, 2016, 06:41 PM

Mar 2016

nadinbrzezinski

(154,021 posts)

11. People were angry about it in 2008

Reply to Jitter65 (Reply #4)

Sat Mar 5, 2016, 09:32 PM

Mar 2016

because the early pledges went to HCR That changed once the campaign changed. They can switch all the way to the first round in the convention. They should not be counted.

Skwmom

(12,685 posts)

6. What else would one expect from the Clinton Times. n/t

Reply to hill2016 (Original post)

Sat Mar 5, 2016, 06:42 PM

Mar 2016

reformist2

(9,841 posts)

7. I actually am thrilled Bernie has 432! We'll deal with the superdelegates when the time comes.

Reply to hill2016 (Original post)

Sat Mar 5, 2016, 06:43 PM

Mar 2016

hill2016

(1,772 posts)

9. most of them are currently voting for Clinton though

Reply to reformist2 (Reply #7)

Sat Mar 5, 2016, 09:28 PM

Mar 2016

Ed Suspicious

(8,879 posts)

8. Of course they are. Fascists.

Reply to hill2016 (Original post)

Sat Mar 5, 2016, 07:30 PM

Mar 2016

nadinbrzezinski

(154,021 posts)

10. It is irresponsible actually

Reply to hill2016 (Original post)

Sat Mar 5, 2016, 09:28 PM

Mar 2016

Ed Suspicious

(8,879 posts)

12. I think it's intentional. Creating the narrative they want to use as reality.

Reply to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #10)

Sat Mar 5, 2016, 10:17 PM

Mar 2016

I wish they would reported more than propagandized.

nadinbrzezinski

(154,021 posts)

13. Correct, I saw it with my sis

Reply to Ed Suspicious (Reply #12)

Sat Mar 5, 2016, 10:19 PM

Mar 2016

she thinks these supers are set in stone. I tried, I swear I tried, She also listens to NPR. That wonderful news network that for all I know there were no democratic contest today. at least not at 5 PM PST... so when I did mention that media is trying to get Sanders to quit... no they are not. M'Kay.

Ed Suspicious

(8,879 posts)

14. I know this. . . I'll never look at the news media the same way again.

Reply to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #13)

Sat Mar 5, 2016, 10:22 PM

Mar 2016

nadinbrzezinski

(154,021 posts)

15. I am part of the media

Reply to Ed Suspicious (Reply #14)

Sat Mar 5, 2016, 10:23 PM

Mar 2016

but we small indies try to do yeoman's work... and fight a large tide. I don't think we can win.

Reply to this discussion