With The Maine Win Bernie Pulled In More Delegates Than HRC This Weekend = Media Silence

[scottie55]

Not one peep about Bernie winning 3 out of 4 states, and picking up more pledged delegates. Look at the ABC Hit Job.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/bernie-sanders-wins-maine-democratic-caucuses/story?id=37442580

The media wants HRC Real Bad now don't they.....

[TexasTowelie]

1. 66 delegates for Sanders

to 63 delegates for Clinton. In other words, not really significant which is why it didn't receive any significant attention in the MSM.

[Motown_Johnny]

2. I thought a win was a win?

Like Iowa...

Is that not true when Bernie is the winner?

[TexasTowelie]

17. What counts is delegates, not states

unless you can convince the Democratic party to change the rules in the middle of the race. I realize that Bernie's supporters are going to put a positive spin on whatever they can, but winning a few caucus states with a few thousand voters does not suggest substantial momentum for his campaign.

[Nyan]

27. ...I remember MSNBC headline the day after IW.

"Clinton A Clear Winner."
Funny how they don't say "Sanders A Clear Winner" about 3 out of 4 states and more delegates picked up during this weekend!

[TexasTowelie]

38. The difference is that Iowa was the first caucus state

so naturally it gathers more headlines than a small group of states in the middle of the primary that account for less than 3% of the delegate count. By the way, all three states that Sanders won this weekend have less delegates than Iowa and the primary in Louisiana nearly countered all of the gain that Sanders made this weekend in the three caucus states.

If Sanders manages to win a delegate rich state by a significant margin of delegates then we will hear (or read) a different story. While chipping away the lead with safeties and field goals means something on DU which is dominated by Sanders supporters, it does not mean nearly as much to the general populace when they see Clinton scoring touchdowns in states with more delegates. By March 15 nearly half of the pledged delegates will have been selected. Sanders must have significant wins in at least three of the following five states (FL, IL, MI, NC and OH) or the race is effectively over.

The only other delegate rich states after March 15 are CA, MD, NJ, NY, PA and WA. Unless there is a huge change from the polling that has already occurred in those states it won't be enough to erase the 200 delegate lead that Clinton has in pledged delegates or the 400+ lead among superdelegates since most of those will not switch because Clinton already won in their respective state primaries (in other words, Texas superdelegates will not change their support regardless of the outcome in California).

[Aerows]

45. I disagree.

Bernie scares the crap out of large conglomerates. Our news media is just such an enterprise that covers for the status quo above all else.

[nadinbrzezinski]

3. As I wrote at RSD

this may be marking the beginning of momentum turning, or be an artifact of the election, I will need a lot more info, by the predictive were wrong regarding Maine. and Sanders did outperform.

http://reportingsandiego.com/2016/03/06/are-we-starting-to-see-changing-momentum/

[TexasTowelie]

9. Bernie was predicted to win Nebraska, Kansas and Maine

for a fairly long time so nothing unexpected happened. The fact that he only gained three delegates on Clinton when winning three out of four states (all caucus states, btw) indicates that while he can take smaller rural states there is no groundswell of support for him. If Bernie is going to make a move then he will need to win Michigan and he will need to win by a significant margin (over 60%).

[nadinbrzezinski]

10. It is the margin

where he outperformed.

[TexasTowelie]

16. I believe that I saw another post

in a different thread where he outperformed his target among the four states. It was by a total of one delegate (maybe there was a typo in that post though?). With nearly 34% of the elections held (I'm including the six territories along with the 50 states) catching up by one delegate does not mean much when behind by about 190 delegates.

Until Sanders starts winning some of the delegate rich states I'm not going to be convinced that there is significant momentum in his favor. A three delegate swing over four states does not constitute significant momentum--however, we do have nearly 1,000 delegates being decided between now and March 15. If Bernie somehow manages to reduce the gap to less than a 100 delegate difference then I am willing to reevaluate.

[nadinbrzezinski]

18. As I said, whether this is an artifact

or indicates something larger, we will know later.

But he was not expected to do this well this weekend. Whether it indicates something under the water, that I, nor you, not the polls have measured, or not, we will see.

Hell, as we wrote as well, Rubio cleaned house in PR, and in his case I am pretty sure it is a fluke.

[Major Hogwash]

43. Wow, that is really moving the goal posts.

"Until Sanders starts winning some of the delegate rich states I'm not going to be convinced . . . "

Unbelievable.

[TexasTowelie]

54. Maybe it is moving the goalposts,

but scoring an extra point or a field goal is meaningless no matter where the goalposts are placed when the other team puts up touchdowns.

We will get a much clearer idea where the race is heading over the next ten days when the results are counted in eight jurisdictions and another 1,000 delegates (over 20% of the pledged delegate count) are awarded.

As far as "unbelievable" is concerned we will need to wait for time to pass to make a judgment on that statement---the demographics on DU do not mirror the demographics of Democratic voters overall which is why many have left or reduced their participation on DU over the past several months. Quite frankly I think it is unbelievable to think that Sanders is going to overcome a deficit of 600+ delegates (including superdelegates) when over 1/3 of the contests are decided, there is proportional representation by states, and based upon the polling information that is available. Where is the deep reservoir of Sanders' voters that he can draw upon to narrow the lead?

If I end up being wrong then you can point back to this post sometime down the line, but in the meantime I'll stand by my analysis.

[Major Hogwash]

55. I'm not going to wait.

You're wrong.

You just spewed some nonsense about superdelegates.

Everyone at DU knows the superdelegates don't have a vote . . . until the convention!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[TexasTowelie]

60. Okay, then what about the 200 pledged delegate lead?

I also see that you did not answer the question about where Sanders are going to find delegates to overcome his current deficit of even the pledged delegates. Did I make you uncomfortable by asking that question?

Also, do you actually believe that the superdelegates that have already stated their intentions are going to change their minds if Clinton won the primaries in their respective states? Do you actually believe the superdelegates in Texas are going to vote for Sanders if he wins in California when Clinton won by nearly a 2-1 margin in Texas or any of the other states where she has won?

You may not like my opinion, but until you can provide answers then I don't believe you are in a position to declare anyone else's statements to be nonsense, Major Hogwash.

[Major Hogwash]

62. Evidently, you forgot about 2008.

When Obama had reached the number required to become the nominee in June, and ALL of the superdelegates voted for him at the convention, despite Hillary's refusal to release them from their pledge before the convention.

So, my comment has nothing to do with your opinion, it has do with your selective memory of the facts concerning the last time the Democrats held primaries.

[TexasTowelie]

63. Okay then, lets go back to 2008.

Speaking of selective memory, you conveniently failed to mention that the reason why Obama reached the number of delegates in June to win the nomination was because his superdelegates were counted in the total (oops, we can't do that though because they aren't supposed to be counted until the convention). Obama had 1,828.5 pledged delegates to Clinton's 1,726.5 pledged delegates. Without the superdelegates, Obama fell short of the 2,117 delegates necessary to win the nomination. It was only because he about a 230 superdelegate lead that Obama was able to clinch the nomination.

Do you actually believe that Clinton is going to release her superdelegates to Sanders considering that he is behind her in pledged delegates or that she would release them if Sanders only had a small lead in pledged delegates? Do you actually believe the superdelegates from states that Clinton won in the primary are going to go against the wishes of the voters in those states and switch over to Sanders? Nonsense--if they did then they probably won't be reelected the next time they appear on the ballot.

I still don't see where you addressed my question where Sanders is going to make up the 200 pledged delegate deficit either. Until you can address that question the rest of this discussion is hogwash.

[Major Hogwash]

64. Bernie won the state of Maine's caucus today.

Which is why you are expending so much time and energy discussing superdelegates.

That is a major fail.

ALL superdelegates will vote for the nominee who has won the most delegates.

But, they don't get to vote until the convention.

[TexasTowelie]

67. Hogwash.

There is no requirement that the superdelegates vote for the nominee who has won the most delegates. The candidates typically release superdelegates in order to gain a speaking spot at the convention and for the sake of party unity.

As far as my motivations as to why I posted tonight you will need to continue guessing. I have over 23,000 posts so I can't really say that I've been the silent type on DU through my four years here. However, I will post whenever I wish as long as the administrators of this site permit me to do so. If you have any complaints then you should take it up with the management. However, you are providing motivation to post here the next time Clinton wins so I guess that I will see you on Tuesday night.

I see that you still haven't provided any information about which primaries that Sanders will win in order to close the pledged delegate gap after I have repeatedly asked for you to do so. That in itself is a major fail, but keep trying anyway.

[Major Hogwash]

57. Minnesota doesn't count?

According to your "rule of measure"?

[Major Hogwash]

58. Colorado doesn't count?

According to your "rule of measure"?

[Major Hogwash]

59. Maine doesn't count?

According to your "rule of measure"?

[TexasTowelie]

61. Where is Sanders going to gain enough delegates

to lessen the 200 pledged delegate deficit?

You haven't answered my question yet, so I'll wait before responding to your questions. By the way, the popular vote count is 4,182,085 for Clinton and 2,661,485 for Sanders thus far according to RCP.

[JonLeibowitz]

12. I think "momentum" is a pretty bad politlcal theory.

Though strangely many political commentators use it as a model.

Let's be honest, many people in Michigan knew how they were planning to vote before this weekend. There are some undecideds, and they may be affected by this debate. But largely, this election will play out on demographics lines. If the Latino and Black communities stick with Clinton, it's over. The momentum to watch there is whether these communities in areas apart from the deep south back Sanders in sufficiently high numbers. I have my doubts, but in my opinion (and I am not a journalist or expert by any means) this is where the story is.

Michigan, Ohio, and Illinois will tell us a lot.

[nadinbrzezinski]

14. Yup, I know,

and I can bet many folks, did not watch this debate either.

[xloadiex]

22. What?? You expect people to interrupt

The Walking Dead?

You can bet money TWD's ratings were way higher.

[nadinbrzezinski]

24. Is that in the predictive markets

or in Nate Silver's?

[ebayfool]

56. Hey-hey-hey! I watched both!

Some of us can pay attention to more than one thing.

(Don't be bagging on my Walking Dead! I haz a crossbow!)

[merrily]

28. LOL! But Iowa and Massachusetts were yoooge deals, right?

[TexasTowelie]

50. Let's see.

Iowa was the first state for either a caucus or a primary and the start of election season so yes it is going to draw attention. Iowa also has more delegates than Nebraska, Kansas or Maine--the same applies to Massachusetts and even Louisiana.

Massachusetts was supposed to be a state where Sanders was given a decent shot of winning due to the demographics and because it shares many of the same media markets as Vermont, yet Bernie could not win it. There are several states that are delegate rich within the next 10 days. If Bernie cannot cut the pledged delegate lead and the race being halfway completed, then where do you expect him to make up the deficit in either pledged delegates or superdelegates?

Sanders largest margin of victory in delegates was in his home state of Vermont (16 delegates). Clinton has larger delegate margins in SC, AL, GA, TN, TX, VA and LA); however, from what I read on DU those states don't matter because they are in the South or because they are red states. Depending upon the results of the GOP contest and whether their vote is split between two candidates in the general election it is entirely feasible that Clinton could win the electoral votes in those states--I don't believe that anyone really thinks that Sanders could do the same in the South.

I might feel differently if Sanders could win a primary in a state with a larger population, but thus far there is no evidence that he is capable of doing so.

[merrily]

66. Not following. You might feel differently about media attention? Or did you switch topics?

[TexasTowelie]

70. I was pointing out the reasons why Iowa and Massachusetts drew more attention than Maine.

I believe that my explanations were clear so I cannot guide you if you don't follow.

I also tried to explain from a delegate perspective why a win of +8 in Maine or +3 over the weekend in four states is not very significant compared to other states or the nearly +200 gain that Clinton had on Super Tuesday.

If you have any complaints then you should send them to the media. The delegate numbers themselves make the case why the national media did not view the results in Maine as being significant. Maybe more people should move there so they will get more attention? Both Iowa and Massachusetts have more total delegates than Maine so that might be why they get more attention from the national media.

However, I might have to reconsider everything this upcoming weekend depending upon the results in the Northern Mariana Islands. I doubt there will be much media attention about those results either, but since Sanders' supporters believe that they are important I will be covering them at http://democratsforever.freeforums.net/board/78/northern-marianas . I might even make a crosspost to DU with the results.

[merrily]

71. Good grief. Condescend much?

I have no clue why you assume that I am unable to follow your explanations. I followed what you wrote just fine. It wasn't esoteric.

All I did was ask you a very specific question about your intent/reference in one sentence near the end of your post, where you said you "might feel differently." A yes or no answer would would have done the trick. That doesn't mean I couldn't follow anything in your post. (Following it, however, does not mean I agree with it, but I did not even mention disagreement in my first reply to you.)

I do send my complaints to media, for all the good that does. Trillions of dollars are involved. If you think they are going to change their ways because of my email, you are mistaken. Knowing that--and doubting that they even read most of what they get--I still communicate with them, although I am not quite sure why.

Have a great day.

[TexasTowelie]

72. You are the person that wrote "not following," so why should I assume anything different than what

you stated. Those are your words, not mine.

Nor was it clear that you only wanted a yes or no answer to your final question (and there were actually two questions in your reply). So please don't try to manipulate sentiment saying that I'm condescending when you articulated your end of the discussion in a way that was open to misinterpretation. It's not like we are holding a face to face conversation where I can see your facial expressions to discern which portions of the discussion you understand or are referring to.

I'm glad that you send your complaints to the media, but if they are as filled with ambiguity as your earlier response to me then perhaps I can understand why you were ignored.

By the way, the answer to your last question in your previous reply is no--I was not trying to change the subject. The fourth paragraph of my response followed in the same train of thought as the third paragraph. As long as Sanders is unable to win in delegate rich states (and win big) then his campaign will not succeed.

With the misunderstanding aside, I hope that you have a great day also.

[Major Hogwash]

40. Sure, that explains why a tie in Nevada wasn't discussed by the MSM either.

Or a tie in Massachusetts, either.

[nadinbrzezinski]

4. support indepedent media

some of us do.

http://reportingsandiego.com/2016/03/06/are-we-starting-to-see-changing-momentum/

[Qutzupalotl]

5. Talking heads make $200k and up

so their taxes will increase under Bernie. So yes, they'd prefer Clinton.

[merrily]

8. They have their orders from above. Without PAC money, ad buys from their bosses will decrease.

Besides that, about 5-7 yooge corporations own most US media. The people who run them and own controlling interests in them are plutocrats (which I prefer to "oligarchs&quot . Plutocrats are not for Bernie because Bernie is not for plutocrats.

[Lorien]

35. Their salaries would increase under Bernie, plus they might have

a chance to give their kids a whole 60 years on the planet, unlike the current trajectory which expects total environmental collapse by 2050. That's something that's actually worth fighting for!

[Uncle Joe]

6. ABC = Anything But Credibility.

Thanks for the thread, scottie.

[putitinD]

26. When Bernie wins Michigan on Tuesday, the media will be all about Nancy Raygun.

[merrily]

7. "Follow the money." Mark Felt

Most accurate, most widely applicable, and most terse political advice, ever.

[onehandle]

11. Nancy Reagan's death erases all primaries, wins, and debates this weekend. nt

[merrily]

30. Because media doesn't report more than one story all day? Poster, please.

[alcibiades_mystery]

13. Congrats on the 1.5% dent in the deficit

Pray Gawd she doesn't expand it on Tuesday.

[merrily]

31. She probably will. Then we'll see if Bernie can erode it again. It's not a sprint.

[alcibiades_mystery]

36. Erode it three delegates at a time?

I appreciate the geological metaphor. Unfortunately for Sanders, he doesn't have a geological time frame.

[merrily]

37. I said "we'll see." Not sure how or why anyone argues with that.

Either way, he's in the primary until the end and with the revolution probably until he dies; and I'm behind him.

[alcibiades_mystery]

39. I want him to be in until the end

I want people to see that he lost.

[merrily]

42. Don't waste all that on me.

[senz]

69. You want people to give up all hope of a fair and democratic America.

[Aerows]

15. Hell, the media

is incessant with discussion of Trump vs. the also rans in the Republican party.

I haven't seen a WORD about the Democratic candidates. It's like it is fait accompli that a Republican will win.

[nadinbrzezinski]

19. If (when) trump gets the nomination

you will see that switch. The PTB do not want Trump in the WH. It is really bad for business.

[Aerows]

20. Maybe I'm just a cynical liberal

But I do not think it will switch. It is 24/7 Republican news coverage.

You do more as a journalist than 99% of the windbags on television.

[nadinbrzezinski]

21. Oh yes it will

Clinton is a safe bet, Trump is a lose cannon.

Or to put it in other terms, she will have a handsome return on investment, He is not guaranteed.

[Gwhittey]

25. CNN

Sat had a picture of empty podium where Trump was going to speak during the whole time Clinton was giving her LA win speech. Just showed how sad they are. Even though they have rigged the news for Clinton Trump still well err Trumps her for air time.

[merrily]

32. It's just as well, Aerow: When msm does talk about Dems, they diss Bernie and build her up.

So silence is a bit more fair as between Hillary and Bernie, though msm has done a lot of damage already.

[Aerows]

47. Too true, my friend

It would be laughable if it wasn't so dangerous to Democracy.

[merrily]

68. No one in power cares about democracy.

Although I do not admire Dr. Phil, I nonetheless find myself quoting him, so I guess I admire his sayings. This is one of them: "If you misdiagnose, you are likely to mistreat. If you mistreat, nothing is likely to improve." Or words to that effect.

We need to stop lying to ourselves and to stop buying into the lies we're told.

We don't have a democracy. We have a Republic in which all citizens are allowed to vote. We tend to confuse universal suffrage with democracy, but they are two different categories. Contrary to all the blather about democracy, our form of government is, and always has been, a Republic. Over time, suffrage has been granted to more people than had it in 1789 (only about 6% of the population) and we get to vote for Senators and electors now, whereas only state legislatures used to have those powers. But we are still a republic at the state and federal levels.

We get to vote every two years for a representative, every four years for electors who then vote for a President, and every six years for two Senators. That's is all we get to vote for unless our respective state legislatures, in their wisdom, decide to have one or more ballot questions.

How people become candidates to be representative, President and Senator is both rigged and costly. Using a rep as an example, the DNC won't give the time of day to a rep who can't bring a million bucks to the table or to a rep who is liberal. I don't know anyone who (a) wants to run and who (b) has a million bucks to spend. The millionaires I know have a lot more than one million and want to spend their time enjoying their millions and, if they have kids, figuring out how to keep their kids from being kidnapped.

Those in power affirmatively want to depress the vote because it gets in their way. (saw a video this weekend of a young David Koch saying he didn't want good voter turnout and Tweety is now spitting that the PTB, not voters, should choose Presidents).

If they didn't want to depress the vote, voting would be mandatory, as it is in other nations. They want wiggle room to rig the vote, too, or that would be a lot harder than it is and would have stiffer penalties than it does. I would not be surprised if they are discrediting caucuses so much because caucuses are harder to rig. Very telling, IMO: After Democrats screamed in 2000 and 2004 about two allegedly stolen Presidential elections in a row, Waxman held hearings proving how easy it is to rig voting machines and then a Democratic majority Congress did exactly nothing about it.

Sorry to vent. Most likely, I'm too tired to be posting. I've had to troubleshoot a lot of computer issues during the last few hours and I stink at that, so it panics me and then the panic exhausts me.

[Bread and Circus]

23. wait bernie got more delegates this weekend?

[Nyan]

29. Yeap. That's why the media have done their best to pretend there's no democratic race. nt

[Aerows]

48. The fact that they completely ignore

the Democratic party is absolutely shameful.

[nadinbrzezinski]

53. Yup, two or three

we crazy indie media even reported on it.

I went with Real Clear data, since either the NYT got one more delegate, or the other guys dropped one. The math was driving me batty by the way, and it is simple arithmetic for god sakes. If they did indeed send the memo. I suppose Connie shredded it.

http://reportingsandiego.com/2016/03/06/are-we-starting-to-see-changing-momentum/

And I am pretty open to this being an artifact by the way.

[kstewart33]

33. Aren't they tied in delegates received for the weekend (4 states)?

It's not the states Scottie, it's the delegates.

[Mufaddal]

34. bump for great justice

This is especially funny given some threads floating around here saying "Oh, poor Bernie, even if he gets Maine it won't make up for Louisiana"

[BainsBane]

41. There was a debate tonight

Which has taken over the news cycle. But their responsibility is to massage the egos of Sanders supporters, to pretend that three delegate lead over the weekend matters more than his 600 delegate deficit and the fact he trails the popular vote by over 1.5 million votes. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/democratic_vote_count.html

The media don't need to "want Hillary to win." The voters have that covered.

[The Midway Rebel]

44. Only 1.5 million votes.

That's close enough to catch.

[jalan48]

46. Just a few months ago there were fewer debates scheduled and Hillary was a lock to win.

Then suddenly Hillary and DWS agree to more debates and Bernie is winning primaries. But hey, he can't possibly win now so he should fold up shop and his supporters should get behind Hillary. Seems like the goal posts keep shifting with nary a sound from the media.

[tomm2thumbs]

49. Shape-shifters and Goal post shifters.... and just plain shifty

and that is being as kind as I can with my words

[Octafish]

52. Doing that with near-zero media coverage.

Plus the Party establishment in line to protect their jobs.

[Major Hogwash]

65. Debbie Downer will stop all future debates as a result.

They paid for this election, and by gum, they aren't going to let someone like Bernie steal it away from them!!!!

They even kept their receipts!!

[libodem]

51. ...