Clinton and Media Outlets Are Still Counting Superdelegates in Voter Tallies, Despite Pleas from DNC

[imagine2015]

Clinton and Media Outlets Are Still Counting Superdelegates in Voter Tallies, Despite Pleas from DNC Exec
by Shaun King
June 1, 2016

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.

What he said shocked the hell out of me and should shock the hell out of you — in part because not a single media outlet or the Hillary Clinton campaign has paid one bit of attention to it before or since. Since election season began, networks, newspapers and pundits have included superdelegates in their tallies, but the DNC emphatically said that was wrong over a month ago.

Not on a hot mic or during a commercial break, but live on the air, Luis Miranda, in no uncertain terms, told Jake Tapper that the media should not be including them. Miranda said, "One of the problems is the way the media reports them. Any night that you have a primary or caucus, and the media lumps the superdelegates in, that they basically polled by calling them up and saying who are you supporting, they don't vote until the convention, and so they shouldn't be included in any count."

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."

Tapper, clearly befuddled, then concluded the interview with this summary, which again was shocking: "Very interesting. The DNC itself is saying don't include superdelegates in the totals to cable networks like our own."


?

Statistical sleight-of-hand has made the Democratic nod appear out of reach for Bernie Sanders.

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/06/01/clinton-and-media-outlets-are-still-counting-superdelegates-voter-tallies-despite

[MineralMan]

1. So? The DNC can't dictate to the media.

Or to Hillary Clinton for that matter. The DNC literally has no power to demand anything from the media, nor from the Democratic candidates. It is simply the organization that is holding the Democratic Convention and that sets the rules for that convention and for delegate selection.

[lagomorph777]

5. But the DNC at least knows its own rules and history,

something the media and many on DU seem to conveniently ignore.

[MineralMan]

7. Yes, it does.

It can certainly request that the media do something. Which is what it did. It cannot demand that the media do something. That's why the DNC didn't do that.

Not everything posted on the Internet is accurate, sadly.

[Uncle Joe]

2. Of course they are, just more corporate media conglomeration propaganda/manipulation/brainwashing

of the American People.

They have done their utmost to eliminate any pretense of a democratic process.

Thanks for the thread, imagine2015.

[NCTraveler]

3. I would think you would be on board with them ignoring pleas from the DNC. lol.

The DNC doesn't dictate what the media reports.

[stevenleser]

6. The DNC establishment is BAAAD!!!! Oops, except when their pronouncements benefit Bernie

Then they should be able to force the media to do their bidding.

These folks are hilarious

[NCTraveler]

9. Truly hilarious. I'm loving this last week.

Great to see you.

[imagine2015]

10. The DNC executive just asked for honesty when the corporate media presents delegate counts.

And you think he should be attacked for that?

[tonyt53]

4. But the fact is, they DO count. Not a chance any will change. Not a chance.

Even without them, after all the primaries of next week, even if Hillary doesn't win CA outright, she will likely have enough pledged delegates. Bernie is in big trouble in all of them, and the polls in CA don't paint a very rosy picture for him either.

[imagine2015]

11. Not a single one of those superdelegate votes count before the convention. Period. Case Closed.

Like it or not that's how it works under the Democratic Party primary and election rules.

You can deny that until hell freezes over but that won't change that fact.

[tonyt53]

27. So you think any will change? Not a chance in hell, so may as well count them.

Bernie will even likely lose one or two that he has.

[morningfog]

15. Sure there is a chance. I can think of several scenarios wherein they would change.

WHich is likely why the DNC doesn't want them counted now.

[Reiyuki]

23. Like voting to re-enact the pre-1930's rule requiring a 2/3 majority to get the nomination?

If I'm not mistaken, even the pledged delegates have a chance to push for that one.

[Tarc]

8. On the evening of June 7th, Clinton will surpass 2,3,84 delegates

Counting pledged + superdelegate endorsements. From that point on she will be referred to as the presumptive nominee by...pretty much everyone.

That's just the way it is.

[imagine2015]

14. The corporate media can make any false or outrageous claim they want but that doesn't make it true.

Most folks who are actually familiar with the primaries and Democratic Party rules understand that Hillary can't and won't have enough pledged delegates to secure the nomination and become the "presumptive" nominee before the convention.

You can deny that basic fact until hell freezes over but that won't change the hard facts.

It will be a contested convention.

CASE CLOSED.

[Tarc]

18. You still do not know what "contested" means

This is what happens every election cycle. John Kerry's pledged + super count made him the presumptive nominee in early, mid-March, IIRC. Obama's happened in early June once he secured the same mathematical total.

Superdelegates do not jump ship for the candidate that fails to win the pledged delegate count.

This is a done deal.

[mythology]

20. Just like it was in 2008. Oh wait, everybody knew on June 3rd Obama was the nominee

This year everybody will know Clinton is the nominee on June 7th. Clinton will be called the nominee, she will act as the nominee and Sanders will either endorse her or not, but he has no chance at doing anything more than losing on the first ballot at the convention.

If Sanders and his supporters are supposed to be so familiar with the rules for the primaries, why are they so bad at getting supporters properly registered to vote? Or is this just a last grasp at some futile chance to delay admitting the inevitable?

[morningfog]

17. Sure, but it would be mighty embarrassing for her to lose any of those supers after that call

or to lose that label.

[beachbumbob]

12. Defies all past primaries...that is the FACT

DNC spokesperson most likely ordered to say this as some type of convoluted concession to sanders...Hillary has won the nomination and be officially proclaimed June 7th

[imagine2015]

16. "Hillary has won the nomination and be officially proclaimed June 7th" No need for a convention!

If that's true.

But it isn't.

There will be a national convention where delegates will decide who to run for President and Vice-President in 2016.

You and the corporate media don't make that decision on June7th.

Sorry, but you're out of the loop.

[mythology]

21. There is always a convention.

There was one in 2008 after Clinton conceded and proceeded to work very hard to get Obama elected. There was one in 2012 where Obama was unopposed. There will be on in 2016 where at worst Clinton will win on the first ballot. You really are grasping at straws with this.

[beachbumbob]

25. She is proclaimed presumptive nominee

Game over
June 16th can't come soon enough...did u notice June 16th?... It's because we have our nominee

[hollysmom]

13. rules do not apply to everyone equally. why expect other?

[Uncle Joe]

19. The corporate media conglomerates are also very selective in reporting on super-delegates, take

this for example.

If you google, Jerry Brown endorses Hillary, there are probably over a hundred articles on this story.

However when Bernie got a super-delegate endorsement from Hawaii, I could only find one source, an AP article picked up by The Washington Times.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512100346

The corporate media conglomerates' main desire is to discourage or disillusion Bernie supporters from voting and this began last fall, they didn't want a democratic process, they wanted a coronation.

The thing about Tim Vandeveer of Hawaii is that he had the integrity to wait until his state voted and then listened to the people wherein Bernie won by approximately 70%.

[mythology]

22. Not all endorsements are created equal

Brown is not just the very popular sitting governor of the largest state, one that is coming up to vote in a few days, he was also a well-known opponent of Bill Clinton in 1992's Democratic primary where Brown left with a lot of rancor.

Compare that to a new state party chairman from a small state that long ago voted and the new chairman was already a Sanders supporter, it's just that by becoming state party chair, he's now a super delegate.

One of these things is larger news than the other.

[Uncle Joe]

24. "Larger news" has nothing to do with corporate media conglomerate motivations in manipulating

the electorate.

At the very least a Bernie supporter being elected as the new state party chairman and giving Bernie a super-delegate should garner a link to the story on the Internet, but with them it's out of sight out of mind.

[Duval]

29. You're right, Uncle Joe.

The Corporate media is afraid of Bernie, because he has called them out. And it's about time someone in the public eye did so. And I, for one, hope they do not get their "coronation".

[bkkyosemite]

26. It's being done to influence low information voters in tv land.

[Maedhros]

28. The Clinton Campaign is inherently dishonest.

This shouldn't surprise anyone.

[imagine2015]

30. And so is the big corporate media.