Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

YouDig

(2,280 posts)
Mon Jun 6, 2016, 09:55 PM Jun 2016

The media are just reporting the facts. I don't like it either. But Hillary did just clinch.

I would like them to wait until tomorrow, call it when Hillary clinches the pledged delegates, the total delegates, and the popular vote. Then nobody can complain.

This is obviously going to give rise to a bunch more conspiracy theories from conspiracy people. Neither campaign wanted this. But the AP isn't going to sit on the story just because the dramatic effect would be better for Hillary's campaign if they held off until tomorrow. If the AP didn't report it then someone else would have, they all want to be first.

The whole superdelegate system is dumb. But that's the system, and according to that system, Hillary is now the presumptive nominee. The good news is that by tomorrow Hillary will have won by any possible method anyone could think of, so the superdelegates didn't affect the outcome.

6 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
 

rjsquirrel

(4,762 posts)
1. Good journalists don't sit on stories for political convenience though
Mon Jun 6, 2016, 09:59 PM
Jun 2016

I'm amused at all the Bernistas insisting this was Sec. Clinton's doing. I'm sure SHE would rather have waited another day as well.

AP are serious journalists. They wanted to scoop the competition so I am sure they worked their sources despite, not in support of, the campaign's wishes.

Either way, she is now our nominee and history has been made.

ucrdem

(15,512 posts)
2. Sooner the better IMHO.
Mon Jun 6, 2016, 09:59 PM
Jun 2016

Why be dishonest about it? We all knew this months ago and holding back would just give peeps cause to invent another screwy CT. And I don't think it will change the voting as we have local races and measures to decide tomorrow too.

Tal Vez

(660 posts)
4. I guess the only way to avoid the possibility of this kind of announcement
Mon Jun 6, 2016, 10:08 PM
Jun 2016

before the voting is completed is to have a national primary all at the same time. I think of all the work and dedication that supporters of both candidates have put into a primary like California and I know that many of them would like to see what the results would be without this kind of announcement. The volunteers on both sides deserve a lot of credit. The hours are incalculable.

spooky3

(34,439 posts)
5. I agree with everything except the notion that the SD system
Mon Jun 6, 2016, 10:14 PM
Jun 2016

Is bad (imperfect, maybe, but I recall the McGovern disaster).

msongs

(67,395 posts)
6. I don't get the sanders crowd problem with this. they believe he will get the votes in July so
Mon Jun 6, 2016, 10:24 PM
Jun 2016

today's announcements make NO difference to the outcome they believe will occur. so why be so agitated

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»The media are just report...