2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumEven if you support Clinton, you should also be appalled by the media Bigfooting the voters
Democracy is a process. The processes are annoying and frustrating. But they are there to provide a backstop to keep everyone accountable.
News is news. If Clinton is ahead, she is ahead.
But the media just set a precedent to take a step like declare the "presumptive nominee" on the night before Big Primaries and before other smaller primaries. It has short circuited the process. Comcast, the AP and otehr Big Media are not supposed to be the arbiters of that.
Let's suppose the show is placed on the otehr foot.
Let's say in late October, on the eve of the election. Trump is significantly ahead of Clinton. The media decides to "Call it" for him while the campaign is still underway. They put his picture up with a little checkmark -- simply because the indications and polls indicate that he is the "likely winner."
"We have to report this because it is the news," they say.
And thus they imply it is all over before the votes have been cast. Thus helping to create a self-fulfilling prophecy, depressing Democrats, and making it likely that many will just stay home rather than waste time on a lost cause.
Would you be happy? I don't think so. Would you complain and challenge it as undemocratic? Probably.
This is no different. Sanders is behind, and Clinton has been the likely winner. But the process ensures that everyone has a chance to weigh in. That's why we have a democracy. Or used to.

Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)AuntPatsy
(9,904 posts)thats telling people to except the status quo, and that it's because people are tired of waiting for the process to be completed?
reformist2
(9,841 posts)And very, very partisan.
tblue37
(66,148 posts)leftinportland
(247 posts)and seriously you can't wait until the polls close tomorrow...
TwilightZone
(28,835 posts)Obama was declared the presumptive nominee. Sanders endorsed him before Clinton had even dropped out.
Response to TwilightZone (Reply #53)
Name removed Message auto-removed
leftinportland
(247 posts)California's primary represents the largest number of delegates from a single state, to jump ahead of millions of voters and announce a winner on the eve of the primary is wrong. Superdelegates don't vote until the convention...sorry you have to wait, such an inconvenience.
puffy socks
(1,473 posts)None of you had any problem in 2008 calling the race.....including Sanders.
In '08, Sanders Endorsed Obama - Before Clinton Formally Exited Race
As Bernie Sanders and his supporters argue that Hillary Clinton can't clinch the Democratic nomination on Tuesday - because superdelegates don't count until the convention - it is worth noting that Sanders endorsed Barack Obama two days after Obama crossed the magic number (pledged + superdelegate), saying he had become Democratic nominee.
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/08-sanders-endorsed-obama-clinton-formally-exited-race-n586556
Armstead
(47,803 posts)If you fail to understand the difference, that's not my problem.
Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)puffy socks
(1,473 posts)Sanders called it for Obama when he reached the total with super delegates..and now has a double standard from his own lips.
trying to pretend he is not a total HYPOCRITE! by mincing words is dishonest and you know it.
Keep posting though the whining and reaching is pure entertainment.
btw
HILLARY WON!!!!
BERNIE LOST!!!!
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)it is quite different from the media announcing the race is over Hillary is the nominee
puffy socks
(1,473 posts)having SDs included in the count.
Bernard has been whining about SDs since NH.
He's a hypocrite no matter how the Berners try and justify it.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)so no big deal
TwilightZone
(28,835 posts)The AP counted to 2383 and declared Clinton the presumptive nominee. They don't wait until any upcoming primaries are held. They never have.
Just like they don't wait until all states have voted on election night to declare a winner. They wait until one candidate has enough electoral votes and call it then. That often generates similar consternation by people who can't count, like Karl Rove in 2012.
You act like this is your first rodeo, but I'm pretty sure it isn't. Intentional obtuseness is not a terribly compelling argument.
leftinportland
(247 posts)2008 Obama was ahead by 100 pledged delegates and all primaries were over. This is the eve of the largest single primary of the campaign.
puffy socks
(1,473 posts)Hillary has the nomination wrapped up regardless of any remaining primaries.
Its over... Bernard is a hypocrite and he lost.
democrattotheend
(12,011 posts)Last I checked 6 states plus DC have yet to vote.
Demsrule86
(71,038 posts)The primary was not over...Obama did not have the numbers until the end. And then the supers moved just like today.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)and yeah, some states might get called to early, but again.... NONE OF THIS IS NEW. THYE CALLED THE GOP PRIMARY ALREADY TOO. IT'S MATH- GET OVER IT.
mac56
(17,657 posts)Not exactly a strong defense.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Are you new?
mac56
(17,657 posts)So that means IT'S GOOD?? IT'S GOOD??
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)It's not the media's job to declare winners the night BEFORE a big vote.
And, if they're honest, many Republicans really regret Trump being designated the presumed nominee, considering his crazier than usual behavior over the past week.
Lord Magus
(1,999 posts)Meaning those Republicans have something in common with you.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)I saw reports it was likely to happen all last week because of PR and VI.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)I'm done arguing with you about this. I've stated my thoughts to you elsewhere.
TwilightZone
(28,835 posts)If she has the numbers, they should be reported. If she'd had them last week, they should have been reported then.
You're seriously arguing that the AP should have just sat on the results and not reported them? That's significantly more irresponsible than just reporting the facts when they became available.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Seriously?
For the same reason they don't call elections on election night until the polls close, even if they already know the data.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)is waiting for Hawaii. If it is so important to the states they can vote days earlier and report earlier on election day.
anigbrowl
(13,889 posts)Me, I like having the most up-to-the-minute information. We'll still be going to vote in CA tomorrow morning.
mia
(8,437 posts)It's the will of the financiers. Whatever suits them. Hillary is their champion.
MADem
(135,425 posts)The 'democracy' bit comes when our choice goes up against the GOP choice.
mia
(8,437 posts)Saying otherwise is just denying the power of the media.
MADem
(135,425 posts)dealings. They have viewpoints, and all viewpoints aren't equal. Donald Trump doesn't get a voice in the Democratic Party--neither does Jill Stein. If you're not in the club, or allowed in by their grace and favor, you don't have a voice.
The libertarians didn't hold fifty state primaries to pick Johnson and Weld.
The "democracy" (small d) begins when each party selects their standard bearer and they go up against each other. But political parties can come to that decision as to who their standard bearer will be by methodologies of their own choosing.
OctOct1
(395 posts)She says something smells. She wants a fair elections. Not something that smells of foul play
LonePirate
(13,999 posts)I'm sure we all prefer when the news media reports the news and not when the news media makes the news like they did today. Sitting on that information for 24 hours wouldn't have impacted the race whatsoever and the AP could still have reported the information shortly before the New Jersey polls close on Tuesday.
Lord Magus
(1,999 posts)It's the opposite of good journalism.
LonePirate
(13,999 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)As I stated in the OP, this is not just about what candidate benefits or is hurt.
Journalism used to take the effect of their actions into account. It's called ethical behavior. Not anymore.
LonePirate
(13,999 posts)This mostly seemed like a rush to scoop others to what everyone knew was a foregone conclusion on Tuesday. I'd call it unethical but it wasn't my decision to make.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)It is a case of wanting scoops.
I don't know if the Clinton Campaign or Democtratic Establishmenthad a hand in it.
But at the very l east, they should have waited until all voters had a chance to vote before making such a pronouncement.
Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)Yes, AP could have sat on the updated delegate count for 24 hours, but news hounds will be news hounds.
It's what they DO.
tblue37
(66,148 posts)onenote
(44,922 posts)Just not news you wanted to hear tonight.
Or tomorrow. Or the night after.
But you were going to hear it sooner or later.
tblue37
(66,148 posts)thus making her seem less popular than she is, but it could hurt her in other ways, too, so Hillary supporters should not be doing the end zone dance about this call. Calling the race before the last states get to vote--especially California, the big one--(1) could motivate annoyed Bernie supporters to get out and vote against her, just to send a message and (2)alienate people who are on the fence.
They have been hearing about supposed primary shenanigans from Bernie's supporters, and if they think Hillary's campaign is responsible for trying to preempt the voters in California and other late primaries, that could turn squishy voters against her, not just in the primary, but also in the GE.
I am a Bernie supporter, but I know Hillary is virtually certain to be our nominee, and I do not like the potential this has to turn some voters against our nominee in the GE.
I am glad she had the wisdom to push back against the premature call.
msongs
(70,573 posts)today's media pronouncements have no effect on any outcomes
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)Thank you!
Lord Magus
(1,999 posts)The media has always called a presumptive nominee whenever somebody gets to a majority of delegates.
BainsBane
(55,487 posts)Somehow I expect this outrage is a one time thing.
AP surveyed the superdelegates and got the delegate count from PR. That gave Clinton 2383, which is the number for nomination.
The notion that they should pretend she hasn't reached the threshold because it upsets some of you is absurd.
That said, I don't think the Clinton campaign was particularly happy about the call. They sent around this message:
Dear Women Leaders and Friends,
We wanted to share Robby Mook's statement on the AP's announcement tonight:
-- Campaign Manager Robby Mook
Please continue to help us make calls tonight and tomorrow as people head to the polls in California, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, and South Dakota.
Thank you!
I made calls to CA tonight and plan to do more tomorrow. People are still voting, as they well should.
KingFlorez
(12,689 posts)The media has been calling primaries for years once a candidate crosses the threshold. This is not anything new or nefarious.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)There has always been IMO too much of the horse race coverage that shapes attitudes, instead of letting peopel make up their own minds based on their own impressions of the candidates.
I have felt that way for decades.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)DURHAM D
(32,876 posts)This is an attempt by the media to keep the Democrats divided and help Republicans.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)helping the 99% and the Non-Progressives (Corporatatists) that only want to see corporations make more profits. The media isn't causing this nor "keeping" this. We progressives will fight the corporatists and their idols the Big Corporations until we drive them out of our Party. There are two sides in this war and you seem to side with the Big Money. Shame
Waiting For Everyman
(9,385 posts)And that's exactly what they did. They did it tonight blatantly and they have been doing it all season less obviously. They are pure propaganda now. They don't deserve the title of news anymore.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)The media are all competing for a scoop. If the AP didn't announce it, some other news agency would have. It's built into the logic of their industry.
The timing of this story was controlled by 20+ superdelegates all coordinating together to make their choices known to the press on the night before the California primary.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)I give up. I'm done. Fuck this failed state, this de facto oligarchy. Local issues and Cascadian secession...everything else can pound sand.
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)So I'm not sure what you mean by "bigfooting."
If anything, what they did was crunch the numbers and see that there was no way Bernie could win. No Freakin' Way. None. It's IMPOSSIBLE.
And it's been thus since NY.
The "Sanders story" has gone stale, too. All he's doing now is griping about math he can't overcome.
It's boring.
lunamagica
(9,967 posts)Reportedly, neither campaign is happy with this. Hillary was ready for the announcement and celebration tomorrow.
The guy from NBC basically said they do their job, regardless what the campaigns feel.
As for your scenario, I'd hope support wasn't so weak that an announcement like that would make people stay home
Armstead
(47,803 posts)We all have our emotional preferences in tension with our belief in what's actually right in an objective sense.
In 2008, I was strongly for Obama and wanted Clinton to leave. I was angry at for fopr not conceding.
But I don't think the side of me that is somewhat objective would have liked them calling the election on the night before a major vote.
lunamagica
(9,967 posts)anigbrowl
(13,889 posts)I've been following primary elections since 1984 and been disappointed often. That's why I'm not impressed by your histrionics now - I went through that sort of thinking a few decades ago.
TDale313
(7,822 posts)It's a well established fact that Californians are very familiar with. I would have voted tomorrow regardless (I voted early) but yes, saying "It's over folks" will hurt turnout- possibly for both candidates. This was not good.
lunamagica
(9,967 posts)I actually think this may hurt Hillary more. People may think she has it in the bag, and not vote.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)So don't project your behavior on us.
lunamagica
(9,967 posts)That holier-than-though attitude is really off putting
tblue37
(66,148 posts)asuhornets
(2,427 posts)LuvLoogie
(7,727 posts)the super delegates in the totals. I felt the proper target was a majority of the pledged delegates, which is 2026. That is the primary finish line, and it is directly affected by the voter/candidate dynamic. Super delegates are affected by a party/candidate dynamic where the primary vote is also weighed.
But in a two-way race, the role of the Super delegates are more an affirmation of the primary. Why I don't like APs announcement as a Hillary supporter is that she won this nomination by campaigning across this country for those primary votes. The supers didn't hand her this nomination; the voters did.
I truly think that tomorrow's tally would have put the exclamation point to Hillary's real popularity. The AP announcement negates the months, the miles, the meetings, the years, the relationships Hillary has worked and developed to get here.
AP seems to have interjected itself. Kanye West comes to mind. LOL!
OK Hillary. I'ma let you finish, but the supers gave you this.
Demsrule86
(71,038 posts)It is reality.
Raine1967
(11,626 posts)the math wasn't there for HRC.
It's not there for Sanders now.
Talking about the GE in October WRT (any) the nominee is nonsensical.
This was/is a process, but the math is simply not there.
Let's say we wait until the 15th and the results are the same?
Some things are inevitable. Believe me, I was/am an O'Malley supporter.
I am good with this. I want to get on with the General election.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Raine1967
(11,626 posts)She asked people to vote, she also knew the race was over.
stillwaiting
(3,795 posts)Things are different.
He shouldn't concede.
The party is split, and it is an unavoidable result relating DIRECTLY to how the Party has behaved over the past years leading up to this primary.
The split is not going to be papered over. Especially with HRC leading us. She has made multiple overtures towards Sanders supporters indicating she is not going to try to get their support, but she expects Bernie to deliver his supporters votes to her anyways. How presumptuous. How ridiculous.
Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)of one sort or another.
Buzz cook
(2,669 posts)Is the biggest problem we have from 1990 at least
The media has set it self up as king maker and we poor mortals just have to follow its lead.
BootinUp
(49,294 posts)Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)george war bush. It's tough when a candidate you like loses.
anigbrowl
(13,889 posts)The claim that Clinton has effectively won the nomination is based on the number of pledged delegates already won plus superdelegates willing to go on record as being definite supporters. After that it's just counting. There is nothing untoward about this and the same thing has happened in many election cycles. There is no precedent being set here that I can see.
eastwestdem
(1,220 posts)I would rather have seen what was going to happen tomorrow without any outside influence. Now we will never know. No one wants to go into a general election this way.