Media innumeracy (or pandering) gives the wrong impression of Sanders as front-runner

[gulliver]

Last edited Sun Feb 16, 2020, 06:38 PM - Edit history (1)

Right now the actual front-runner logically is not Sanders but a so-called center/left candidate to be named later. Non-Sanders candidates outweigh Sanders by more than 2-1. This is a tug-of-war, not a horse race.

At some point, there will either be just one candidate opposite Sanders or there will more than one. In both cases, Sanders will have a minority of pledged delegates. He will therefore not be the candidate if the will of the voters prevails. The rules of the race are designed (with Sanders's full buy-in) to ensure that that correct "will of the voters" result is the actual result.

It's incumbent on the media to start making sure people understand that fact, imo. I would hate to think that they are playing up a false "horse race" model of the race to pander to those who wrongly think that that model matches reality. I would hate to think that Sanders supporters would want Sanders to win unfairly in opposition to democratic equality of voters in the United States.

The media shouldn't lead Sanders or other voters into the error of oversimplifying the race and wrongly thinking of Sanders as being "in the lead." The media needs to get its math, knowledge of the rules, logic, and judgment of fairness straight and communicate the actual status of the race.

[FBaggins]

1. Sorry... that's wishful thinking at best

It’s basically how we got Trump.

He has the most votes... currently the highest polling... ranks first in the odds-making... and rocks the fundraising.

He’s the front runner. “Candidate to be named later” isn’t a thing.

[gulliver]

2. The rules are actually both clear and fair.

The only thing that really matters (as it should) is that all voters get an equal say. The rules that Sanders helped create and accepted do a pretty good job of preventing a candidate from winning on the basis of vote splitting.

That's something we should celebrate.

Right now Buttigieg would be the front runner if this were a foot race. Buttigieg has more delegates. Hence, he has more yards behind him on the racetrack and is correspondingly closer to the finish line than Sanders. Therefore, Buttigieg is in the lead. QED.

But it's not a foot or horse race.

[Garrett78]

3. Frontrunner status is about more than the current delegate count. It's about looking ahead.

Sanders is much more likely than Buttigieg, Klobuchar, Warren and Steyer to rack up wins going forward. The oddsmakers recognize this reality.

Biden needs to have a strong showing in NV and win SC, or else he's likely done.

And then there's Bloomberg, who is just deplorable, which more and more people will learn in time.

[FBaggins]

4. I don't remember saying that they were either unclear or unfair

Your post seems targeted at a different debate entirely. You're trying to defuse potential discontent with a scenario where Sanders wins the most votes/delegates but fails to gain the majority needed to win the nomination. That's an interesting conversation... but not relevant to who is currently the front runner. "Front runner" does not mean "currently has a greater than 50% chance of winning the nomination" - it means the candidate who currently has the greatest chance of winning. There's no question that that's Sanders right now.

If Buttigieg came out of IA/NH with enough momentum to boost his chances in NV/SC, then the "you got more votes, but I have technically more delegates" spin might be relevant (though not as much in a party continuing to claim that Hillary getting more votes in 2016 was a relevant rebuttal to the results of the electoral college)... but he didn't. Klobuchar's surge further split the center-left vote

Right now Buttigieg would be the front runner if this were a foot race.

No, he wouldn't. Not even as much as Sanders was the frontrunner at the same point in 2016.

The rules that Sanders helped create and accepted do a pretty good job of preventing a candidate from winning on the basis of vote splitting.

If a few people don't drop out quickly... he might get an absolute majority of delegates. When the vote-splitting drags large numbers of votes into the <15% bucket

It's also worth pointing out that in your scenario, the rules would not prevent a candidate "from winning on the basis of vote splitting" - they would just allow someone to get the nomination other than the candidate with the most votes. That person would still have won due to vote splitting.