2016 Postmortem

lunamagica

(9,967 posts)

79. If that's true then support is really weak. Neither of the campaigns wanted this to happen

Reply to TDale313 (Reply #36)

Tue Jun 7, 2016, 01:45 AM

Jun 2016

I actually think this may hurt Hillary more. People may think she has it in the bag, and not vote.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

87 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Even if you support Clinton, you should also be appalled by the media Bigfooting the voters [View all] Armstead Jun 2016 OP

This is well within historical precedence and norms. We have waited a long time to celebrate. Trust Buster Jun 2016 #1

That does not answer the Ops question.... AuntPatsy Jun 2016 #12

No. Not on the night before one of the biggest round of primaries of the season. Unprofessional. reformist2 Jun 2016 #31

THIS! nt tblue37 Jun 2016 #41

Could you provide an historical example... leftinportland Jun 2016 #32

2008 TwilightZone Jun 2016 #53

Message auto-removed Name removed Jun 2016 #62

All primaries were over at that time... leftinportland Jun 2016 #63

Hypocrites puffy socks Jun 2016 #2

Someone endorsing is not the same as the media calling an election on the noght before a vote Armstead Jun 2016 #4

You're kidding, right ? Trust Buster Jun 2016 #20

Oh please. puffy socks Jun 2016 #21

sanders was a Senator and a number of Senators have endorsed Clinton azurnoir Jun 2016 #51

Those senators werent running for president and whining about puffy socks Jun 2016 #59

Bernie wasn't running for POTUS at the time he endorsed Obama either azurnoir Jun 2016 #61

Well, the media can count. TwilightZone Jun 2016 #46

Two days after all primaries were over...that is when Sanders endorsed Obama... leftinportland Jun 2016 #35

He endorsed when Obama had the nomination wrapped up. puffy socks Jun 2016 #56

Sanders endorsed Obama after everyone had voted democrattotheend Jun 2016 #60

It was much closer in 08 Demsrule86 Jun 2016 #67

They all will "project" winners before the election, yet will cover the returns coming in as always bettyellen Jun 2016 #3

"The Republicans do it too!!!!!!11!!1!" mac56 Jun 2016 #10

The press has been doing this to DEM AND GOP RACES FOR YEARS!!! FOR YEARS! bettyellen Jun 2016 #29

FOR YEARS?? FOR YEARS?? mac56 Jun 2016 #44

It is what it is. The press withholding information would be unethical. bettyellen Jun 2016 #54

Sorry if you do not appreciate the difference Armstead Jun 2016 #11

They regret the outcome, not the fact that the outcome was reported. Lord Magus Jun 2016 #22

this is the night AFTER a weekend of two votes that put her over- DO PR and VI not matter? bettyellen Jun 2016 #23

Jesus Christ -- It could have at least waited 24 hours. Let people vote without that skew. Armstead Jun 2016 #37

Sitting on the results would be irresponsible. TwilightZone Jun 2016 #50

Your advocating for the press to withhold information they know due to the timing of an election? bettyellen Jun 2016 #52

Yes Armstead Jun 2016 #55

I don't see how that would be a good precedent. I'm all for making it easier to vote but no one bettyellen Jun 2016 #65

Why does the rest of the world have to wait 24 hours to accommodate your feelings? anigbrowl Jun 2016 #83

But this is not a Democracy. mia Jun 2016 #5

This is a political party, choosing their nominee by rules they have established. MADem Jun 2016 #39

"The 'democracy' bit" tomorrow's voices and is trying to sway their votes. mia Jun 2016 #74

Political parties are not, by their nature, democratic in their own MADem Jun 2016 #82

My Mom is huge Hillary supporter and does not like this at all OctOct1 Jun 2016 #6

All Democrats should not be happy with the media tonight. LonePirate Jun 2016 #7

Burying the news because it might impact an election is not good journalism. Lord Magus Jun 2016 #19

I agree with your point. I just don't think it would have any impact on the elections. LonePirate Jun 2016 #27

You do not know the effect it will have. Armstead Jun 2016 #40

I have no idea what effect it will have. I simply think the AP could have waited 24 hours. LonePirate Jun 2016 #47

I'll make that decision for you. It's unethical. Armstead Jun 2016 #49

"This mostly seemed like a rush to scoop () a foregone conclusion..." -- nothing more, nothing less. Surya Gayatri Jun 2016 #87

They are like little kids--all they care about is being the first to tell. nt tblue37 Jun 2016 #43

You got one thing right at least. News is news. And what AP investigated and reported is news. onenote Jun 2016 #8

Not only could this suppress Hillary's vote, as well, tblue37 Jun 2016 #48

tomorrows primaries are still going on and Sanders says he still has the delegates to win so msongs Jun 2016 #9

Very well said passiveporcupine Jun 2016 #13

This is not any new precedent. Lord Magus Jun 2016 #14

Were you appalled when Kerry was declared the nominee months before California? BainsBane Jun 2016 #15

A media call does not trump votes KingFlorez Jun 2016 #16

Self fulfilling prophecies Armstead Jun 2016 #30

Sure, and the media has no influence. Corporation give them millions for nothing. rhett o rick Jun 2016 #34

I am livid. DURHAM D Jun 2016 #17

So you admit that the Democrats are divided. Yes we have the Progressives that support rhett o rick Jun 2016 #42

There's nothing ethical about the media influencing an election. Waiting For Everyman Jun 2016 #18

I'm pissed too. nt geek tragedy Jun 2016 #24

why are you guys all blaming the media? Cheese Sandwich Jun 2016 #25

hit.nail.head Lizzie Poppet Jun 2016 #57

That sounds pretty reasonable to me Cheese Sandwich Jun 2016 #73

Team Sanders should be ecstatic--the announcement might serve to depress the Clinton vote in CA. MADem Jun 2016 #26

If this was Sanders, the whole board would be "berning" with joy, and celebrating lunamagica Jun 2016 #28

Wait'll it happens to a candidate you support Armstead Jun 2016 #33

This is just the media making a call. Everyone is free to vote, jus as they were before lunamagica Jun 2016 #80

LOL, do you think this is our first rodeo? anigbrowl Jun 2016 #84

Calling a race over does suppress turnout. TDale313 Jun 2016 #36

If that's true then support is really weak. Neither of the campaigns wanted this to happen lunamagica Jun 2016 #79

No, we are not like you. We want to help those struggling among us and not the Big Corporations. rhett o rick Jun 2016 #45

ome on, every time there was even a tiny good new about Sanders, you gloated and gloated lunamagica Jun 2016 #78

+1. nt tblue37 Jun 2016 #38

I'm pissed off..they should have waited until Tuesday night...nt asuhornets Jun 2016 #58

In all my posts reviewing the state of the primary, I never included LuvLoogie Jun 2016 #64

She had the delegates so why wait? Demsrule86 Jun 2016 #66

I say this from a truth i felt in 2008. Raine1967 Jun 2016 #68

Clinton was given the chance to concede after the last vote Armstead Jun 2016 #70

She also suspended her campaign. This is a really important point for me. Raine1967 Jun 2016 #72

In 2008 Obama was not facing an FBI investigation (or 2) or possible indictment. stillwaiting Jun 2016 #86

I believe we can confidently expect a disaster Voice for Peace Jun 2016 #69

I have been saying the media Buzz cook Jun 2016 #71

Bullcrap. Blame the SD's for not falling for Bernie's story if you want. BootinUp Jun 2016 #75

The Media have done this in every Democratic Primiary since 1984. Agnosticsherbet Jun 2016 #76

Facts are news. Hard to take sometimes. I was in a funk for months when Kerry lost to Hoyt Jun 2016 #77

This is an absurd argument anigbrowl Jun 2016 #81

Agreed...disgusted Hillary supporter here. No one wins when voter turnout is surpressed. eastwestdem Jun 2016 #85