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

Gregorian

(23,867 posts)
Thu Feb 11, 2016, 12:43 PM Feb 2016

Media Reporting Un-cast Super Delegate Votes for Hillary Clinton Misleading & Unethical

The numbers reported out of NH may very well not be the case as we move forward. Some of Hillary's superdelegates changed to Obama in the end, in 2008. So anyone concerned about the delegate count, watch this, and be heartened. The media is using the un-cast votes in order to undermine our enthusiasm in the process.

&feature=em-uploademail
9 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Media Reporting Un-cast Super Delegate Votes for Hillary Clinton Misleading & Unethical (Original Post) Gregorian Feb 2016 OP
Most likely - they love to create circular firing squads during Dem primaries. blm Feb 2016 #1
I am not gloating. BlueMTexpat Feb 2016 #3
That's why I say some (not all). Used to be a thing here at DU in past elections. blm Feb 2016 #6
No fury from me! BlueMTexpat Feb 2016 #7
History lesson here ... BlueMTexpat Feb 2016 #2
Question Cosmocat Feb 2016 #4
I am not sure whether anything exists BlueMTexpat Feb 2016 #8
Thanks Cosmocat Feb 2016 #9
Oh, her again nt firebrand80 Feb 2016 #5

blm

(113,065 posts)
1. Most likely - they love to create circular firing squads during Dem primaries.
Thu Feb 11, 2016, 12:47 PM
Feb 2016

Note to some (not all) HRC supporters here at DU - stop the gloating. It wasn't cool when you were complaining about the process back in 2008, and it isn't cool that some (not all) are gloating about it now.

In my opinion.

BlueMTexpat

(15,369 posts)
3. I am not gloating.
Thu Feb 11, 2016, 01:02 PM
Feb 2016
I very much appreciated your post about SDs.

But posting facts to rebut incorrect statements is something that I like to do, no matter whom I support.

blm

(113,065 posts)
6. That's why I say some (not all). Used to be a thing here at DU in past elections.
Thu Feb 11, 2016, 01:56 PM
Feb 2016

Broad paint brushing causes unneeded fury, too.

BlueMTexpat

(15,369 posts)
7. No fury from me!
Thu Feb 11, 2016, 05:25 PM
Feb 2016


We have much more in common than not. Too many seem to forget that in the heat of the campaign. I certainly do not include you among them.

The issue of SDs is confusing for many (both newbies and those who just never paid attention in previous elections). The reactions include knee-jerk denial and accusations of unfairness. But it is what it is.

As I noticed in your excellent OP on the topic, you invited those who found SDs to be unfair to work towards remedying the situation in future elections. I didn't notice whether anyone ever took you up on the invitation. Many seem to want it to be different NOW - just for Bernie, either not knowing or not caring why SDs exist in the first place and not thinking long-term at all.

Instant gratification predominates among too many who really do not understand the day-in day-out work of people who don't just wake up to politics once every four years.

BlueMTexpat

(15,369 posts)
2. History lesson here ...
Thu Feb 11, 2016, 01:00 PM
Feb 2016
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Democratic_Party_superdelegates,_2008

At the time of Hillary Clinton's campaign suspension on June 7, 2008, the count was 246½ for her and 478 for Barack Obama, with 99 still 'Uncommitted' of the 823½ total then existing, although this number represents the realignment of around 50 superdelegates who switched their support from Clinton to Obama when he had gained the majority of delegates. Clinton released her delegates during the convention.


So yes, some SDs may switch from Hillary to Bernies IF he wins the majority of primary delegates. He is a LONG way from doing that right now. As can be seen, only 50 switched in 2008 before Hillary released them during the convention - as is the usual practice.

But as to your headline, the media reporting is neither misleading nor unethical. It is factual.

Cosmocat

(14,566 posts)
4. Question
Thu Feb 11, 2016, 01:20 PM
Feb 2016

do you know of any current running total on delegates that lays out how they looked moving forward, too?

I really would like to see how it looks compared to 08 ...

BlueMTexpat

(15,369 posts)
8. I am not sure whether anything exists
Thu Feb 11, 2016, 05:50 PM
Feb 2016

that would provide a delegate-to-delegate comparison to 2008. 2016 running totals for both parties can be found here: http://www.uspresidentialelectionnews.com/2016-primary-delegate-count/

For an excellent overview of the 2016 presidential nominations: calendar and delegate rules, see: https://ballotpedia.org/2016_presidential_nominations:_calendar_and_delegate_rules

An overview of the Democratic Presidential Primaries can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016

FiveThirtyEight provides weighted totals of endorsements for each candidate (counting elected Reps, Senators, and Governors in the total): http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-endorsement-primary/

A comprehensive list of all persons who have endorsed Democratic candidates can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endorsements_for_the_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016 But you have to continue to the respective candidate's site to see who endorsed whom. Links are provided.

Lots to see and learn. Good luck!

Cosmocat

(14,566 posts)
9. Thanks
Fri Feb 12, 2016, 07:54 AM
Feb 2016

My sense is that bho was postioned a little better with delegates than bernie, I just am trying to see how he is tracking at the same point compared to bho.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Media Reporting Un-cast S...