Why did AP declare Clinton the presumptive nominee before Tuesday's primaries?
Why did AP declare Clinton the presumptive nominee before Tuesday's primaries? Exec. editor @kathleenatap explains:
Just hours ahead of the final primary contests on Tuesday, the Associated Press reported Hillary Clinton as the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party. The statement, which was based on the AP's own survey of superdelegates, sent the media into a frenzy and prompted outrage from Bernie Sanders supporters who claim that the news may have hurt Sanders' chances in one of the biggest primary nights of the election.
But Kathleen Carroll, executive editor of the Associated Press, has a simple explanation: if you have the news, you report it, no matter when it comes in.
http://www.wnyc.org/story/ap-reporting-delegate-count
The transcript is not up yet but you can listen to it at the link.
Ohioblue22
(1,430 posts)Trajan
(19,089 posts)So, it was and IS still conjecture ..
The mere fact that you said this, knowing it is false, is enough to toss a fibbing DUer into permanent exile ...
Why tolerate liars in our midst? ... No reason
Travis_0004
(5,417 posts)pre·sump·tive
prəˈzəm(p)tiv/
adjective
of the nature of a presumption; presumed in the absence of further information.
pre·sume
prəˈz(y)o͞om/
verb
past tense: presumed; past participle: presumed
1.
suppose that something is the case on the basis of probability.
Based on all date, it was statistically likely that she was going to be the nominee.
Nobody said that she was confirmed as the nominee, only the presumptive nominee. And as it turns out, it appears as if they were correct. With how poor Bearnie was doing, my only question is why did it take so long.
Response to Ohioblue22 (Reply #1)
Post removed
JayhawkSD
(3,163 posts)They have enormous amounts of exit polling data and will not report it until after the polls close. There is no law requiring that they withhold that data, they do so voluntarily out of a concern that reporting it while the polls are open might "sway voters who have not yet gone to the polls."
So, did they really think that announcing before the polls opened that voting in several states, including California, had become irrelevant would not "sway voters before they went to the polls?"
CrowCityDem
(2,348 posts)JayhawkSD
(3,163 posts)Calling the election "over" while the polls are still open will discourage people who are on their way to vote from going ahead with their vote because they are hearing that the election is "over" while they are on their way to vote and so they will turn around and go home.
But if the media says that the election is "over" before the polls open, then no one is on their way to vote yet, and so by the the time the polls open they will have forgotten that the media said that the election is "over" and so they will, in blissful ignorance of what the media said yesterday, go ahead and go to the polls and vote in a gesture than they have forgotten doesn't matter.
CrowCityDem
(2,348 posts)JayhawkSD
(3,163 posts)CrowCityDem
(2,348 posts)Igel
(35,300 posts)But the primaries aren't over, are they?
6/14 DC has a Democratic primary. The difference between making a likely prediction on 6/6 and 6/8 is how many voters would be affected, not whether voters would be effected.
It's okay, apparently, after California votes. But we don't give two cents' about DC voters because, well, they're not ... what?
"Important" is, I think, the word we want. Win DC or lose DC, DC doesn't give anybody yuge bragging rights to a victory and momentum or drowning one's sorrows in a pint. Can't spin a DC win, can't spin a DC loss. Can't make much of it. It's a sow's ear and will forever be a sow's ear because there's not much to it as far as the delegate count goes.
Still, they, too, will vote. And they're not irrelevant however much we love our rhetorical hits out of the park (or "hyperbole," which goes back to "throwing it over (the wall)" or some such expression).
stopbush
(24,396 posts)Waaa. It's unfair because someone didn't vote yet. So we need to PRETEND we don't know who won the nomination because some sensitivities might be slighted.
What a pathetic, childish view of reality.
"Binky's not dead. He's in dog heaven."
alarimer
(16,245 posts)The sheer arrogance of Hillary fans astonishes me.
There are other races on the ballot, you know. THEY don't deserve to have the turnout suppressed.
stopbush
(24,396 posts)If you don't have the interest or guts to register as a D or an R you should have no say in who gets nominated to run for president from those parties.
You want to register as an Independent, fine. Vote for candidates who are running as Independents.
Cassiopeia
(2,603 posts)AP just decided to beat them to it.
CrowCityDem
(2,348 posts)Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)CrowCityDem
(2,348 posts)Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)but perhaps I was not paying close attention. It tainted her win though as it left so many people feeling that they had no vote.
CrowCityDem
(2,348 posts)Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)CrowCityDem
(2,348 posts)Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)but people were disenfranchised and have a right to be angry. Obviously this matters to many. Have a good day.
CrowCityDem
(2,348 posts)An election being over before it's your turn to vote is not disenfranchisement. It's simply the reality of having a staggered primary calendar.
beachbum bob
(10,437 posts)SmittynMo
(3,544 posts)Last edited Sat Jun 11, 2016, 10:22 PM - Edit history (1)
Because this whole election was based on corruption and dirty politics.
You just said that even contests Sanders won were based on corruption and dirty politics.
That is what you meant, isn't it?
SmittynMo
(3,544 posts)Of course not. How could Bernie possibly influence the establishment? They were against him from the very start, and controlled most of the primary. I mean, just for starters, why would anyone put a crucial debate on at 9PM, against football teams, on a Saturday night? It was one thing after another. And then to pull this shit the day before a major election date? It sure makes you wonder why? In my opinion, that was major dirty politics, which may end making her lose the election due to low voter turnout. 11M people voted for Bernie. How many of those do you think wont show up in November? That will make a yuuuuge difference, and a potential loss.
stopbush
(24,396 posts)that Sanders lost fair and square.
At present, you're using a self-confirming delusion to explain how almost 4-million more people voted for Hillary over Sanders. You're using the same delusion to absolve Sanders of engaging in any dirty tricks (he did steal Hillary's voter data from the DNC, after all).
In your favor, you do say this is just your opinion, and opinions do change over time.
Here's hoping you put your support behind Hillary, who is - after all - the D nominee.
SmittynMo
(3,544 posts)over this. It will come with time.
Yes 4M more voted for her, but that does not change how she got there. And DWS was right in the middle of this too. Until the "presumptive" title is gone on July 25, I will remain committed to Bernie. I'm sorry, but I am part of 11M people that voted for him. His policies are completely different than hers, and I suspect a large amount of those 11M people will not show up in November. We all know what happens when the democrats have low voter turnout. We lose. I personally, will have a bigger issue if that happens.
stopbush
(24,396 posts)which is why I voted for her.
BTW - as a lifelong D (1972), I find it highly offensive when a DINO like Sanders says the Ds need to "start" looking out for the middle class. Excuse me - we've been doing that for decades. Sanders basically took all the great things Ds have done over the decades and acted like no one had thought about them until he came along.
I found his entire campaign to be deceitful and unrealistic. Claiming "we win when voter turnout is high" may feed the idea that he's the candidate of the masses, but the fact is that it was Hillary who won the states with high turnout.
I won't even get into his unrealistic plans to pay for his healthcare proposals.
SmittynMo
(3,544 posts)There is absolutely no reason in the world that we, the richest country in the WORLD, cannot afford healthcare, tuition free college. It's very REALISTIC. Try thinking progressive next time. And the facts are true that lower voter turnout will produce a loss for the Ds. Last I heard, Bernie was in the double digits when put up against Trump. Clinton is currently at +2, well within the margin of error. Yeah, that's smart. And how is it that Trump and HRC have a 55-60 unfavorability rate? How can they even be in the picture at this stage? What is going on this election cycle is absurd.
Your viewpoint on life for the middle class is quite different than most. They have been getting screwed for decades. And the pain will continue for the next 4 if we keep our current path.
Our good jobs are disappearing at an alarming rate, with no hope of them returning.
And then, instead of trying to gather Bernie's backers, they criticize and demean them. Yeah, real smart there!!! NOT!!! Lower voter turnout - duh!!!!
I give up. Talk to me sometime after July 25. I only hope the FBI is done by then.
stopbush
(24,396 posts)Sanders constantly pointed to Denmark as an example of effective socialism. Did you know that the average Dane pays a tax rate of 45%? Huh, Bernie didn't mention THAT. I wonder why. Telling people they'll pay $1000 a year for family healthcare while getting a $5000 rebate from the gov sounds so good! 45% tax rate? Not so good.
So, the family of 4 making $50k a year would be paying around $23k a year in taxes, leaving them with a whopping $27k to live on. That's rent/mortgage, utilities, cars, clothing, food etc. That's what we're talking about if the richest country in the world wants to have Denmark- style healthcare.
And here's Sanders biggest lie and shortcoming: the country was ready to have that discussion. Ready to discuss whether it was time to even the playing field by imposing a 45% tax rate across the board, adding up the winners and losers in such a situation. But rather than give the country an HONEST discussion, what did Sanders do? He lowballed the costs and argued that the only reason the country couldn't take on his plan was because dishonest businessmen and politicians wanted to keep them sick. Pie-in-the-sky costs and savings couple with directing people's anger at some faceless, evil powers-that-be.
I call that dishonest. Worse, I call it squanding an opportunity that won't come again, if ever.
alarimer
(16,245 posts)They don't actually care about those issues. They have theirs, you see, and that's all that matters.
They don't care about voter suppression, either, unless it affects their candidate.
Response to stopbush (Reply #16)
Post removed
stopbush
(24,396 posts)His sh*t doesn't stink. We all know.
yurbud
(39,405 posts)when they started throwing us overboard for the corporate dollars.
scscholar
(2,902 posts)That's all this be.
RAFisher
(466 posts)It was on Sunday. The next day they said she won.
yurbud
(39,405 posts)like coverage of the felon voter purge in Florida in 2000, and the Bush approved warrantless wiretaps in 2004.
This is just a more benign version of the same sort of manipulation.
stopbush
(24,396 posts)the manipulation in real time.
Huh...
HassleCat
(6,409 posts)That's pretty much all we get from the media.
Response to MinM (Original post)
rjsquirrel This message was self-deleted by its author.
tirebiter
(2,536 posts)It had the possibility of holding back Clinton voters, also. And very well may have.
alarimer
(16,245 posts)But Hillary fans don't care about that either.