Dem Debate #7: Bernie is Super Bowled Over

[tgards79]

Bernie is caught between Iraq and a hard place:
http://www.borntorunthenumbers.com/2016/03/the-seventh-democratic-debate-super.html

[Agnosticsherbet]

1. Born to run the numbers has won me as a fan.

The provide a thoughtful, intelligent dissection of what is happening.

It particular explains why Sanders isn't taking for the gloves and inventorying Clinton, which I have seen people call for here.

[ebayfool]

2. Sorry. Even the NY Times has stopped including super delegates in their count.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/primary-calendar-and-results.html?_r=0

Dishonest to include them before they are officially counted at the convention. Even if you add a caveat, it's distortional and makes it difficult to take the rest of your points as non-partisan.

And the stretch to add the catchy 'Iraq and a hard place' is off-putting, as well. You've done better work before.

'Super Bowled Over' goes in the above category. I spent more time trying to see the connections than I did actually reading the rest. It's not an asset when you are writing what normally is an incisive, thoughtful process. Sorry, really. I do have your site bookmarked and refer to it often to see what is new. I hope the trying too hard shoehorning of clumsy allegories doesn't interfere with future postings.

I'll try to read it again at a later time to see if I can get past the frills and get at the 'meat'. Promise.

[Optimism]

3. Actually, in today's Seattle Times ...

... on the front page they ran with the NY Times article on the debate (as they often do) which per usual did include the 1100+ Hillary delegate "total" vs. Bernie's insignificant 499. No disclaimer, no mention that included Super delegates, nada.

The silver lining was that at least they (surprisingly, for them) endorsed Bernie on their editorial page!

[ebayfool]

4. Awesome for the endorsement! Check my link, though. It's not there now.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/primary-calendar-and-results.html?_r=0


They have the supers listed separately below it. Finally.

snip/

Superdelegates Clinton 458, Sanders 22

Democratic party leaders who are free to support any candidate. The majority of the 712 superdelegates have declared support for Mrs. Clinton, though they could switch candidates if she were to lose the lead in pledged delegates, which are awarded based on election results.

[Optimism]

5. No, I wasn't talking about their on-line results page ...

I was talking about the written article where they summarized last night's town hall. (It was picked up and printed in today's Seattle Times.) In that article the writer's freely use the Superdelegate-padded numbers, as if they are fact. Very misleading.

Quite happy though that they've switched to the actual delegate count on their on-line site! Don't know about that disclaimer language though : though they could switch if she were to lose the lead ...

I'm so picky with wordage (and underlying messages)!

[ebayfool]

7. I get ya! And yeah, I've wondered if they'll stick with it or relapse to their old ways.

I don't buy hard copy papers any more - not in the budget.

[lovemydog]

6. It's an interesting article, but the bright red and blue

background on that page freaked my eyes out and made it difficult for me to read all the way through.

[tgards79]

8. Ugh I have to change that!!!

Thanks!

[lovemydog]

9. Hey, thank you.

I'll definitely read it more when the background is easier on my eyes.