It wouldn't take a far fetched conspiracy to link the Clinton camp to the AP call.

[Tom Rinaldo]

Last edited Tue Jun 7, 2016, 03:58 PM - Edit history (1)

Nothing illegal would have been required, and the Associated Press wouldn't have to have been "in on" anything for the actual timing of an announcement on the night before California voted to have been set up by Clinton's campaign.

Some question what motivation would cause Hillary's team to want events to play out that way, when the optics potentially were so much better to clam clinching the nomination at a victory Party in Brooklyn after the NJ results came in. It would have allowed Hillary to announce with fanfare that she had won by securing the majority of pledged delegates at stake in the overall contest - a far more powerful taking point than relying on a secret poll of nameless party apparatchiks to declare victory. True, no doubt that was Plan A.

Why might Hillary's team have benefited by ditching Plan A then, and moving instead to a Plan B? That's pretty simple really; to better manage the news and spin cycle if the Clinton campaign's internal polling numbers for California had turned bleak. If she was headed toward an embarrassing loss in California, with high voter turn out in a highly diverse state which she won in 2008 against Barack Obama - that would be a reason to reshuffle the deck with an 11th hour call of victory before polls actually opened in California.

If one assumes that team Hillary feared a pending loss in California with the inevitable subsequent media commentary about her limping across the finish line for the nomination showing clear sign of weakness, then it all makes sense. As it stands now though she is benefiting from a full day positive news cycle focused on becoming the first woman ever called the presumptive presidential nominee of a major political party. Had the Associated Press not stepped in with their call last night, Hillary still would have claimed overall victory at her campaign party today in Brooklyn as planned. But the positive glow from that would have competed with election returns in progress and lasted at most a few hours, if she still went down to a humiliating defeat out west. Why would she take that chance if she didn't have to?

Now Hillary is guaranteed to escape that worst case scenario, even if she does still lose California. She can simply say her voters chose to stay home after the nomination was called for her, having nothing left to prove, while Bernie's people still turned out to cast a protest vote. Overall voter turn out in California will almost certainly be depressed below potentially record breaking numbers now as well, and that too will help reduce the sting of any loss Clinton may suffer there.

So I think the motivation may well have been there on the part of the Clinton camp to have this race "called" last night, but how about the means? That part would be pretty straight forward. Both the Clinton and Sanders camps know exactly who at AP was conducting ongoing Super Delegate polling. Hillary Clinton, it is safe to say, has plenty of friends within the structure of the Democratic Party who just so happen to be Super Delegates. I'm not saying they are not sincere and honest people, let's assume the best about all of them. Some may have held back on pledging their support to Hillary before now for any number of reasons. For example, maybe some of them are from states that are finally voting today, and maybe it had been their intention not to announce until that voting was over. Whatever, we will never really know, because the Associated Press is hiding their identity from the public.

Hillary's team could have prevailed on a number of them to make their preference known to the Associated Press a day or a week earlier than they had originally planned, so that the nominating contest could be called for Hillary at the last minute before California voted. They could have reached out to the Associated Press, not the other way around. It was entirely possible, and it would not have been very difficult, for the Clinton team to determine the timing of when she got declared the presumptive nominee by the Associated Press.

Is that what happened? I don't know, I can only say that it is plausible that it happened. And that clearly points to what sucks about how the political game gets played in a system where a significant percentage of the delegates are unaccountable to any real electorate, and remain obscure if not totally anonymous. And where the stating of an intention (to later vote for candidate "A" or "B&quot is equated with an actual official vote by the electorate in a primary that binds delegates to support the person thus favored by registered voters.

If that happened it was all quite legitimate, in that the game got played consistent with all stated rules. But those rules suck whether or not they lent themselves in this instance to that kind of political hardball on the eve of today's important vote. They need to be changed before another Democratic presidential election cycle comes around again - because any system that suppresses or disenfranchises voting has no place in a party that calls itself Democratic.

[eastwestdem]

1. It's much more likely to be triggered by the Sanders campaign, since they will benefit more.

This whole thing has really motivated the Sanders supporters, while it has quieted those who want Hillary to win, but think that she already has.

[tonyt53]

2. Bingo!

[Cheese Sandwich]

84. Not Bingo. Polls showed Clinton benefited from lower turnout in California.

[Tom Rinaldo]

5. It's obviously open to debate

It may be motivating hard core Bernie supporters, and yeah there are a lot of those, but still only a small percentage of those who might actually vote for him in a primary. Sanders can't win anything other than a few of the caucuses by counting on them. And that shows up at a place like DU, but DU is not exactly Representative of most voters.

The Sanders campaign had already made it known that they opposed any news organization calling the nomination for anyone based on the NJ returns while polls were still open out west because of the effect on voter suppression it has to do so.

Besides it now muddies the California returns no matter how they come out, and Sanders was counting on a strong clear message emerging from that state with a unequivocal win there. Ain't gonna happen now even if he does still win there.

[pmorlan1]

10. Exactly why it was done

Besides it now muddies the California returns no matter how they come out, and Sanders was counting on a strong clear message emerging from that state with a unequivocal win there. Ain't gonna happen now even if he does still win there.

We will eventually find out. Someone will write a tell-all book about this campaign you can bank on that. When they do we will find out how this all played out.

[TDale313]

9. How does that work exactly?

Bernie somehow gets a number Superdelegates to tell the AP they're supporting Hillary at a crucial time when she doesn't want them to? Yeah, that makes sense. And while it may backfire, conventional wisdom has been lower turnout benefits her. And all she/her campaign needed to do here is say "Hey, tell the AP you're supporting me on this date" It's the timing that's questionable. But do I think a bunch of Supers who have decided to support her confirmed that to the AP without letting the campaign know? Absolutely not.

[eastwestdem]

11. Someone from his campaign could easily have called the AP and encouraged them to prod the supers to

confirm their support. It sounds just like a 'hail mary' that a losing campaign would try.

[TDale313]

25. AP has been regularly contacting Supers.

A bunch chose that moment in time to tell the AP that they intended to support Hillary. That's not something Bernie or his camp would have any control over. It's just silly to think this came from the Bernie camp. These are Superdelegates supporting her. It's possible they all spontaneously decided that was the time and didn't let the campaign know, but that seems unlikely to me.

[passiveporcupine]

64. and don't forget

just enough to get her to that magic number that the media is not even supposed to be using...again, very suspicious.

I'm curious about why they want to hide their identity.

Because they don't want to leave a trail for someone to find out who is behind this? This whole thing smells like Brock to me.

[libdem4life]

79. The newest Conspiracy Theory...Bernie, the media darling. LOLOLOL.

[lunamagica]

54. Exactly

[w4rma]

62. Sanders supporters outraged over Clinton's 'secret win' image

Christina Bellantoni ✔ @cbellantoni
The images in this Clinton email are labeled "secret win."

Supporters of Bernie Sanders expressed outrage and suspicion in the hours following the Associated Press’s declaration of Hillary Clinton securing the Democratic nomination when it was reported that she had sent an email to supporters hailing the win with an image labeled “secret win.”

The AP’s delegate count included superdelegates which Sanders supporters say is unfair since they can switch their support at any time in the weeks leading up to the convention.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/282512-sanders-supporters-outraged-over-clintons-secret-win

[think]

76. "SECRET WIN" didn't come from the Bernie camp and you know it....

[libdem4life]

80. Don't pop their balloon...it seems to be pretty thin these days.

[geek tragedy]

3. Plan A called for her to declare victory before the votes were counted in California anyways

so your theory doesn't make much sense on its face.

[Tom Rinaldo]

15. Plan A called for her also winning California

She had long been favored there. Of course she was going to claim victory one way or another, why wouldn't she? It would have been problematic for her though had Californians rejected her three hours later. That would have been an at least competing news lead, and subject to more overall discussion that the fact that she was called the presumptive nominee three hours earlier.

The AP call last night changed everything, whether or not Clinton had anything to do with making that happen (through legit means if she did - I don't argue that point). No one will ever know now how California would have voted or how many would have voted there - on the latter point we can only guess more - had the AP not interceded.

I think it was a clear net plus for her, and partisan politics aside, more evidence for scrapping the current Super Delegate system.

[geek tragedy]

20. Occam's razor is usually a pretty good rule. nt

[rhett o rick]

32. Occam's razor is often used to try to get others to buy the simple explanation.

But that isn't the intention of the rule. Occam said that the simplest theory is the best place to start.

"Here it is important to point out that nowhere does he assert that the simpler explanation is always more correct or that the more complex explanation is always less correct. Had he done so, he would have been mistaken and remembered quite differently. The point is to start from the simplest possible explanation and only make it more complex when absolutely necessary."

There are a lot of conspiracies in politics especially when the Wealthy are involved. They have think tanks that essentially do nothing but conspire. Karl Rove makes a living conspiring.

[procon]

4. Some people live in a world filled with convenient conspiracies to fit all occasions.

When the autopsy on Sanders campaign is published, the conclusion will be death by a thousand self-inflicted cuts.

[pmorlan1]

8. Do tell

Some people live in a world where they are willfully blind to the machinations of their own candidates campaign.

[procon]

24. Well, there you have it.

LOL - Such has been the sad lament of losers from time immemorial. Since Sanders and company have been using that same threadbare ruse since day one, it boggles the mind why they were never prepared to take any action to prevent this so called injustice...ever! Since the same bogus hue and cry was raised repeatedly every time he lost, it seems a bit like a canned excuse.

Looking forward to seeing that autopsy.

[pmorlan1]

28. Loser? Hardly

I'm not a loser. I'm in this to change the Democratic Party and I'm pleased as punch that we've made a damn fine start. I know this is hard for you to understand because you were only cheering on a single candidate, while we've been looking further down the road. So when you do your autopsy keep that in mind. You know like how Obama came out for expanding social security like Bernie campaigned on.

[libdem4life]

81. Absolutely. A Revolution never ends with the first battle...win or lose.

The stakes are much higher than a seriously compromised primary, and perhaps even election.

My favorite term for this is the "Let them eat cake" period just before the Revolution begins. Fitting, in many ways.

[pmorlan1]

83. Let Them Eat Cake Phase

I like that and yes it is appropriate. Good one. I will use that.

[passiveporcupine]

65. Exactly how is his campaign supposed to prevent ugly tactics

it boggles the mind why they were never prepared to take any action to prevent this so called injustice

from Hill's campaign?

[JSup]

35. I'm not willfully blind...

...I just assume that she and her campaign would be smart enough to not do something that would look obviously so terrible.

Doing this would only solidify negative opinions of her as sneaky and manipulative; not something she would be going for, I think.

“The AP's early call in the presidential race probably isn't how the Clinton campaign wanted to wrap this up,” said Democratic strategist Lis Smith, a former senior campaign aide to former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley. “It feeds into Sanders' supporters' belief that the game is rigged, and the Sanders campaign is certainly out there stoking that sentiment right now.”

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/hillary-clinton-media-2016-223999

[pmorlan1]

42. Benefit of the Doubt

I agree with you that it does look sneaky and manipulative. But I've seen so many sneaky and manipulative things in this campaign that I'm not willing to give her the benefit of the doubt as you are.

[passiveporcupine]

66. Really?

After all the crap Brock has pulled this campaign? Every time it was pretty obvious where it came from.

[seabeyond]

6. It deflates her win and New Jersey and Calif. I think it was on her side. But Fucks with her win.

It would benefit Sanders more getting people pissed off.

[TDale313]

19. It could definitely backfire.

It appears a fair number of Supers chose that point in time to confirm to the AP that they were supporting her. I'm doubtful they'd do that without letting the campaign know.

In terms of the nominating process it'll make little difference. Does it reinforce the feeling by Bernie supporters that they've gotten a raw deal and make them more committed and less open to unity talk? I suspect so. I think the Clinton camp really did not want to risk losing California. Again, not likely to change things but the optics would be bad and they really wanted to drive a stake through the heart of the Bernie campaign. Instead it may end up making them more committed.

[seabeyond]

39. I am so tired of a year of Sanders supporters, without evidence, accusing her of everything they

can find and make up, giving her anointment, coronations and crowns. You know what? First woman to get the nomination and this constant cry that this was given to her when she accomplished a feat many men do not, has me saying fuck it.

Want to whine, be up in arms, falsely accuse at the drop of the hat.... ? I am done.

It is Clinton's time and no one is behaving in responsibility what so ever in their accusations and insults, so fine.

Done. I have no more patience with people smearing.

Reporters dug. They reported the story. That is all we have and it is not good for Clinton. And no, she was not afraid of Sanders. It was inevitable.

[pmorlan1]

7. Excellent Post

A very plausible scenario and one I might add that I believed last night. The fact that the exact number of supers needed just so happened to respond to the survey yesterday was not in my opinion a coincidence.

[imagine2015]

14. I agree. Well thought out. Unfortunately we may never know the facts since relevant e-mails ....

may be accidently deleted before the convention is held.

You know how that happens and so does Hillary.

[pmorlan1]

17. LOL

You got me there. But I do think someone like Brock will be writing a tell-all book about this campaign. We may find out eventually.

[passiveporcupine]

68. Or maybe Joe Klein will come out with another novel.

[pmorlan1]

70. LOL

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

30. Nothing would surprise me when it comes to dirty tricks by the Hillary campaign.

Bernie & Elizabeth 2016!!!

[displacedtexan]

45. It would surprise me to learn that the AP & NBC suddenly love Clinton

and would bend to her eeeevilll will by either forcing powerful Democratic Party members/ supers to come forward or by lying about them coming forward.

[passiveporcupine]

71. If they get the scoop on the big story, why not?

Everyone else that is voting for Hillary has been calling it for a long time. Why not the AP?

[mitty14u2]

12. 1st time i ever complained but this is very long 4 paragraphs

not to mention conspiracy stupid like AP has nothing better to do. Facts after Puerto Rico results came in added 7 delegates.

http://edition.cnn.com/election/primaries/states/pr/Dem

[pmorlan1]

21. What?

If you write it yourself you can have as many paragraphs as you want?

[alcibiades_mystery]

13. So many words, to be so soon forgotten

[Tom Rinaldo]

22. Like all posts here in time

They won't be teaching DU GD-P in 21st century English literature

[alcibiades_mystery]

23. True story

[Triana]

16. WELL written. Thank you. n/t

[randome]

18. One conspiracy after another.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[Tom Rinaldo]

27. The bottom line was that the current delegate system lends itself to this

Which is really unfortunate. I can't fault professional political operatives (which is what campaign staffs consist of at the upper levels) from using rules to their advantage and playing had to win. Maybe they did this time, maybe they didn't, but it is our collective job to set up rules we are content to see them using.

[randome]

31. Well, like Sanders, you should have started on this a long time ago.

Sanders was unprepared for so many things, including superdelegates. He didn't have endorsements lined up. He didn't build coalitions.

The truly perplexing thing is that he lasted as long as he did. It does say something about a thirst for change in this country, but if the 'revolutionaries' aren't going to be prepared, then they're not going to make much headway.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[Tom Rinaldo]

38. A useful post making good points

I agree with almost all of it. I think Sanders actually did as much as someone with his priorities could have to prepare for this moment in time. Meaning he got himself elected to the U.S. Senate. I doubt very much that he thought he could seriously challenge Hillary for the presidential nomination when this started. He knew he had no national organization or significant footprint inside the Democratic Party, but no one else was wiling to take up the banner he believed in so he stepped forward, unprepared as he was to carry it to victory. I think that was admirable.

Now the test is as you inferred, is this near the beginning of an organized movement for change, or the end of it?

[randome]

40. Damn! I've forgotten how to react to sensible back-and-forth exchanges!

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[Tom Rinaldo]

46. LOL. You did great! Especially with that reply

[libdem4life]

88. Right on the money. He was a kind of unwilling warrior, or so it seemed.

Certainly he did not covet the job. My itty bitty CT is that the Democratic Party allowed a faux primary with O'Malley ... the perfect optic ... as foil #1. Then somehow the public went for Bernie ... a very imperfect optic ... in a big way, so they allowed him to be foil #2 never thinking it would gain such ground.

However, somewhere along the way, Bernie touched a chord in many long-term Liberal Democrats, brought in some old ones who no longer cared, and new ones...the youth Demographic that Obama carried. Suddenly, he's a Player.

Your last question is mine exactly...is it a Revolution, or a one-time aberration? I'm going to go with a Revolution which means we need to get to work for 2018 and 2020.

[Dont call me Shirley]

36. Classic cia response. LfuckingOL!

[BootinUp]

26. Ask Bernie why he did it in 2008. nt

[msongs]

29. it''s god's will (choose your own deity to insert here) nt

[rhett o rick]

33. Some billionaire called in a favor. It's not personal it's just business.

[Dont call me Shirley]

34. Real Losers must cheat to win.

[doc03]

37. Just what does the AP have to do with today's election? I would suspect if anything it will motivate

Sanders voters to vote. Of course if he doesn't do well that will be the excuse. If they didn't make that announcement it would be someone cheated at the polls or maybe blame his loss in an entire state because Bill Clinton drove by the polling place. Sanders people need to wake up and smell the coffee, Bernie Sanders is not the nominee. Case closed.

[nbsmom]

41. So why this then?

https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/740039126037106692/pu/vid/720x1280/wTwKE3uZyNB2xXOw.mp4

[doc03]

51. Oh give me a break

[passiveporcupine]

72. because Bill Clinton drove by the polling place

Some of you guys will buy anything.

[doc03]

86. I forget what state it was but I remember Sanders people going bonkers insinuating

somehow Sanders lost because Bill Clinton showed up at a polling place.

[passiveporcupine]

87. He did not just drive by

He campaigned outside and then went inside and shook everyone's hands. He is the friggin husband (and former President of the US) of Hillary and a very popular person.

He had no business being at that poll location campaigning and anyone who thinks that was cool or legit, is probably a Brock fan and likes those kinds of tactics.

If Bernie pulled something like that in a state he was looking good in, Hill camp would have gone Ballistic.

[JI7]

43. it's puerto Rico and Virgin islands fault

[seabeyond]

44. It doesn't take much to know it ruins her Tuesday win and she isn't afraid of Sanders, the win is

Inevitable.

Just a bunch of bullshit CT whine to shit on her celebration. Petty!

[Tom Rinaldo]

48. I want the Super Delegate System Changed, and so should Hillary Clinton

I'm not saying she doesn't, I simply don't know.

What I suggested is just as plausible as the AP without some steering, determining that Hillary Clinton was one vote over the total she needed by their standards to call he the presumed nominee on the eve of an election in California that many observers (not talking about DU) have said she had good reason to be nervous about. Maybe not more plausible, but either view is plausible. And that is a problem right there, we should not be put into situations like this, actual voters voting in actual primaries should put a candidate over the top.

Barring some unexpected very bad legal news soon, Hillary has the nomination I believe. But now is the time to focus anger at our nominating system while the experience of how it functions is fresh. Last night should be the final straw for all of us whatever else we might believe.

[seabeyond]

49. You know what? I have heard no one gripe about it in '08 or '04. All of a sudden it is the end

of the world. I do not like caucus. I do not like open primary especially when Repugs want to really fuck with our nominee. But it is what it is. It absolutely benefited Sanders and we had to suck it up. Clinton had to deal with it in '08. This time she won. What I am tired of is the first woman nominee of major party being dumped on and delegitimizing her win when she kicked ass and did better than most men.

Coronation my ass. Anointment my ass. Crowning my ass. Always dismissing her accomplishment.

You all want to change the system? Do it after a primary. No whines while in a process and follow the damn rules. Winner is a winner and she gets to celebrate.

I have watched a day of tantrums and instead of reality and facts sinking in, posts are becoming more outrageous. It hurt Clinton in a couple ways. We knew she would win today, no change. People were going to know she was the winner going into vote, no difference. This is not the end of the world.

Sanders lost.

[Tom Rinaldo]

53. I supported Hillary in 3008

I wasn't happy with the SD's then either. There is a post nuclear concept known as Critical Mass. Prior to reaching it no chain reaction occurs. We may finally be at that point now if we press the issue. Anger is an ingredient in that.

At this point in 2008 (before California voted) Hillary and most of her supporters were in no mood to celebrate the near certain nomination of our first Black candidate either.

I agree with you on caucuses, and I used to regarding open primaries. But that changed when non affiliated voters became the largest voting bock in America.

[Doctor_J]

47. There was no good reason for it except to suppress the vote in California

Waiting a day would have hurt nothing except Hillary's vote percentage

[TwilightZone]

50. Intentional ignorance isn't a terribly compelling argument.

The AP has been doing this for decades.

Pretending not to know that, then writing 1,000 words about it, doesn't change anything. It just makes you look a little silly.

[Fresh_Start]

52. AP did the same thing 10 days ago for Trump....

or do you think that Clinton coordinated that news item as well?

[Tom Rinaldo]

56. Four Key Differences

1) Donald Trump no longer had any remaining opponents for the Republican nomination - just a nebulous small "Never Trump" cartel. I find that to be a significant distinction

2) The AP did not time their Trump call 12 hours before polls were to open for contested primaries in five states. with all that implies.

3) Trump was awarded the presumptive nominee status based on a very small percentage of his delegate supporters not being bound to him through citizen participation in the election process. Republicans, relative to Democrats, have a mere handful of non pledged delegates in the mix. Trump, unlike Clinton, wasn't relying on them for almost a quarter of his "clinching" delegate total.

4) Trump, unlike Clinton, does not have an active FBI investigation of him yet unresolved. While most feel it will not result in Hillary having to be replaced as our nominee, that threat to her status still remains to be determined for now, and could plausibly give reason for Super Delegates who support Hillary now to change their mind before the convention if the unlikely (but clearly still possible) were to happen.

[Fresh_Start]

57. why would any of those objections be relevant to AP's attempt to have

a lead on the news?

[Tom Rinaldo]

58. Assuming you read my whole OP

I wrote about how plausible it was that they legitimately relayed "news" as it became available to them, with a focus on that latter dynamic.

However under the circumstances, with many millions of people about to head out to the polls, I would have liked it had a small degree of civic consciousness caused them to not run with it. It's not like it was going to make or break them or win them a Pulitzer or anything.

[Fresh_Start]

59. agree it would have been more considerate

but AP said they did it themselves
AND
AP did it 10 days ago for trump

its most likely that AP did it without any involvement by Clinton's campaign

Clinton wanted to have a celebratory party in NYC tonight...
why would she be flying home today....which takes most of the day, rather than stay in California or arrange for an event today?

Her schedule has been known for some time...its not a spur of the moment change

there were stories since Saturday that Clinton campaign had 40 more delegates in line...but told them to not announce because of this week's primaries

Look at all the facts, not just the ones that fit into your narrative

[Tom Rinaldo]

60. I'll agree that it is speculative

Actually I have a few potential answers to the specific points that you made but I am willing to not prolong a speculative discussion further than it has now gone on already. What is clear to me is that our current delegate system needs significant reform - we should not be subjected to events like this happening, totally innocent or not as the case may be.

[Fresh_Start]

75. I can't agree more

My top two priorities for the next administration
1) climate change
2) voting process: standardize federal elections to prevent disenfranchisement, standardize identification requirements, fix drawing of districts, reinstate voting act.....

IF we fix voting, we can fix the country.
If we fail to fix voting, we can lose the country

[passiveporcupine]

74. She can and will still have a celebratory party tonight for winning NJ

It still does not make her the presumptive nominee until all the primaries are done, or tonight depending on the numbers.

And there is a huge difference in calling it for Trump, when he has no one running against him. Of course he is the presumptive nominee.

It's not at all the same for Hillary and Bernie. It was a lousy thing to do.

[RBInMaine]

55. You lost fair and square. Time to put away the crazy and fly your ship back down to the Earth.

[Number23]

89. !! I can barely type I'm laughing so hard at this post

You not only won this thread but probably the entire forum. Including all of the conspiracy driven whining and fuckwittery. Sorry for the crappy prize.

[AzDar]

61. Welp... The AP Collaborated With The Nazis...

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/30/associated-press-cooperation-nazis-revealed-germany-harriet-scharnberg

[Hekate]

63. Since it potentially suppresses the down ballot votes, why the hell would she want to do that?

We need every Democrat in office that we can get. Complain to the AP, why don't you?

[Tom Rinaldo]

69. It isn't a general election, these are primaries

Even with a suppressed vote there will be just as many Democrats running for office in the Fall, though exactly which ones win today could be effected by lower turn out.

[Waiting For Everyman]

67. It's not "legitimate", it's intentionally manipulating an election.

It's fraud. And nice people don't do fraud.

[Bill USA]

73. "NOW your talking. Those AP guys are Tools of the Hillary machine"__B. Sanders

[think]

77. Television News Network Lobbyists Are Fundraising for Hillary Clinton

It's really not that big of a leap as you seem to think....

Television News Network Lobbyists Are Fundraising for Hillary Clinton

By Fang Lee - October 29 2015

Over the last two presidential debates, both Democratic and Republican candidates have asserted that the television news media is biased and has done a poor job informing voters of the most pressing issues in the election.

And while their focus is on things like the type of questions asked by debate moderators, they are overlooking much clearer signs of potential conflicts of interest. Fundraising disclosures released this month and in July reveal that lobbyists for media companies are raising big money for establishment presidential candidates, particularly Hillary Clinton.

The giant media companies that shape much of the coverage of the presidential campaign have a vested stake in the outcome. From campaign finance laws that govern how money is spent on advertising to the regulators who oversee consolidation rules, the media industry has a distinct policy agenda, and with it, a political team to influence the result.

The top fundraisers for Clinton include lobbyists who serve the parent companies of CNN and MSNBC.

The National Association of Broadcasters, a trade group that represents the television station industry, has lobbyists who are fundraising for both Clinton and Republican candidate Marco Rubio.


Read more:
https://theintercept.com/2015/10/29/media-fundraisers-presidential/

[Bill USA]

82. yeah, and they invented the rules of arithmetic to benefit hillary more than Sanders..LOL

[think]

90. You're too proud to understand but that's all right. I get it....

[Bill USA]

91. Study: Hillary Clinton, not Donald Trump, gets the most negative media coverage - VOX.com

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512023865

and let's not miss the fact that she gets more negative coverage than Bernie..

[Bill USA]

92. your article says lobbyists raised ~$200,000 from Television Ind., her campaign Tot: $204,258,301

Hmmm, $200,000 out of $204,258,301 .... Yeah, they really have an overwhelming influence.LOL!

[Cheese Sandwich]

78. Motive established: USC/LA Times Poll shows Bernie winning California if turnout was high

Poll: Sanders edging Clinton out in California

A USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times poll released Thursday evening shows Sanders leading with 44 percent to Clinton's 43 percent.
...

But, the poll found, Clinton has a 10-point lead among those likely to vote next week, primarily due to support from older voters.

Sanders has continued to close the gap between him and Clinton and has been campaigning hard across the state.

“Bernie Sanders has tapped into a wellspring of support in the Democratic primary over the last several weeks and he’s closing with a rush,” said Dan Schnur, director of USC’s Jesse M. Unruh Institute of Politics, which partnered with the L.A. Times to conduct the poll.

"If Clinton manages to hold him off and win the primary, it would be as a result of a low turnout that tilts the electorate in her direction."
...

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/bernie-sanders-leads-hillary-clinton-new-poll-california


This is not a conspiracy theory.


Hillary benefited greatly. This will go down in history as one of the great all time dirty tricks and media manipulations.

[Lord Magus]

85. It's the definition of a conspiracy theory.

What that poll showed was that Bernie led among people who said they were unlikely to vote, but Hillary led among those who said they were planning to do so. That's literally the "likely voter model" used in that poll: asking people if they intend to vote.

Dan Schnur putting a pro-Bernie spin on it doesn't change anything.

[Sheepshank]

93. Regardless of how far fetched...it would still be a conspiracy. I have a better one for you

Bernie leaked the info and urged AP to publish to cover up the impending loss his internal polls were indicating.

This way he had the excuse he needed for losing AND he gets to do the martyr schtick again encouraging his surrogates to wail on about rigged elections and walk away from th Democratic Party in a huff of BoB.