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 All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

2016 Postmortem

Showing Original Post only (View all)

cui bono

(19,926 posts)
Tue Jun 7, 2016, 06:43 PM Jun 2016

Why is the AP concealing the identity of the alleged SDs who came out for HRC? [View all]

Why is the media declaring a winner? And why are they doing so based on secrecy? How do we know anyone actually committed to Hillary to bring her to that magic number?

This is very troubling. So in a democracy we're not allowed to know who the SDs are that allegedly came out last minute and pushed the total to the number required at the convention?

This all leads to voter suppression in California. Why else would it be done with such 'secrecy' and not have waited one more day?

Perfect End to Democratic Primary: Anonymous Superdelegates Declare Winner Through Media

Last night, the Associated Press — on a day when nobody voted — surprised everyone by abruptly declaring the Democratic Party primary over and Hillary Clinton the victor. The decree, issued the night before the California primary in which polls show Clinton and Bernie Sanders in a very close race, was based on the media organization’s survey of “superdelegates”: the Democratic Party’s 720 insiders, corporate donors, and officials whose votes for the presidential nominee count the same as the actually elected delegates. AP claims that superdelegates who had not previously announced their intentions privately told AP reporters that they intend to vote for Clinton, bringing her over the threshold. AP is concealing the identity of the decisive superdelegates who said this.

Although the Sanders campaign rejected the validity of AP’s declaration — on the ground that the superdelegates do not vote until the convention and he intends to try to persuade them to vote for him — most major media outlets followed the projection and declared Clinton the winner.

This is the perfect symbolic ending to the Democratic Party primary: The nomination is consecrated by a media organization, on a day when nobody voted, based on secret discussions with anonymous establishment insiders and donors whose identities the media organization — incredibly — conceals. The decisive edifice of superdelegates is itself anti-democratic and inherently corrupt: designed to prevent actual voters from making choices that the party establishment dislikes. But for a party run by insiders and funded by corporate interests, it’s only fitting that its nomination process ends with such an ignominious, awkward, and undemocratic sputter.


That the Democratic Party nominating process is declared to be over in such an uninspiring, secretive, and elite-driven manner is perfectly symbolic of what the party, and its likely nominee, actually is. The one positive aspect, though significant, is symbolic, while the actual substance — rallying behind a Wall Street-funded, status quo-perpetuating, multimillionaire militarist — is grim in the extreme. The Democratic Party got exactly the ending it deserved.


42 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
IT'S A CONSPIRACY! nt onehandle Jun 2016 #1
They Do So Because The "Media" Are Appointed, Well Compensated Agents Of The Oligarchy... CorporatistNation Jun 2016 #4
I think your auto-post script needs a tune-up. nt onehandle Jun 2016 #6
Mika's video gives me the creepy crawlies. peace13 Jun 2016 #32
No, this actually happened. So why are they not telling us who these alleged SDs are? cui bono Jun 2016 #7
David Brock warrprayer Jun 2016 #2
David Brock is behind everything! Cali_Democrat Jun 2016 #3
Yep passiveporcupine Jun 2016 #12
Perhaps the anonymous SDs don't have the courage of their convictions. bunnies Jun 2016 #5
This message was self-deleted by its author NCTraveler Jun 2016 #8
I wonder if the death threats towards the AP author have anything to do with it. BobbyDrake Jun 2016 #9
No one declared anyone the 'winner'. But Clinton is now the presumed nominee. randome Jun 2016 #10
You sure about that? passiveporcupine Jun 2016 #14
Yeah, well, they shouldn't have worded it that way, I agree. randome Jun 2016 #18
Supers usually stick with the person with the most pledged delegates... passiveporcupine Jun 2016 #20
Supers also consider electability. senz Jun 2016 #39
I don't think you understand how strong the fear of losing the establishment is passiveporcupine Jun 2016 #41
Hm, yeah. With Trump they'd still have their precious oligarchy. senz Jun 2016 #42
So they don't get doxed and inundated with death threats? workinclasszero Jun 2016 #11
Ask the chairwoman of the Nevada Democratic Party lanlady Jun 2016 #13
Meh. I've become immune to the lies and distortions profferred by Hillary's personality cult. Maedhros Jun 2016 #16
And boy are they coming out of the woodwork now passiveporcupine Jun 2016 #33
Bingo workinclasszero Jun 2016 #17
Read somewhere is was Obama and Biden. ciaobaby Jun 2016 #15
Most are not secret... Sancho Jun 2016 #19
We're talking about the ones that the AP claims put Hillary over the top. cui bono Jun 2016 #25
Like I said...look down the list! Sancho Jun 2016 #36
The media protects sources KingFlorez Jun 2016 #21
This is a democracy. Well it's supposed to be. cui bono Jun 2016 #22
Superdelegates didn't decide the race, the voters did KingFlorez Jun 2016 #23
So the people who called the AP were voters? That's not what I heard. cui bono Jun 2016 #24
The superdelegates are following the will of the voters KingFlorez Jun 2016 #27
So you didn't read the OP. Not surprised. cui bono Jun 2016 #30
democracy doesn't require open votes Fresh_Start Jun 2016 #26
That works when there is proof that votes were cast or changed. peace13 Jun 2016 #29
We're not talking about votes. We're talking about superdelegates. cui bono Jun 2016 #31
The fact that Hill supporters do not care to know disgusts me completely! peace13 Jun 2016 #28
Yeah, it's kinda like not caring where the money comes from passiveporcupine Jun 2016 #34
And then telling people that they have to work like dogs... peace13 Jun 2016 #38
They only care about one thing... cui bono Jun 2016 #37
Yup, weird, like there's a Twinkie in it for them! peace13 Jun 2016 #40
because. gossip. Hiraeth Jun 2016 #35
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Why is the AP concealing ...»Reply #0