[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: NYT Used to Report Delegate Count as if It Was Voters Who Mattered (fwd)
- To: noelle
- Subject: Re: NYT Used to Report Delegate Count as if It Was Voters Who Mattered (fwd)
- From: robert <http://dummy.us.eu.org/robert>
- Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2016 20:03:56 -0800
- Keywords: my-Oakland-voicemail-number
Well, Sanders better win overwhelmingly. Otherwise, people will get all
confused and just accept Clinton as the presumed winner.
> From: Noelle <noelle>
> Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2016 18:08:20 -0800 (PST)
>
> > From: [** utf-8 charset **] FAIR<http://www.fair.org/~fair>
> > Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2016 01:12:29 +0000
> >
> > New York Times delegate graphic. Note that not only are superdelegates added
> > into pledged delegates as though they were the same thing, but the graphic
> > includes Clinton’s Nevada victory twice–mistakenly giving the
> > impression that she’s won 50 percent more contests than she has.
> > After Bernie Sanders lost the Nevada caucuses to Hillary Clinton, 47 percent
> > to 53 percent, the New York Times (1/21/16) declared the 2016 primary race
> > all but over:
> >
> > Senator Bernie Sanders vowed on Sunday to fight on after losing the Nevada
> > caucuses, predicting that he would pull off a historic political upset by
> > this summerâ??s party convention.
> > But the often overlooked delegate count in the Democratic primary shows Mr.
> > Sanders slipping significantly behind Hillary Clinton in the race for the
> > nomination, and the odds of his overtaking her growing increasingly remote.
> > Mrs. Clinton has 502 delegates to Mr. Sandersâ??s 70; 2,383 are needed to
> > win the nomination. These numbers include delegates won in state contests
> > and superdelegates, who can support any candidate.
> >
> > At the end of the tenth paragraph, the Times‘ Patrick Healy includes
> > some information relevant to the question of whether Sanders is &#
> > 8220;slipping significantly behind” Clinton:
> >
> > A New York Times analysis found that Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Sanders are tied
> > in the pledged delegate count, at 51 each.
> >
> > In other words, as far as voters are concerned, Sanders and Clinton are
> > exactly tied so far. It’s only when you count the intentions of
> > superdelegatesâ??party insiders who by virtue of their position get to weigh
> > in on the nomineeâ??that Clinton has any sort of delegate lead,
> > insurmountable or otherwise.
> > There are good reasons to treat the pledged delegate count as the delegate
> > count. For one thing, the unpledged superdelegates can only indicate who
> > they intend to vote for, which is not necessarily who they will actually
> > vote for; they can and in the past have changed their minds. Counting them
> > the same as pledged delegates is a bit like counting delegates from states
> > that haven’t voted yet because voters in those states tell pollsters
> > they intend to vote for one candidate or the other. They may or may not feel
> > differently when the time comes.
> > Further, it’s doubtful that superdelegates would choose to overturn
> > the will of Democratic voters to pick a nominee that they had rejected in
> > the voting booth; that seems like an ideal strategy for keeping Democrats
> > home on Election Day, not only giving up control of the White House butâ??
> > perhaps more importantly to superdelegates, many of whom are in Congressâ??
> > also putting otherwise safe legislative seats in jeopardy. As Daily Kos
> > blogger Tausendberg (8/30/15) put it last year:
> > If, in 2016, the Democratic base was told that their opinion had been
> > overridden and made irrelevant, the psychological impact would be so
> > catastrophic on Election Day 2016 that we would need to make up new words to
> > describe it.
> > Finally, one could argue that media outlets should emphasize the delegate
> > count that reflects the will of the people, rather than an alternative count
> > that disguises that will, because election coverage is supposed to be about
> > facilitating democracy, right?
> > Arguments like these must have been persuasive to the New York Times at some
> > point, because in 2008â??the last time there was a contested Democratic
> > primaryâ??the Times did the count the other way, treating the count of
> > pledged delegates chosen by voters as the real count. As the Times‘
> > Patrick Healy put it in a February 2008 news article (2/7/08), “The
> > Times counts only delegates that have been officially selected and are bound
> > by their preferences.” (That’s the same Patrick Healy who now
> > puts the pledged delegate count at the end of the tenth paragraph.)
> > This approach affected how the Times covered the 2008 race, as when the
> > paper’s Adam Nagourney (2/14/08) reported after primaries in Virginia,
> > Maryland and DC:
> >
> > Senator Barack Obama emerged from Tuesday’s primaries leading Senator
> > Hillary Rodham Clinton by more than 100 delegates, a small but significant
> > advantage that Democrats said would be difficult for Mrs. Clinton to make up
> > in the remaining contests in the presidential nomination battle.
> >
> > Note that Obama’s critical 100-delegate lead was in pledged delegates;
> > that was apparently considered so obvious that it went without saying. The
> > Times rightly noted that only after voters had had their say would
> > superdelegates’ preferences come into play:
> >
> > Neither candidate is expected to win the 2,025 pledged delegates needed to
> > claim the nomination by the time the voting ends in June. But Mr. Obama&#
> > 8217;s campaign began making a case in earnest on Wednesday that if he
> > maintained his edge in delegates won in primaries and caucuses, he would
> > have the strongest claim to the backing of the 796 elected Democrats and
> > party leaders known as superdelegates who are free to vote as they choose
> > and who now stand to determine the outcome.
> >
> > At that time, whether superdelegates had the right to make a choice
> > independent of what voters wanted was an open questionâ??with Clinton and
> > Obama taking opposite sides:
> >
> > Mrs. Clinton’s aides said the delegates should make their decision
> > based on who they thought would be the stronger candidate and president. Mr.
> > Obama argues that they should follow the will of the Democratic Party as
> > expressed in the primary and caucusesâ??meaning the candidate with the most
> > delegates from the voting.
> >
> > Of course, in 2008, it was the Times‘ stated view (1/25/08) that the
> > Democrats had “two powerful main contenders” who “would
> > both help restore Americaâ??s global image…. On the major issues,
> > there is no real gulf separating the two.” So while the paper endorsed
> > Clinton over Obama, it was safe to leave the decision in the hands of the
> > voters.
> > This year, the Times (1/30/16) endorsed Clinton over an opponent who is &#
> > 8220;a self-described Democratic Socialist,” who “does not have
> > the breadth of experience or policy ideas that Mrs. Clinton offers,”
> > and whose plans “to break up the banks and to start all over on
> > healthcare reform…arenâ??t realistic.” This time around, then,
> > the favored candidate could use a little help by including her establishment
> > supporters in the count alongside delegates chosen by votersâ??so you might
> > call attention to the “often overlooked delegate count” toÂ
> > portray her chances of being beaten as “growing increasingly remote.&#
> > 8221;
> >
> > Jim Naureckas is the editor of FAIR.org. Follow him on Twitter at
> > @JNaureckas.
> >
> > You can send a message to the New York Times at http://www.nytimes.com/~letters, or
> > write to (outgoing) public editor Margaret Sullivan at http://www.nytimes.com/~public ;(
> > Twitter:@NYTimes or @Sulliview). Please remember that respectful
> > communication is the most effective.
> > ==============================================