wisewomn
02-25-2016, 05:51 PM
This is rather long but we need to be heard on the matter of superdelegates:
A note about superdelegates: only the D's do this. The R's, in this instance, are far more "small-d" democratic.
https://fair.org/home/nyt-used-to-report-delegate-count-as-if-it-was-voters-who-mattered/
(https://fair.org/home/nyt-used-to-report-delegate-count-as-if-it-was-voters-who-mattered/)NYT Used to Report Delegate Count as if It Was Voters Who Mattered
By Jim Naureckas (https://fair.org/?s=Jim%20Naureckas), Editor of Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting (https://fair.org/) (FAIR)
February 23, 2016
After Bernie Sanders lost the Nevada caucuses to Hillary Clinton, 47 percent to 53 percent, the New York Times ( 2/21/16 (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/22/us/politics/delegate-count-leaving-bernie-sanders-with-steep-climb.html)) 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 summer'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. Sanders'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 (https://fair.org/home/action-alert-nyt-claims-clinton-emerging-as-unrivaled-leader-in-democratic-race/) includes some information relevant to the question of whether Sanders is "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 superdelegates -- party insiders who by virtue of their position get to weigh in on the nominee -- 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 (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/superdelegates-might-not-save-hillary-clinton/) 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 but -- perhaps more importantly to superdelegates, many of whom are in Congress -- also putting otherwise safe legislative seats in jeopardy. As Daily Kos blogger Tausendberg ( 8/30/15 (https://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/08/30/1416778/-No-the-superdelegates-won-t-push-down-on-the-scales)) 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."
Robert Reich served in the administrations of Presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter, and was Secretary of Labor under President Bill Clinton 1993 - 1997.
In today's email from Robert Reich, he wrote: <dl><dd>"Here's how the superdelegate system works. In addition to the thousands of pledged delegates, who are allotted to each campaign based on primary and caucus results, there are 712 superdelegates -- made up of Democratic elected officials and party insiders -- who get to vote on who the party's nominee should be at the convention. If the race is close, superdelegates could determine who the nominee will be regardless of who the majority of voters supported. Pretty undemocratic, isn't it?"
</dd></dl>
Jim Naureckas is the editor of FAIR.org (https://www.fair.org/). Follow him on Twitter at @JNaureckas (https://twitter.com/jnaureckas).
[Action Item #1]
You can send a message to the New York Times at [email protected], or write to ( outgoing (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/23/business/media/times-public-editor-joining-washington-post-as-media-columnist.html)) public editor Margaret Sullivan at [email protected] (Twitter: @NYTimes (https://twitter.com/nytimes) or @Sulliview (https://twitter.com/sulliview)). Please remember that respectful communication is the most effective.
========================
Back to Robert Reich...
========================
Subject: Bernie vs. Hillary (please sign my petition ASAP)
From: "Robert Reich" <[email protected]>
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2016
The establishment media are at it again.
After a closer-than-expected contest in Nevada, Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton are nearly tied in pledged delegates -- she has 52, he has 51. With thousands of pledged delegates still up for grabs in the upcoming 47 elections, it's very clear that this race is just getting started.
And yet the morning after the Nevada vote, major media outlets across the country fell all over themselves trying to claim that the race for the Democratic nomination was basically over. The New York Times led the charge, with the headline: "Delegate Count Leaving Bernie Sanders With Steep Climb."
Wait, what? How can Bernie be facing a "steep climb" when he is only down one pledged delegate?
Once again, the New York Times was using the preferences of the superdelegates -- the 712 party elites who will get to weigh in on the Democratic nomination at the convention -- to imply that Bernie's campaign is all but over, when nothing could be further from the truth.
Enough is enough. We need to get the superdelegates on the record that they will support whomever the popularly-elected nominee turns out to be. That's the only way this nonsense in the media will end -- and the only way to restore the faith of many voters in the nomination process.
[Action Item #2]
Nearly 125,000 Democracy for America members have signed my petition calling on superdelegates to pledge to follow the will of the voters -- but we need to keep building this petition before we deliver it. Please add your name now. (https://act.democracyforamerica.com/sign/RobertReichSuperdelegates)
Here's how the superdelegate system works. In addition to the thousands of pledged delegates, who are allotted to each campaign based on primary and caucus results, there are 712 superdelegates -- made up of Democratic elected officials and party insiders -- who get to vote on who the party's nominee should be at the convention.
If the race is close, superdelegates could determine who the nominee will be regardless of who the majority of voters supported. Pretty undemocratic, isn't it?
This isn't the first time that Democrats have raised concerns over the superdelegate system. In 2008, when the race between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton was at its closest, some people thought that superdelegates would be able change the results of the nomination process.
My friends at Democracy for America took action then as well. In 2008, more than 60,000 DFA members signed and delivered a petition to Democratic Party leadership asking superdelegates not to overturn the will of the voters. And that year, they didn't. Most superdelegates either changed their support or waited to choose a side until after Obama won the majority of delegates pledged through the primary process.
Unfortunately, the party failed to reform this unfair and undemocratic part of the nomination process in the years since President Obama was elected. Now we're facing another potential crisis in the party -- but it can be solved.
Holding on to the White House in 2016 is extremely important. We can't afford to let party elites jeopardize that by ignoring the will of the voters. Join me and DFA (https://act.democracyforamerica.com/sign/RobertReichSuperdelegates) in telling superdelegates to pledge to support the popularly-elected winner of the nomination now.
Thanks for signing this important petition and passing it along to your friends.
Robert Reich
Former Secretary of Labor
A note about superdelegates: only the D's do this. The R's, in this instance, are far more "small-d" democratic.
https://fair.org/home/nyt-used-to-report-delegate-count-as-if-it-was-voters-who-mattered/
(https://fair.org/home/nyt-used-to-report-delegate-count-as-if-it-was-voters-who-mattered/)NYT Used to Report Delegate Count as if It Was Voters Who Mattered
By Jim Naureckas (https://fair.org/?s=Jim%20Naureckas), Editor of Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting (https://fair.org/) (FAIR)
February 23, 2016
After Bernie Sanders lost the Nevada caucuses to Hillary Clinton, 47 percent to 53 percent, the New York Times ( 2/21/16 (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/22/us/politics/delegate-count-leaving-bernie-sanders-with-steep-climb.html)) 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 summer'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. Sanders'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 (https://fair.org/home/action-alert-nyt-claims-clinton-emerging-as-unrivaled-leader-in-democratic-race/) includes some information relevant to the question of whether Sanders is "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 superdelegates -- party insiders who by virtue of their position get to weigh in on the nominee -- 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 (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/superdelegates-might-not-save-hillary-clinton/) 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 but -- perhaps more importantly to superdelegates, many of whom are in Congress -- also putting otherwise safe legislative seats in jeopardy. As Daily Kos blogger Tausendberg ( 8/30/15 (https://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/08/30/1416778/-No-the-superdelegates-won-t-push-down-on-the-scales)) 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."
Robert Reich served in the administrations of Presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter, and was Secretary of Labor under President Bill Clinton 1993 - 1997.
In today's email from Robert Reich, he wrote: <dl><dd>"Here's how the superdelegate system works. In addition to the thousands of pledged delegates, who are allotted to each campaign based on primary and caucus results, there are 712 superdelegates -- made up of Democratic elected officials and party insiders -- who get to vote on who the party's nominee should be at the convention. If the race is close, superdelegates could determine who the nominee will be regardless of who the majority of voters supported. Pretty undemocratic, isn't it?"
</dd></dl>
Jim Naureckas is the editor of FAIR.org (https://www.fair.org/). Follow him on Twitter at @JNaureckas (https://twitter.com/jnaureckas).
[Action Item #1]
You can send a message to the New York Times at [email protected], or write to ( outgoing (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/23/business/media/times-public-editor-joining-washington-post-as-media-columnist.html)) public editor Margaret Sullivan at [email protected] (Twitter: @NYTimes (https://twitter.com/nytimes) or @Sulliview (https://twitter.com/sulliview)). Please remember that respectful communication is the most effective.
========================
Back to Robert Reich...
========================
Subject: Bernie vs. Hillary (please sign my petition ASAP)
From: "Robert Reich" <[email protected]>
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2016
The establishment media are at it again.
After a closer-than-expected contest in Nevada, Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton are nearly tied in pledged delegates -- she has 52, he has 51. With thousands of pledged delegates still up for grabs in the upcoming 47 elections, it's very clear that this race is just getting started.
And yet the morning after the Nevada vote, major media outlets across the country fell all over themselves trying to claim that the race for the Democratic nomination was basically over. The New York Times led the charge, with the headline: "Delegate Count Leaving Bernie Sanders With Steep Climb."
Wait, what? How can Bernie be facing a "steep climb" when he is only down one pledged delegate?
Once again, the New York Times was using the preferences of the superdelegates -- the 712 party elites who will get to weigh in on the Democratic nomination at the convention -- to imply that Bernie's campaign is all but over, when nothing could be further from the truth.
Enough is enough. We need to get the superdelegates on the record that they will support whomever the popularly-elected nominee turns out to be. That's the only way this nonsense in the media will end -- and the only way to restore the faith of many voters in the nomination process.
[Action Item #2]
Nearly 125,000 Democracy for America members have signed my petition calling on superdelegates to pledge to follow the will of the voters -- but we need to keep building this petition before we deliver it. Please add your name now. (https://act.democracyforamerica.com/sign/RobertReichSuperdelegates)
Here's how the superdelegate system works. In addition to the thousands of pledged delegates, who are allotted to each campaign based on primary and caucus results, there are 712 superdelegates -- made up of Democratic elected officials and party insiders -- who get to vote on who the party's nominee should be at the convention.
If the race is close, superdelegates could determine who the nominee will be regardless of who the majority of voters supported. Pretty undemocratic, isn't it?
This isn't the first time that Democrats have raised concerns over the superdelegate system. In 2008, when the race between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton was at its closest, some people thought that superdelegates would be able change the results of the nomination process.
My friends at Democracy for America took action then as well. In 2008, more than 60,000 DFA members signed and delivered a petition to Democratic Party leadership asking superdelegates not to overturn the will of the voters. And that year, they didn't. Most superdelegates either changed their support or waited to choose a side until after Obama won the majority of delegates pledged through the primary process.
Unfortunately, the party failed to reform this unfair and undemocratic part of the nomination process in the years since President Obama was elected. Now we're facing another potential crisis in the party -- but it can be solved.
Holding on to the White House in 2016 is extremely important. We can't afford to let party elites jeopardize that by ignoring the will of the voters. Join me and DFA (https://act.democracyforamerica.com/sign/RobertReichSuperdelegates) in telling superdelegates to pledge to support the popularly-elected winner of the nomination now.
Thanks for signing this important petition and passing it along to your friends.
Robert Reich
Former Secretary of Labor