Page 1 of 1

Quora: Washington Post article on Hillary's "primary win"

Posted: Fri Jun 10, 2016 9:24 am
by kevm14
It’s an exercise in plausibly deniable voter suppression

It targets prospective voters in the remaining states, tells them the election is decided, that once again those who live in late-voting states don’t matter, you should go on about your lives, don’t bother voting, there’s nothing to see here, these aren’t the droids you’re looking for <waves hand, uses force>, go on about your lives.

The election stands right now at a point that neither candidate has the magic number of pledged delegates, their tallies are close enough that the remaining votes matter, and the superdelegates don’t vote until the convention.

But the superdelegates, right? They’re all committed, right? So it’s not misleading to count them now, right? No, they’re not, and it is. Not only don’t they vote until the convention, they’ve flipped before, away from Hillary Clinton just 8 years ago.

Declaring the entire thing ‘finished’, at this point tells you that they’d rather it was done already. It’s not a guaranteed win, and they’d rather not risk a vote they might lose, as that could alter the situation at the convention, when the superdelegates’ votes really do come into play.
Another answer:

Well, it’s not the Washington Post’s fault. The Associated Press broke the story and WP had an obligation to run it or get scooped by other news outlets. That being said:

AP claims that they didn’t learn that HRC had enough Superdelegates publicly committed to her to put her over the top until Monday, and that they are obligated to report the news as soon as they verify it. HOWEVER

The timing is extremely suspicious. Several days earlier, all media outlets were reporting that Hillary was a handful of votes short. The AP’s “discovery” of the missing delegates and splashing Hillary as the Presumptive Nominee hours before hundreds and hundreds of delegates came up for grabs in states like California and New Jersey is incredibly suspect. It certainly looks like the so-called “liberal media,” planned a little “June Surprise” for democratic socialist Bernie Sanders, dropping a bomb and him and his supporters at the worst possible moment, suppressing voter turnout by leaving the average voter foolish enough to trust traditional news sources believing the primary was over already.

The AP claims that not running the story when they did would have been tantamount to “suppressing the news.” But everyone knows that’s bullshit.

Shame on you, Associated Press. Shame on you.
Sigh.

Re: Quora: Washington Post article on Hillary's "primary win

Posted: Sat Jun 11, 2016 1:09 pm
by bill25
So if Democracy is about choice, and these are the least liked nominees ever, what does that tell you about the state of our Democracy? If the large majority of people are going to go and vote on people they don't even want to win, what is the point of even having a choice. Unfortunately, this election isn't new. I don't think there is a candidate that I have really liked at all except going all the way to Bill Clinton. Hate on him all you want, but it is on record that he worked across the aisle and has openly stated bad decisions he made. I don't think either of the current candidates are going to be good.

To me Hillary will be more of the same. Trump will probably be really good for businesses, but really bad for foreign relations/policy, which will inevitably hurt the economy, so the good for business will not last very long.