~*~Unofficial 2016 US Presidential Election Thread~*~

[Willie71]

As of part way through Tuesday, it became mathematically impossible for sanders to win. The long shot was no longer possible. How fucking hard is this to understand?

Wrong again.

Sanders still has a chance which is why he is staying in. If the super delegates don't go for Clinton then she can't win on the first ballot with pledged delegates alone. If that were to happen it would open the door for Sanders or even somebody else.

Of course that is a long shot, but only marginally more so than it was on Monday. You're squabbling over the difference between a one in a million chance versus a one in a million+1 chance. For the rest of us living in reality nothing has changed.

She still has the majority of pledged delegates, meaning superdelegates are simply not going to switch. If he won California in a landslide, he "could" have ended up with more pledged delegates. The only way a Sanders gets this is with a Clinton indictment, or insider information we aren't privy to. If that happens, however unlikely, it would likely be after the convention anyway. Sanders best shot was winning the pledged delegate count, which would have required a historical precedent for the SDs to overturn. They still might have gone for Clinton anyway under the false argument she is the stronger candidate. So yes, something mathematically significant changed.

Clinton being indicted (or dropping dead, or anything else that would make SDs flip) is and was more likely than a Sanders landslide victory in CA. So no, nothing of mathematical significance has change. Sanders has a handful of extreme long shot paths to the nomination. Tuesday was just him losing one of the longest of those long shots.

Likely and mathematically possible are two different things. Granted it's mathematically possible for SDs to switch, but there is little to no motivation for them to do that, other than increasing the odds of winning the general. Clinton has more votes, more pledged delegates, and more states. She finished the last states strong. All of Sanders arguments other than the general are mute.

[purplerat]

Likely and mathematically possible are two different things.

I agree, but you seem to be flipping from one to the other here.

Monday Sanders had a mathematical possibility but unlikely chance of winning.

Today Sanders has a mathematical possibility but unlikely chance of winning.

The mathematical possibility has shifted slightly, but negligibly. The AP made it clear what there basis was for calling the race and nothing has changed. And that's without even getting into how the call likely hurts Clinton and helps Sanders more than the opposite.

[purplerat]

Let's just look at the odds of Sanders winning by a landslide in CA leading to enough super delegates flipping from Clinton to him. Obviously we don't have concrete percentages but here's how the formula for that long shot would look.

Clinton won 275 delegates in CA. So if we move them all over to Sanders he would still need 274 super delegates to flip from Clinton to him. The chance of that happening would be expressed like this.

(% chance of Sanders winning all CA delegates) * (Chance of ClintonSD1 flipping to Sanders) * (Chance of ClintonSD2 flipping to Sanders) *... (Chance of ClintonSD274 flipping to Sanders)

Even if you project the odds of each event happening as being ridiculously high that's still going to come out to being an incredible long shot simply due to the sheer number of events required. Clinton being indicted or dropping dead would be far more likely so there's no reason to think Tuesday changed anything of significance.

*edited to fix my math on the number of SDs flipping to Sanders needed.

[Willie71]

Likely and mathematically possible are two different things.

I agree, but you seem to be flipping from one to the other here.

Monday Sanders had a mathematical possibility but unlikely chance of winning.

Today Sanders has a mathematical possibility but unlikely chance of winning.

The mathematical possibility has shifted slightly, but negligibly. The AP made it clear what there basis was for calling the race and nothing has changed. And that's without even getting into how the call likely hurts Clinton and helps Sanders more than the opposite.

Between Monday and Wednesday, Sanders lost the mathematical possibility of the majority pledged delegates. The press made out like he was mathematically eliminated, which suppresses the vote. This was untrue. He also lost the momentum argument, which wasn't helped by losing New Jersey by such a wide margin. The momentum argument was weak anyway. But without it he's dead in the water. He had to win California, even by 0.5 points to maintain that argument.

I'm not sure why this is hard to understand. For me the mathematics became improbable after New York. They didn't call it as over at that point. Also, the Monday call came after the AP supposedly anonymously called exactly 571 SDs confirming they would support Clinton, getting her to 2383. If this isn't suspicious to some of the people here, I don't get it. Why the rush to get this done Monday, rather than later Tuesday evening? Clinton won the early voting 60/35 in California. With the ballots counted so far, it's a 10 point gap now. Same day voting has been favouring Sanders. making an announcement known to suppress the vote a day early doesn't ring any warning bells?

[purplerat]

A majority of pledged delegates is meaningless. It's only Sanders supporters who want to pretend the rules are not what they are.

Why the rush to get this done Monday, rather than later Tuesday evening?

Personally I don't like the idea of news agencies sitting on stories for political reasons, which is what Clinton and the DNC wanted them to do in this case. I'm not sure why you are seemingly ok with that.

[Willie71]

A majority of pledged delegates is meaningless. It's only Sanders supporters who want to pretend the rules are not what they are.

Why the rush to get this done Monday, rather than later Tuesday evening?

Personally I don't like the idea of news agencies sitting on stories for political reasons, which is what Clinton and the DNC wanted them to do in this case. I'm not sure why you are seemingly ok with that.

There was no story to report. It was a propaganda piece.

[GT2211]

A majority of pledged delegates is meaningless. It's only Sanders supporters who want to pretend the rules are not what they are.

Why the rush to get this done Monday, rather than later Tuesday evening?

Personally I don't like the idea of news agencies sitting on stories for political reasons, which is what Clinton and the DNC wanted them to do in this case. I'm not sure why you are seemingly ok with that.

There was no story to report. It was a propaganda piece.

The number of delegates Clinton has committed is news. That you might not like the news doesn't change it being news.

[Willie71]

A majority of pledged delegates is meaningless. It's only Sanders supporters who want to pretend the rules are not what they are.

Why the rush to get this done Monday, rather than later Tuesday evening?

Personally I don't like the idea of news agencies sitting on stories for political reasons, which is what Clinton and the DNC wanted them to do in this case. I'm not sure why you are seemingly ok with that.

There was no story to report. It was a propaganda piece.

The number of delegates Clinton has committed is news. That you might not like the news doesn't change it being news.

Anonymous committed superdelegates from a telephone survey? Ok.

Maybe they don't need to even have an election this fall. Just phone some people without identifying them, and the election is decided.

[GT2211]

A majority of pledged delegates is meaningless. It's only Sanders supporters who want to pretend the rules are not what they are.


Personally I don't like the idea of news agencies sitting on stories for political reasons, which is what Clinton and the DNC wanted them to do in this case. I'm not sure why you are seemingly ok with that.

There was no story to report. It was a propaganda piece.

The number of delegates Clinton has committed is news. That you might not like the news doesn't change it being news.

Anonymous committed superdelegates from a telephone survey? Ok.

Maybe they don't need to even have an election this fall. Just phone some people without identifying them, and the election is decided.

If a SD reaches out to AP reporters and declares they will be backing HRC are they just supposed to ignore it? Your arguments are a mixture of hyperbole and grasping at straws

[purplerat]

A majority of pledged delegates is meaningless. It's only Sanders supporters who want to pretend the rules are not what they are.


Personally I don't like the idea of news agencies sitting on stories for political reasons, which is what Clinton and the DNC wanted them to do in this case. I'm not sure why you are seemingly ok with that.

There was no story to report. It was a propaganda piece.

The number of delegates Clinton has committed is news. That you might not like the news doesn't change it being news.

Anonymous committed superdelegates from a telephone survey? Ok.

Maybe they don't need to even have an election this fall. Just phone some people without identifying them, and the election is decided.

Then why the fuck would you accept it as meaningful today? Nothing as changed about how the super delegates are being tallied. You are flip flopping on the significance of the counting of these delegates literally from one day to the next.

If you don't want to count them then at least be intellectually consistent and say Clinton has still not captured the delegates required for the nomination.

[purplerat]

A majority of pledged delegates is meaningless. It's only Sanders supporters who want to pretend the rules are not what they are.

Why the rush to get this done Monday, rather than later Tuesday evening?

Personally I don't like the idea of news agencies sitting on stories for political reasons, which is what Clinton and the DNC wanted them to do in this case. I'm not sure why you are seemingly ok with that.

There was no story to report. It was a propaganda piece.

The number of delegates Clinton has committed is news. That you might not like the news doesn't change it being news.

And let's face it, that's exactly what it is and these guys have admitted as much. They didn't like the news so they want the media to sit on it until it's most convenient for them to deal with reality.

[Willie71]

There was no story to report. It was a propaganda piece.

The number of delegates Clinton has committed is news. That you might not like the news doesn't change it being news.

Anonymous committed superdelegates from a telephone survey? Ok.

Maybe they don't need to even have an election this fall. Just phone some people without identifying them, and the election is decided.

Then why the fuck would you accept it as meaningful today? Nothing as changed about how the super delegates are being tallied. You are flip flopping on the significance of the counting of these delegates literally from one day to the next.

If you don't want to count them then at least be intellectually consistent and say Clinton has still not captured the delegates required for the nomination.

On Monday, did we know there were really 571 or whatever the number of SDs needed was? An anonymous survey is reliable Bews? No fucking way. Publish the list of the new committed SDs. That's now news, a rush of new endorsements, Today, she needs about 100, 150. I have no doubt that this is real, as there were 400+ SDs for months.

You really don't understand the counter argument, do you? It's been explained several times.

The media has great power in shaping people's perceptions. Ever heard of manufactured consent? You don't seem to understand that public perception going into California could sway the outcome by suppressing the Election Day vote, Sanders strength. He underperformed the polls in California and New Jersey, likely in part to the perception it was over. A stronger performance, without suppression would leave Sanders with more leverage going into the convention. The SDs did not reach out to the AP from what I read, the AP reached out to them. You claim it was "news", but that "news" was not factual, and was misleading. By your logic, Clinton didn't have the nomination on Monday, and still doesn't have it today.if that's the argument you want, fine. I accept that. The difference you don't seem to get is that the outcome on Tuesday would really shape the power going into the convention.

Are you not aware that as early as the 1970's it was disclosed in congress that the media was being directly influenced by the government? Propaganda was being presented as news? You seem to believe this is all just innocent, ignoring that the news has been corrupted by several laws that removed the limited autonomy that used to be there. It's naievity to think the strings haven't been pulled by the powerful. Call it conspiracy theory if you like, and label me a conspiracy theorist. There is a history to how these terms have been propagated to decrease the credibility of those who are skeptical of authority.

My argument isn't really about Clinton/Sanders, it's about the propaganda.

[purplerat]

If you read the AP reporting on the subject you'd know the answer. Here's a hint, it wasn't a guess.

Even your conspiracy theory doesn't make sense as the reporting on Monday was to the detriment of Clinton and the DNC. If anything it played right into Sanders hand. So unless your claiming this is a conspiracy to help Sanders even that doesn't make sense.

Or maybe you've been primed all along to call any reporting of a Clinton victory propaganda and when it happened was meaningless. I think there's a word for that.

[Willie71]

If you read the AP reporting on the subject you'd know the answer. Here's a hint, it wasn't a guess.

Even your conspiracy theory doesn't make sense as the reporting on Monday was to the detriment of Clinton and the DNC. If anything it played right into Sanders hand. So unless your claiming this is a conspiracy to help Sanders even that doesn't make sense.

Or maybe you've been primed all along to call any reporting of a Clinton victory propaganda and when it happened was meaningless. I think there's a word for that.

The Election Day vote was suppressed, affecting both candidates. Clinton had the advantage with the mail in ballots. It's really fucking simple. Suppress the Election Day vote, and the early ballot advantage is amplified.

[purplerat]

If you read the AP reporting on the subject you'd know the answer. Here's a hint, it wasn't a guess.

Even your conspiracy theory doesn't make sense as the reporting on Monday was to the detriment of Clinton and the DNC. If anything it played right into Sanders hand. So unless your claiming this is a conspiracy to help Sanders even that doesn't make sense.

Or maybe you've been primed all along to call any reporting of a Clinton victory propaganda and when it happened was meaningless. I think there's a word for that.

The Election Day vote was suppressed, affecting both candidates. Clinton had the advantage with the mail in ballots. It's really fucking simple. Suppress the Election Day vote, and the early ballot advantage is amplified.

Well that's too fucking bad if reality got in the way of people's pipe dreams.

If you want to think that the press should sit on stories because it might impact politics, well I think that's fucking stupid. But I don't even think you're intellectually consistent enough to say that. If it was a piece that had a net negative effect on Clinton you'd be pedaling it everywhere and anywhere you could find somebody to listen.

[Willie71]

If you read the AP reporting on the subject you'd know the answer. Here's a hint, it wasn't a guess.

Even your conspiracy theory doesn't make sense as the reporting on Monday was to the detriment of Clinton and the DNC. If anything it played right into Sanders hand. So unless your claiming this is a conspiracy to help Sanders even that doesn't make sense.

Or maybe you've been primed all along to call any reporting of a Clinton victory propaganda and when it happened was meaningless. I think there's a word for that.

The Election Day vote was suppressed, affecting both candidates. Clinton had the advantage with the mail in ballots. It's really fucking simple. Suppress the Election Day vote, and the early ballot advantage is amplified.

Well that's too fucking bad if reality got in the way of people's pipe dreams.

If you want to think that the press should sit on stories because it might impact politics, well I think that's fucking stupid. But I don't even think you're intellectually consistent enough to say that. If it was a piece that had a net negative effect on Clinton you'd be pedaling it everywhere and anywhere you could find somebody to listen.

Manufacturing a story is really fucking pathetic. The news presents the preferred reality. You seem to think it's based in some sort of objective truth. No one is saying the press should sit on anything. I'm skeptical of the press reporting anonymous unverifiable sources on such an important issue, that had very clear probable outcomes. Again, it's not about Sanders/Clinton. It's about manufacturing a preferred narrative. It seems you are projecting how you would see the situation, not listening or understanding what I'm saying.

[purplerat]

How the fuck is it manufacturing? They've been counting pledged delegates + super delegates all along. You've even acknowledged that you accept that figure, but for some magical reasoning only after a certain date which makes no sense.

You are the one manufacturing a fiction in which the super delegate counts are only relevant after a majority of pledged delegates have been won.

But there is no reason for anybody who isn't biased to play along with that. The only reason anybody would do so would be to manipulation information/news towards a preferred outcome. In other words what you are accusing the media of is what you actually want them to do.

[purplerat]

Here's the real irony about criticizing the AP for calling the race for Clinton on Monday;

In doing so the AP reveals a thinly veiled truth about the Democratic primary process which the DNC and Clinton would have preferred not been highlighted right before she claimed victory. That being that the Democratic establishment has far greater power in picking the nominee than they'd like people to think. Hence why the race could be called before Clinton even had a lock on a majority of pledged votes.

The truth and what the AP reported is that the race had already been decided (in so far as these nominations can be decided prior to the convention) before either candidate had reached a majority of pledged delegates. You'd think the anti-establishment crowd would be all over this but instead you are complaining because you think it hurts your cause. The only explanation I can come up with for this is that you've built up such a warped alternate reality in your heads that you can't even see when something actually agrees with your original premise. It really is typical conspiracy theory think where if the wrong source actually agrees with part of the conspiracy theory that itself becomes part of the conspiracy too.

[Teague]

Where's the verification that this anonymous source is right?

[purplerat]

Where's the verification that this anonymous source is right?

It's the same today as it was on Monday. So unless you are arguing that Clinton is still not yet the presumptive nominee it's a moot point.