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

[purplerat]

Since it's apparently too hard for you guys to look up and apparently hasn't been covered by TYT here's the answer to how these counts are tallied.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/how-does-the-ap-count-delegates-to-arrive-at-clintons-win/

HOW AP COUNTS SUPERDELEGATES

Of the 4,765 total delegates to the Democratic National Convention, 714 are superdelegates. They are all party officials, governors and members of Congress who may vote for the candidate of their choice, regardless of the outcome in their state’s primary or caucus.

The AP surveys the superdelegates throughout the primary season, over months and months, to track whom they plan to support at the July convention.

If a superdelegate tells the AP he or she plans to unequivocally support a certain candidate at the convention, that’s added to the candidate’s tally.

Those who decline to answer, who say they have yet to make a decision or express any reservations are listed as uncommitted.

The AP tally can be found here.

Nothing there indicates that it's anonymous.

[Teague]

So it had no influence on the voting in California which wouldn't have helped Sanders at all onto the convention had he won the state?

[Shrunk]

So it had no influence on the voting in California which wouldn't have helped Sanders at all onto the convention had he won the state?

The fact that Clinton had clinched the nomination almost certainly reduced turnout, but whether that helped or hurt one candidate or the other, who can say? As far as the effect on the outcome of the convention, it didn't have had any, because the outcome of the convention was now decided before the story was released.

[purplerat]

So it had no influence on the voting in California which wouldn't have helped Sanders at all onto the convention had he won the state?

This question only matters if you believe the media should be in the business of manipulating the news to influence politics. I don't so I really don't care.

For all I know it helped Sanders and hurt Clinton. If not in actual voting then at least in perception.

[purplerat]

So it had no influence on the voting in California which wouldn't have helped Sanders at all onto the convention had he won the state?

The fact that Clinton had clinched the nomination almost certainly reduced turnout, but whether that helped or hurt one candidate or the other, who can say? As far as the effect on the outcome of the convention, it didn't have had any, because the outcome of the convention was now decided before the story was released.

Much the same as Trump being declared the presumptive nominee influenced turnout in the GOP race. Where's all the outcry over that been for the past month?

[Shrunk]

Much the same as Trump being declared the presumptive nominee influenced turnout in the GOP race. Where's all the outcry over that been for the past month?

Yes. Ted Cruz and his followers believe in demons, angels, and all sorts of assorted nonsense. But on this issue they are much more acquainted with reality than many of Sander's supporters. Scary.

[Willie71]

The media has a known effect on elections.

http://www.niemanlab.org/2016/01/how-mu ... -the-data/

It's a sort of feedback loop. It had a direct effect on this cycle. Trump is the master of generating headlines, much more important than the content of the articles. He's not as stupid as he looks.

This chart shows the number of times a candidate’s full name appeared in the top 25 online news sources, as a percentage of all mentions, for October to December of 2015. (Republican candidates were mentioned about twice as often as Democratic candidates overall, but this chart compares each candidate to the others within their party.) There’s an uncanny agreement between the media attention and each candidate’s standing in national primary polls. It’s a textbook correlation.

Depending on what corner of the political universe you come from, it may surprise you to learn that both Trump and Sanders were covered in proportion to their poll results — at least online. Pretty much everyone was. The exceptions are Jeb Bush, who seems to have been covered twice as much as his standing would suggest, and Carson, who might have been slightly under-covered.

[purplerat]

The mediaInformation has a known effect on elections.

FIFY

[purplerat]

This chart shows the number of times a candidate’s full name appeared in the top 25 online news sources, as a percentage of all mentions, for October to December of 2015. (Republican candidates were mentioned about twice as often as Democratic candidates overall, but this chart compares each candidate to the others within their party.) There’s an uncanny agreement between the media attention and each candidate’s standing in national primary polls. It’s a textbook correlation.

Depending on what corner of the political universe you come from, it may surprise you to learn that both Trump and Sanders were covered in proportion to their poll results — at least online. Pretty much everyone was. The exceptions are Jeb Bush, who seems to have been covered twice as much as his standing would suggest, and Carson, who might have been slightly under-covered.

It's a chicken or the egg question though. Are the polls following the media or the media following the polls. There are several outliers in that chart though. O'Malley gets significantly more mentions than his poll numbers. Likely because in a short field he got a disproportionate amount of attention for somebody so far back in the polls.

On the other side Bush is in the same boat but for a different reason. The media had bias towards him as the early favorite but it didn't translate into better polling.

Then there's Carson who does the opposite and out polled his media mentions by a significant margin. If Bernie was so harmed by less only the 3 most media mentions what was he lacking that Carson had to overcome that problem?

[Willie71]

This chart shows the number of times a candidate’s full name appeared in the top 25 online news sources, as a percentage of all mentions, for October to December of 2015. (Republican candidates were mentioned about twice as often as Democratic candidates overall, but this chart compares each candidate to the others within their party.) There’s an uncanny agreement between the media attention and each candidate’s standing in national primary polls. It’s a textbook correlation.

Depending on what corner of the political universe you come from, it may surprise you to learn that both Trump and Sanders were covered in proportion to their poll results — at least online. Pretty much everyone was. The exceptions are Jeb Bush, who seems to have been covered twice as much as his standing would suggest, and Carson, who might have been slightly under-covered.

It's a chicken or the egg question though. Are the polls following the media or the media following the polls. There are several outliers in that chart though. O'Malley gets significantly more mentions than his poll numbers. Likely because in a short field he got a disproportionate amount of attention for somebody so far back in the polls.

On the other side Bush is in the same boat but for a different reason. The media had bias towards him as the early favorite but it didn't translate into better polling.

Then there's Carson who does the opposite and out polled his media mentions by a significant margin. If Bernie was so harmed by less only the 3 most media mentions what was he lacking that Carson had to overcome that problem?

It appears you didn't read the whole article.

[purplerat]

No I didn't, but I think the final paragraph sums what the ultimate end to this conversation will be.

Somewhere, somehow, professional journalists have to decide who gets covered — and any formula they could choose is going to appear biased to someone. In the end, the candidates who attack the media are right about one thing: The press is a political player in its own right. There’s just no way to avoid that when attention is valuable.

Nobody is in denial that media coverage influences public opinion. If it didn't there wouldn't be any point in there being a media in the first place.

The only difference is between those who see boogey men and conspiracy theories in every corner and those who are a bit more skeptical.

[Oldskeptic]

This chart shows the number of times a candidate’s full name appeared in the top 25 online news sources, as a percentage of all mentions, for October to December of 2015. (Republican candidates were mentioned about twice as often as Democratic candidates overall, but this chart compares each candidate to the others within their party.) There’s an uncanny agreement between the media attention and each candidate’s standing in national primary polls. It’s a textbook correlation.

Depending on what corner of the political universe you come from, it may surprise you to learn that both Trump and Sanders were covered in proportion to their poll results — at least online. Pretty much everyone was. The exceptions are Jeb Bush, who seems to have been covered twice as much as his standing would suggest, and Carson, who might have been slightly under-covered.

It's a chicken or the egg question though. Are the polls following the media or the media following the polls. There are several outliers in that chart though. O'Malley gets significantly more mentions than his poll numbers. Likely because in a short field he got a disproportionate amount of attention for somebody so far back in the polls.

On the other side Bush is in the same boat but for a different reason. The media had bias towards him as the early favorite but it didn't translate into better polling.

Then there's Carson who does the opposite and out polled his media mentions by a significant margin. If Bernie was so harmed by less only the 3 most media mentions what was he lacking that Carson had to overcome that problem?

It appears you didn't read the whole article.

My bold above.

Apparently neither did you.

My bolds below.

But there are two other ways that these variables can become highly correlated. First, causality could go the other way. The polls could drive the media.



This isn’t completely insane. Journalists have to follow audience attention or risk getting ignored. And if voters are also readers, a candidate who is twice as popular might get twice the number of views and shares. That matters when you’re deciding what to cover — though it’s hardly the only consideration.

...There’s one more way to get a close relationship between media and polls: something else could be driving both of them. For example, attention on social media could drive both. A single post can go viral and reach millions without any involvement from professional journalists. Or perhaps endorsements from famous people and organizations are the key to influence, as political scientists have long suspected. And then there are the candidates themselves: anything they do might make them more (or less!) favorable with both the media and the public. In short we need to consider every other thing, and many of these things will drive media attention and voter preference in the same direction, causing a correlation like the one we’ve seen.



These are the basic causal forces, the only possible ways that media attention and polling results can become so closely aligned. We’re going to need more information to figure out what is causing what.

[Willie71]

It's a chicken or the egg question though. Are the polls following the media or the media following the polls. There are several outliers in that chart though. O'Malley gets significantly more mentions than his poll numbers. Likely because in a short field he got a disproportionate amount of attention for somebody so far back in the polls.

On the other side Bush is in the same boat but for a different reason. The media had bias towards him as the early favorite but it didn't translate into better polling.

Then there's Carson who does the opposite and out polled his media mentions by a significant margin. If Bernie was so harmed by less only the 3 most media mentions what was he lacking that Carson had to overcome that problem?

It appears you didn't read the whole article.

My bold above.

Apparently neither did you.

My bolds below.

But there are two other ways that these variables can become highly correlated. First, causality could go the other way. The polls could drive the media.



This isn’t completely insane. Journalists have to follow audience attention or risk getting ignored. And if voters are also readers, a candidate who is twice as popular might get twice the number of views and shares. That matters when you’re deciding what to cover — though it’s hardly the only consideration.

...There’s one more way to get a close relationship between media and polls: something else could be driving both of them. For example, attention on social media could drive both. A single post can go viral and reach millions without any involvement from professional journalists. Or perhaps endorsements from famous people and organizations are the key to influence, as political scientists have long suspected. And then there are the candidates themselves: anything they do might make them more (or less!) favorable with both the media and the public. In short we need to consider every other thing, and many of these things will drive media attention and voter preference in the same direction, causing a correlation like the one we’ve seen.



These are the basic causal forces, the only possible ways that media attention and polling results can become so closely aligned. We’re going to need more information to figure out what is causing what.

Didn't I say it goes both ways?

[Oldskeptic]

It's a chicken or the egg question though. Are the polls following the media or the media following the polls. There are several outliers in that chart though. O'Malley gets significantly more mentions than his poll numbers. Likely because in a short field he got a disproportionate amount of attention for somebody so far back in the polls.

On the other side Bush is in the same boat but for a different reason. The media had bias towards him as the early favorite but it didn't translate into better polling.

Then there's Carson who does the opposite and out polled his media mentions by a significant margin. If Bernie was so harmed by less only the 3 most media mentions what was he lacking that Carson had to overcome that problem?

It appears you didn't read the whole article.

My bold above.

Apparently neither did you.

My bolds below.

But there are two other ways that these variables can become highly correlated. First, causality could go the other way. The polls could drive the media.



This isn’t completely insane. Journalists have to follow audience attention or risk getting ignored. And if voters are also readers, a candidate who is twice as popular might get twice the number of views and shares. That matters when you’re deciding what to cover — though it’s hardly the only consideration.

...There’s one more way to get a close relationship between media and polls: something else could be driving both of them. For example, attention on social media could drive both. A single post can go viral and reach millions without any involvement from professional journalists. Or perhaps endorsements from famous people and organizations are the key to influence, as political scientists have long suspected. And then there are the candidates themselves: anything they do might make them more (or less!) favorable with both the media and the public. In short we need to consider every other thing, and many of these things will drive media attention and voter preference in the same direction, causing a correlation like the one we’ve seen.



These are the basic causal forces, the only possible ways that media attention and polling results can become so closely aligned. We’re going to need more information to figure out what is causing what.

Didn't I say it goes both ways?

Did you? That's not at all apparent from you snide response to Purplerat.

[purplerat]

I'm a little confused myself as I essentially said it goes both ways, admittedly without having read the whole thing, and was promptly told I was wrong.

[Willie71]

Feedback loop. Doesn't matter which came first, either one, and the cycle starts,

[purplerat]

Please explain how any press would work where that weren't the case?

The whole point of the press/media is to inform the public and with which information the public will be influenced in how it acts which the press/media will report on, and so on and so on...

[Willie71]

Get rid of the profit motive for elections. Secondly ban donations from the media to candidates as they create a conflict of interest. That's a good place to start. At least the most obvious corrupting forces are minimized. If you can't have a perfect solution, don't try for any solution? Not what you said, but that's the argument in a nutshell.

There is also this relatively unknown thing as journalistic ethics. Maybe at least pretend to follow them. These people are supposedly trained to minimize these bias is, but capitalize on them for profit motives.

[purplerat]

That doesn't change the fundamental fact that news and media is going to have an influence on public opinion, and vice versa.

I agree there can be better safe guards and regulations and that it doesn't have to be perfect. But that's not the point here. Just because there can be corrupting influences that doesn't mean every story has a nefarious motivation. I don't even think you believe that as you yourself regularly share sources which you presumably trust not to be such. The problem is that you seem to make that determination based on how well the source aligns with your own bias as opposed to doing so objectively.

Case in point, the AP calling the nomination for Clinton on Monday. There's no clear motive to help or hurt either side and the AP has been up front about how they were counting the delegates all along, in this election and previous ones. There's no reason to think it was corrupt except as a rejection of anything pro-Clinton.

Now if the AP had capitulated to Clinton and the DNC and withhold the story until it was most beneficial for them that would be a reasonable basis to claim corruption.

[GT2211]

Warren for VP? A lot of senate dems have been pushing for it. I didn't think it was likely at first due to chance they could lose her seat and that she would already have an important policy making position if Dems retake senate....but she seems to be positioning herself for it handling lots of media appearances attacking Trump recently. And now this....

Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren on Friday arrived at Hillary Clinton’s home in Washington, D.C., for a private meeting with the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee.

Cameras captured Warren exiting a blue SUV and heading into Clinton’s Whitehaven residence Friday morning, more than an hour before Clinton is scheduled to deliver remarks at the Planned Parenthood Action Fund.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/e ... z4BC3xZNwx
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

The article notes there seems to be a lot of feelers being floated by both HRC and Warren