While it might sound strange, a coronation of Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary will mark the end of the party as we know it. There’s been a lot written about the “Sanders surge,” with much of it revolving around Hillary Clinton’s extreme personal weakness as a candidate. While this is indisputable, it’s also a convenient way for the status quo to exempt itself from fault and discount genuine grassroots anger. I’m of the view that Sanders’ support is more about people liking him than them disliking Hillary, particularly when it comes to registered Democrats. He’s not merely seen as the “least bad choice.” People really do like him.
The Sanders appeal is twofold. He is seen as unusually honest and consistent for someone who’s held elected office for much of his life, plus he advocates a refreshingly anti-establishment view on core issues that matter to an increasing number of Americans. These include militarism, Wall Street bailouts, a two-tiered justice system, the prohibitive cost of college education, healthcare insecurity and a “rigged economy.” While Hillary is being forced to pay lip service to these issues, everybody knows she doesn’t mean a word of it. She means it less than Obama meant it in 2008, and Obama really didn’t mean it.
– From the post: It’s Not Just the GOP – The Democratic Party is Also Imploding
I just finished watching a surprisingly good and honest 14 minute segment on MSNBC’s Morning Joe which covered how the Democratic National Committee has been rigging the primary in favor of Hillary Clinton. Host Joe Scarborough even went so far as to admit the media’s complicity in the process with regard to superdelegates. He notes:
“And I know the Republican party wishes they rigged the process as well as the Democratic party did right now, because they could rig it against Trump — but the Democratic party rigs their process so that these superdelegates, which by the way can move any direction they want, actually skew the process and the reporting so badly that the voters actually don’t have their say when it comes to voting.”
This is a key issue that has been driving me up a wall lately. It is journalistic malpractice for media outlets to include superdelegates in the total tally when these Democratic operatives can switch their support at any point between now and the convention. As we learned in the post Did Hillary Clinton Really Win More New Hampshire Delegates Than Sanders Despite a Landslide Loss?:
Q: From everything you’ve told me so far, I can’t understand why you’re calling Superdelegate votes “irrelevant.” It seems to me like they have the same voting power as a normal delegate, and this puts Sanders in a tremendous hole from the word “go.”
A: Here’s why it doesn’t matter: Superdelegates have never decided a Democratic nomination. It would be insane, even by the corrupt standards of the Democratic National Committee, if a small group of party elites went against the will of the people to choose the presidential nominee.
This has already been an incredibly tense election, and Sanders voters are already expressing their unwillingness to vote for Clinton in the general election. When you look at the astounding numbers from Iowa and New Hampshire, where more than 80 percent of young voters have chosen Sanders over Clinton, regardless of gender, it’s clear that Clinton already finds herself in a very tenuous position for the general election. It will be tough to motivate young supporters, but any hint that Bernie was screwed by the establishment will result in total abandonment.
Democrats win when turnout is high, and if the DNC decides to go against the will of the people and force Clinton down the electorate’s throat, they’d be committing political suicide.
The important thing to know here is that Superdelegates are merely pledged to a candidate. We know who they support because they’ve stated it publicly, or been asked by journalists. They are not committed, and can change at any time. If Bernie Sanders wins the popular vote, he will be the nominee. End of story.
I completely agree with this assessment, which is why the media plays the key role in rigging this thing for Hillary Clinton. For example, consider the following “political reporting” published by Bloomberg yesterday:
Though Sanders picked up 55 delegates Saturday to Clinton’s 20, she still holds a commanding lead with 1,712 delegates of the 2,383 needed for a first-ballot nomination at the party’s national convention at Philadelphia in July. That includes 469 superdelegates—Democratic office-holders and party officials who aren’t bound by results from primaries and caucuses. Sanders has 1,004 total delegates.
The truth is she doesn’t actually “have” those superdelegates, and if Sanders wins the delegates people actually vote for, he’ll probably get the nomination. As such, the media invents a number that isn’t actually real, and definitely not set in stone, to demoralize Sanders supporters and make them think the gap is too large to overcome. It’s absolutely disgusting.
Now here’s CNBC doing the same thing:
So given that Joe Scarborough alluded to this trick during his segment, you’d think the person in charge of graphics at MSNBC wouldn’t be so shameless. But you’d be wrong. This is how the station portrayed the race on several occasions during the segment:
Here’s another example:
Incredibly, the only graphic shown during the segment that even alluded to the fact that these numbers are inflated by superdelegates is the following:
While better, the above still represents a completely dishonest portrayal of the race. This is the right way to do it, from the New York Times:
If anything, superdelegates should be mentioned as a footnote only. Anything else represents a total lack of ethics, integrity and highlights why the public has nothing but derision for the American mainstream media.
The clip is still worth watching.
For related articles, see:
Donate bitcoins: 1LefuVV2eCnW9VKjJGJzgZWa9vHg7Rc3r1
Follow me on Twitter.