3 ms·

> Superdelegates had not yet cast their vote. The superdelegates were always going to vote for Hillary. Everyone involved, Bernie included, knew this. You migh

by untog 9y ago

> Superdelegates had not yet cast their vote. The superdelegates were always going to vote for Hillary. Everyone involved, Bernie included, knew this. You might say that's very unfair and I'd agree with you, but surely the problem here is the Democratic party's delegate system? It seems very odd to blame the media when they were simply reporting the accurate facts on the ground. Should they also refrain from reporting polling numbers? After all, those too can change in time.

colordrops 9y ago
If the media didn't report the super delegates as in the bag, and didn't surreptitiously do everything they could to bias their coverage toward Hillary, and Bernie won the primaries in a landslide, do you really think the super delegates would still cast their votes for Hillary? Do you not see the flaw in this logic?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- pwinnski 9y ago
  Yes, in fact. Many of the superdelegates had already said so publicly. Their votes are, by design, not bound by practicality. All media coverage combined had negligible effect on superdelegate votes, if any at all. The Democratic party did wrong by Bernie Sanders, unquestionably. The media generally made errors in their coverage of the entire election cycle. But there are reasons for the media's inability to understand the dynamics at play, and acting as if the media were complicit with the Democratic party is assuming facts not in evidence. Meanwhile, direct comparisons between the Washington Post and Fox News is a false equivalence.
  - colordrops 9y ago
    > the media were complicit with the Democratic party But the were. There is plenty of evidence. In fact CNN was caught red-handed giving Hillary town hall questions in advance. And who said anything about Fox news? What are you talking about?
  - colordrops 9y ago
    BTW what do you think of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLuO1qDkoNg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLuO1qDkoNg

by untog 9y ago

colordrops 9y ago

If the media didn't report the super delegates as in the bag, and didn't surreptitiously do everything they could to bias their coverage toward Hillary, and Bernie won the primaries in a landslide, do you really think the super delegates would still cast their votes for Hillary? Do you not see the flaw in this logic?

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
pwinnski 9y ago
Yes, in fact. Many of the superdelegates had already said so publicly. Their votes are, by design, not bound by practicality. All media coverage combined had negligible effect on superdelegate votes, if any at all. The Democratic party did wrong by Bernie Sanders, unquestionably. The media generally made errors in their coverage of the entire election cycle. But there are reasons for the media's inability to understand the dynamics at play, and acting as if the media were complicit with the Democratic party is assuming facts not in evidence. Meanwhile, direct comparisons between the Washington Post and Fox News is a false equivalence.
- colordrops 9y ago
  > the media were complicit with the Democratic party But the were. There is plenty of evidence. In fact CNN was caught red-handed giving Hillary town hall questions in advance. And who said anything about Fox news? What are you talking about?
- colordrops 9y ago
  BTW what do you think of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLuO1qDkoNg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLuO1qDkoNg