The National Media Has Been Instructed By the DNC Not to Count Superdelegates

www.huffingtonpost.com...

Whatever one thinks of Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the Chair of the Democratic National Committee, we can all agree on one thing: there is no greater authority on the topic of so-called "super-delegates" to the Democratic National Convention (an event Wasserman Schultz runs) than Wasserman Schultz herself.

And Wasserman Schultz has been clear, as evident from the video above, that the national news media must stop tallying and reporting "super-delegates" immediately.

"The way the media is reporting this is incorrect," Wasserman Schultz told Rachel Maddow of MSNBC on February 20th. "There are not pledged delegates -- or 'super-delegates' -- earned at any of these caucus contests."

What the hell? How is that I completely agree with this woman? She's right and she's told the media to stop, yet they haven't. Just reading a thread the other day people were posting the delegate count between Sanders and Clinton claiming Sanders has no chance because Clinton's numbers were inflated. And when they were told about the super delegates inflating her numbers they didn't care. So this is a great example of how to spread disinformation and ignorance and of all people Debbie Wasserman is telling the MSM to stop it.

What in the hell?

a reply to: Swills

What in the ever living hell, indeed! One would think Superdelegates would back the candidate they feel is most likely to win the general election, which they really shouldn't decide until they see how the voting public feels about the candidates.

It's called the ropa dope.

Lul the enemy in to a false sense of security.

Them BAM!

a reply to: dogstar23

Yeah, they shouldn't even be a factor during the primaries and definitely not counted with delegates. It's complete nonsense.

a reply to: neo96

I don't trust her or the DNC. What's the agenda, that's what I'm waiting for.

a reply to: Swills

IF super delegates were so 'meaningless' they wouldn't have them.

It would be wise to take ANYTHING they have to say with a grain of salt.

The agenda is putting on the facade of an 'honest' election.

a reply to: Swills

What in the hell?

Yeah thats very weird but more suspicious.

I'm thinking that maybe they don't want attention on the super delegates because its the DNC nuclear weapon.

Right now I see alot of news articles on how Bernie is winning , but is losing based on the delegates.

I'm thinking they don't want the people to get educated or be prepared to take action on the DNC when Sanders is winning and Hillary gets the nomination based on the Super delegates?

Right now the people are seeing something is up, and they don't like that.

He's not winning in terms of pledged delegates. Even though the win in Michigan was indeed shocking, it was narrow and the delegates were proportionally allocated so he only ended up winning seven more delegates than Clinton did. The same day she picked up like 30 delegates to his 4 in Mississippi. So on the day, Clinton won 19 delegates more than Sanders (90 v 71). The current pledged delegate totals are:

Clinton - 762
Sanders - 549

The media should stop reporting on super delegate counts. It's an almost certainty that whoever gets the most pledged delegates is going to get the nomination because the super delegates are not stupid enough to sink the DNC by usurping the will of the primary voters. To keep showing the super delegate totals is leaving people with a false impression that Sanders would be leading if it "wasn't for the super delegates!"

I guess I'm the only not surprised that DWS doesn't want that?

a reply to: theantediluvian

You honestly believe that the DNC will listen to the people and ignore their own agenda to get Hillary elected?

If that's the case, and they do listen to the people, then they will show that they have more honor and ethics than the GOP who are doing whatever they can to eliminate Trump, even though it's "the will of the people".

a reply to: Swills

Lip service, nothing else.

ETA - Oh and trying to dictate the 1st amendment which allows freedom of the press.

a reply to: DBCowboy

You honestly believe that the DNC will listen to the people and ignore their own agenda to get Hillary elected?

If that's the case, and they do listen to the people, then they will show that they have more honor and ethics than the GOP who are doing whatever they can to eliminate Trump, even though it's "the will of the people".

I don't know about all that. It's a losing long term strategy to alienate your voters, particularly young and passionate voters. Not to mention the fact that it would backfire badly in the general election. Even if the Democrats didn't lose votes to the Republicans, they'd have voters who would be so disgusted that they simply wouldn't participate or would write in Sanders. They've had a little experience in this department (1968).

This election is of critical importance in terms of the make up of SCOTUS. I don't want to see a Republican President and a GOP controlled Congress appoint/confirm 2, possibly 3 justices. If Clinton or Sanders win, they'll still have to get their selection past the GOP which means they'll likely select moderates. If Trump or worse, Cruz wins, we could end up with a conservatively stacked SCOTUS for a whole generation.

I'm neither a Bernie nor a Hillary supporter but I'll be voting for the Democrat either way. Aside from SCOTUS considerations, I figure that if the Democrat wins, the GOP will continue their obstruction and not much is actually going to happen. If Trump or Cruz win, we're collectively f'd.

My feeling is that Sanders won't win the nomination but the picture might be a lot clearer in 5 days. There's almost 700 delegates on the line on the 15th — after Tuesday, 50% of the pledged delegates will be allocated. Sanders needs to take 54% of the remaining delegates. The Democrats don't have winner-take-all primaries/caucuses either so there's no opportunity for a narrow victory in a state with a bunch of delegates leading to a massive bump.

a reply to: neo96

Just like Hillary did to Obama in 2008? Er, wait. What again?

a reply to: theantediluvian

The sad thing is, it shouldn't matter if it's Hillary/Bernie/Trump/Cruz nominating a Supreme Court Justice.

Their job is to determine cases impartially based upon the Constitution.

But in reality, they are just as partisan as congress and the execuitive branch.

originally posted by: 0zzymand0s
a reply to: neo96

Just like Hillary did to Obama in 2008? Er, wait. What again?

The only reason Clinton lost to Obama was because the DNC wanted the 'first black president'.

2016 is pay back time.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
He's not winning in terms of pledged delegates. Even though the win in Michigan was indeed shocking, it was narrow and the delegates were proportionally allocated so he only ended up winning seven more delegates than Clinton did. The same day she picked up like 30 delegates to his 4 in Mississippi. So on the day, Clinton won 19 delegates more than Sanders (90 v 71). The current pledged delegate totals are:

Clinton - 762
Sanders - 549

The media should stop reporting on super delegate counts. It's an almost certainty that whoever gets the most pledged delegates is going to get the nomination because the super delegates are not stupid enough to sink the DNC by usurping the will of the primary voters. To keep showing the super delegate totals is leaving people with a false impression that Sanders would be leading if it "wasn't for the super delegates!"

I guess I'm the only not surprised that DWS doesn't want that?

This DNC Chair is lying in an effort to CYA. Some super delegates were pledged as soon as Clinton stated she was in the mx . Can they change before nomination time ? Sure. Will they ,No

This request was brought about by the ever growing outcry from the Democrats on the legitimacy of super delegates . The so-called super delegates are under no rules to vote as the general public does. That is for the regular delegates.

a reply to: neo96

Super delegates do serve a purpose...in a contested convention when a race is tight, they CAN tip the scales in one candidate's favor. They aren't supposed to be used in the way the media is using them ...

Oh well, the media did the same kinds of things to Ron Paul.

a reply to: Swills

A: She's lying for a false security for those who don't know any better.

B: She's telling the truth and the propaganda about her has been wrong.

C: She's covering her ass because she's getting nervous that her choice may not be the winner after all.

D: She got laid and has been drinking and is having an honest moment without realizing it.

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: neo96

Super delegates do serve a purpose...in a contested convention when a race is tight, they CAN tip the scales in one candidate's favor. They aren't supposed to be used in the way the media is using them ...

Oh well, the media did the same kinds of things to Ron Paul.

And to Obama when Hillary had a majority. However as Obama took over on pledged delegates the Supers shifted as they normally do. The people running campaigns know how it works. Who knows what the public knows.

a reply to: MrSpad

Well, if Sanders can pick up stream in the other states things will start to fold inward on Hillary very, very quickly. She tried to start strong and be intimidating with the whole delegate thing ...

She wants them to stop so people will be unwise to what is happening and how superdelegates can determine the winner over the popular vote.

Unless I am mistaken, the super delegates are counted as they are currently pledged. That's why some are on Sander's side.