2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumDNC posts false pie chart that misleads about the power of superdelegates
Comparing the DNC pie chart (left) to a correct pie chart (right)
(thanks)
(Dem-splanation)
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)TheBlackAdder
(28,226 posts).
.
Ferd Berfel
(3,687 posts)Joe the Revelator
(14,915 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)daleanime
(17,796 posts)it's that they get to stay in control.
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)DNC Chair Says Superdelegates Exist to Protect Party Leaders
CentralMass
(15,265 posts)Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)DNC are apparently now at war with reality in the form of pie charts.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)in fact they 1. LIKE being a minority party since it means no pressure to pass laws (they were glad when the Supermajority was lost by "It's Her Turn" Coakley) and can pretend to be the underdog, and 2. they have a whole system set up to blame the voters for all losses, to corner us into accepting all the blame and kneeling in tearful apology (at least in their minds): so they CAN'T understand that the DNC's not working
double-pronged self-deception
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)I mean, I'm sure the title of that post is true, but it's not nearly as surprising as you make out...
CentralMass
(15,265 posts)tp://www.bustle.com/articles/139315-how-do-delegates-work-these-candidate-representatives-play-a-huge-role-in-who-gets-nominated
"Overall, there are 4,763 Democratic delegates, and a candidate must win more than half of them (2,382) to earn the nomination. Superdelegates make up 30 percent of the 2,382 delegates needed to win the nomination. This is particularly important in 2016, because in November, 359 of the 712 superdelegates told the Associated Press that they were already committed to Clinton, as opposed to only eight for Sanders.: "
Super delegatesoft are free to support the candidate of their chosing. As of November 359 had already committed to Hillary. So take NewHamshire. It has 8 super delegates and 6 of them have committed for Hillary.
kenn3d
(486 posts)Outraged by superdelegates who are not bound by voting results, supporters are now fighting back.
https://www.uspolitics.news/2016/02/15/news/2016-elections/bernie-sanders-supporters-petition-superdelegtes/2599 @uspoliticsnews2
Please Sign petition: http://bit.ly/superdelegates @ MoveOn.org
We're rapidly closing in on 200k signatures.
azmom
(5,208 posts)Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)I'd recognize that FOX dudes work anywhere.
jfern
(5,204 posts)And the way the pledged delegates are allocated makes superdelegates worth more.
Example, a district elects 3 delegates.
Candidate A gets 17%
Candidate B gets 83%
Candidate A gets 1 delegate
Candidate B gets 2 delegates
If 26% of delegates are superdelgates, and candidate A has them all, and the other 74% of delegates are pledged 3 at a time, and candidate B gets 83% of the vote, candidate A still has more delegates.
newthinking
(3,982 posts)4. The Iowa caucuses were not decided by coin tosses, and Hillary Clinton did not win all of them. Seven coin flips were reported through the Iowa Democratic Partys reporting app out of more than 1,700 simultaneous caucus events, with Bernie Sanders winning six and Hillary Clinton winning one.
Apparently they "could not determine" who had coin tosses because the app they used did not record them.
Even so, this is a flat out lie. nobody knows right?
rufus dog
(8,419 posts)We all know what 25% looks like on a pie chart, cutting that in half is one thing, but representing 8% as 15% is crazy.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)And the only reasonable way someone is going to misrepresent a percentage on one is to do it on purpose.
Flying Squirrel
(3,041 posts)Progress!
mhatrw
(10,786 posts)Damn. And these are the fucking people we have entrusted to run OUR party?
What wouldn't you put past them?
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)betsuni
(25,684 posts)Fearless
(18,421 posts)Response to Cheese Sandwich (Original post)
PaulaFarrell This message was self-deleted by its author.
noamnety
(20,234 posts)One of the comments pointed out the chart adds up to 115% - they included the super delegates in both wedges to make them look smaller.
We could argue that it was incompetence - except that comments on the article explained the error 3 days ago, and they opted to keep the misleading graphic at the top of the page.
Response to noamnety (Reply #29)
PaulaFarrell This message was self-deleted by its author.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)brentspeak
(18,290 posts)Impossible. Just can't happen.
beedle
(1,235 posts)... in their new fangled "establishment pie chart software".
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)712/(712+4763) = 0.1300
The right-hand picture is slightly less far out visually, but the left-hand one doesn't have wrong numbers on it.
beedle
(1,235 posts)they have a section called: "Why we have unpledged delegates"
Most of that section does nothing to even attempt to explain the "Why" of "Unpledged deligates", the only sentence that even comes close to explaining "why" says:
"Unpledged delegates mean interested voters dont have to run against elected officials to attend the Democratic National Convention."
What does that even mean? Were elected officials somehow preventing people from attending the DNC?
highprincipleswork
(3,111 posts)kristopher
(29,798 posts)Rachel's narration:
"Now, if you ask Democratic voters who they expect to be their nominee in November the answer is a very clear and consistent one since the beginning of this campaign. Democratic voters have expected Hillary Clinton to be the candidate who will win the nomination in the end since the very beginning of this campaign.
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show (starts just after 7 min.)
Note the dates in this chart that backdropped that statement: 1/25/16 - 2/7/16
For the record, this is what the chart to represent her claim actually looks like:
For those who will glom onto the difference between voter preference and voter forecast I have two replies:
1) Why did she truncate the timeline in her chart down to 2 weeks while discussing a timeframe of more than 1 year, and
2) She knows that the precise phrasing she used isn't a common polling question and that phrasing adds nothing to the narrative that is not found in the voter preference poll numbers. This is the part that is most damning IMO as it shows a deliberate effort as opposed to just a producer's mistake.
Rachel has been pushing the boundaries in her support for Clinton, but this is the kind of behavior she is famous for exposing. Clinton ethics claim another victim.