Why did AP declare Clinton the presumptive nominee before Tuesday's primaries?

[MinM]

?@onthemedia

Why did AP declare Clinton the presumptive nominee before Tuesday's primaries? Exec. editor @kathleenatap explains:

Jun 10, 2016

Just hours ahead of the final primary contests on Tuesday, the Associated Press reported Hillary Clinton as the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party. The statement, which was based on the AP's own survey of superdelegates, sent the media into a frenzy and prompted outrage from Bernie Sanders supporters who claim that the news may have hurt Sanders' chances in one of the biggest primary nights of the election.

But Kathleen Carroll, executive editor of the Associated Press, has a simple explanation: if you have the news, you report it, no matter when it comes in.

http://www.wnyc.org/story/ap-reporting-delegate-count

The transcript is not up yet but you can listen to it at the link.

[Ohioblue22]

1. Because she was and because Bernie hasn't a chance?

[Trajan]

6. She has yet to meet the threshold to capture the nomination outright

So, it was and IS still conjecture ..

The mere fact that you said this, knowing it is false, is enough to toss a fibbing DUer into permanent exile ...

Why tolerate liars in our midst? ... No reason

[Travis_0004]

9. Go read a dictionary

pre·sump·tive
prəˈzəm(p)tiv/
adjective
of the nature of a presumption; presumed in the absence of further information.

pre·sume
prəˈz(y)o͞om/
verb
past tense: presumed; past participle: presumed
1.
suppose that something is the case on the basis of probability.

Based on all date, it was statistically likely that she was going to be the nominee.

Nobody said that she was confirmed as the nominee, only the presumptive nominee. And as it turns out, it appears as if they were correct. With how poor Bearnie was doing, my only question is why did it take so long.

[JayhawkSD]

2. That explanation does not stand up.

They have enormous amounts of exit polling data and will not report it until after the polls close. There is no law requiring that they withhold that data, they do so voluntarily out of a concern that reporting it while the polls are open might "sway voters who have not yet gone to the polls."

So, did they really think that announcing before the polls opened that voting in several states, including California, had become irrelevant would not "sway voters before they went to the polls?"

[CrowCityDem]

5. There were no polls open at the time. No different than calling a national election before HI closes

[JayhawkSD]

32. Impeccable logic /snark

Calling the election "over" while the polls are still open will discourage people who are on their way to vote from going ahead with their vote because they are hearing that the election is "over" while they are on their way to vote and so they will turn around and go home.

But if the media says that the election is "over" before the polls open, then no one is on their way to vote yet, and so by the the time the polls open they will have forgotten that the media said that the election is "over" and so they will, in blissful ignorance of what the media said yesterday, go ahead and go to the polls and vote in a gesture than they have forgotten doesn't matter.

[CrowCityDem]

34. So if Hillary had won every single state, they shouldn't have called it until this coming Tuesday?

[JayhawkSD]

38. Until the convention, actually. nt

[CrowCityDem]

39. That is beyond absurd.

[Igel]

23. We get upset over California.

But the primaries aren't over, are they?

6/14 DC has a Democratic primary. The difference between making a likely prediction on 6/6 and 6/8 is how many voters would be affected, not whether voters would be effected.

It's okay, apparently, after California votes. But we don't give two cents' about DC voters because, well, they're not ... what?

"Important" is, I think, the word we want. Win DC or lose DC, DC doesn't give anybody yuge bragging rights to a victory and momentum or drowning one's sorrows in a pint. Can't spin a DC win, can't spin a DC loss. Can't make much of it. It's a sow's ear and will forever be a sow's ear because there's not much to it as far as the delegate count goes.

Still, they, too, will vote. And they're not irrelevant however much we love our rhetorical hits out of the park (or "hyperbole," which goes back to "throwing it over (the wall)" or some such expression).

[stopbush]

24. Crocodile tears.

Waaa. It's unfair because someone didn't vote yet. So we need to PRETEND we don't know who won the nomination because some sensitivities might be slighted.

What a pathetic, childish view of reality.

"Binky's not dead. He's in dog heaven."

[alarimer]

44. Why bother having an primary then, if you are so against people voting?

The sheer arrogance of Hillary fans astonishes me.

There are other races on the ballot, you know. THEY don't deserve to have the turnout suppressed.

[stopbush]

45. Primaries should all be closed and caucuses need to go away.

If you don't have the interest or guts to register as a D or an R you should have no say in who gets nominated to run for president from those parties.

You want to register as an Independent, fine. Vote for candidates who are running as Independents.

[Cassiopeia]

3. Because the rest of the rest of the MSM was taking about a 5pm Tuesday announcement.

AP just decided to beat them to it.

[CrowCityDem]

4. If you have the votes, you have the votes. You report news when it's news.

[Mojorabbit]

29. The superdelegates do not vote till the 25th I believe. nt

[CrowCityDem]

30. They don't, but this is how it's always been reported. We don't change just for Bernie.

[Mojorabbit]

33. I am 60 and do not remember anything like this on the eve of so many primaries

but perhaps I was not paying close attention. It tainted her win though as it left so many people feeling that they had no vote.

[CrowCityDem]

35. It's the same math they used for Obama. He just hit that number on a primary day.

[Mojorabbit]

40. Not the issue being discussed. There were many states that had not voted. nt

[CrowCityDem]

41. It's the same issue. They called both races as soon as the numbers added up.

[Mojorabbit]

42. The superdelegates have not voted so you can say that as many times as you like

but people were disenfranchised and have a right to be angry. Obviously this matters to many. Have a good day.

[CrowCityDem]

43. Are people in AK and HI disenfranchised every election when the winner's declared before they close?

An election being over before it's your turn to vote is not disenfranchisement. It's simply the reality of having a staggered primary calendar.

[beachbum bob]

8. to be the first....

[SmittynMo]

10. Why, you ask?

Last edited Sat Jun 11, 2016, 10:22 PM - Edit history (1)

Because this whole election was based on corruption and dirty politics.

[stopbush]

11. !

You just said that even contests Sanders won were based on corruption and dirty politics.

That is what you meant, isn't it?

[SmittynMo]

12. No, not at all

Of course not. How could Bernie possibly influence the establishment? They were against him from the very start, and controlled most of the primary. I mean, just for starters, why would anyone put a crucial debate on at 9PM, against football teams, on a Saturday night? It was one thing after another. And then to pull this shit the day before a major election date? It sure makes you wonder why? In my opinion, that was major dirty politics, which may end making her lose the election due to low voter turnout. 11M people voted for Bernie. How many of those do you think wont show up in November? That will make a yuuuuge difference, and a potential loss.

[stopbush]

13. At some point, you need to come to terms with the fact

that Sanders lost fair and square.

At present, you're using a self-confirming delusion to explain how almost 4-million more people voted for Hillary over Sanders. You're using the same delusion to absolve Sanders of engaging in any dirty tricks (he did steal Hillary's voter data from the DNC, after all).

In your favor, you do say this is just your opinion, and opinions do change over time.

Here's hoping you put your support behind Hillary, who is - after all - the D nominee.

[SmittynMo]

15. I do need to get

over this. It will come with time.

Yes 4M more voted for her, but that does not change how she got there. And DWS was right in the middle of this too. Until the "presumptive" title is gone on July 25, I will remain committed to Bernie. I'm sorry, but I am part of 11M people that voted for him. His policies are completely different than hers, and I suspect a large amount of those 11M people will not show up in November. We all know what happens when the democrats have low voter turnout. We lose. I personally, will have a bigger issue if that happens.

[stopbush]

16. Sanders policies are different than Hillary's

which is why I voted for her.

BTW - as a lifelong D (1972), I find it highly offensive when a DINO like Sanders says the Ds need to "start" looking out for the middle class. Excuse me - we've been doing that for decades. Sanders basically took all the great things Ds have done over the decades and acted like no one had thought about them until he came along.

I found his entire campaign to be deceitful and unrealistic. Claiming "we win when voter turnout is high" may feed the idea that he's the candidate of the masses, but the fact is that it was Hillary who won the states with high turnout.

I won't even get into his unrealistic plans to pay for his healthcare proposals.

[SmittynMo]

17. I agree to disagree.

There is absolutely no reason in the world that we, the richest country in the WORLD, cannot afford healthcare, tuition free college. It's very REALISTIC. Try thinking progressive next time. And the facts are true that lower voter turnout will produce a loss for the Ds. Last I heard, Bernie was in the double digits when put up against Trump. Clinton is currently at +2, well within the margin of error. Yeah, that's smart. And how is it that Trump and HRC have a 55-60 unfavorability rate? How can they even be in the picture at this stage? What is going on this election cycle is absurd.

Your viewpoint on life for the middle class is quite different than most. They have been getting screwed for decades. And the pain will continue for the next 4 if we keep our current path.

Our good jobs are disappearing at an alarming rate, with no hope of them returning.

And then, instead of trying to gather Bernie's backers, they criticize and demean them. Yeah, real smart there!!! NOT!!! Lower voter turnout - duh!!!!

I give up. Talk to me sometime after July 25. I only hope the FBI is done by then.

[stopbush]

22. Sure, we can have those things if we want to pay European-level taxes.

Sanders constantly pointed to Denmark as an example of effective socialism. Did you know that the average Dane pays a tax rate of 45%? Huh, Bernie didn't mention THAT. I wonder why. Telling people they'll pay $1000 a year for family healthcare while getting a $5000 rebate from the gov sounds so good! 45% tax rate? Not so good.

So, the family of 4 making $50k a year would be paying around $23k a year in taxes, leaving them with a whopping $27k to live on. That's rent/mortgage, utilities, cars, clothing, food etc. That's what we're talking about if the richest country in the world wants to have Denmark- style healthcare.

And here's Sanders biggest lie and shortcoming: the country was ready to have that discussion. Ready to discuss whether it was time to even the playing field by imposing a 45% tax rate across the board, adding up the winners and losers in such a situation. But rather than give the country an HONEST discussion, what did Sanders do? He lowballed the costs and argued that the only reason the country couldn't take on his plan was because dishonest businessmen and politicians wanted to keep them sick. Pie-in-the-sky costs and savings couple with directing people's anger at some faceless, evil powers-that-be.

I call that dishonest. Worse, I call it squanding an opportunity that won't come again, if ever.

[alarimer]

36. Hillary fans are not progressives

They don't actually care about those issues. They have theirs, you see, and that's all that matters.

They don't care about voter suppression, either, unless it affects their candidate.

[stopbush]

21. Ah, yes, St Bernard.

His sh*t doesn't stink. We all know.

[yurbud]

20. Democrats did a decent job of looking out for us until late 80's-early 90's

when they started throwing us overboard for the corporate dollars.

[scscholar]

28. And voter supression

That's all this be.

[RAFisher]

14. I assume it was because the Puerto Rico primary

It was on Sunday. The next day they said she won.

[yurbud]

19. During the Bush years, MSM released and withheld info to benefit the admin

like coverage of the felon voter purge in Florida in 2000, and the Bush approved warrantless wiretaps in 2004.

This is just a more benign version of the same sort of manipulation.

[stopbush]

25. And yet everyone in the Sanders camp seems to be onto

the manipulation in real time.

Huh...

[HassleCat]

26. Because conventional wisdom.

That's pretty much all we get from the media.

[tirebiter]

31. Ninth inning baseball

It had the possibility of holding back Clinton voters, also. And very well may have.

[alarimer]

37. It suppressed the vote for other races on the ballot as well.

But Hillary fans don't care about that either.