HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » Dellamaide: "Hillary Clin...

Fri Apr 8, 2016, 09:17 AM

Dellamaide: "Hillary Clinton’s ‘insurmountable’ lead is fuzzy math"

The mainstream media is misleading the public by adopting a “fuzzy math” in treating the delegate counts for the Democratic nominating convention as carved in stone.

Given its bias against Donald Trump, the media are happy to parrot the Republican establishment’s prediction that their convention in Cleveland will be an “open convention” — that is, open to manipulation by the apparatchiks and the rules they set.

By the same token, given its pronounced bias in favor of Hillary Clinton, the media gladly repeat the spin of the Clinton campaign and the Democratic establishment by portraying that party’s contest as essentially over.

Not only compromised television anchors like MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, whose wife is drawing support from various Clintonites in her bid for a congressional seat in Maryland, are implying that the Democratic frontrunner’s lead in delegates is insurmountable. As a rule, pundits and even print reporters glibly adopt the inevitability spin.


http://www.marketwatch.com/story/hillary-clintons-insurmountable-lead-is-fuzzy-math-2016-04-08


43 replies, 2846 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 43 replies Author Time Post
Reply Dellamaide: "Hillary Clinton’s ‘insurmountable’ lead is fuzzy math" (Original post)
corbettkroehler Apr 2016 OP
Buzz Clik Apr 2016 #1
kristopher Apr 2016 #20
Buzz Clik Apr 2016 #21
kristopher Apr 2016 #24
Buzz Clik Apr 2016 #26
kristopher Apr 2016 #34
leftynyc Apr 2016 #38
kristopher Apr 2016 #39
leftynyc Apr 2016 #40
kristopher Apr 2016 #42
firebrand80 Apr 2016 #2
HooptieWagon Apr 2016 #3
firebrand80 Apr 2016 #6
AgingAmerican Apr 2016 #9
firebrand80 Apr 2016 #14
AgingAmerican Apr 2016 #19
1StrongBlackMan Apr 2016 #27
firebrand80 Apr 2016 #32
1StrongBlackMan Apr 2016 #36
thesquanderer Apr 2016 #4
geek tragedy Apr 2016 #5
firebrand80 Apr 2016 #7
thesquanderer Apr 2016 #10
geek tragedy Apr 2016 #11
thesquanderer Apr 2016 #16
geek tragedy Apr 2016 #17
thesquanderer Apr 2016 #18
GreatGazoo Apr 2016 #8
Tarc Apr 2016 #12
KingFlorez Apr 2016 #13
SFnomad Apr 2016 #23
Renew Deal Apr 2016 #15
SFnomad Apr 2016 #22
kristopher Apr 2016 #25
SFnomad Apr 2016 #28
kristopher Apr 2016 #29
SFnomad Apr 2016 #30
kristopher Apr 2016 #33
SFnomad Apr 2016 #35
kristopher Apr 2016 #37
SFnomad Apr 2016 #41
Octafish Apr 2016 #31
kristopher Apr 2016 #43

Response to corbettkroehler (Original post)

Fri Apr 8, 2016, 09:20 AM

1. Someone has called HRC's lead insurmountable? Not that I've heard. Where does this crap come from?

 

Classic false dilemma, I guess.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #1)

Fri Apr 8, 2016, 11:49 AM

20. It comes from an unrelenting effort to paint Hillary as inevitable.

If you haven't seen/heard it, you're the only one.

BTW, the OP is a good article.
Having set a target of how many delegates the two candidates must get in each primary to reach the 2,026 needed for a majority of pledged delegates, the FiveThirtyEight tracking currently has Clinton at 107% of her target and Sanders at 93%.

However, Sanders has met or exceeded his targets in seven of the last eight contests, while Clinton has fallen short six out of eight, so the momentum suggests Sanders will continue to narrow that gap.

The delegate math that considers Clinton the inevitable winner, then, is based on the presumption that the 469 superdelegates — elected officials and party leaders — who have previously declared their support for Clinton will in fact vote for her.

Yes, they may, but the fact is they are not “bound” in the same way pledged delegates in the primary contests are. They can change their minds at will.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/hillary-clintons-insurmountable-lead-is-fuzzy-math-2016-04-08

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kristopher (Reply #20)

Fri Apr 8, 2016, 11:52 AM

21. Is there a quote in there where someone says Hillary's lead being insurmountable? I didn't see it.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #21)

Fri Apr 8, 2016, 12:11 PM

24. You remain in a perpetual state of confusion.

Poor little thing, bless your little ol' bitty heart.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kristopher (Reply #24)

Fri Apr 8, 2016, 12:14 PM

26. Care to answer the question? Are you capable? Or are you simply admitting I'm correct?

 

No one -- no one -- has EVER stated that Clinton's lead is insurmountable. Not EVER.

The thesis of this thread is a false dilemma. Period.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #26)

Fri Apr 8, 2016, 01:29 PM

34. Poor little darlin'.

It must be such a burden to be so unaware of the world around you.

You. are. wildly. wrong. because. the. claim. is. every. fucking. where.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kristopher (Reply #34)

Fri Apr 8, 2016, 02:26 PM

38. Then you shouldn't have any trouble

 

posting a few links instead of the boring bullshit of saying "it's EVERYWHERE" and condescending to other DUers. Put up a few links and prove yourself right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftynyc (Reply #38)

Fri Apr 8, 2016, 02:33 PM

39. I don't feel the need to prove myself right any more than if I said water is wet.

Both are cases where you already know I'm right.

BTW, if you are supporting Hillary, you really need to change your username to something like 3rdwaynyc; because Hillary is right of center on everything.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kristopher (Reply #39)

Fri Apr 8, 2016, 03:20 PM

40. Uh - no

 

I don't need to do any such thing. I'm a liberal and I've always been a liberal. I don't give a flying fuck how other people want to label me and shame on you for saying I really need to change my screen name because I don't live up to your standards.

And no - you're not right and now that you wont even back up your bullshit, you're proving the other poster was right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftynyc (Reply #40)

Fri Apr 8, 2016, 05:42 PM

42. Unh - yeah

Why would a liberal support someone who refuses to allow herself to be identified as a liberal??

When someone asks she assiduously rejects the identity of "liberal"; and then insists on the identity of "progressive" which is, unequivocally, a 3rd Way label for their right of center policies.

Here is the fruit of those ideological beliefs - It's a matter of "fucking" historical record.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to corbettkroehler (Original post)

Fri Apr 8, 2016, 09:24 AM

2. Right, because the prospect of the SDs

Abandoning a PD-leading Hillary Clinton is completely reasonable

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to firebrand80 (Reply #2)

Fri Apr 8, 2016, 09:31 AM

3. She's lost 6 straight primaries,....

 

...and is losing ground in polls in NY, PA, CA, and nationally. She very well could end up trailing Sanders in pledged delegates, though it's probable that neither candidate can clinch nomination on pledged delegates alone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #3)

Fri Apr 8, 2016, 09:46 AM

6. Losing 6 straight

is no more than the states that happened to be on the calendar. It's not as though she lost states that she would be expected to win. If GA and MS were on the calendar in the past few weeks, there would be no "winning streak."

She is losing ground in polls, but let's recall that Bernie needs to win these states by a large margin to catch up in PDs. Even in the unlikely event that he wins, say, NY and PAby a point or two, he still doesn't catch her.

I agree that no one will get there just with PDs. But to think that the SDs will do anything except ratify the PD leader is fantasy. If they did it to Bernie, you'd scream bloody murder, and rightfully so. Yet some DUers seem to be ok with it happening to Hillary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to firebrand80 (Reply #6)

Fri Apr 8, 2016, 09:58 AM

9. By your 'logic' winning streaks and momentum don't exist!

 

It's funny watching Hillary partisans tie themselves in knots worming and squirming trying to get out of reality.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AgingAmerican (Reply #9)

Fri Apr 8, 2016, 10:24 AM

14. I don't really think momentum exists

Yes, the trajectory of races can change, but it usually happens for a specific reason. To assume that winning itself leads to more winning I don't think is true. Looking at things like demographics is much more useful.

Like I said, the states that Bernie has won recently are states that we would expect him to win given what we know about this race. I don't think we can say that anything has really changed in this race until someone wins a state that we would not expect them to win.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to firebrand80 (Reply #14)

Fri Apr 8, 2016, 11:37 AM

19. Neither does gravity

 

The tortured world of right wing 'logic'

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to firebrand80 (Reply #6)

Fri Apr 8, 2016, 12:49 PM

27. I think the thought of SD abandoning the PD leader is more wishful thinking ...

 

than anything else ... without hope, how do you keep your volunteers on bound and your supporters donating?

But to think that the SDs will do anything except ratify the PD leader is fantasy.


I know it's impolite to raise this; but ... it is even more fantastic when one considers that the SDs are Party people, who have worked long and hard to build and support the party. They are really unlikely to shift to someone that until recently had little use for the Party, except as a target to criticize.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #27)

Fri Apr 8, 2016, 01:17 PM

32. I think he's doing his supporters a disservice

He's smart enough to know its not happening. He just needs an excuse to stay in when we get to point where the math says he needs to win CA by 80%.

Not even sure I really blame him. He's 74 years old, it's not like he's going to be doing this again. This is the pinnacle of his career, may as well ride it out until the end.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to firebrand80 (Reply #32)

Fri Apr 8, 2016, 01:38 PM

36. I don't want to believe that this is a vanity run for Sanders ...

 

I'd rather believe he is staying in the race so that he can keep his issues front and center long enough to influence the platform for the G/E.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to firebrand80 (Reply #2)

Fri Apr 8, 2016, 09:35 AM

4. It is not yet certain who will have more PD by the time of the convention.

It is possible that neither will have enough to clinch the nomination, that's when the SD come into play.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thesquanderer (Reply #4)

Fri Apr 8, 2016, 09:42 AM

5. the SDs will follow the pledged delegates

 

there is a slightly higher than zero chance they'd steal the election for Clinton if she lost the PD race.

there is absolutely zero chance they'd do it for Sanders

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #5)

Fri Apr 8, 2016, 09:47 AM

7. ^that nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #5)

Fri Apr 8, 2016, 10:02 AM

10. I would say it's slightly higher than zero either way.

More than anything else, the SDs mostly want to see a Dem in the WH.

By convention day, the Republicans will have already nominated their candidate. What if that July polling (and their own internal polls) show Sanders as the much more likely candidate to beat that Republican? Add to that what could still be a lingering threat of some kind of legal action against Hillary between the convention and election day, if it hasn't been resolved by then. Might they consider who will more likely win in November in that scenario?

Likely? No. But I put the chance at slightly above zero.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thesquanderer (Reply #10)

Fri Apr 8, 2016, 10:04 AM

11. the superdelegates won't give a crap about that polling

 

candidates trailing in the primary race generally poll better than the leading candidate. Look at John Kasich.

Indictment Fairy isn't a factor either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #11)

Fri Apr 8, 2016, 10:38 AM

16. Kasich polls better in the general, not because he's trailing...

...but because he isn't insane. Cruz has virtually zero appeal outside the conservative base, and Trump has not much more.

Although not as bad on our side, Clinton similarly polls very badly outside the Dem base. That's what gives Sanders the edge in polling for the general, not the fact that he's trailing. Her unfavorables are well over 50%, even after accounting for the fact that Dems overwhelmingly view her favorably, which means she's WAY underwater outside the base.

As for Hillary's legal issues, first, I'd say that it doesn't have to go as far as actual indictment to be a real problem for her in the general. But also, if you think an indictment is absolutely 100% impossible, I think you're not being realistic. There is an ongoing investigation, it is impossible to know what's going to happen.

Here's an interesting clip from a source that is not right-wing nor biased against Hillary:



start watching at 2:12 until about 3:16

No one knows whether it is or isn't going to happen. But everyone should recognize that it is a possibility, even if an unlikely one. Charlie Rose talks about "events that might or might not happen." Schieffer makes it clear exactly what it is they're talking about. This is mainstream media here, not partisan or tin-foil hat folk.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thesquanderer (Reply #16)

Fri Apr 8, 2016, 10:45 AM

17. President Obama knows a lot more than we do and he is not worried. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #17)

Fri Apr 8, 2016, 10:58 AM

18. Obama presumably knows more than we do, but he is not omniscient.

Did he know she had a server in her basement?

He does not know what the investigation will uncover.

Meanwhile, regardless of what he knows or thinks, what would you expect him to say? That the frontrunner for his party's nomination would be a risky bet?

Regardless of whether he thinks Hillary's odds of indictment are 0% or 1% or something greater than that, I would not expect any of his public statements to be any different, I would not expect him to say anything that would in any way damage Hillary's campaign. Not unless he had concrete evidence of a real problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to corbettkroehler (Original post)

Fri Apr 8, 2016, 09:51 AM

8. How GWB of them! Fuzzy math = "sometimes you need to ...fudge the numbers, not tell the truth

the best way to win an election is deliberate deception..."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to corbettkroehler (Original post)

Fri Apr 8, 2016, 10:07 AM

12. The GOP convention is only "open" if it makes it to the 3rd ballot, I believe

If Camp Sanders is reaching into the desperate bag of pledged delegate swaying (or manipulation, e.g. Nevada), then they've really sunk to a new low.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to corbettkroehler (Original post)

Fri Apr 8, 2016, 10:09 AM

13. Not really

In 2008 Obama had less of delegate lead, yet he never lost it and we know how that turned out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KingFlorez (Reply #13)

Fri Apr 8, 2016, 12:10 PM

23. Clinton made a race of it towards the very end

 

But she ran out of states ... just like Sanders will.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to corbettkroehler (Original post)

Fri Apr 8, 2016, 10:26 AM

15. It is essentially over

until it's not

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to corbettkroehler (Original post)

Fri Apr 8, 2016, 12:01 PM

22. The Sanders cheerleaders are having a Karl Rove Ohio sized meltdown

 

Look, technically, yes, Sanders could still win pledged delegate majority.

In the real world, it's not going to happen, for many reasons. Delegate math is what it is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SFnomad (Reply #22)

Fri Apr 8, 2016, 12:13 PM

25. Where is the error?

Having set a target of how many delegates the two candidates must get in each primary to reach the 2,026 needed for a majority of pledged delegates, the FiveThirtyEight tracking currently has Clinton at 107% of her target and Sanders at 93%.

However, Sanders has met or exceeded his targets in seven of the last eight contests, while Clinton has fallen short six out of eight, so the momentum suggests Sanders will continue to narrow that gap.

The delegate math that considers Clinton the inevitable winner, then, is based on the presumption that the 469 superdelegates — elected officials and party leaders — who have previously declared their support for Clinton will in fact vote for her.

Yes, they may, but the fact is they are not “bound” in the same way pledged delegates in the primary contests are. They can change their minds at will.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/hillary-clintons-insurmountable-lead-is-fuzzy-math-2016-04-08

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kristopher (Reply #25)

Fri Apr 8, 2016, 12:56 PM

28. Clinton will have the majority of pledged delegates ...

 

With the states that are remaining, Sanders will not be able to close the gap. He will have the same problem that Clinton did in 2008 and she didn't have as much ground to make up ... in the end, she was closing the gap but ran out of states. Sanders, at best, will run into the same problem ... at worst, Clinton will pull further away.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SFnomad (Reply #28)

Fri Apr 8, 2016, 01:10 PM

29. So you admit (by diverting from question) that there is no error.

He might not make it, but claims that he can't are simply wrong. If you don't recognize that, then we have different definitions of /can't/. And I'm pretty sure the definition I'm going by is more or less universal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kristopher (Reply #29)

Fri Apr 8, 2016, 01:14 PM

30. Apparently you had problems reading my original post in this thread. Do I need to use smaller words?

 

Reposted and emphasized so you can try again to understand what I wrote again ....

Look, technically, yes, Sanders could still win pledged delegate majority.

In the real world, it's not going to happen, for many reasons. Delegate math is what it is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SFnomad (Reply #30)

Fri Apr 8, 2016, 01:24 PM

33. It is more than just a technical possibility; it is a real possibility.

Technically, sometime within the next year someone might invent an immortality elixir.
Technically, the earth might be a figment of some alien creatures imagination.

Technically, your word choice might be reasonable and fair.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kristopher (Reply #33)

Fri Apr 8, 2016, 01:35 PM

35. In the real world, it doesn't matter what "technically" can happen

 

Technically, every #1 seed in March Madness could lose in the first round.

Sanders will not have the majority of pledged delegates at the end of the primaries.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SFnomad (Reply #35)

Fri Apr 8, 2016, 02:21 PM

37. I take it your predictive abilities have made you a fortune on the stock market, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kristopher (Reply #37)

Fri Apr 8, 2016, 03:55 PM

41. Bzzzt, I've never claimed to be able to predict the stock market

 

But thanks for playing, we have wonderful parting gifts for you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to corbettkroehler (Original post)

Fri Apr 8, 2016, 01:16 PM

31. Fuzzy Math? Where would anybody get such a crazy idea?



It's like invading Iraq because September 11.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #31)

Fri Apr 8, 2016, 06:04 PM

43. As the events today washed over me, I thought of that photo...

... and how much it sucked to live with the Cheney/Rovian mindset occupying the White House.

Remember the media manipulation in the run-up to the Iraq War?

What sticks most in my mind was a point about half-way through the sales pitch. The initial price (already considered a low-ball by informed military analysts) was none-the-less hitting opposition from budget hawks and anti-war forces, when Wolfowitz etal came back with a new 80% or so discounted estimate where the war would now be over in days because they were really, really sure we'd be embraced as liberators.

Everyone knew it was bullshit, but the media voice was so loud, and the silence about the opposition was so pervasive, that it seemed like everyone was for it.

Massive protests were literally disappeared from the airwaves.

Authoritative voices who might form a nexus for opposition, like Phil Donahue, were quietly removed from the airwaves.

Yeah, that photo is just right for what I'm seeing lately. I'm going to park the URL here where I can find it. Thanks.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread