It was reported Monday (but you had to look hard to find it) that Bernie Sanders won the Americans Abroad Global Primary with turnout up 50% over 2008, 34,570 US citizens living in 38 countries voting by internet, mail, or in person. Sanders took 69% of the vote to earn 9 delegates while Hillary Clinton took 31% to win four delegates.
Tonight Sanders stacked up two more huge victories over Hillary with record Democratic turnouts in Idaho and Utah, winning 79% of the vote for 18 delegates to Clinton’s 5 in Utah and 78% in Idaho for 17 delegates with Clinton also winning 5 there. Guess some folks are still “feeling the Bern” and more than half the delegates have not yet been won in this vigorously contested primary.
While I am a Bernie supporter, I am committed to working strenuously for our eventual nominee whoever that is as so much is at stake in this election. However I think it is healthy for both the Democratic Party and our country for all to have an opportunity to participate in their state primaries and caucuses without the mainstream media telling us that it is all over. When we come together in Philadelphia, especially if the delegate count is close, I hope our party and especially the superdelegates will think very carefully about who can best compete and win in the general election.
Sanders 57
Clinton 51
Exactly John, Bernie won the night — have we read this anywhere in the mainstream press? If the reverse had been true, I think we would have seen it everywhere.
…and I saw the Abroad results as soon as they were out too.
I heard CBS Radio News reporting it as “Hillary Clinton extended her lead over Bernie Sanders last night.” That was weird.
was saying the same thing last night, too.
Every single outlet that I saw report the results couched it in terms of Clinton “extending her lead” or similar false description. I would welcome a link to some mainstream source that mentioned Clinton’s lead shrinking.
…but I can’t link to a TV report. All I’m saying is that I have seen multiple places the delegate count being accurately reported. Just because you didn’t see it doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. FWIW I watch mostly MSNBC and a bit of CNN.
At issue is not whether they accurately reported the numbers, it’s that they falsely characterized the change in the relative delegate counts as Clinton “extending her lead,” when the opposite is the case. Most people are not going to examine the numbers when the talking heads are summing it up for them, since they assume the heads are being truthful. They are not being truthful, and it is biased reporting.
…but I teach elementary students how to insert signs between numbers in math lessons. Pretty sure most of them could pick up on 9>4 (the Dem Abroad delegate count favoring Sanders) and 57>51 (the originally reported delegate count favoring Sanders from Tuesday). Some of them could even do the subtraction to figure out the respective differences in overall delegate lead from before and after those contests. I don’t know why anyone would claim the lead was extended, but I also have little sympathy for anyone who can’t figure it out for themselves.
In the first line of the comment above between the words “insert signs” I typed in the symbols for “is less than” and “is greater than”. Not sure why they did not show up.
It looked like you were inserting some HTML code, but it was empty, so it was ignored.
They would claim that because either a) They are not competent in math or journalism, or b) they have as little respect as you for people who don’t want to do math and chose to manipulate them into believing that the news for Clinton is all good.
Both RealClearPolitics and the NY Times are now reporting that Sanders won a total of 73 delegates and Clinton a total of 55 for the 3 states.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/primary-calendar-and-results.html?_r=0
Saw a couple headlines “Trump, Clinton win Arizona”, as if no other states voted.
The idea of a Clinton candidacy doesn’t anguish me, but let’s me a little even-handed here, media.
Nothing can top the recent changes to a NYT piece that turned a positive piece about Sanders into a negative one with some creative editing. Matt Taibbi does a marvelous job calling them out.
Apparently facts aren’t facts with them.
I was glad to hear that Senator Warren wants to see Bernie stay in the race. According to the Associated Press, she commented yesterday, ‘‘He’s out there. He fights from the heart. This is who Bernie is. He has put the right issues on the table both for the Democratic Party and for the country in general so I’m still cheering Bernie on.’’
Of course Warren hasn’t endorsed either candidate, but I couldn’t agree more with her keen analysis of Bernie’s contribution to the race. He has inspired the young and given us a national seminar on what is needed in America, made Hillary a better candidate, pulled her to the left on the issues and has kept attention on the Democratic side of the primary contest when there is so much temptation for the media to focus on the Trump unreality show. And it was also recently reported in a Bloomberg news poll, for the first time Bernie was preferred for the nomination by a greater margin than Clinton 49 to 48. While Hillary is certainly more likely to be our nominee, it is folly to declare it a done deal.
I’ve been blown away by Bernie’s fundraising. Even as he is losing, his fundraising is increasing. He outraised Clinton in February $43.5 million to $30 million.
…why anyone is bothering to nationally poll a nomination contest now that we are halfway through it, but I don’t think it’s the first time he has shown a lead either.
Well Christopher, pollsters like to poll — that is enough incentive for them. But seriously, I have been following these national nomination polls for months at Realclearpolitics and I do believe this is the first time any of these had Bernie ahead — he started out 30-50 points behind Hillary and she still is ahead by single digits in several other of the national nomination polls listed there. The point is that 10 months ago when Bernie announced his candidacy hardly anyone knew of him outside of New England while Hillary has been a national figure for more than two decades. As folks are getting to know Bernie his numbers keep rising — this has been amazing to watch.