How the AP broke the Democratic Primary.

So in my last post, I did an analysis of a piece by Salon, basically saying that Bernie Sanders should drop out even though Hillary hasnt won yet (and at this point can not win until the convention) simply because shes a woman.

Well in fairness to Salon, at least they admitted at the time the election was still happening.

Which is more than I can say for the AP. See Early Monday evening, prior to any of the remaining 7 states voting the AP ran a story that started like this:

" Striding into history, Hillary Clinton will become the first woman to top the presidential ticket of a major U.S. political party, capturing commitments Monday from the number of delegates needed to win the Democratic nomination."

Which is a problematic sentence for 2 reasons. 1) There were no elections on monday.
2) Even now, following the 6 states that voted on Tuesday Clinton has 2,203 Delegates. Which sounds like a lot.....except you need 2383 to win the nomination.  And 2,203 is less than 2,383.

And at the time the article was published Clinton's number was even lower, she had only 1,844 delegates.

So how does the AP come up with this number?

Well:

"The former secretary of state, New York senator and first lady reached the 2,383 delegates needed to become the presumptive Democratic nominee on Monday with a decisive weekend victory in Puerto Rico and a burst of last-minute support from superdelegates"

Again, we have a couple of problems: First delegate wise, Clintons win in Puerto Rico was not that decisive,  she got 36, sanders got 24.  Which means out of the 60 delegates in PR, she got a around 60%....not bad, but at the same time, quantity wise not exactly overwhelming

And it gets worse, see in the next paragraph the AP tosses out this bit:

"Clinton has 1,812 pledged delegates won in primaries and caucuses"

Ok so lets do some basic math here. Before the 6 elections on Tuesday, Clinton had 1844 delegates. According to the AP when they wrote the article she had 1812, following her victory in Puerto Rico. 

1844-1812=32.

So there is a discrepancy of 32 votes. And its actually a pretty easy one to explain. Delegate awarding isnt instantaneous, sometimes it takes a day or so.  In this case what it means is that, of the 36 delegates clinton won in PR, 32 of them hadnt actually been awarded to her at the time the story was written.

Which is weird....since you know the story claims her "decisive victory" put her over the top....but from all appearances no one knew anything about her victory. (remember this is the same primary election in which its already happened that the person who won the popular vote got the smaller number of delegates) 

The second problem though is the bigger one. The Superdelegates HAVE NOT actually voted yet. As Hillary well knows (because this is what happened to her last time) Superdelegates are free to change their support at will until they vote in July (like every other voter ever). So just because she has some saying they would vote for her doesnt mean they actually would.

And saying they will would be like me calling the general election right now for Clinton because the most recent poll says that she would defeat Trump 42 to 39.

Thats likely NOT the outcome of the election, simply because people are always changing their minds. 

And oh yea, changing their minds isnt the only reason a superdelegate might not vote for Hillary. Like everyone else, a Superdelegate actually has to show up to vote. 

So even a delegate who meant to vote for Hillary, but happened to get sick that night and was in the hotel throwing up.....well thats a vote Hillary doesnt get.

Or on a larger scale, lets say that FBI probe into Clinton's emails actually finds something to indict her on between now and the election.

How fast and how many super delegates are going to change their support before they vote and get off that sinking ship?

Now given that, by the AP's count Hillary had EXACTLY the right number of super-delegates allegedly supporting her...literally all it would take is 1 of them.....say after the White House confirmed the investigation into Mrs. Clinton is criminal yesterday, changing their mind and suddenly shes not "Striding into History"

Now maybe you take issue or are just confused by the "allegedly" part of the above sentence. See heres the thing, the AP is using their own count of delegates to decide that Hillary just magically got over the threshold the night before 6 elections. There is no public record on who super-delegates support, and other news organizations and apparently even the Sanders and Clinton campaigns had different counts. And of course, they arnt releasing the names of the delegates either (nor should they given the whole point of anonymous voting we all have a right too)

Which means basically this was a story in which the AP cited itself as its own source based only on our trusting them and then declared victory for one of the campaigns.....without actually consulting that campaign as far as anyone can tell.

Which is going to be superawkward if the AP's count is wrong and someone elses was right.

Which is why even the Democratic National Committee had previously asked news organizations NOT to include the superdelegate counts.....because they feared a situation exactly like the one the AP handed them.

See, theres actually now evidence to suggest the AP's coronation of Hillary suppressed the voter turnout in the 6 states that still had to vote.

Now to be fair voter suppression would affect both sides, but given that Sanders voters might have an extra incentive to vote (prove the AP wrong/try to pressure superdelegates to switch ect) and Clinton voters wouldnt (I mean she won....why bother?) it seems safe to assume Clintons side was harder hit by suppression.

Which is awkward since Clinton DIDNT actually cross the threshold needed to be the nominee outright. In fact even if she gets all of DC's 20 delegates next week, she still cant make it, she now MUST have superdelegates to win.

But to be fair to Mrs. Clinton...she got pretty close. As it stands shes only 182 delegates short of the nomination. Course nearly 700 were available over those 6 elections....so its believable that with a sightly higher turnout in her favor, Clinton might have actually gotten 182 more of those.

Instead now, thanks to the AP reporting she'd already won, she failed to win, and we head into the convention without a nominee.....and with a MAJOR headache for the democratic party.

Now first off, alot of people are quick to point out the AP did this same thing at about the same time 8 years ago with Obama....which is true, but with one VERY important distinction.....8 years ago the primaries were earlier and all 50 states +DC had voted before they made that call. This time states still had to vote.....so we have a major problem

See the ENTIRE point of the super-delegate system is to help ensure the most electable candidate wins....even if they arnt the most popular. This has been the defense of the system by the DNC for over 30 years.

Which brings us to this newest wrinkle: According to Real Clear Politics, of the 8 major polls they follow (NBC,CBS, ABC, FOX, Rasmussen, Investors Business Daily, Reuters, and Qunnipac) Clinton has an average of a 3.8 point lead on Trump......with a margin of error of +/- 3.5.

In otherwords, its a tie.

However  Sanders vs Trump with those same 8 polls gives sanders a lead of 10.4  (again with same margin of error, as will all others numbers mentioned) points over Trump.

And it gets worse: over the last 6 months the largest lead Clinton has EVER had over Trump was 11.4. Over that same period of time for Sanders, it was a 17 point lead (both back in march as it happens).

And the smallest lead either one has had over Trump? Well back in December Sanders only beat Trump by 2 points (a statistical tie inside margin of error)...but since voting started in February has always beaten Trump by 8 points.

Clinton on the other hand, was LOSING to Trump at the end of May....you know 2 weeks ago. Now admittedly not by much 0.2 points, and clearly clearly clearly in the margin of error but still. (its also worth noting that their has been NO change in Clinton's numbers between end of may and now....its just Trumps that dropped, so Clinton isnt gaining support.

In other-words, according to the polls, the most electable candidate right now is Bernie Sanders.

Meaning, if the super-delegates do their job the way they are SUPPOSED to do they should vote for Bernie Sanders.....and overturn the will of the majority of their own party. Want to guess how thats going to go over? (and by the way, this is mathematically possible, Sanders is only 555 votes short and their are more than 700 superdelegates)

Or, the Super-delegates can follow the popular vote will, and vote for Clinton......helping fuel the criticisms that have dogged them for decades that they are undemocratic and exist as a way to let the establishment impose their decision on the electorate, by making it seem like a candidate had a much bigger lead then they did and that the establishment will use those delegates to elect their candidate even when they cant win outright. Which again is not a great place to be, with a candidate who isnt any more popular than her general election opponent and looks illegitimate.

now this MIGHT have happened anyways....who knows. Its possible the DNC was always going to be doomed to this situation no matter way. The AP's influence on the voter turnout is impossible to gauge.

However if the number of articles on the internet defending and attacking the AP's decision are any indication....one thing is undisputable, even if this was the inevitable headache for DNC this cycle....a HELL of a lot less people would have known or cared about it if the AP had actually managed to stick to real journalism, and not apparently decided to write a story based allegedly on information about the campaigns that even the campaigns didnt seem to have, but that they cant give you names for, but Trust them.

You know, just like you trusted them when they called Florida for Gore Bush Gore Bush Gore Bush in 2000. Or when they told you Obamacare was repealed by the supreme court a couple years ago. Or when they told you the Boston Marathon Bomber was arrested....a few days before they were. Or when they accused VA gov Terry McAuliffe of lying to federal investigators in a criminal investigation.....because he happened to share the same initials as the person who actually did. Or hell, when they once reported on the former members of the defunct musical group Backstreet Boys....who were all still with the still existent band.

But yea....dont worry, this time you can totally trust them. There is no possible way, they got this story wrong and potentially wrecked a primary election season just to generate hits on their website......



(Disclaimer: in case anyone gets the wrong idea, Im not saying Clinton isnt going to be the nominee....or that its remotely likely she'll be indicted, or that Sanders has anything other than a super long shot chance of winning....im only pointing how by the numerical facts the AP was totally wrong, and the damage that might do)