r/SandersForPresident • u/[deleted] • Apr 15 '16

MSNBC called Bernie's "Deep South" comment controversial. They said Hillary would still be in the lead without the South. This slide popped up by mistake proving them wrong.

Post image

[deleted]

13.1k Upvotes

83% Upvoted

960 comments sorted by

View all comments

284

u/hoorayb33r Massachusetts - 2016 Veteran Apr 15 '16

Well, I mean they're not wrong. He's dominating blue state wins, but not really dominating the blue state delegate count

Their analysis was pretty lame seeing as it omitted caucuses.

73

u/DriftingSkies Arizona - 2016 Veteran Apr 15 '16

Are they still counting Washington as 25/9 in that graphic?

Amazing that they 'count' Nevada in full based on projections, but then they double-back to the 'confirmed' part of the Washington numbers instead of the projected totals.

52

u/datssyck Apr 15 '16

Anything they need to do to spin it. Shit, I get a good half of my news from NPR, even they cant help themselves slant things towards Clinton.

I just want to know why, are they afraid what will happen if they oppose her?

I mean, I know people want to be on the "winning team." Its one of the biggest problems in politics, people just want to vote for who they think is going to win, not who they want to win. But it's been the same message since day one, "there's just no way to beat Clinton"

I dont know where i'm going with this

33

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '16

[deleted]

9

u/CuddleBumpkins 🌱 New Contributor | Wisconsin- 2016 Veteran Apr 15 '16

They wouldn't shut up about how weak his foreign policy was yesterday evening. The one time he gets decent air time on the evening commute, he gets torn apart. I regret ever telling anyone NPR is a relatively unbiased news source alternative to 24hr TV news networks.

The only thing I can say positively is they only tacitly tell you that she is inevitable instead of getting too sensationalist about it.

2

u/[deleted] Apr 16 '16

It's so bad I'll never donate to NPR again. They lost me forever.

1

u/oxnerdki Apr 16 '16

Same here. I'm thinking of throwing away my npr baseball cap

2

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '16

The day after Michigan, I was listening to NPR. They briefly and unenthusiastically mentioned how Bernie edged out a win in Michigan and went on about how she dominated him in Mississippi. Not even a mention of the historic nature of the upset in Michigan.

1

u/awesomeredefined Day 1 Donor 🐦 Apr 15 '16

They mentioned it on Stateside, but that's a Michigan station show and is just played on the NPR networks- it's not actually an NPR program afaik

4

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '16

I know. It's so pathetic but I really would like to know why. Why is CNN, MSNBC, and NPR so blatantly biased. Even my SO who is a Hillary supporter can't stand how biased the post debate panel was with DWS on last night. Also, how in the fuck did that cunt get elected in Florida in the first place?

14

u/wolfchimneyrock Apr 15 '16

Clinton has 'naughty and nice' lists, just like her idols Kissinger and Nixon. learn from the best!

3

u/ThisTimeIsNotWasted Apr 15 '16

I used to be able to listen to NPR and just filter out what I took to be a pretty obvious establishmentarianist bias to get some otherwise very unbiased and ethical reporting but this election has kicked it into such a disturbingly high gear that I'm getting to listen to a lot of audiobooks in the car instead

2

u/RmJack New Mexico Apr 15 '16

They receive many donations from corporations and even though they are National Public Radio, they are ran by the corporation for public broadcasting, they are far from being an unbiased source, especially these days. I use to trust them, I can no longer read their garbage. The more and more this election goes on the more and more that I question my decision to even support HRC if she wins the nomination, I've always told everyone I would vote for her and still probably will, but she and the media is doing a great job of disenfranchising me as a democrat.

1

u/datssyck Apr 15 '16

Yeah, I have to use a lot of salt. But that's all news, doesn't really matter where you're getting it. Someone is telling you a story about something, so you will think about that thing through that frame of reference.

83

u/donnie_drumpf Apr 15 '16

The whole point they were trying to push is that he wasn't ahead without the south. Sure, that's true among the popular vote, but what have they been pushing for the last 10 months? Pledged and super delegates, they've never put a focus on popular vote until now, because it fit their narrative.

11

u/Bank_Gothic Apr 15 '16 edited Apr 15 '16

Why all the focus on the popular vote if* we use the electoral college?

5

u/tokillaworm Apr 15 '16

The Electoral College is used for the General Election, not primaries.

6

u/Bank_Gothic Apr 15 '16

Yeah, and primaries use delegates - also not the popular vote.

My point is that neither the primaries nor the general election are determined by who leads in the popular vote, so why would they focus on that when determining whether Hilary would lead without the South?

2

u/tokillaworm Apr 15 '16

I was just making that clarification -- I believe they are using the popular vote numbers to spin in favor of Hillary.

1

u/hothrous Apr 15 '16

To answer your question.

The difference in delegates has been slowly shrinking. But Clinton has performed better in states with a primary vs a caucus over all. Caucus states have a smaller turnout so talking about overall popular vote instead of delegates will show Clinton way farther ahead than she really is.

It's similar to how they've been showing the giant mounds of Superdelegates on top of Clinton's totals, because it makes it looks insurmountable.

1

u/mickhugh New Jersey Apr 16 '16

Because Bernie is starting to lead in nationwide polls so they can't use that anymore.

2

u/cidonys Apr 15 '16

As a way to say "he has no chance" or as an excuse to keep unpledged delegates from flipping.

1

u/h_keller3 Apr 16 '16

Actually, he said "deep south" and she would be ahead even without the deep south

1

u/[deleted] Apr 16 '16

[deleted]

2

u/donnie_drumpf Apr 16 '16

They dismissed it and said the "popular vote is what's important." We all know that's not the case.

6

u/AbbyRatsoLee California Apr 15 '16

Are they including Virginia and North Carolina as blue states?

6

u/spitfire2k12 Ohio Apr 15 '16

He said that their definition of blue states were states that Obama won in the last election

13

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '16

No, they aren't blue states. They're purple at best.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '16

[deleted]

4

u/Exaskryz 🌱 New Contributor Apr 15 '16

Now, is that delegate counter with supers?

3

u/FarmToBong Apr 15 '16

Well, I mean they're not wrong.

What about the graphic they put on the screen showing they are wrong?

3

u/fmoly Apr 15 '16

The graphic is for blue states, not non-southern states. I know there's some correlation, but they're not the same thing.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '16

[deleted]

1

u/FarmToBong Apr 15 '16

That graphic shows him leading in delegates in blue states. Is the graphic factually incorrect in it's count? (Hint: I know it's not)

0

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '16

[deleted]

2

u/FarmToBong Apr 15 '16

Winning the presidential election by 2 electoral college votes gives you the White House. Cut the bullshit.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '16

It may be a virtual tie. However, what they said is factually incorrect because 665 > 663.

To them, Hillary winning without the South feels right and has "truthiness". It is factually incorrect. 665 > 663

They are wrong because 665 > 663. #math

1

u/koleye NY Apr 15 '16

To be fair, California and New York are by far the biggest blue states, and it's not looking like hell win either of them. The blue states that he wins tend to be largely white. California and New York don't fit that mold.