Sometimes, I'm affected by the timing of when I write these. Today's big issue was made moot by Tuesday's election. However, there was a lot of people I read or see on Facebook who were upset to see the Associated Press (followed by many other news organizations) declare that Hillary Clinton had become the presumptive nominee on Monday.
There were several angry reactions to it that I don't think were warranted. The first was the question of How did they decide?, often typed as HOW COULD THEY DO THIS?????? and usually followed by some angry missive about "the media." Instead, the answer was simple: Math. The AP counted the pledged delegates and the announced plans/intentions of the super delegates. Once that number was equal or greater than the number needed to clinch, they made the announcement. Simple, right?
The next question was But what if super delegates change their minds? This appears to be the biggest source of contention for those holding on to the Bernie Sanders hopes. Even media watchdog the Poynter Institute fell for this one (Normally, I like Poynter's work, but this was a shoddy article that fell apart to the most basic of logic. Because it was poorly thought out, it came across like a Bernie supporter pounding his fist on the table. I'll save you the time of a detailed critique). The overall point is that reporters are assuming too much, since super delegates can legally change their mind before the convention in late July and, effectively, anything could happen (?). But I'd suggest the people making assumptions are the Bernie supporters: Clinton won millions more votes, won more states, and won more pledged delegates. While yes, a few dozen switched in '08 from Clinton to Obama, Obama was actually ahead in all three of those statistics. And 30 super delegates is not the 300-400 that Bernie would need. Super delegates can change their mind, but using the phrase "presumptive nominee" also describes the off, slim chance that the unknown something is theoretically possible. Reporters are not being misleading when describing the race accurately.
That lead to the next question: Why now? The AP declared Clinton the winner Monday night, the day before the final (with the exception of D.C.) primaries of the cycle. The AP did a survey over the weekend of super delegates to see how they'd vote. The results probably came in Monday. Counting put her over the limit ... voila! If that's when the news breaks, that's when it breaks. Anything else is collusion.
Finally, the crux of the why now group: Won't this suppress votes in the remaining primaries? How come this wasn't asked in the Republican race? Donald Trump was declared the winner weeks ago, but no one crowed about how declaring a winner was going to suppress votes. The AP's job is to report news. It's not their job to worry about how that affects voters. And if they've already determined the race is over, then why not declare it? It'd be like if the Golden State Warriors won the best-of-seven NBA finals 4-1, but Cleveland fans were like "Declaring the winner after three games just means you're suppressing the score of the last two games! Anything could happen!" Further, the idea that it had much effect is overblown. Let me make this perfectly clear: Bernie Sanders lost the election because he couldn't convince minorities that he was the right candidate. That wasn't going to change in California or New Jersey or New Mexico just because the AP declared her the winner a day before the primary.
I think this speaks to a greater issue: Our ability as humans and social beings to delude ourselves. Don't take me wrong, I don't think this is sinister. It's something we all do, I just think it gets played on a grander stage during election cycles. It can be good, in that sometimes self-delusion allows us to accomplish more than we thought possible. It can also be bad, because it often causes us to deny truth and facts (I'm looking at you, Mr. Trump.). The dual hypocrisy and irony can best be found in, of all places, the intro to the old show Mythbusters, in which one of the hosts says, "I reject your reality and substitute my own," which is a funny thing on a show called Mythbusters.
Again, this self-delusion is not a bad thing. Our self-delusions give us hope. Our self-delusions give us energy. Our self-delusions give us the power to move mountains or run 5Ks (heh). But it's also a hard thing to shatter. Our "how we imagine the world to be" is a difficult thing to give up because we often think it means "we were wrong to believe that." And (especially on a political stage) admitting you were wrong, even to yourself, is one of the hardest things for a person to do.
Summary Judgments
Now that Hillary's the presumptive nominee, expect to see her get a boost in polling against Trump in the next few weeks. Wherever the polls are in three weeks will be the "new normal." • • • NBC News placed the story of who Hillary Clinton should pick for VP as its featured story on the front of its web site this morning. A similar story on Donald Trump was next to it, but not with a picture and not given equal placement. My opinion: Their site needs a little flexibility to post two stories of equal weight next to each other. Otherwise, it appears partisan. • • • I'm getting excited. My 5K is Saturday morning. This week, I had my last two runs before the race. Monday, I did really well and ran 3 miles without stopping in a bit less than 33 minutes. Then today I went out for a run, and ran 3 miles, but stopped three times (none for more than 15-20 seconds). If the order had been reversed, I'd be feeling great. Despite today's let-down, I'm anxious/excited about Saturday. • • • I don't know where Roland got it, but he knows exactly one math question. We were watching Sesame Street a month or so back, and we discovered this. Ask him "What comes after eight?" and he'll answer "Nine" every time. But if you ask "what comes after [literally any other number]?" and he'll just repeat the number. • • • One last kid note: We're getting into the hitting/biting stage, so that's been fun.
No comments:
Post a Comment