Home | About | Donate

Clinton Benefits From US Media’s Misleading Reporting Of Delegate Counts


Clinton Benefits From US Media’s Misleading Reporting Of Delegate Counts

Kevin Gosztola

The vast majority of U.S. establishment media organizations report Democratic Party “super delegates,” as if they are part of the delegate totals presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders are winning in primaries. However, this is incredibly misleading, and whether intended or not, it essentially serves to strengthen Clinton’s campaign against Sanders.


Excellent work by Gosztola, collecting cites from the NYT (including Tad Devine who now works for Sanders), the Mondale campaign, and of all people DWS, to make crystal clear that the media are grossly distorting and misreporting the delegate count and thus misrepresenting the "horse race" between Clinton and Sanders. (And it's very hard to believe this distortion is not intentional).


The reporting of delegates has been confusing to me. I have often been unsure if the super delegates are included or not. I think the NY Times has been reporting just pledged delegates in some instances but most of the numbers that I have seen in the media include super delegates. If media outlets want to include super delegates they should make sure that this is clear and also give the pledged delegate counts. Reporting the super delegates is important because is does show that Clinton is almost halfway to having enough delegates to win but it should be make clear that super delegates can switch their votes so and that the race is much closer when only pledged delegates are included.


Another place where the Democratic delegate count is misleading is realclearpolitics.com, apparently the go-to place for information about the polling on the candidates.

Still, the large # of delegates controlled by the Democratic Party rather than the voters reinforces my belief that the Party is more elitist and less "democratic" even than the Republicans. The scorn many in the Democratic Party leadership feel toward us "common people" is palpable.


Maybe the Sanders' team can SUE Google and any other "news" outlet that puts out a false narrative. Here's a key example:

"It also is important to acknowledge Google has a data visualization for each primary result that appears when people are searching for news related to primaries or caucuses in the election. Google includes “super delegates” in their delegate totals, and this has the effect of deceiving millions into believing Sanders has no chance at all because Clinton’s lead is too vast to overcome."

Why, then, does Mr. Gosztola reinforce that narrative here:

"Sanders has an exceptionally difficult route ahead of him if his campaign and supporters expect to win. However, it is not wholly unreasonable to suggest there is still a “path to victory” for Sanders."

It's a Catch-22 in that the more the mass media insists that Sanders can't win and holds up FALSE evidence in support of that pseudo-fact, the more pundits wittingly or otherwise reinforce it!



" Unpledged delegates exist to make sure that party leaders and elected officials don't have to be in a position where they are running against grass roots activists."
Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

Translation: corrupt super delegates exist to make sure a grass roots activist, like Bernie Sanders, does not upset HRC.


Do you wear pom-poms and a cheerleading costume before gearing up to post for Mrs. Clinton, too?



The Republicans are gutting public schools, put mouthpieces like the odious Cruz forward to talk a good game about caring for people when his motives are 100% in the corporate pockets' camp.

The Republicans, in pleasing their 1% masters can't wait to cut Social Security, want to do away with the EPA and IRS and essentially hand the nation over to the corporate oligarchs... because they care so much about the "common people."

Get a grip!

They'll hurl common people (who happen to be Mexican) over the border/wall... have no problem with Black citizens being gunned down because they bow in homage to "law enforcement." They will blame women who die from self-induced abortions rather than a closed system, religiously-oriented, that drove these desperate souls to such desperate measures. As if THAT is compassionate or what Jesus would do.


To add insult to injury, the Democrats are always whining about how the GOP suppresses voting, yet the Democrats' choice to have caucuses vs. balloted primaries, and the large number of super delegates are also voter suppression. Different flavors of voter suppression than the GOP method, indeed, but still voter suppression.


Seeing how the owners of the media also own the Clintons, and don't own Bernie Sanders, they will spin the story in Clinton's favor every time and will never publish anything that questions the primary process.


Just as media plays the black card to criticize progressive opposition to Obama, expect to see them play the female card whenever it suits their agenda.

Seeing how a Clinton nomination will assure a Trump victory in November, the headline for this article would be just as accurate if it read TRUMP BENEFITS FROM US MEDIA'S MISLEADING...


A timely article as I was confused about those super delegates. It now very obvious to me the media is once again being dishonest here as they try and get HRC elected.


Super delegates are by definition>>> the status quo.

They are an unelected elite that literally represent the interests of the status quo within the party.


Wow! I'm surprised by the extreme response. Are you saying that Democrats like the Clintons or Nancy Pelosi actually care what you or I think? Of course, the Republicans don't either.


I have a response to that here.


The status quo changes in society as the people, or social movements, shift the status quo through their action. Do not forget that. It is a tall order, but the millions propelling the Sanders campaign can keep working and possibly push enough super delegates to come over to the side with the energy necessary to win in November.


ALL Dem "superdelegates" are un-committed....they can change who they support or what the corrupt media spins as they choose. Of course they are current or former elected office-holders and party officials and as such are more than likely corrupted toward Hillary rather than our republic and citizens......

"This list tracks current support for given candidates among the approximately 717 unpledged delegates (commonly known as superdelegates) who will cast a vote at the 2016 Democratic National Convention, to be held July 25–28 in Philadelphia.[1] Unpledged delegates represent about a sixth of the overall delegate count (approximately 4,768) and come from several categories of prominent Democratic Party members:

20 distinguished party leaders (current and former presidents, vice-presidents, congressional leaders, and DNC chairs) (DPLs)
21 Democratic governors (including territorial governors and the Mayor of the District of Columbia)
46 Democratic members of the United States Senate (including Washington, DC shadow senators)
193 Democratic members of the United States House of Representatives (including non-voting delegates)
437 elected members of the Democratic National Committee (including the chairs and vice-chairs of each state's Democratic Party)[2]
Superdelegates are "unpledged" in the sense that they themselves decide which candidate to support."


I sure hope so. The media is doing its best to swing the election and that should tell us something about the state of our society. Media people are among the highest income elites and we wonder how those many pundits who got it so wrong with the war in Iraq and Bush/Cheney's phony WMDs managed to keep their jobs! It is pretty obvious that they toe the line of oligarchy or pay the price and are protected when they do.

This election has pierced the delusion of the emperor's new clothes and we are staring at the old coot who stands there buck naked! That is our oligarchy controlled democracy - Citizens United, media consolidation, revolving door lobbyists/legislators and the corporate coup.

Do we need to wonder in light of those forces arrayed against democracy that oligarchy can get away with trade deals subverting our laws and regulations, outsourcing while getting two trillion in tax cuts to help them close factories here and all the rest?

The media tells us like we were children that everything is fine and to 'go back to sleep, sweetie'!


Ayuh. We're former Wash. state residents now living in Canada. We've known for some time the Washington primary is May 24, but found out just last night that the Dems (only) are caucusing there March 26. Election Central's website helpfully notes (and this is quoted verbatim), "Democrats may vote in the primary on May 24 but the vote is considered a 'beauty contest' as it holds no bearing on delegates."

Since we can't get there for the caucus, we just voted with Democrats Abroad, which is considered its own "state", with 17 Dem delegates at stake. Deadline is tomorrow; totals supposed to be counted/released March 21.


This is by far an epic contest although we may only realize that in retrospect later. It is so polar - populist vs oligarchy, insider vs independent, corporatist vs people's candidate, climate activist vs climate change deniers etc etc!

However most importantly we see evolving the contest between the voice of the people (Sanders'supporters) and the voice of the status quo elites of the Democratic Party. A similar thing is happening with Trump actually except that the press helped him while it has rigged the game against Bernie. Status quos are by definition entrenched and fighting to stay in power

Can the will of the people triumph over the powers that be and their rigged game?

The question ends up being >>> what will it mean for democracy if the will of the people is not victorious.