Quote:
Originally posted by RatedG²
Originally posted by RatedG² View Post
Sanders awarded 46 more delegates from Washington state because Clinton's elected delegates failed to show up
Yikes. Remember when people were making a huge deal out of the 1 freaking Colorado delegate which wasn't even given to Hillary? Yet no one says anything about this...
|
This is not at all true, you need to get your facts straight.
It had nothing to do with delegates on either side "not showing up"
Originally when Washington State had it's primary, only 34 of the states 101 delegates were officially awarded that day. District level delegates were put aside to be awarded on a later date, when all district voting data was available. That day was yesterday, and the rest of the 101 delegates were awarded with 49 to Sanders and 18 to Clinton.
Here's the thing though.
All mainstream media news outlets used a guesstimate of what that district delegate split would look like, and used those estimates as their delegate count since the March 26th Washington State primary. And those estimates just happened to be spot on.
That is why few people are talking about it, because Bernie didn't actually increase in the number of delegates at all from Washington, nor did Clinton decrease because the estimates that were being used were so accurate.
She, in fact, is still 292 delegates ahead of Sanders, just as she was before Washington State came out with their official numbers yesterday.
Please people - do some research before spewing off claims.
Not matter which candidate you are supporting, it's a disservice to all to post inaccurate information and it is deceptive.
Source;
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016...s-guam-n569851
transparent. Celebrating the idea that Hillary wouldn't get delegates cause representatives allegedly didn't show up. Baby already spilled the tea above though.
It's a shame that in 2016 Hillary still has to deal with this.
