The media are all over themselves declaring Hillary Clinton the “winner” of the Democratic Party presidential primary contest. Even though she has not won enough delegates to be so declared, they are including estimates of the “superdelegates” who will also get to vote along with the elected/appointed delegates gotten through the primary processes.
This is a mere prediction, not a conclusion, but it is not being “reported” as such. It is as if well in advance of the Super Bowl, a winner was declared based upon “estimates” and there was no need to actually play the game.
What is the point of declaring a “winner”? Does that change anything? (No.) This is part of a trend in which pundits have to handicap each and every contest there is: from horse racing to baseball games, to the NBA Playoffs, now to political contests. When I was young, we often didn’t find out who “won” an election until the next day or even later because it took that long to count the votes. With more modern vote counting schemes, we got to declaring “winners” on election eve. But now, that is not fast enough. “Winners” are being declared with less than 10% of the ballots counted.
How long will it be until the charade of voting is dispensed with an the Oligarchs just tell us who we elected. It will save us all a great deal of time.