I’m moving this up from the comments, as it expands on my original remarks.
I’ve just watched the rerun of this segment, and it’s worse than I originally thought.
She started the “delegate math” part of the first segment by noting how the popular vote in NV didn’t match the delegate allocation. So far so good, but we’re still just talking about delegates that are allocated by the primary process, in this case, by caucus.
Then, she pivots to Super Delegates, and although its true that she explains they are delegates by virtue of their positions within the party and not by the primary process, she doesn’t say anything about them being free to vote for whomever they want right up to the convention.
Then, she goes into her NH-was-a-tie presentation, and uses the words “allocated” and “awarded” to describe giving HRC six SDs from NH, resulting in a 15-15 tie, with two SDs uncommitted.
No SD anywhere is “awarded” or “allocated”. At best, the individuals who are SDs publicly indicate their current preferences. It’s a very important difference to understand about the process, especially in terms of whether the Democratic Party Establishment would really risk the consequences of the SDs choosing, at the convention, to overrule the rank-and-file decision. Her presentation strongly implies there’s no choice, and the assignment occurs at the same time the voter-delegates are assigned.
I’m sorry she’s bored (that was a snooze, wasn’t it?) with SD math, but it’s important to get it right when you’re one of the few trusted journalists doing otherwise great work in network MSM.
Also, here’s a great presentation on Super Delegates, including commentary on whether the Party establishment would really risk overturning the primary results. Click here.