2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumVoters Overwhelmingly Say: 'Bernie Winner of Debate!' Corporate Controlled Editors Ignore Them!
Hilarious!! Lol!
:large
Reminds me of Baghdad Bob!
Don't bellieve your lying eyes! The Corporations and their money will do the talking!
They are the laughing stock of the world.
I have heard that CNN has deleted its poll where Bernie CRUSHED Hillary.
I haven't checked on that, but wouldn't be surprised.
Does ANYTHING show the CONTROL of the Corporate Media over what 'message' the Corporate owners want to send, better than this??
When Bernie wins the election maybe we can undo the DEREGULATION of the MEDIA so we can end the propaganda and perhaps build some credible news outlets with ACTUAL Journalists.
Godhumor
(6,437 posts)What you're advocating for is more in line with the future shown in the movie 'Idiocracy".
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Godhumor
(6,437 posts)Then you can still get help.
Start here:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/net_election/2000/01/why_online_polls_are_bunk.html
Egnever
(21,506 posts)7 years before the first iPhone before Facebook or Twitter. The internet today has very little in common with the internet in 2000.
I would have agreed with that article then, now not so much.
retrowire
(10,345 posts)Man, I love it when someone gets slammed and then crickets....
...I'm enjoying this too much.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)telling the truth about our 'rigged system' which the people already know.
Your media pundits are trusted by only 17% of the population.
Bernie doesn't have to worry about their 'scientific' opinions.
Tens of thousands of individual donations totalling over $3 million dollars, rewarded Sanders for his strong showing in the debate, where he stuck to the issues, didn't spend most of his time trying to explain 'mistakes' and then 'evolving' on issues. He simply was consistent on the major issues the American people care about.
That is why he won.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)gcomeau
(5,764 posts)That being the case of course the "credible news outlets" with the "actual journalists" shouldn't fucking well be conducting them in the first place if they know that and are going to ignore the results.
However, having disregarded the overwhelming results of their own informal polls... they then proceeded to declare the opposite result based on... what actual credible scientific polling or research? Their focus group? Oops, Bernie won that too.
Was it... a show of hands of the editors? What? If they're going to make a case that essentially *every* informal unscientific poll that showed one result... including the poll they themselves conducted... was wrong then what superior data are they basing their own announcement of the exact opposite result upon?
99Forever
(14,524 posts)Cripes, these propagandists get lamer by the second.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)retrowire
(10,345 posts)Shows how they can control information.
Damn them. I mean that truly.
brooklynite
(94,745 posts)They're conducting them for entertainment and to drive traffic. Feel free to criticize the media for that purpose, but be prepared to tell us that you never read the newspaper comics page...
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)WHAT DATA were they using to make their pronouncement that Hillary won and disregard not only their clickbait online polls but also their *own focus groups*?
Or is your argument the entire slew of "Hillary Won" headlines should be equally treated as pure entertainment and not having any actual journalistic value or integrity?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)are not doing a good job of getting our message out'. Now to me the NEWS is not a MESSAGE. This was when she went to the Senate to look for funds to help 'get our message out'.
And NOW I see, CNN has shut down the volunteer group who started #Bernie2016TV. No, no one is trying to stop the people from getting the facts they need.
That volunteer group livestreams Bernie events since the media doesn't cover them.
Second time a Big Corporate Media outlet has shut them down!!
Explain that if you can.
brooklynite
(94,745 posts)...corporations, for better or worse, get fussy about controlling their own content and intellectual property.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)issues like this?? Really? I cannot BELIEVE the lame defenses of CENSORSHIP by the Corporate Media on this forum.
You must KNOW that this is about to become a huge deal. And that it is going to reflect very badly on your candidate? It's already causing outrage and the story just came out.
I live in a Democracy.
Censorship kills Democracy.
This is going to harm your candidate because no matter what excuses are made, people are already forming their OWN opinions.
Even her supporters who actually do care about our rights, are beginning to have doubts now, as right or wrong, people assume this is being done on her behalf.
She needs to step forward now, the way Bernie did for her and protected her, and make it known she does not approve of this at all.
I know she will be asked to do so.
All this does is remind people that it was Bill Clinton who it possible for a few Corporations to buy what belongs to the people.
Think about that before you go defending this censorship.
brooklynite
(94,745 posts)I'm guessing the answer was "no".
yuiyoshida
(41,864 posts)AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)ACTUAL journalists" where they say that Clinton won. What's funny is that Clinton supporters keep whining about how the corp-media hates her, and now they are calling them "credible".
By the way, a number of top corp-media giants are sponsoring HRC for president. Not the people's candidate.
DaveT
(687 posts)So what do "credible news outlets" base their "news" of Hillary's "victory" on?
That would be their opinion . . . .
I wouldn't even mind if some "credible news outlet" put out stories saying that this or that "expert" thinks that Hillary "won."
But those headlines in the OP pretty much prove that those outlets are shilling for Hillary. Why you think that is credible, is beyond me.
zentrum
(9,865 posts)
.is that the Democratic party may be facing a real problem in the primary and the general if the actual people, as opposed to the establishment, do not support her.
No campaign manager is ignoring these "click polls" believe me. Because they are sending a signal.
And do you really mean to say that MSM gets to decide who "won"?
Rilgin
(787 posts)The problem with this line of argument is they were ignoring their own polls.
If CNN does not believe in online instant polls, why did they put one up? Just to later ignore it? Why bother. Why did they just not put a link to abd encourage voting in a CNN online poll if they did not want a CNN online Poll. They could have saved a lot of time by not setting up a poll and weblink rather than set one up and then ignore it.
If Time does not believe in online instant polls, why did they put one up? Just to later ignore it? Why bother. Why did they just not put a link to and encourage voting in a Time online poll if they did not want a Time online Poll. They could have saved a lot of time by not setting up a poll and weblink rather than set one up and then ignore it.
Rinse Repeat for slate and all the other all these reputable main stream sites who seemed to believe in online polls before the debate because they set them up.
Please explain your logic that credible news organizations do not see value in online polls if they all set them up. It it just that they ignore results after the fact that does not fit their narrative.
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)Advertising rates are based on the number of eyes on a page the same way newspaper sales used to be. Have you never wondered why these sites don't publish these polls as actual fact instead of dropping them after a day and putting a new nonsense poll up the next day? They are designed to produce clicks.They don't even pretend to be anything else,there's a disclaimer on all these polls for a reason,they aren't real. For some who claim Clinton supporters don't understand the internet,there's an awful lot of naivete about the purpose of these polls here.
Rilgin
(787 posts)What you say is reasonably true generally however these are specific polls for debates. And regardless of whether such polls usually disappear in a few days, they usually are referred to in the post debate summaries in forming the media view of the debates.
My understanding is that some of these polls were directly linked to the actual debate feed. News organizations clearly have made the post debate questions of "who won" or "what people though" an integral part of the debate.
My further understanding although I could be wrong is that during the post debate talking head and pundit analysis sessions, the site journalists did not refer to the results of their viewership polls at all this debate. This contrasts from past debates where they at least seemed to treat the polls as having some value. My direct memory is they have spent time reporting such poll and focus group results in past years and past debates in defining their recap of what happenned in the debate..
Regardless of whether such polls are globabally meaningful, they clearly reflect some aspects of the network or sites viewership and is usually reported and influences the sites position on the debate. The question of what the polls mean as to the outside electorate is a different issue. Regardless of the the external use of an online poll, the news sites have used them to describe the mood of the electorate and to my memory (being in the late 50s) I can never remember a time when the initial reports from the pundit class were directly opposite the online polls and focus groups. It usually takes them a few days to decide that their first analyses were wrong (an example is they changed from Gore winning to Gore losing the debates to Bush).
bvar22
(39,909 posts)we would have an entirely different story from CNN and the Hillary Supporters today,
and THAT poll would still be UP and quoted every 5 minutes.
randys1
(16,286 posts)I mean that is basically what you are saying.
Are you saying the overwhelming majority of the 15 million who watched say he won?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)That means 'those who responded to their request to say who they thought won the debate.
So the people who watched it, responded. And they said 'Bernie' by about 80%.
Now we know if those polls had been in her FAVOR we would be receiving lectures on how polls directly connected to events are 'more scientific' and that makes them 'more credible'.
Their blatant contractions of the people who responded in every poll they put up, is simply laughable.
As I said, Baghdad Bob laughable.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Metric System
(6,048 posts)bkkyosemite
(5,792 posts)Marty McGraw
(1,024 posts)Even her Fictitious Facebook & Twitter Friends could have joined in.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)And program the 'polling' algorithms so that every Bernie vote cast automatically adds a Hillary vote or two as well
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)is why I am thrilled with the deja vu I'm getting. It's a great sign for Bernie Sanders.
Btw, I keep asking this question and NO ONE has answered. Maybe I'll be lucky this time.
How 'scientific' is a poll that is supposed to be gauging how the the Primary Candidates are doing, that includes a NON CANDIDATE?
Sort of skews all that science doesn't it?
But we have figured out what does 'scientific' polls are actually doing.
Have you?
Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #10)
Fred Sanders This message was self-deleted by its author.
frazzled
(18,402 posts)But if it gets your conspiratorial ya yas going, I say knock yourself out. The rest of us will base our opinions on valid, scientific polls in the days and weeks to come.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Seriously, if this is all you guys got pack it in.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)great sign for Bernie.
So where are all the Hillary supporters?
Wait, Corporate Talking Heads is all you've got?? Lol!
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Please, we pioneered hating corporate media.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)THEIR polls. So where are the Hillary supporters?
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)You're right, Bernie won the debate. Ok.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)some time! Funny how they all use the same talking points. 'It's unscientific'. Lol, let's see how 'unscientific' millions of dollars are! As the Big Corps tell us, 'money talks'! Nothing unscientific about that!
Thanks Rhett, I am so entertained by it all. Reminds me of 2008! Alll over again!
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)Unscientific pseudo-polls are widespread and sometimes entertaining, but they never provide the kind of information that belongs in a serious report. Examples include 900-number call-in polls, man-on-the-street surveys, many Internet polls...
http://www.ncpp.org/?q=node/4
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)I guess the PEOPLE are not 'scientific'! But they know who they want as POTUS!
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)interested in keeping Goldman-Sachs happy.
Also, the reactions you are getting here, people denigrating data with no data of their own, shows a serious desperation.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)You really think just because someone supports Clinton, they don't care about people???
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)If you dare to support any liberal progressive other than Bernie you are..
1. Stupid
2. A tool of Wall Street
3. A capitalist pig
4. A corporate whore
Bernie fans winning hearts and changing minds SMH
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)The billionaires back Clinton because they know she will be friendly to their goals (quid pro quo) and their goals conflict with what is good for the people. Clinton represents the status quo which has given us 16,000,000 American children living in poverty. I do not see how a president that won't tax the wealthy will fix our poverty problems.
It's my opinion that Clinton is concerned more about the 1% and their profits than she is about the 99%. She won't even raise the SS cap.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)means you have nothing.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)To say Clintons supporters "don't care about people" sounds about right coming from someone who told another poster they probably voted for Obama "because of his smile".
I'll miss you when you go.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)zappaman
(20,606 posts)I look forward to your support of the Democratic nominee!
Hopefully he or she will have a "nice smile" so those of us who aren't as smart as you, will vote!
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)'authority' over what he does or does not do?
Your comment is extremely STRANGE to say the least, unless you are personally connected in some way to Rhett??
I could care less what YOU do, it's none of my business.
So how is what Rhett does a year from now YOUR business?
Spooky, Wow!
zappaman
(20,606 posts)Kick!
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)to a stand. He is good. Has so far concentrated on me with quotes from my past that he hopes to embarrass me. It's kinda creepy but attempts to intimidate are laughable.
Speaking of not taking a stand, did you notice that when asked about recreational marijuana, Clinton refused to take a stand, instead she wants more data. More waffling. I hope someone kept track.
Also in her final statement she said she wants to see wages raised for working Americans. Rhetoric. What about jobs for the unemployed? And how much of a raise does she desire? I think she supports a $12 min wage. Well that would be a raise but still not worth bragging about.
Response to zappaman (Reply #70)
Name removed Message auto-removed
RichVRichV
(885 posts)n/t
Wellstone ruled
(34,661 posts)tear CNN,Fake Noise,ABC,NBC and MSNBC a new orifice with the defense of Clinton and those damn E-Mails and getting to the real debatable issues that affect the folks who pay the bills and not the Wealthy. Have to say,Bernie is the real deal and he single handily saved Ms. Clinton's butt on this topic. Did you hear anything in regards to e-mails coming from the Clown Trolley? Game changer baby.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)positions on anything she could, right before the debate. People are not fooled by this kind of flip flopping during campaigns. But it was obvious that Bernie was the 'inspiration' for her sudden shift to the Left, at least for now.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)about expanding SS benefits, HRC avoided answering that question even tho Anderson asked more than once. She said she wanted to help the most vulnerable SS recipients. That can mean almost anything. Sen Sanders wants to raise the cap, but again she avoided that and the Medicare for all.
demwing
(16,916 posts)what the hell does that mean?
When pols use fuzzy language, it's either because they don't know what the hell they're talking about (Palin?), or because they don't want US to know what the hell they're talking about.
Where do you think Clinton falls?
Wellstone ruled
(34,661 posts)themes and sound bites all night,were as Sanders did his what you see is what your going get.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)they will use in media ads. I have concluded over the years that she is not the smart woman I used to think she was at all.
No really smart person would, eg, have voted for Bush's war. They would have known he was lying and known he could not be trusted with that kind of power.
The email thing also, I knew from the first time I ever used a computer never to put anything on it you didn't want anyone to see.
And I am not SOS. I think most people know this. Karl Rove eg, ALMOST got indicted, but of course that went away also, for making the same mistake, thinking you could disappear emails.
This is the 21st Century and anyone who puts out info on the internet that they would be horrified by if it was ever seen by anyone other than those they trust is not smart enough to be POTUS imo.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)Her owners won't allow it.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Wellstone ruled
(34,661 posts)my spouse said,what the hell is she pushing the third way idea of means testing and privatization. Bernie picked up on that and his body language wanted to just pounce on this but being restrained let her dig her own grave.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)poor. You would think that she would know that we already have a program that does that in place SSI (not SSDI) and you do not have to fix SSA to do it.
All that needs to be done to fix that problem is fix the cost of living benefit for SSI that has not changed in many years. The top level for SSI in my area is $758 a month. Make it $1000 and you are giving a lot of help to those of us in that situation.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)including? 10, 100, 1,000? And who will pay? The other SS recipients? The working class?
"I want to expand things", "I think all college students should have the same opportunity _____."
I was looking for other rhetoric she put forth during the debate.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)who are poor. No one needs to change SSA at all because you are right. If we use SSA to help then the money others put into the plan is used in a different way than before.
With the present form of help (the SSI program) the money comes out of the general tax fund and not out of the SSA fund. There are a lot of elderly women who did not work enough to receive enough SSA to live on. I get $278 a month. SSI supplements that to bring it up to $753 a month. It is people like me that she is saying she will help. However, if she uses SSA to help us she will be hurting other SSA recipients.
SSI covers poor elderly and disabled persons who are not eligible for SSDI yet. That is the program that needs to be fixed to reflect the real cost of living in each area of the country. This is not one of the problems of SSA.
Plucketeer
(12,882 posts)Yeah, that caught me ear too. BEING a SS recipient, I'd like to know how "vulnerable" is defined. And if I'm NOT in that strata, am I just outta luck???
marlakay
(11,498 posts)Heard that. We are retired and do ok but anything big would shake us. Savings. What is that? I have a few thousand thats it and lucky to have that.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)she didn't explain where the help was coming from. Her plan may be to readjust benefits (enhance, I think she called it).
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)trying to get Bernie's attention, lol, to remind him to ask her about the Chained CPI. He did, but Cooper went to another question right then, so she got off the 'hook on that one.
She had to admit to making two 'mistakes' as she calls them, not very impressive for someone wanting to be President, Bernie otoh, looked very good on the Iraq war, went into his other war votes, the Patriot Act she voted for etc.
When I saw the attempt to minimize the Iraq War vote here yesterday, asking flippantly if Bernie might 'demagogue' that question, something of course he never does, I KNEW they KNEW the question was going to be raised.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)She essentially said it was necessary to give up our rights to assure our safety. She should have been asked if she ever considered the possibility that once we gave up our rights, we might never get them back. But the 1% isn't concerned because they didn't give up anything precious to them, in fact they gain power via the Patriot Act. The NSA/CIA Dark State is a tool of the Oligarchy and they will not give up their expanded powers.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)dpatbrown
(368 posts)He certainly saved her ass. It was big.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)ucrdem
(15,512 posts)I guess the Corporate Controlled Editors slipped up?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)viewers/potential voters. So why would the Corporate Media ask their viewers for their opinions and then ignore them?
Maybe in their DC bubble they anticipated a different result??? I have noticed how out of touch these insiders are with the people, but seriously, if you ask for an opinion, your creds take a dive, as is happening as we type, straight down into the gutter.
Btw, how much did Hillary raise during the debate?
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)claiming Sen Sanders made a much better showing. Progressives are not surprised. I hope someone captured what HRC said about the issues. Some was quite a lesson in rhetoric. Doesn't want to expand SS benefits, but enhance them. Avoided answering the question about raising the cap on her friends. Her solution for getting college education for American children was to tell them to work like she did and to tell the states to try to keep tuitions down.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)just discussed on the young turks. apparently reality did not confirm to their corporate narrative.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)was just reporting what i heard on tyt.
perhaps a cnn follower, if there are any here lol, can share that info.
Metric System
(6,048 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)the 32,000,000 American children living in low income homes because it's much more important to ensure corps get their profits.
There are two sides in this class war. I would hope that all Democrats would side with the 99%, but there are some that choose to follow the wealthy, maybe hoping to get a handout.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)That right there means ANYTHING you say can't be taken seriously.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6658778
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)problems of poverty, our failing infrastructure, our seniors struggling on SS and Medicare, our homeless vets, and the AA males getting gunned down in the streets. HRC is the 1% and though she gives some lip service to social justice, her first commitment is to those billionaires (e.g., Goldman-Sachs) that are not only supporting her campaign but also giving her money to enhance her personal fortune. But you know that and you don't care.
The Princeton Study reports that we no longer live in a Democracy but live in an Oligarchy. You must be comfortable with that because 8 years of another Clinton will continue the status quo.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6658778
Tell us, Rick, will you be leaving DU if Clinton is the Democratic nominee?
Surely, you value principles over posting privileges, amirite?
Gonna miss you if she's the nominee, buddy.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)That will not stop the Populist Movement. 50 million Americans live in poverty and yet you throw your support behind the Billionaires.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)Sure Rick.
And I probably voted twice for Obama "because of his smile".
You'll be missed.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Why did you vote for him? You don't seem to support progressives or progressive issues.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)Your sanctimony is awe-inspiring.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)zappaman
(20,606 posts)I don't like authoritarians.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)that run this country? Nope. You are content with the establishment and the status quo. I think you like to be on the side with the biggest bully, the wealthy. Tell me otherwise, tell me you want to see poverty reduced. If you support a Goldman-Sachs Administration, you would appear to value Corp-Profits over the health and welfare of the People.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)Response to hrmjustin (Reply #36)
Name removed Message auto-removed
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)99Forever
(14,524 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I like to think for myself so kool-aid is not my drink but you should refrain because it is not working out foryou.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)... but it's pretty clear it's a staple in your home.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)99Forever
(14,524 posts)I clearly, am not.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)99Forever
(14,524 posts)But I'll consider the source.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)99Forever
(14,524 posts)Any?
At all?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Uncle Joe
(58,426 posts)Thanks for the thread, sabrina.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)k&r
99Forever
(14,524 posts)What are you? Some kinda pinko, Commie, turrist or sumptin'?
Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)840high
(17,196 posts)pundits, press etc.
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)through cable media, commercial media, and the bulk of print media. They will deliver the message that benefits their candidate. You can either believe it or choose to ignore it, but NOBODY will change it. Hillary could be down double digits, but you would never learn that from listening to controlled media sources.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)There's a couple of scientific polls out proving Hillary won the debate, if you are interested.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)You and your polls!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251650529
tritsofme
(17,403 posts)After being educated, I really don't understand why people keep pushing these silly internet polls. It makes them look incredibly ignorant.
mythology
(9,527 posts)It really makes people look silly. Not one single scientific poll found anything anywhere near the poll in the link.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=110x9869
Understanding how online self-selected polls are in no way, shape or form useful really isn't that hard. It's not a random sample, they tend toward younger respondents, also white respondents and the most fervent. But none of that translates into actual real world impact or truth.
aspirant
(3,533 posts)when you can't prove, verify or replicate these lame phone polls.
Pick any 5 and return with the respondents names and contact #'s so we can verify that a respondent's vote wasn't counted multiple times.
WE'LL BE WAITING
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)And when they got the results of these 'unscientific' viewers they didn't like them, how scientific of them, so a few 'scientivfc' taking heads determined, 'scientifically' of course, who the winner was.
So scientific, the Corporate Media is!
This is getting so thoroughly ridiculous that it's at the point of LAUGHABLE.
Since when are Fox, CNN's Don Lemon? Seriously? and the rest of the pretend 'journalists' on the Corporate Media 'Scientifically' qualified to determine who won a debate??
I am laughing my head off at the sudden 'trust' in the credibility of the 'scientific' conclusions of anyone on the totally discredited Corporate Media.
Or have people developed total amnesia re their 'scientific' conclusions about Bush/Cheney's lies that led us into the horrendous War Crime still ongoing in Iraq?
Soon someone is going to tell me how credible Judith Miller is!!
All you can do is laugh at the sheer ridiculousness of it all.
Bernie won, period. It's not the end of the world. It's just a fact determined by hundreds of thousands of viewers and STATISTICS that are readily available to the Corporate Scientists IF they care to look at them.
Blue_In_AK
(46,436 posts)My husband and I looked at each other and simultaneously exclaimed "What?" I can concede that they maybe tied, but she certainly wasn't the "clear" winner.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)said 'What HE said' each time she was asked about issues like the TPP, Keystone Pipeline etc.
The only one that seemed to take her by surprise was the Pot legalization question. Bernie answered it, she 'needed time to assess it'.
Clearly her researchers were not aware that would come up.
Bernie saved her from being thoroughly embarrassed after she admitted her private email server was a 'mistake'. Her Iraq War Vote was also 'a mistake'.
When you make that many 'mistakes' a word which hardly describes the horrors of Iraq, seems to me the winner is the guy who did not make such mistakes.
But who am I to know anything? I've just been told, by the latest Corporate Funded Talking Point that 'I'm being manipulated by the Right' into supporting the only Candidate who got it right on so many major decisions over the past several decades!
Blue_In_AK
(46,436 posts)I see her moving toward Bernie's positions much more than him moving toward hers, which I suppose is a good thing if she stays there, but my fear is that once she secures the nomination (if she does), she'll return to her more comfortable "moderate" self.
marlakay
(11,498 posts)I agree with Bernie, or something like that.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)The media being so scared of Sanders
stillwaiting
(3,795 posts)Some of the instances are unbelievably egregious and transparent (with political pundits calling all of our other candidates losers).
I guess there might be a chance that all of this pro-Clinton hysteria could result in a bump for her in the initial round of polling post debate (for those that didn't actually see the debate). Surely that was the intent of all of these antics. But, Bernie should also get a bump as well. I'd guess Biden will probably lose some ground in the next week of polling.
I'll be curious to see what we're up against in the polling results over the next week (taking in to account how unreliable and skewed to the more conservative candidate that polling methodologies will provide).
In the meantime, we fight to enlighten and we fight to get a President that will FIGHT for average American interests primary to the financial elites interests (they've been very, very greedy over the past 4 decades).
youceyec
(394 posts)these are not polls. Conservatives bomb these polls to make Hillary look bad for one. And BS does generally have greater internet following. Again, these are not polls. People are just clicking. Many of them allow people to click over and over again. And if they don't, clearing your cookies will let you vote again, and again.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)people interveiwed etc shows that Bernie was the runaway winner of the debate. Even Chris Mathews, who apparently broke away or didn't get the corporate memo, stated there is no doubt that Bernie clearly won the debate.
So what we have is about dozen or so talking heads from the Corporate media stand alone against just about every other group, org, whatever delivering the message they clearly were instructed to deliver.
Having watched it myself, Bernie won, on the issues, on his straightfoward answers, as always, O'Malley imo, came second though on the issues I preferred Chafee who is clearly an honest and decent man. Hillary came fourth, she was filibustering which I hate clearly trying to dominate the stage but instead looked angry until AFTER Bernie, another reason why people voted for him, intervened to stop the email questions.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)What you are promoting here as what your eyes see is some of the worst in corporate media deception. At the same time you are attempting to mask it as you being anti-corporate.
You do know those polls were done by the exact same people who hire and train the pundits, don't you? Absolutely no difference yet you are attempting to make distinction. I think we need to have a refresher course with all of the new people Sanders is bringing in. You are promoting highly deceptive, unscientific, and dishonest corporate media "polls" because they fit your agenda.
The media played both sides of the fence on debate night and many from both sides fully bought into it. As you did here. How do you not see that they played both sides in order to bring more eyes to their stations. Promoting highly flawed and deceptive corporate media polls. You hate the corporate media, except the aspects you love.
Sabrina1
"Voters Overwhelmingly Say: 'Bernie Winner of Debate!' Corporate Controlled Editors Ignore Them!"
What you are referring to as voters is highly deceptive and come from the same exact people you then refer to as "corporate." They are one and the same. While they are deceptive, it is obvious to most of us. As you have shown with your op, some will still buy in to their practices hook, line, and sinker.
You are really into this. Can you link to any scientific polls that have been done since the debate? Polls with at least a modicum of merit?
LiberalLovinLug
(14,176 posts)That the "corporate media", those three in particular, conspired together to falsify their online polls in order to create a controversy online like on this site? In order to cause tension and thus more viewers? That is quite a stretch.
Babel_17
(5,400 posts)Detail was not in much evidence at the debates. Later on there will be more, pointed, focus on issues like what Senator Sanders proposes for Social Security vs. Secretary Clinton's more vague proto-ideas for taking on the issue. Let's think back as to how unpopular the administration's brainstorming on compromises to offer the Republicans was. Clinton looked liked she was testing those same waters.
Neoconservative foreign policy: For or against it, and what's your record? That's going to be coming up in more detail as well.
Mandatory sentencing, drug laws, the prison industrial complex. Senator Sanders will be all over that.
The first debate saw some positioning, now we'll see how well the candidates stick up for those positions.
senz
(11,945 posts)The post-debate columns struck me as odd, so this morning I revisited them. They ARE odd. They read like the work of writers who have been ordered to depict Hillary as the winner and do so with disguised slams at Hillary, and compliments to Bernie, throughout. Charles Blow refers to her as "the queen," Gail Collins speaks of her in undisguised "witch" terms, and Frank Bruni vaguely refers to her as a sorceress.
You can almost feel these columnists straining at the bit, trying to be objective within the newspaper's bias.
Charles Blow. Normally serious African American columnist. Totally forced Hillary enthusiasm.
Title:
First line:
Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/15/opinion/hillary-clinton-the-queen-came-to-play.html
Gail Collins. Humorous but trenchant columnist. Chirpy with undisguised witch references. Very funny.
Title:
First lines:
Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/15/opinion/hillary-clintons-happy-brew.html
Frank Bruni. Okay columnist whom I don't follow. Depicts Hillary as a performer.
Title:
First lines:
Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/14/opinion/hillary-clintons-democratic-debate-magic.html
I think the columns' artificial tone and weird imagery show what the writers were up against. BUT, the reader comments are realistic and mostly cynical of the columns. If any of this interests you, check out the reader comments.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)say whatever it takes to win elections, after all when you have the MEDIA working for you, Corporations, not necessarily their chosen politicians, they believe they can let things play out, people won't remember what was said, and THEY will step in in the end to make sure no candidate who cannot be trusted to protect THEIR interests, will ever get close to doing so.
That's why we have been treated to all the talking points such as 'look, no matter who the Dem primary winner is, s/h will be better than anyone from the other side'.
Our team is better, no matter how bad it is on the issues we care about.
They haven't noticed that while that tactic did work for a long time, the people aren't playing anymore. See the last two mid terms.
Warren is right, the system IS rigged. The question is how to put an end to it.
Thanks for the post, senz, interesting observations. The press is totally owned as we are seeing clearly now.
moondust
(20,006 posts)Sword of Damocles?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)not even TRYING to be subtle anymore. I would say they have lost credibility but that happened a long time ago when they helped lie us into that horrible and still ongoing debacle in Iraq.