-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Democratic National Primary Debate #1 |Tokyo2016| Rise of Mecha-Godzilla
- Thread starter B-Dubs
- Start date
- Status
ErasureAcer
Banned
CNN/Facebook poll you could only vote once after signing in. You could change your vote but you only got one vote with your account. I know because I voted. Didn't vote on any of the other online polls and since all the polls were 70-80% Bernie or thereabouts it'd be safe to say that the FB poll is indeed some accurate picture of the electorate that paid attention to the debate.The other polls I have no idea...FB was one account, one vote. When I voted a few hours after the debate Bernie was at 81%. Yes, young people support Bernie, as do middle-aged and old people too. Bernie is absolutely crushing Hillary amongst youth. The kids know what's up. They've inherited a piece of shit future based on the status quo of do nothing Democrats and Republicans.
I'm sorry I'm not following. What?
A quick google search answers this question https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rain_tax#Maryland.
Veritigo_X
Member
People can have multiple Facebook accounts, there's nothing stopping a single person from voting multiple times.
None of the online polls, in addition to random things like twitter searches and 20 person focus groups, are relevant to the general electorate.
ChronotriggerJM
Member
I think google search data can be more useful than poll data, but I still wouldn't dream of calling it definitive. I just like that the debates bring more awareness to the candidates. Before this, I had no idea who O'malley even was.
Don't bother arguing with him. One time he went to PoliGAF to crow about how Bernie had more Facebook likes than Hillary.
Facebook likes
ErasureAcer
Banned
And this is what it comes to from the anti-Bernie people. Yes, let me make multiple FB accounts to increase Bernie's numbers in an unscientific poll which means not much of anything. Ridiculous. Or what really happened, as others have said, Bernie has a lot of enthusiastic support on the internet. He's already past 650,000 individual donors. These are also the people that dropped $1.4 million more into his campaign coffers in the first four hours after the debate via the web. Bernie is far surpassing Obama in many metrics at the same point in time(where there also had been plenty of debates by now and not just one) in 2008.
Bernie haters can deny his legitimacy all they want. They can believe whatever the hell the corporate media wants them to believe. Bernie is doing far better than his naysayers give him credit and ultimately Bernie stands a realistic shot at the nomination. The haters' refusal to look at the facts does not change reality.
Cool. Perhaps open with that next time instead of the bull. We'll see what happens in the polls.
O'Malley's call out to the DNC chair was an obvious WTF about not having any debates yet. This was really the first chance for the gen pub to see what they had to work with.
j_k_redtail
Member
Runoff from paved surfaces is a particularly notorious cause of Chesapeake Bay pollution. So it wasn't really a tax on rain, so much as a tax on property area. But this is definitely the type of thing that would kill O'Malley in a general election.
They get this stuff from the Sanders subreddit. So many of them are ridiculously naive.
And because you searched for him, you're definitely going to vote him.
ErasureAcer
Banned
The story there was Hillary wasting money on buying FB likes from Asia. Yeah, Hillary, the shill you support was wasting your campaign contribution paying for FB likes from Asia(fake support to boost her FB numbers as Bernie overtook her on FB).
Paying for Facebook likes.
Your candidate is the one concerned about FB likes...but please continue to spin it the other way. You hate your own horse per your own words.
benjipwns
Banned
Great, now I have to write in "Lavrentiy Beria."
The only source on this is r/BernieSanders.
FloydtheFathead
Member
shadowsdarknes
Member
Just because Ron Paul and Bernie have different political positions doesn't mean there aren't significant similarities to them.
And yeah.. I think we've got a lot of really sensitive Bernie Sanders supporters on this board. One's who think the media are deliberately trying to make him lose and those who think Hillary did the best are just shilling.
SenorArdilla
Member
Another case of "Dang It Ron Paul." Despair everywhere.
Your Entertainer
Member
Except Sanders actually gave the best answers last night
We're getting accusations that the mainstream media is bought and paid for by Clinton. The same ones who ran stories about her email server to the ground. 😂
shadowsdarknes
Member
We'll have to see what the polling looks like for who "won" the debate, but the media consensus is that Hillary performed best, and that'll probably be what's reflected in the polling. Of course she's a corporatist shill who is in media with the lamestream media so they would have decided this no matter what.
Poor Erasure has only one argument tactic: manufacturing controversy.
Veritigo_X
Member
I'm not anti-Bernie or a Bernie hater. I disagree with a good amount of his supporters on some things, but I like Bernie as a candidate. Not everyone that disagrees with you is against Bernie. I'm just pointing out the reality of that poll.
Wait for actual poll numbers to come out.
This counter rhetoric "Bernie Sanders supports are crazy and think he
is the messiah, bahahaha, they don't understand reality" is so prevalent on the internet in the last couple months. I think due to hive-mind communities such as reddit, which much of the time comes off as very obnoxious, they have alienated themselves and there candidate from the others. Well i at least think this because, I for one can't stand the majority of reddit's opinions or how they express it. Plus you can recall similar reactions with Ron Paul and he is often brought up in this counter-rhetoric("What happened to your last old savior Ron Paul???") For one Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders political positions are so vastly different with Reddit being one of their only similarities.
Saying Clinton is less rhetorically tough on Wall Street and corporations is very misleading. She works with them and has officially represented them. Just because she uses dialogue in debates such as " I went there before that big crash and said cut it out" doesn't mean she is tough on them. Guess what, that crash happened, and they still were bailed out the following year. Her so called telling them to "cut it out" is debate fluff. Now we have people here saying, "she's just less rhetorically tough on wallstreet." She works with them,but somehow she has people thinking she is somewhat tough on them because she isn't a republican who want's to drastically cut corporate tax rates. Its so crazy and genius at the same time. If she was tough at all she would attempt to place some kind of policy against them, its really not hard to understand. People side with Bernie because as these issues have arisen since the 80's you can go on the internet and watch him debate them at that very moment and try and pass policy.
Your initial statement is false. Bernie has more individual donations. And his "bigger" investments are from worker unions, not media corps, banks, and hedge fund companys.
Fenderputty
Banned
I feel like the word shill has been massively overused on this page.
shadowsdarknes
Member
The conspiratorial stuff I'm seeing on Facebook has gotten annoying. Like the top execs at CNN are really out to silence individual Bernie supporters.
And not to mention, this post had 500 likes.
And not to mention, this post had 500 likes.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
I'm genuinely unconvinced media consensus is going to be particularly accurate. It's not some weird conspiracy theory about the media jumping in bed with Hillary. It's just that I think most media pundits are actually pretty far removed from the average American. The average income of CNN's post-debate pannelists was $232,000 yearly. The median American salary is $26,695 yearly. That difference can remove you from some of the important stuff. For example, foreign policy is a lot more important to people in the $232,000 bracket - they're the ones who can afford to travel regularly, invest abroad, regularly meet people from other countries. Domestic economic policy? Less so. Anderson Cooper just bought an 18-bedroom house in California; he's probably naturally not too concerned with the top 1%. That's not to say he doesn't care - he might genuinely believe he has it too good - but he doesn't care in the way that someone who absolutely fights through every week to have a spare dollar at the end of it does, like someone who often skips meals so that their children can be well fed does. As such, they're just looking for totally different things in the debate.
I mean, we do have evidence of this. We have precisely three non-self-selecting samples to look at it in terms of judging the debate - the CNN focus panel, the Fox focus panel, and the Fusion focus panel, all picked by independent companies (Fox's by Luntz). All three of them gave it to Sanders. You could even see the surprise on the CNN reporter's face when he quizzed the CNN focus panel. It's not some conspiracy - he genuinely wasn't expecting that answer, probably because he genuinely didn't understand what it is that the average American is concerned about.
There's a fairly good book about this, written admittedly from a British perspective, called The Establishment, by Owen Jones. It's almost written as a piece of long-form reportage rather than traditional book format, as he essentially just goes around interviewing key figures in the British establishment, but particularly focusing on the media, as well as showing how there is a growing class divide within media circles hastened by the advent of the unpaid internship that only wealthier people can support and the death of local media killing one of the few entrants into media from underprivileged backgrounds. The responses of the media elite are very interesting - there's a big disconnect between the way they see the world, even the left-wing elite, and the way that people in underprivileged circumstances do. Well worth reading, I recommend it.
EDIT: It's also worth noting that this wouldn't be the first time, either. The media reported Clinton as winning effectively all the '07 and '08 debates.
Time Warner and Fox are huuge contributors to Hilary's. It shouldn't take much more thought to explain.
shadowsdarknes
Member
Yeah it's gotten tiresome. I'm a Bernie fan myself. I like him quite a bit and I understand his principles and agree with them quite a bit.
But FFS being critical of him or thinking he didn't do the best at the debate does not make us Bernie haters. I've been following and promoting the guy to people for several years now.
But I'll say this. Both wings of the spectrum are going to attract heavily ideological and unreasonable supporters. On the right, those people tend to gravitate towards several candidates. And on the left, they are probably gravitating towards Bernie.
wellthereitis.gif
Although Bernie did well in the second half of the debate, I think Hillary won. Bernie was noticeably unprepared for the question about Putin/the Middle East (it looked like he wasn't even paying attention). Hillary had no such missteps. Bernie's my favored candidate, but when it comes to going toe-to-toe with the Republicans and actual debate performances, Hillary is probably one of the best candidates we could ask for.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
I think it's pretty unlikely to be an outright conspiracy. There's a big incentive for any individual reporter to break the editorial line for personal gain, or even reveal the scandal that would be a top-down editorial enforcement. I could see it happening at a local level or some level where the money involved from being the person to famously break the CNN debate scandal wouldn't attract you fame and money, but supposing that every single person in CNN works together unanimously and without slip-up on a secret plot quite this big is just silly. Major companies hardly have good competency records on these issues.
They do slip in some things - e.g., one of the post-debate panellists was the head of Hillary's Super-PAC, which they never revealed to the viewers and gave the impression he had an independent view, simply calling him a "political analyst". But much more than that is hard to imagine.
It was exactly the same thing with Ron Paul supporters.
When people believe that they can somehow change the system via voting for one specific person this is what happens - all about the cult of personality.
These people will be vocal and they will alienate other progressives with their antics. Eventually they will just disappear when Hillary dominates the overall results. No doubt Sanders will win a lot of online polls between now and the first primary and then it is a huge conspiracy when the election results start coming in.
This is not to say that Sanders is a bad candidate. He has many good policy proposals but I just don't find him that relatable, he doesn't exactly radiate optimism.
Damn, Bernie smashed it. I want and would love him to win, but feel that there's basically no chance of it. Has Hilary really got this in the bag? And if Bernie even won, would he undermine the chances of a presidential Democratic victory?
Not just that, I did not like her position on the NSA, and on Snowden. Also feel she's a bit of a flip flopper. The trust aspect for me just isn't there, and it has nothing to do with the malarkey the Republicans keep banging on about, like Benghazi and the emails.
Not just that, I did not like her position on the NSA, and on Snowden. Also feel she's a bit of a flip flopper. The trust aspect for me just isn't there, and it has nothing to do with the malarkey the Republicans keep banging on about, like Benghazi and the emails.
The majority of those contributions came from employees who work for Time Warner, rather than Time Warner itself. That doesn't really fit the narrative some of you guys are trying to weave, as individuals have exclusive political views to their employer.
Looking at a history of Cenk Uygur's time at MSNBC would contradict your some of your thoughts. Look at how much positive focus is on Hilary whether on their station or website. When they mention Bernie it is either non substantial in comparison to her or negative. Why is it you think they have 500,000 dollars invested in her and wouldn't do what they can to support her. There is very much an agenda for these huge donations, which end up in the programing. These donations aren't charity money. And to say that there is no way that the agenda can't go deeper than CNN is a DNC base and Fox News is a GOP based is wide-eyed.
I'm sorry, i forgot I was on gaf and didn't know I had to explain how campaign donations work. You got me! Trying to weave a narrative!
If you don't see a difference in hundreds of thousand dollar donations from corps like Time Warner and a workers union, well whatever. I give up.
I've noticed several of the more vocal Bernie supporters I know were also extreme anti-Bush types who parroted Alex Jones and Ron Paul, but broke left as soon as the '08 election started winding up. Everything that puts Bernie's electability into question is a conspiracy to them.
Bums me out because I like Bernie, but his base seems like a big ball of crazy that doesn't necessarily represent his views.
Bums me out because I like Bernie, but his base seems like a big ball of crazy that doesn't necessarily represent his views.
So basically, you're only accusing the news of being in the bag for Hillary now, without having actually followed the news for the past few months sprouting nothing but negative articles on Hillary Clinton, her emails, on Biden running because she's weak, and so on.
Okay. You only think that it's a conspiracy when it's your candidate not being favored. How conveniently you all forget when Hillary was being cast down in the papers.
shinra-bansho
Member
No company, union or individual is allowed to donate $500,000 in hard money donations to a candidate.
In theory her $476K in donations from Time Warner over the course of her political career could come from 176.3 people who donated the maximum (not sure if this has changed over the time period and by how much) and given multiple cycles it could be fewer people. It could also be more.
In theory her $476K in donations from Time Warner over the course of her political career could come from 176.3 people who donated the maximum (not sure if this has changed over the time period and by how much) and given multiple cycles it could be fewer people. It could also be more.
I think superscience is proving you wrong.
shadowsdarknes
Member
This is how I'm beginning to feel.
I like the guy quite a bit. But his voter base is getting a bit out of hand. If you don't subscribe to his version of the political revolution, you're somehow unenlightened or misinformed.
Ron Paul fans said the same thing.
shadowsdarknes
Member
NeoGAF is certainly one of the most progressive websites I've been apart of.
Bernie is very well liked here
Veritigo_X
Member
But he's winning the official NeoGAF poll.
Yeah he's not even leading the first debate poll in double digits.
What the fuck NeoGAF?!
neogaffer1
Banned
naw, it's just that the people who don't like him here really hate him.
Yeah ok, i have never posted anything here about news solely only being in the bag for Hilary. This isn't a personal thing. And that was Fox News pushing the emails and the Benghazi issue as they even still were last night post debate. Don't force put me in a fight I'm not in.
If anything I would say that the corporate media is in the bag for corporate interests.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked