Support NeoGAF

[Mael]

This strategy of holding out hope that the FBI indicts Hillary, and Bernie swoops in to become the nominee, sounds hilariously misguided. Even if that's his plan, wouldn't it make most sense to then get on Hillary's side and begin campaigning together asap? Most of the party is not united behind Bernie -- and I don't mean the "establishment," but the majority of voters who backed Hillary over him. If Hillary suddenly went to jail this summer, it would be a much smoother transition from her to Bernie for voters if they saw the two as being aligned together, than if they remained opponents.

At this point if something happens to Clinton, the natural choice would be to find someone close to Clinton's policy and let that person take over.
Sanders have made it clear he is in no way close to Clinton so I don't think it's fair to expect people who voted explicitly for Clinton to side with him over someone closer to Clinton.

I don't know about that. From what I've seen Bernie hasn't really said anything about foreign policy other than "I support what president Obama is doing."

His replies ranged from "I don't know" to "don't ask me that I'm running for president"...

 

[A Human Becoming]

It's hard to stomach someone you believed in isn't the person you thought they were.

Hopefully Hillary supporters can be sympathetic. You'll need Bernie supporters in the general.

 

[Already Torn]

It's hard to stomach someone you believed in isn't the person you thought they were.

Hopefully Hillary supporters can be sympathetic. You'll need Bernie supporters in the general.

I thought they did a study that shows that's not really the case?

 

[noshten]

*sigh* So, how long will Bernie supporters stew in the "the media rigged the election" narrative before they actually check facts, I wonder?

- Our analysis shows Bernie Sanders is being ignored by the mainstream media to a shocking degree. If covered at the average rate we’d have seen about 61,500 more stories including Sanders in the last 6 months: 91,094 mentions instead of 29,525.
- Clinton receives a high amount of coverage, despite no dramatic changes in polls and lower search interest.
- Candidates like Rand Paul also appear to be locked out of the mainstream press. Paul isn’t the most popular candidate, but if the average held he’d have been in twice as many stories. Rubio, despite being 36% more popular than Paul was 403% more likely to be covered by the news.

Again, the poll numbers don’t explain the difference in coverage: Clinton’s poll-to-media-mention correlation, for example, is actually negative 48%. That means that news coverage goes up a little when her poll numbers drop. Sanders, on the other hand, sees no large benefit when his poll numbers rise (correlation = 11%).

For both Clinton and Sanders there’s a strong correlation between online search interest and news coverage: 90% and 77% respectively. All that means is that the lines in the graphs above follow the same trend. Search interest goes up, and so do the number of TV mentions. If Sanders received the same volume of mainstream press coverage that Clinton did based on search popularity the correlation could remain unchanged. The line for “national news mentions” would have the same ups and downs, but it would be 10 times higher across the board.

Remember that correlation and causality are two different things. It’s unclear whether news coverage causes interest or whether interest creates incentive to cover; the truth is that both causes are partly true. What we can say is some candidates receive far more coverage than is justified by either poll figures or search interest.

http://decisiondata.org/news/political-media-blackouts-president-2016/

Facts?

 

[Maxim726X]

This strategy of holding out hope that the FBI indicts Hillary, and Bernie swoops in to become the nominee, sounds hilariously misguided. Even if that's his plan, wouldn't it make most sense to then get on Hillary's side and begin campaigning together asap? Most of the party is not united behind Bernie -- and I don't mean the "establishment," but the majority of voters who backed Hillary over him. If Hillary suddenly went to jail this summer, it would be a much smoother transition from her to Bernie for voters if they saw the two as being aligned together, than if they remained opponents.

Makes almost as much sense as trying to woo over superdelegates by insinuating that the party is corrupt, and that the chair of the DNC should be removed.

Really... Brilliant stuff. Bravo.

 

[KingK]

I thought they did a study that shows that's not really the case?

You're trying to say Hillary doesn't need the 40%+ of her own party who didn't vote for her?

She doesn't need the crazy Bernie or bust types who typically never vote anyway, but contrary to what PoliGAF would have you believe, that's a small fraction of his voters.

 

[Steel]

http://decisiondata.org/news/political-media-blackouts-president-2016/

Facts?

We must be talking about different media here, because Trump not being on top of that is hilariously wrong if we're talking tv. Or even newspaper. Or most online articles for that matter. Or are we trudging through every google mention ever made to Hillary who has been in the spotlight longest? That must be it if O'Malley is above Sanders.

 

[Already Torn]

You're trying to say Hillary doesn't need the 40%+ of her own party who didn't vote for her?

She doesn't need the crazy Bernie or bust types who typically never vote anyway, but contrary to what PoliGAF would have you believe, that's a small fraction of his voters.

I mean if you're not a crazy Bernie or Bust type, you're now a Hillary fan instead of a Bernie fan because Bernie's out of the race, yeah?

 

[B-Dubs]

http://decisiondata.org/news/political-media-blackouts-president-2016/

Facts?

This assumes all attention is good attention, which is a bad assumption to make. But you already knew that.

 

[NeoXChaos]

You're trying to say Hillary doesn't need the 40%+ of her own party who didn't vote for her?

She doesn't need the crazy Bernie or bust types who typically never vote anyway, but contrary to what PoliGAF would have you believe, that's a small fraction of his voters.

come on dude. Can we just all be friends now?

 

[Maxim726X]

We must be talking about different media here, because Trump not being on top of that is hilariously wrong if we're talking tv. Or even newspaper. Or most online articles for that matter. Or are we trudging through every google mention ever made to Hillary who has been in the spotlight longest? That must be it if O'Malley is above Sanders.

Consider the potential timing of this 'proof'.

Must be very early in the process. Look at the names.

 

[pigeon]

http://decisiondata.org/news/political-media-blackouts-president-2016/

Facts?

It's immediately questionable to lump all media mentions into one big pot.

For example, Hillary will naturally have statistics that are skewed upwards because Republican opponents have mentioned her much more than they've mentioned Bernie. This will lead to her getting more media mentions when they get mentioned, but that doesn't suggest media bias.

 

[Crimson_Fate]

We must be talking about different media here, because Trump not being on top of that is hilariously wrong if we're talking tv. Or even newspaper. Or most online articles for that matter. Or are we trudging through every google mention ever made to Hillary who has been in the spotlight longest? That must be it if O'Malley is above Sanders.

There are also two Clinton so is it Hillary or bill or both. This may be the reason that Bush isn't even there .

 

[Meowster]

You're trying to say Hillary doesn't need the 40%+ of her own party who didn't vote for her?

She doesn't need the crazy Bernie or bust types who typically never vote anyway, but contrary to what PoliGAF would have you believe, that's a small fraction of his voters.

She needs them but I also refuse to believe that the majority of Bernie's supporters are Bernie or Bust. I think the stats point to this but I can't say for sure. The Bernie or Bust group is probably never going to waver and will likely be the HillaryIs44 of this election.

 

[AntraxSuicide]

It's immediately questionable to lump all media mentions into one big pot.

For example, Hillary will naturally have statistics that are skewed upwards because Republican opponents have mentioned her much more than they've mentioned Bernie. This will lead to her getting more media mentions when they get mentioned, but that doesn't suggest media bias.

Also, negative vs. positive coverage is totally ignored there. It's not a good marker of anything at all.

 

[ANDS]

Makes almost as much sense as trying to woo over superdelegates by insinuating that the party is corrupt, and that the chair of the DNC should be removed.

Really... Brilliant stuff. Bravo.

Or that he's the only candidate who has consistently and soundly beaten the Republicans in matchups for months now.

 

[BlastProcessing]

http://decisiondata.org/news/political-media-blackouts-president-2016/

Facts?

January 12th? You are really coming out with data from January 12th?

 

[Steel]

Yeah... Actually looking at that article is making me scartch my head, I mean they look at TV media name drops and come up with this:

Which shows that Trump got the majority of mentions when he joined the race and Sanders peaked above Clinton a lot with some vice versa for only short periods for each. And not to mention this only covers until January, which he wasn't even on people's radar much before that.

Consider the potential timing of this 'proof'.

Must be very early in the process. Look at the names.

Yeah, this is basically the race in 2015, before anyone had voted, before anyone thought Bernie even had a slight shot. And even then it shows him getting about as many tv name drops as Clinton.

 

[Brinbe]

Or that he's the only candidate who has consistently and soundly beaten the Republicans in matchups for months now.

LOL, stop. He's barely been touched this entire election cycle. Once the massive amount of ammo starts coming out about him, he'd be destroyed. Fuck, he didn't even release his tax returns lol

 

[noshten]

We must be talking about different media here, because Trump not being on top of that is hilariously wrong if we're talking tv. Or even newspaper. Or most online articles for that matter. Or are we trudging through every google mention ever made to Hillary who has been in the spotlight longest? That must be it if O'Malley is above Sanders.

If you don't want to delve into the study how about the following:

ABC World News Tonight Has Devoted Less Than One Minute To Bernie Sanders' Campaign This Year(2015)

81:1.

Does that ratio seem out of whack? That's the ratio of TV airtime that ABC World News Tonight has devoted to Donald Trump's campaign (81 minutes) versus the amount of TV time World News Tonight has devoted to Bernie Sanders' campaign this year. And even that one minute for Sanders is misleading because the actual number is closer to 20 seconds.

For the entire year.

That's the rather stunning revelation from the Tyndall Report, which tracks the various flagship nightly news programs on NBC, CBS and ABC. The Report's campaign findings cover the network evening newscasts from January 1 through the end of November.

The results confirm two media extremes in play this year, and not just at ABC News. The network newscasts are wildly overplaying Trump, who regularly attracts between 20-30 percent of primary voter support, while at the same time wildly underplaying Sanders, who regularly attracts between 20-30 percent of primary voter support. (Sanders' supporters have long complained about the candidate's lack of coverage.)

Obviously, Trump is the GOP frontrunner and its reasonable that he would get more attention than Sanders, who's running second for the Democrats. But 234 total network minutes for Trump compared to just 10 network minutes for Sanders, as the Tyndall Report found?

Andrew Tyndall provided the breakdown by network of Sanders' 10 minutes of coverage, via email [emphasis added]:

CBS Evening News: 6.4 minutes

NBC Nightly News: 2.9 minutes

ABC World News: 0.3

But how can they be? ABC News, for instance, clearly devoted more than 20 seconds to covering the Democratic debates, which featured news of Sanders, right?

As Tyndall explained to me, the number "counts stories filed about the Sanders campaign or from the Sanders campaign. Obviously he is mentioned in passing in other coverage of the Democratic field overall, specifically his performance in the debates."

So in terms of stand-alone campaign stories this year, it's been 234 minutes for Trump, compared to 10 minutes for Sanders. And at ABC World News Tonight, it's been 81 minutes for Trump and less than one minute for Sanders.

Other Tyndall Report findings:

*Trump has received more network coverage than all the Democratic candidates combined.

*Trump has accounted for 27 percent of all campaign coverage his year.

*Republican Jeb Bush received 56 minutes of coverage, followed by Ben Carson's 54 minutes and Marco Rubio's 22.

Did you notice the Bush figure? He's garnered 56 minutes of network news coverage, far outpacing Sanders, even though he is currently wallowing in fifth place in the polls among Republicans. And you know who has also received 56 minutes of network news compared to Sanders' 10? Joe Biden and his decision not to run for president.

Meanwhile, I can hear supporters of Ted Cruz complaining that based on Tyndall's analysis, the Texas Republican has only received seven minutes of coverage this year and look where he is in the polls. That's a fair point. But also note that Cruz has only recently risen in the primary polls, whereas Sanders has been a solid second for many, many months. (A new poll this week shows Sanders leading the New Hampshire primary.)

Close observers of trends in network news might also say ABC's paltry Sanders coverage isn't surprising considering the network's flagship news program has recently backed off political coverage, as well as hard news in general.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/12/11/abc-world-news-tonight-has-devoted-less-than-on/207428

Yeah... Actually looking at that article is making me scartch my head, I mean they look at TV media name drops and come up with this:

Which shows that Trump got the majority of mentions when he joined the race and Sanders peaked above Clinton a lot with some vice versa for only short periods for each. And not to mention this only covers until January, which he wasn't even on people's radar much before that.

Yeah, this is basically the race in 2015, before anyone had voted, before anyone thought Bernie even had a slight shot. And even then it shows him getting about as many tv name drops as Clinton.

That's precisely the point the media decided to give Trump an estimated 2 billion worth free advertising before any votes were cast.
All I see is no facts from you, just belittlement

 

[gcubed]

http://decisiondata.org/news/political-media-blackouts-president-2016/

Facts?

You're better than this

 

[KingK]

I mean if you're not a crazy Bernie or Bust type, you're now a Hillary fan instead of a Bernie fan because Bernie's out of the race, yeah?

I'm not a fan, but I'm probably voting for her and I've been saying Bernie doesn't have a realistic chance at the nom since the beginning. Originally I didn't expect him to even sniff 20%.

 

[BlastProcessing]

Or that he's the only candidate who has consistently and soundly beaten the Republicans in matchups for months now.

He is going to need more than speculative poll numbers to convince the party to engage in the biggest disenfranchisement of the Black vote in 50 years.

The argument that his polling is significant might play amongst the general public, but it's not going to get anywhere with seasoned party members who know the realities of polls 6 months out.

 

[StoOgE]

http://decisiondata.org/news/political-media-blackouts-president-2016/

Facts?

That is from January, and I would assume the data pre-dates that.

 

[ANDS]

LOL, stop. He's barely been touched this entire election cycle. Once the massive amount of ammo starts coming out about him, he'd be destroyed. Fuck, he didn't even release his tax returns lol

Complete and utter nonsense.

And you'd rather have Bernie Sanders tax records than Hillary Clinton's Wall Street transcripts? What Bernie choose to file is of more importance than what Clinton has said to Wall Street? Ok. Sure.

He is going to need more than speculative poll numbers to convince the party to engage in the biggest disenfranchisement of the Black vote in 50 years.

The argument that his polling is significant might play amongst the general public, but it's not going to get anywhere with seasoned party members who know the realities of polls 6 months out.

I love the refrain that polls only matter up to a certain date (except when you're winning, then we can talk about them all day and every day).

 

[BlastProcessing]

If you don't want to delve into the study how about the following:

ABC World News Tonight Has Devoted Less Than One Minute To Bernie Sanders' Campaign This Year(2015)



http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/12/11/abc-world-news-tonight-has-devoted-less-than-on/207428

Now you are going even further back in time to 2015...

Complete and utter nonsense.

And you'd rather have Bernie Sanders tax records than Hillary Clinton's Wall Street transcripts? What Bernie choose to file is of more importance than what Clinton has said to Wall Street? Ok. Sure.

One of those things is a very established precedent and is an incredibly low bar to clear.

 

[Mael]

If you don't want to delve into the study how about the following:

ABC World News Tonight Has Devoted Less Than One Minute To Bernie Sanders' Campaign This Year(2015)



http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/12/11/abc-world-news-tonight-has-devoted-less-than-on/207428

 

[DietRob]

Or that he's the only candidate who has consistently and soundly beaten the Republicans in matchups for months now.

This would end quickly as soon as the tax hikes he would need to enact went mainstream. Once the general electorate understands they would be taxed thousands more a year he would get even less support than Jim Webb or Lincoln Chaffe.

 

[Steel]

If you don't want to delve into the study how about the following:

ABC World News Tonight Has Devoted Less Than One Minute To Bernie Sanders' Campaign This Year(2015)



http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/12/11/abc-world-news-tonight-has-devoted-less-than-on/207428

Look at my second post. The timing of the article doesn't work out and the article you just cited is also a 2015 article.

On the other hand, the chart I quoted from Vox was April 2016.

 

[VendettaRed07]

I don't really care if Bernie is a vindictive asshole. I don't care if he is petty, or that he believe's that everyone besides him is wrong/corrupt.

What I care about is that he is those things and also a loser. That he allows his negative qualities to get in the way of him being in the position to achieve his goals. Or making the right decision.

Those traits, if had by someone with more discretion, can be a positive thing. Can be a motivator; some of our BEST presidents were some of the most miserable sons of bitches that ever walked the face of the earth. But it didn't inhibit their ability (for the most part) to achieve what they want. That's why the people who compare him to FDR, or LBJ don't really know what they are talking about. Bernie might have the desire to bully, and force those around him to bend to his agenda. But he doesn't have the political talents to do it and never has.

Instead of using his passion and emotion to push him, he allows these things to cloud his judgement. And that, not the fact that he is those things himself, is why I believe I made the correct decision in dropping supporting him months ago.

 

[Dash_Riprock]

OMFG can we stop with this media conspiracy bullshit?

 

[Mael]

Complete and utter nonsense.

And you'd rather have Bernie Sanders tax records than Hillary Clinton's Wall Street transcripts? What Bernie choose to file is of more importance than what Clinton has said to Wall Street? Ok. Sure.

Something every candidate released since Nixon vs something no one has ever done?

 

[Brinbe]

Complete and utter nonsense.

And you'd rather have Bernie Sanders tax records than Hillary Clinton's Wall Street transcripts? What Bernie choose to file is of more importance than what Clinton has said to Wall Street? Ok. Sure.

Oh my god, you're too far gone, my friend. Jesus, do you really believe that? Hillary treated him with kid gloves for months. If you think he was treated with anything resembling a real attack mentality, you haven't been through many elections at all. In the recent past, look at what Hillary has been through with the emails/Benghazi/indictments and all the bullshit from the 90s. And even Obama had Jeremiah Wright/Rezko/the birther bullshit and many other things. Bernie got away clean because no one wanted to see him get unnecessarily hurt. And yet his supporters still whine and complain like children.

And I'm sorry, but what an idiotic go-to rebuttal. Wall Street transcripts? What do you really think they'll say? She's actually in secret cahoots with Goldman Sachs and they're all working to undermine the common man? God. They're just speeches like all ex-Presidents/politicians give to the private sector. And yes! I'd much rather have Bernie's tax returns. What the fuck? That's a standard part of running for President. There's obviously a reason why HE'S not being transparent.

 

[AntraxSuicide]

Complete and utter nonsense.

And you'd rather have Bernie Sanders tax records than Hillary Clinton's Wall Street transcripts? What Bernie choose to file is of more importance than what Clinton has said to Wall Street? Ok. Sure.



I love the refrain that polls only matter up to a certain date (except when you're winning, then we can talk about them all day and every day).

Bernie is almost completely unvetted. Has he been attacked for his time chairing the VA oversight committee, honeymooning in the USSR, his comments on rape fantasy or bread lines, his talk of seizing utilities from companies without compensation, etc...?

Of course not, because Hillary didn't need to do it and the GOP wanted to save it for a possible GE matchup. One look at the dude's past would sink the guy. Remember, Kerry's time as a veteran was made to show he was anti-American; how does Sanders respond to any of those issues I brought up?

 

[noshten]

Look at my second post. The timing of the article doesn't work out and the article you just cited is also a 2015 article.

On the other hand, the chart I quoted from Vox was April 2016.

I don't understand are you saying that what occurred in 2015 has no bearing on the race in 2016 because it certainly sounds that way. Like I've said what media coverage candidates and the primaries received have impacted this election is a monumental way - leading to a Trump presidential candidacy. This is clearly demonstrated by the two studies done in 2015 on this particular matter.

 

[BlastProcessing]

Complete and utter nonsense.

And you'd rather have Bernie Sanders tax records than Hillary Clinton's Wall Street transcripts? What Bernie choose to file is of more importance than what Clinton has said to Wall Street? Ok. Sure.



I love the refrain that polls only matter up to a certain date (except when you're winning, then we can talk about them all day and every day).

Polls have meaning, but they do not supersede 15 million votes. I really don't see how someone would be willing to look at polling numbers (when we have very good historical evidence of their accuracy in this part of the cycle) and be ok with completely ignoring the overwhelming will of the Democrats strongest and most important constituency.

How do you sell that to the south? What do you possibly say to them? Hey guys have you considered that Sanders really wants to be President? We are just going to ignore your voices and go with our guy. Don't worry we will listen to you next time, we promise!

 

[StoOgE]

Complete and utter nonsense.

And you'd rather have Bernie Sanders tax records than Hillary Clinton's Wall Street transcripts? What Bernie choose to file is of more importance than what Clinton has said to Wall Street? Ok. Sure.

Said to Wall St?

Come on bro. Have you worked for a giant corporation? They fucking love to hire speakers to come make little worker bees feel like they have their feet on the levers of industry.

I worked for Deutsche and Goldman. I saw Gabby Giffords speak at DB. I saw George Takei speak at GS.

They are almost always inconsequential fluff where they talk about their pet issues and ignore what they don't like about the banks. Hillary reportedly talked up the 10,000 small businesses and 10,000 women and praised Goldman's very progressive employment policies and work/life balance stuff.

These speeches are things that literally anyone who works for the company can attend, no one is going to say anything even remotely controversial in them. They are not back-room meetings with the CEOs where they agree to sell off public land for money.

The reason she won't release them is pretty simple. There is nothing to gain for her releasing a speech to Goldman which was not critical.

 

[Zornack]

I don't understand are you saying that what occurred in 2015 has no bearing on the race in 2016 because it certainly sounds that way. Like I've said what media coverage candidates and the primaries received have impacted this election is a monumental way - leading to a Trump presidential candidacy. This is clearly demonstrated by the two studies done in 2015 on this particular matter.

You're complaining that a first-time Democrat who admitted that he started his run as a protest campaign didn't get as much news coverage as Hillary Clinton months before the primaries even started?

 

[balladofwindfishes]

Whose supporters are we talking about, again?

Haha, yea, that was stupid of me, but I don't actually think of Bernie as being evil. There are some Bernie supporters who think Hillary will bring about the start of the Fallout series of video games because she's just ready to start WWIII the minute she takes office.

That sort of cartoon villain. Not examining Bernie in the context of a tragic fictional character, who just happens to literally be a cartoon villain.

 

[Mael]

I don't understand are you saying that what occurred in 2015 has no bearing on the race in 2016 because it certainly sounds that way. Like I've said what media coverage candidates and the primaries received have impacted this election is a monumental way - leading to a Trump presidential candidacy. This is clearly demonstrated by the two studies done in 2015 on this particular matter.

That's why we have seen in this campaign Sanders stopping his campaign, then O'Malley on the Dem side.
And on the GOP side we had Paul giving up, followed by Cruz, Carson dropped out afterward.
With a great finish with Rubio finally edging out Trump for the nomination!

Jokes aside, where the hell is Jeb? in that graph?
he sure as hell was running and was a front runner (much moreso than Paul) with plenty of media circling his campaign at the time.

 

[Steel]

I don't understand are you saying that what occurred in 2015 has no bearing on the race in 2016 because it certainly sounds that way. Like I've said what media coverage candidates and the primaries received have impacted this election is a monumental way - leading to a Trump presidential candidacy. This is clearly demonstrated by the two studies done in 2015 on this particular matter.

Now let's look into what happened to Hillary in 2015.

Oh, right, there was a Benghazi hearing. And the media played the entire several hour affair. And then talked about it for two weeks. And had Republicans on accusing Hillary of treason. And then there were the emails brought up by every Republican pundit that came on air. And Trump himself mentioned Hillary at every opportunity. As did Jeb, as did Marco, etc.

At the same time, Sanders wasn't mentioned much. Possibly because he was nearly nonexistent in the polls till later.

 

[BlastProcessing]

Said to Wall St?

Come on bro. Have you worked for a giant corporation? They fucking love to hire speakers to come make little worker bees feel like they have their feet on the levers of industry.

I worked for Deutsche and Goldman. I saw Gabby Giffords speak at DB. I saw George Takei speak at GS.

They are almost always inconsequential fluff where they talk about their pet issues and ignore what they don't like about the banks. Hillary reportedly talked up the 10,000 small businesses and 10,000 women and praised Goldman's very progressive employment policies and work/life balance stuff.

These speeches are things that literally anyone who works for the company can attend, no one is going to say anything even remotely controversial in them. They are not back-room meetings with the CEOs where they agree to sell off public land for money.

The reason she won't release them is pretty simple. There is nothing to gain for her releasing a speech to Goldman which was not critical.

The idea that she said anything incriminating in those speeches was always laughable. Why would she do that in front of such a large audience? If she was doing shady backroom deals they would have happened in shady backrooms, not in a super prominent speech.

Do people think she just went full Bond-villain-monologue?

 

[ANDS]

Oh my god, you're too far gone, my friend. Jesus, do you really believe that? Hillary treated him with kid gloves for months. What an idiotic go-to rebuttal.

Anymore idiotic than the myth that Sanders has been coddled. Sure.

Wall Street transcripts? What do you really think they'll say? She's in secret cahoots with Goldman Sachs and they're working to undermine the common man? God. They're just speeches and yes! I'd much rather have Bernie's tax returns. What the fuck? That's a standard part of running for President.

It's not a standard. It's just something they do so they can appear transparent. When was the last time any election turned on a fucking presidents tax record. When was the last time anyone voted for a candidate because of their filing?

And they aren't just speeches. If they were they would be public record by now, and Clinton wouldn't have been pegging their release to the Republican candidates doing the same. Her campaign is clearly unwilling to release the transcripts because they contain what pretty much everyone knows they contain: praise for Wall Street that is in complete opposition to this "pay their fair share" nonsense on the trail. You can strawman "OMG GS conspiracy!" all you want to dismiss the issue.

 

[TestOfTide]

Complete and utter nonsense.

And you'd rather have Bernie Sanders tax records than Hillary Clinton's Wall Street transcripts? What Bernie choose to file is of more importance than what Clinton has said to Wall Street? Ok. Sure.



I love the refrain that polls only matter up to a certain date (except when you're winning, then we can talk about them all day and every day).

The points are that:

1) These are polls taken before Bernie became big in the primaries and do nothing to prove that the media was intentionally downplaying Bernie.

2) this is not a poll. This is a statistic taken. When people bring up the trump Hillary polls it's because those are recent surveys taken that show the very recent trends in the presidential election matchup. This is just some outdated statistic on mentions. And we can immediately know it's out of date because it showS Rubio getting more coverage than trump.

 

[kitschykitty]

Anymore idiotic than the myth that Sanders has been coddled. Sure.

The number of attack ads against Sanders pales in comparison to the number against Clinton, but she’s wrong that he’s been completely spared.

He's been coddled, not ignored.

 

[Maxim726X]

Or that he's the only candidate who has consistently and soundly beaten the Republicans in matchups for months now.

Because he was basically left alone.

I don't know what more proof you need. There are republican strategists who have literally said that their dream opponent would be Sanders, and that they haven't spent any time attacking him for this very reason.

And they aren't just speeches. If they were they would be public record by now, and Clinton wouldn't have been pegging their release to the Republican candidates doing the same. Her campaign is clearly unwilling to release the transcripts because they contain what pretty much everyone knows they contain: praise for Wall Street that is in complete opposition to this "pay their fair share" nonsense on the trail. You can strawman "OMG GS conspiracy!" all you want to dismiss the issue.

Someone can back me up on this, but I'm almost positive that someone has posted an entire speech on YouTube.

Apparently it revealed a lot*

*By a lot, I mean nothing.

 

[KingK]

come on dude. Can we just all be friends now?

I would hope so. Hopefully poliGAF becomes more tolerable to read through with the primary over, because in the past it's been a really good resource for news and policy discussion, especially during slower, non-election years.

I think I can tolerate the occasional Hilary fan club/YAAAS QUEEN posts as long as the cheap shots at Bernie voters don't carry over into the general

 

[noshten]

Now let's look into what happened in Hillary in 2015.

Oh, right, there was a Benghazi hearing. And the media played the entire several hour affair. And then talked about it for two weeks. And had Republicans on accusing Hillary of treason. And then there were the emails brought up by every Republican pundit that came on air. And Trump himself mentioned Hillary at every opportunity. As did Jeb, as did Marco, etc.

At the same time, Sanders wasn't mentioned much. Possibly because he was nearly nonexistent in the polls till later.

Your original point was "how long will Bernie supporters stew in the "the media rigged the election" narrative. I think it's pretty clear how they rigged the election by only focusing on Trump. I simply think they did it for different reasons:

First there was no reason to cover Dem Race once they had all decided that Hillary was the nominee after Biden made it clear he is not stepping in. This only changed in February as Bernie started catching up in the polls in NH/Iowa after spending actual time/money to get that airtime that the media decided not to provide him.
The second factor was ratings, the "news" was more interested in covering Trump and GOP circus for the ratings rather than actual policies being brought up by the democrats

Considering where Trump is do you think the media didn't rig the elections in his favor by providing him with 2 billion worth of free air time?

 

[BlastProcessing]

Anymore idiotic than the myth that Sanders has been coddled. Sure.



It's not a standard. It's just something they do so they can appear transparent. When was the last time any election turned on a fucking presidents tax record. When was the last time anyone voted for a candidate because of their filing?

And they aren't just speeches. If they were they would be public record by now, and Clinton wouldn't have been pegging their release to the Republican candidates doing the same. Her campaign is clearly unwilling to release the transcripts because they contain what pretty much everyone knows they contain: praise for Wall Street that is in complete opposition to this "pay their fair share" nonsense on the trail. You can strawman "OMG GS conspiracy!" all you want to dismiss the issue.

There was this guy named Richard Nixon, maybe you have heard of him?

Sanders has definitely been treated with kids gloves. CLinton has tried hard to avoid going negative, this whole primary has been her playing prevent defense. The GOP sure as hell has no reason to attack Sanders right now.

A good example of an obvious issue that got no play is the fact that Sanders chaired the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee during a period of horrific VA behaviour. That's the tip of the iceberg.

 

[ANDS]

The points are that:

1) These are polls taken before Bernie became big in the primaries and do nothing to prove that the media was intentionally downplaying Bernie.

I am referring to polls that have been running through the entirety of the primary season (and that includes 5 months before the GE) that show Sanders consistently beating the Republican field, and it's eventual nominee.

2) this is not a poll. This is a statistic taken.

No idea what this means or what distinction you're trying to make.

When people bring up the trump Hillary polls it's because those are recent surveys taken that show the very recent trends in the presidential election matchup. This is just some outdated statistic on mentions. And we can immediately know it's out of date because it showS Rubio getting more coverage than trump.

I'm not talking about ANY of that. I am talking about ACTUAL polling results.