Political Pundits Don't Represent People's Opinions

[Ferd Berfel]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/taylor-gipple/why-political-pundits-don_b_9011320.html


After watching any debate, there's a brief minute where you conclude about who 'won' the debate or who performed the best. Then a few seconds later, political pundits tell you who they think won. Their opinions then turn into 'what most people thought' when you're talking about the debate with others.

I bring this up because after every single Democratic debate this year, the overall media consensus is that Hillary Clinton won every debate. But if you checked online, you'd see almost every single (unscientific) poll had Bernie Sanders winning by 70 percent, 80 percent, or 90 percent. This phenomenon happened every single Democratic debate without exception.

Now why is this? Why are pundits' opinions about who won debates so starkly different than the polls we see online? Depending on which candidate you're pulling for, your first and obvious thoughts might be the media is unquestionably biased for Clinton or that young Sanders' supporters are brigading the online polls. And after the first few debates, I admittedly began to think these thoughts, but it turns out neither is the case.

A few months ago, two major liberal groups, Democracy for America and MoveOn.org ran online polls for their members to decide who they should endorse. The following are the outcomes:

Democracy for America -- 270,000 votes cast -- 88 percent Sanders
MoveOn.org-- 340,665 votes cast -- 78.6 percent Sanders

--------------------------------

WHen the people can vote this is what happens:

Democracy for America -- 270,000 votes cast -- 88 percent Sanders
MoveOn.org-- 340,665 votes cast -- 78.6 percent Sanders

[onecaliberal]

1. Not only that, they are lying and misrepresenting the truth wildly.

[1StrongBlackMan]

2. How does that disprove the proposition that ...

Bernie supporters are brigadier the online polls?

[Bluenorthwest]

5. Last time I checked the way the proposition thing works is that those who propose have to prove.

Has that been changed?

[1StrongBlackMan]

7. That hasn't changed ...

the OP says:

your first and obvious thoughts might be the media is unquestionably biased for Clinton or that young Sanders' supporters are brigading the online polls.

And then, uses online polling to show that the "first and obvious thoughts" are incorrect ... does that make any sense to you?

[Bluenorthwest]

8. Moveon.org's endorsement polling is election style, one vote from a choice of four for those who

are members when voting begins. A win requires 67%. 2004 they endorsed no one. 2008 Obama. It's not like a CNN poll anyone can run to and repeatedly vote in. They take it really seriously. DFA the same sort of thing.

[1StrongBlackMan]

9. Even with the explanation ...

The most that can be said is 80% of those that bothered to respond to the poll support Bernie. That says nothing about the universe of the Democratic Party or the Democratic leaning electorate.

[KT2000]

3. they also set the agenda

for media. Who are they - what are their qualifications - what are possible conflicts of interest
These are never answered.
First saw this after Carter's malaise speech. No pundits addressed what he said just questioned his motives for saying what he said. They tore him apart.

[msongs]

4. those are nothing he got 100% in the sanders forum and from his wife nt

[hedda_foil]

6. When pundits say "most people," they mean most people THEY talk with.

It's take me all this time to figure it out. It's like when they start a question to a Democrat with "people say" they mean.Republican people and it's a Republican talking point.


Unfortunately, the majority of real people who watch them actually believe they're reporting objective facts, not beltway "narrative"

[valerief]

10. Political pundits are at the mercy of the sponsors of the networks they're on.

You don't find political pundits on HBO. (My bad. Forgot about Maher!)

[Uncle Joe]

11. Speaking from a logical point of view, there is definitely motivation for the pundits

to be pulling for Hillary, they have an inherent conflict of interest against Bernie's core message, there can be no denying of this.

Whether you're speaking of Citizens United, campaign finance reform, taking on Wall Street and Big Pharma or simply raising taxes on the wealthy, these policies are adverse to corporate media conglomerate ownership and the higher salaries of "star" pundits.

As for Bernie's supporters brigading the online polls I see no evidence to suggest this be the case, some people say that online polls don't count because they're "self-selected" but isn't this the case whenever anyone walks into a voting booth?

Furthermore it's not just the online polls that heavily favor Bernie, several focus groups thought he won the first debate as well, I believe the corporate media conglomerates discontinued the focus groups after that one, I haven't heard of anymore.

Thanks for the thread, Ferd Berfel.

[Uncle Joe]

12. P.S. Pundits don't represent the peoples' opinions so much as trying to shape them. n/t

[cui bono]

13. The pundits are the establishment and they work for the corporations that run this country.

They have to control the message in order to stay in power. They know Bernie wants to end their reign. They know Hillary is their friend.

.

[demwing]

14. To quote Upton Sinclair

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!"

[Ferd Berfel]

15. Too true in general with some Exceptions: Ed Schultz, Keither Olberman, Phil Donohue, ......

Edward R Morrow And a few others that sacrificed their high pay jobs for integrity