Clinton ethics claim another victim as Rachel Maddow plays chart game

[kristopher]

Rachel's narration:

"Now, if you ask Democratic voters who they expect to be their nominee in November the answer is a very clear and consistent one since the beginning of this campaign. Democratic voters have expected Hillary Clinton to be the candidate who will win the nomination in the end since the very beginning of this campaign.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show (starts just after 7 min.)

Note the dates in this chart that backdropped that statement: 1/25/16 - 2/7/16




For the record, this is what the chart to represent her claim actually looks like:



For those who will glom onto the difference between voter preference and voter forecast I have two replies:
1) Why did she truncate the timeline in her chart down to 2 weeks while discussing a timeframe of more than 1 year, and
2) She knows that the precise phrasing she used isn't a common polling question and that phrasing adds nothing to the narrative that is not found in the voter preference poll numbers. This is the part that is most damning IMO as it shows a deliberate effort as opposed to just a producer's mistake.

Rachel has been pushing the boundaries in her support for Clinton, but this is the kind of behavior she is famous for exposing. Clinton ethics claim another victim.

[noamnety]

1. Is the second chart

Who we support, or who we think will win?

Just double checking that. (I'm having cognitive dissonance thinking Rachel would do this.)

[kristopher]

3. That is what my 2 bullet points at the end addresses.

She has betrayed my trust in a way I wouldn't have believed possible.

[rufus dog]

16. I must admit, I watched the show and didn't pick up on the timeline

She clearly focused on no change for a year, so I looked up saw the chart and figured the line is flat. I put myself in the 27% and moved on. BUT later on I did reflect that once again I am part of the minority and was discouraged, which was the intended objective!

There is no way to spin this as acceptable, if she she displayed a chart that had a years worth of data while discussing changes over a year she would have a leg to stand on. In reality, based upon the chart you included, I would expect to see the end point of her chart being the same (at worst) but the starting point would be in the low single digits. Makes sense right, why would Bernie support be in the low single digits a year ago, but 27% would answer he is the likely choice. That would mean a quarter of the polled respondents would answer, I support Hillary, but I think Bernie will win.

Good pick up.

Edit to add, you should send this thread to her. Give her a chance to respond and issue a correction.

[noamnety]

51. I think you are misrepresenting this badly.

You captioned your second chart in a way that clearly states it represents the statement she made - which was about voter predictions.

That's more than misleading - it seems flat out incorrect. I don't think it is the long timeline version of the 2 week chart she showed. If you have a chart that shows the long term trends of who people THINK will win the nomination, I would love to see that, and if it's wildly different than the two week version in the story it tells, then yes, I will be the first to admit Rachel is at fault.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

53. Given that a year ago, Sanders only had something like 4% planning to vote for him nationally,

I can't believe that that same year ago, 25% or 27% expected him to win. I'm guessing that if you DID have that chart of 'who do you expect to win' for the entire year, Sanders would have been down around 1% if that. Even most of his hardcore, earliest supporters didn't expect him to win. So even without the 'who do you expect to win' chart for a full year, I call shenanigans on Rachel's claim that the numbers on it haven't changed in a year.

And, btw, most of us who voted for Obama didn't expect HIM to win, either, until he did. So it's a rather meaningless question to even ask.

[kristopher]

73. That's why I added text addressed to you below the charts

For those who will glom onto the difference between voter preference and voter forecast I have two replies:
1) Why did she truncate the timeline in her chart down to 2 weeks while discussing a timeframe of more than 1 year, and
2) She knows that the precise phrasing she used isn't a common polling question and that phrasing adds nothing to the narrative that is not found in the voter preference poll numbers. This is the part that is most damning IMO as it shows a deliberate effort as opposed to just a producer's mistake.

Rachel has been pushing the boundaries in her support for Clinton, but this is the kind of behavior she is famous for exposing. Clinton ethics claim another victim.

[noamnety]

74. That doesn't change that the text ABOVE the 2nd chart is a lie.

You should change "For the record, this is what the chart to represent her claim actually looks like:"

to "here's a chart showing who voters support, and from that, I am assuming the voter expectation follows a similar trend - but I don't have data to prove it."

Or: "here's a chart showing who voters support, and I wish she would have talked about this instead of voter expectations."

That way you aren't claiming that a chart showing consumption of apples shows what her claim about oranges actually looks like. It's especially egregious when you opt for a chart without any title or labels, and caption it as representing her claim about oranges.

[kristopher]

75. It isn't a lie as it is noted as being different in the remarks.

That was the point of her deception. She was pushing a message that Bernie was making no headway against Hillary in spite of what you might have heard. She was trying to create a false meme that played into the inevitable Hillary storyline to, I speculate, take advantage of a small but certain percentage of people that want to vote for a winner.

[noamnety]

79. No, it is NOT noted as being different.

Last edited Thu Feb 18, 2016, 01:09 PM - Edit history (1)

You talk about people who glom onto the difference between the two concepts - but you never actually state that the two charts you posted display entirely different data. You may think it's implied because you addressed arguments you think people might make if they notice.

But you stated the opposite in the caption above the chart, you used a chart without a title - and the only way people would know it's different is if, like me, they google searched the image, read the article, then tracked down the source of the data.

Thinking it really hard inside your own head is not the same as writing "These two charts measure different things."

[kristopher]

81. Well, I guess I just assumed that people would be smart enough to relate the remarks to the charts.

Sorry I so grossly overestimated your skill set.

[noamnety]

82. The personal attacks aren't necessary. (nt)

[kristopher]

87. Neither is the deliberate obtuseness.

[Ferd Berfel]

13. RM is in the bag for Hillary and has been for some time.

[politicaljunkie41910]

66. You obviously don't watch her show on a regular basis. If you had you would know that she's as far

to the left as they come, and she's a Bernie supporter. Sure she tries to disguise that she Feels the Bern, but it's only a very thin disguise. That just goes to show how off the charts you Bernie fans can be if you think Rachel is a shill for Hillary. You couldn't be further from the truth. I wish she was though, because MSNBC and its evening shows have been all about Trump or Hillary Bashing for quite a while now.

[kristopher]

68. Bullpucky - it is a consistent unmistakable pattern

I noticed this one also, but Hartmann has done a masterful job of showing the deception.

http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/bernies-political-revolution-actually-happening-although-corporate-media-wont-tell-you

Bernie’s 'Political Revolution' Is Actually Happening, Although the Corporate Media Won’t Tell You That
Don't rely on the media to tell you what's going on.

Bernie Sanders has made voter-turnout history, getting about a third more votes than any other primary candidate in the history of New Hampshire primaries, but much of our media is reporting the opposite; that it’s no big deal what he’s accomplishing.

Rachel Maddow rolled out the latest confused bit of reporting on the evening of Friday, February 12th. Whether this ended up on the air as a Maddow-producer “brilliant idea” or was suggested by the Clinton campaign is unknown, but the entire piece was confounding.

Rachel started by saying that the rationale for Bernie’s becoming president and actually getting something done (when Obama had such difficulty) is that Bernie’s mobilizing huge numbers of new and energized voters. She showed a bunch of examples of his talking about his “political revolution” and how he’s bringing new people into politics.

Then she dropped the anvil, as she does so well.

It turns out that fewer people showed up to vote Democratic in New Hampshire and Iowa this year than they did in Obama’s 2008! If that’s the case – and it is – then how could Bernie possibly claim that he’s “energizing” “new” people? He must be running a con on us, or he’s just a deluded old man who dreams of revolution but nobody’s really showing up.

Time to doubt both Bernie and his ideas, right?

After all, as Rachel points out, “40,000 fewer people voted in this year’s New Hampshire Democratic primary than did in 2008,” she said. Adding, for emphasis, the three-word sentence: “Forty thousand less!”

“And it was the same story in Iowa last week,” Rachel continued. “Voter turnout was a record for Republicans in Iowa, but on the Democratic side it was down. Iowa voter turnout on the Democratic side was DOWN from 2008!”

Clearly Bernie’s campaign is running a scam, right? The entire rationale for his candidacy is built on sand. His “revolution” isn’t happening so far, so why might it happen later? Time to doubt that Bernie’s claims of political change are even possible, much less reasonable.

However…

Rachel missed a few facts – something unusual for her usually brilliant political analysis...

[Ferd Berfel]

69. I havne't seen it. I used to watch her show

but haven't been able to stand it lately.

I'm done with M$NBC

[thesquanderer]

31. I think the top chart is who people *expect* to win, according to NBC/SurveyMonkey,

whereas the second chart is who people personally prefer, based on a compendium of polls.

Timeline questions aside, I don't understand the juxtaposition of these two charts.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

55. I think it's just to show that

the numbers simply aren't credible. How could you have 4% of people preferring Bernie a year ago, but 27% or so proclaiming they expected him to win at the same time? Massive numbers of people who planned to vote for Hillary back then expected Sanders to win? It's simply nonsense. Even among the 4% of people who preferred him a year ago, almost none of them expected him to win. A REAL chart of 'Who do you expect to win?' would have started off a year ago with Clinton at something like 98%, Bernie and O'Malley with maybe 1% apiece.

[randys1]

2. Under the bus she goes.

[kristopher]

4. So you approve of her recent hyper-partisan reporting?

[randys1]

5. At least giver her some overalls to wear, wouldnt want to mess up her nice clothes.

Sigh


I sure hope the Hillary supporters will be forgiving if and when Bernie wins, which I think he is gonna do.

Rachel has thicker skin than all of us put together, she will be fine.

[Kittycat]

15. First...

I do think she's an HRC supporter.

Second, I feel she abused her position to speak from the beginning, but use a significantly limited chart.

Finally, while I do agree with the chart you presented, it's MSNBC. So unless they are interviewing a pollster, they are going to go off of their own polls as a primary source (it's also an intent to drive web traffic, remember).

That said, they should have displayed a beginning of time chart reflecting their own polling. However, if that wasn't available, then yes - the next reliable non-network/competitor poll should have been substituted. Possibly with their data overlayed.

But really, we're talking about the media. So I take it all with a grain of salt. And until recently, have t actually watched cable news in around 2 years for reasons just like this. And my blood pressure

[daleanime]

10. Kind of sad that any type of disagreement....

is equated with 'running someone over with a bus'. Can't I just be disappointed with someone who usually does so much better then that?

[jberryhill]

12. NO! UNDADABUS!!!!

[SammyWinstonJack]

19. Ha!

[CoffeeCat]

17. That same old "under the bus" line is infantile and so over used

Are we not allowed to discuss facts without the, "OMG! They're putting ____ under the bus!!" hysteria.

No, we're discussing what Maddow said. There is no bus. There is only your over-active imagination.

"Under the bus" is an immature way of quelling rational discourse.

Why don't you run along to the kid's table and let the grown ups hash out the grown up issues in grown-up ways.

[SammyWinstonJack]

20. Ouch!

[jberryhill]

22. If they are really in the tank, then they should be undadabus, unless they jump the shark

[nadinbrzezinski]

39. Now that is what I call a smackdown!

And a good one and deservedly so as well

For the record, MSNBC has been criticized for partisan reporting for some time now.

I watch it, but am fully aware that good objective media that reported without letting their biasses show has been gone for over two decades (thanks Bill, final nail on that)

[workinclasszero]

42. You are dead to Bernie fans Rachel

[randys1]

47. Not to this one, but I get your point

[questionseverything]

6. to be fair to rachel

i think she pushes as far left as she can without losing her gig

afterall she does no good if she is off air like ed or keith o

2nd point...i support bernie big time but if i was being honest i fully expect hc to "win" the nominee because the system is so rigged

i also hope i am wrong and work in whatever small way i can to overcome the rigging

[kristopher]

8. I don't think so. She is doing this with exceptional enthusiasm.

As to your second point, I don't dispute that as a fact, but it doesn't explain why she would use that instead of the exceedingly well documented voter preference polling. Why use an obscure phrase which doesn't materially add to the storyline at all?

I've liked her because she is intelligent and, up until now, excruciatingly honest.

[questionseverything]

11. they do ask the question in polls about who do you think the dem nominee will be

maybe rachel is trying to let the country know...we all think it is rigged?

rachel is the best we have but she still is working for comcast and she has got to toe that line

expect nothing from the msm and you won't be disappointed

[kristopher]

14. Do me a favor then - would you mind finding the question and posting it here

I couldn't locate it and I checked several places.

[questionseverything]

43. sorry i had life stuff

http://www.scribd.com/doc/294643292/NBC-News-SurveyMonkey-Weekly-Election-Tracking-Poll

last question @ link

i do agree with your overall idea that she cherry picked something to discourage us and a 2 week timeline is not really honest either

but she is till the best we have (that gets national airtime)

we are the media now

[truedelphi]

32. Abby Martin has been my preference over Rachel for quite some time.

I like the entire radio network she is on as well, far more than MSNBC.

Ring of Fire Network --

http://trofire.com/abby-martin-show/

It is so kuhl that wee can still get the truth as long as we have the internet.

[ellennelle]

38. but that's the point, isn't it

not that i'd demand she leave her job, but she can't have it both ways. her credibility has been slipping terribly.

i pinpoint the moment at the time ed schultz was shown the door. i've felt since then everyone was shown the door, in a kind of 'our way or the highway' gesture, if you will.

and she chose to stay.

i wonder how long she can stomach it.

this is the way they keep us hogtied, folks. i ran across the term - had never heard of it before - 'golden handcuffs'. just today, discovered it in an article about how goldman sachs folks refer to hillary as having "goldman handcuffs."

variation on the uncle tom theme, i fear.

sigh.

[questionseverything]

46. i agree with everything you say

i am just saying if we are going to have any liberal voices on the msm at all

we have to accept they still have corporate masters,that is just how it is

we can still watch rachel,just take what she says with a grain of salt

[LexVegas]

7. Maddow is establishment! Big Banks! Wall Street! nt

[chervilant]

24. How does your snarky post

address the OP's concern about this apparent misrepresentation of data? I find it disheartening that we cannot discuss this apparent misrepresentation without snarky posts from Hi11ary supporters.

[NorthCarolina]

9. I understand now why she survived the culling.

I still like to listen to Maddow, but I have known for a long time that you really need to take everything you hear on cable news with a grain of salt. Once you understand the bias and agenda it becomes extremely easy to spot and weed out.

[840high]

18. ..+1

[FlaGranny]

33. I did hear her say

to Hillary that she gets equally accused of being partial to her AND to Bernie. She has never said that she supports either one and it comes as a total surprise to me that anyone accuses her of supporting either of them because I have not seen it. If anything, I had the very, very slight feeling that she may possibly more excited about Bernie due to her early reporting about the excitement for him and the crowds he was drawing - she was the first, as far as I know, to talk about Bernie and give him exposure. Regardless of the conclusion of the OP, I still don't know who she supports.

[ellennelle]

40. how did you miss ed schultz?

he got the can for that, and for trashing TPP.

as everyone here is emphasizing, DO NOT TRUST CORPORATE MEDIA!

i have great respect for rachel, just as i can find things to respect about hillary, but as it becomes clearer just how deeply they're embedded in the system, it's harder and harder to trust what they say.

it makes me so deeply sad.

[FlaGranny]

91. Sorry, I don't

follow Ed Schultz due to "scheduling difficulties."

[MisterP]

21. the Clinton Party makes good people do bad things

[mgmaggiemg]

23. it could mean

bernie people are getting their hopes up and HRC people are realistic....since it's not about who they are voting for but who they think is going to win

[lumberjack_jeff]

25. "Who do you think will win?" = only relevant in a casino.

[amborin]

26. she has caved to the right wing CEO who took over & scrapped lots of shows

[Billsmile]

27. Add Maddow's Voter Turnout Piece to the Exhibit.

http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/bernies-political-revolution-actually-happening-although-corporate-media-wont-tell-you

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

56. Thanks for that link.

That was some pretty startling differentiation between Rachel's reporting and the reality on the ground.

[jalan48]

28. I used to think Rachel was one of the best, At least we still have Amy Goodman and Anna Kasparian.

[Skwmom]

29. Rachel has become quite Clitonian. n/t

[Beacool]

30. Clinton ethics? Aren't you cute.....

Well, it's been nice knowing you, Rachel. Under the bus you go.

[monicaangela]

34. Yep

General Electric (GE) is an American multinational conglomerate corporation incorporated in New York, and headquartered in Fairfield, Connecticut. As of 2015, the company operates through the following segments: Appliances, Power and Water, Oil and Gas, Energy Management, Aviation, Healthcare, Transportation and Capital which cater to the needs of Home Appliances, Financial services, Medical device, Life Sciences, Pharmaceutical, Automotive, Software Development and Engineering industries.

GE owns the MSNBC network so as you can see it may not be in the interest of the host of those shows to promote someone who is against such a huuuuuuge corporation.

[Fawke Em]

49. GE no longer owns MSNBC. It's now owned by Comcast, which is probably worse.

http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2010/11/ed-snider-comcast-and-right-wing-ties-fyi

[monicaangela]

85. My mistake..

NBC Universal was formed on May 12, 2004 by the merger of General Electric's National Broadcasting Company with Vivendi's Vivendi Universal Entertainment. GE and US cable TV operator Comcast announced a buyout agreement for the company on December 3, 2009. Following regulatory approvals, the transaction completed on January 28, 2011. Comcast subsequently owned 51% of NBCUniversal while GE owned 49%. Comcast intended to buy out the rest of GE's stake over the following seven years, but nothing happened until February 12, 2013, when Comcast announced its intention to complete the purchase all at once and assume 100% ownership of the company by the end of March. The deal was finalized on March 19, 2013.

[Zen Democrat]

35. I think the entire news media is under orders to oppose Bernie Sanders.

It's just too obvious.

[restorefreedom]

65. this right here ^^^^^^^^^ nt

[bbgrunt]

36. she has become rather a disappointment, but I knew from her

lack of response to Keith's removal way back that she was not to be trusted.

[SunSeeker]

37. Funny you should be demanding ethics, considering your 2 charts measure different things.

If you think the voter prediction chart "adds nothing to the narrative," explain why. But suggesting Rachel lied about that chart is just not wrong. Rachel accurately described that prediction chart. The preference chart absolutely does not "actually" "represent her claim."

[ellennelle]

44. please reread

the point was that she misrepresented the chart, which addressed only 2 weeks of polling, while discussing the trends over the past year. most folks would then assume that's what the chart was showing, unless they looked closely.

smoke and mirrors.

the point about the preference numbers, if i understand the post correctly, is simply to say that who cares what voters expect to happen? i have an expectation that the DNC machinery will simply give the nomination to hillary, regardless of the will of the voting democrats across the country. what does that mean in terms of how my vote will actually go? nothing!

[ellennelle]

45. sorry; addendum

but no correction. as i understand the post, also - the charts only differ in their time course, rachel's over 2 weeks, and the other over the past several months.

having taught statistics, i can tell you how easy it is to compress or stretch graphs to make them appear more or less impressive than the data actually show.

the poster's point about preference is not about the second graph; it was, as i understand it, to simply note as i just did in my previous comment, that a graph about expectations means nothing! it's the preference data that count.

i don't/can't watch rachel anymore; no TV by choice. corporate media are as bad as deep fried butter; it'll kill ya.

[noamnety]

57. The two charts measure entirely different things.

The first is labeled right on the chart: Who do you think will win the Democratic Nomination?

The second chart I tracked down to here: http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-national-democratic-primary and from there looked at the most recent data point - it's from morning consult here: http://morningconsult.com/2016/02/trump-drops-slightly-clinton-holds-steady-in-new-poll/

and the question was one of who they SUPPORT (gleaned from the wording in the narrative, where they discuss who's gaining or losing "support.&quot

I'm a statistics geek too (love Tufte!) and understand the point about the selective use of timelines. However, in the absence of a chart that shows the longer trend in expectations of who will win, I'm not convinced Rachel was lying or deceiving with that chart.

I understand it's not the question we want her to be asking; it's not helpful or ethical for the media to push inevitability of their preferred candidate. But I'm not sure the two week timeline shows anything different than a longer timeline of the same data would show. It might; it might not - I don't know.

[kristopher]

60. Did you read the remarks?

[noamnety]

63. Yes, several times. (nt)

[kristopher]

64. Then what are you bitching about?

[noamnety]

67. Did you want to rephrase that in a less sexist way?

(meant to reply to other post, obviously)

[kristopher]

70. Trying to deflect the topic when your rhetoric is challenged?

About what I expected.

If it offends you then feel free to select any one from the following list and substitute it with my blessing

complain, whine, grumble, grouse, whinge, moan, grouch, gripe

[riversedge]

84. I agree. The OP is much ado nothing expect opportunity to once again hit on Hillary.

[sahel]

41. Inevitably a corporate media will serve its corporate masters...

they were only prepared to allow token support for Sanders in a few quiet corners as long as he posed no threat.

[moondust]

48. Let me guess.

Rachel may want to move on to a new job, maybe something like White House Press Secretary in a Clinton WH.

[iwannaknow]

50. I used to enjoy her show

Rachel, come back!

[Todays_Illusion]

52. "They" have decided Hillary will be the Democratic candidate, now just jump on their corrupt

bandwagon and shut up. /sarcasm

[dsc]

54. you post a blatant falsehood and lecture others about ethics while doing so

all I can say is wow, just wow.

[kristopher]

62. Thank you for your opinion.

[Lucinda]

58. You are comparing two totally different things. From different sources too.

The first chart is the result of a SINGLE QUESTION asked OVER TIME


The Second chart is estimates a point spread - based on polls, from a totally different source - and has nothing to do with a single question.

Chart ONE:
Regardless of whom you support, who do you think will win the Democratic nomination for president in 2016?
[AMONG DEM & DEM LEANERS]
Hillary Clinton ~ Column 1
Martin O’Malley ~ Column 2 ( - represents after he dropped out)
Bernie Sanders ~ Column 3
No answer ~ Column 4

2/8 -2/14 ............66......-......32......2
2/1 –2/7..............71......-......27......2
1/25– 1/31...........72......1......25......2
12/28–1/3............77......2......19......2

https://www.scribd.com/doc/299368679/NBC-News-SurveyMonkey-Weekly-Election-Tracking-Poll?secret_password=GuV7OK1YVs7OzORICRdM

Chart Two:
The second chart shows their latest poll averages:
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-national-democratic-primary

[kristopher]

61. Yes, that is what I wrote.

Is there something I wrote that you disagree with?

[Snotcicles]

59. I'm beginning to see, why Randi Rhodes felt the way she did about Maddow and Franken. nt

[Bernblu]

71. Rachel is in the bag for Clinton.

[CharlotteVale]

72. I stopped watching her in 2012 when she put her personal friendship

with Cory "I heart Bain Capital" Booker before actual journalism. I was a huge fan of hers before that and regularly watched her show.

If I still were watching it I wouldn't after this.

[Vinca]

76. I interpreted the top chart totally differently.

I think people assume Hillary will win because the primary system is rigged in her favor. They might very well be for Bernie, but they assume it's going to be handed to Hillary one way or the other (super delegates), thus the response on the top chart. I imagine, if asked that question, I would have said Hillary even though I've already cast a vote for Bernie.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

77. Even under that assumption, the top chart makes no sense if it the narrative is

in supporting 'no change over a year'. No real change over two weeks, as it actually shows? Sure.

But a year ago, with Bernie polling at 4%, the reality would have been 98% expecting Hillary to win the nomination. So in the course of a year, significant change would have occurred, on the order of a 25% swing for both candidates. People are just BEGINNING to think Bernie can possibly win. A year ago? Even those of us who supported him from day one (all 4% of us) didn't expect him to win, and many of us still assume he's a longshot and still expect Clinton to win.

[Mike Nelson]

78. I don't see her being too overt...

...in supporting Hillary over Bernie. She seems to waver between the two... agree with those who have pointed out she is now a wealthy celebrity newsreader.

[kristopher]

80. She isn't overt.

That's why she is good. She is well versed in deconstructing poor logic, right? That is her special talent that has built her audience. Well, she has now turned that around and us using the same skill set to tamp down support for Bernie. She was doing it again last night; and she did it two nights ago.

Hartmann has done a masterful job here of showing the deception. The entire piece is worth reading.

http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/bernies-political-revolution-actually-happening-although-corporate-media-wont-tell-you

Bernie’s 'Political Revolution' Is Actually Happening, Although the Corporate Media Won’t Tell You That
Don't rely on the media to tell you what's going on.

Bernie Sanders has made voter-turnout history, getting about a third more votes than any other primary candidate in the history of New Hampshire primaries, but much of our media is reporting the opposite; that it’s no big deal what he’s accomplishing.

Rachel Maddow rolled out the latest confused bit of reporting on the evening of Friday, February 12th. Whether this ended up on the air as a Maddow-producer “brilliant idea” or was suggested by the Clinton campaign is unknown, but the entire piece was confounding.

Rachel started by saying that the rationale for Bernie’s becoming president and actually getting something done (when Obama had such difficulty) is that Bernie’s mobilizing huge numbers of new and energized voters. She showed a bunch of examples of his talking about his “political revolution” and how he’s bringing new people into politics.

Then she dropped the anvil, as she does so well.

It turns out that fewer people showed up to vote Democratic in New Hampshire and Iowa this year than they did in Obama’s 2008! If that’s the case – and it is – then how could Bernie possibly claim that he’s “energizing” “new” people? He must be running a con on us, or he’s just a deluded old man who dreams of revolution but nobody’s really showing up.

Time to doubt both Bernie and his ideas, right?

After all, as Rachel points out, “40,000 fewer people voted in this year’s New Hampshire Democratic primary than did in 2008,” she said. Adding, for emphasis, the three-word sentence: “Forty thousand less!”

“And it was the same story in Iowa last week,” Rachel continued. “Voter turnout was a record for Republicans in Iowa, but on the Democratic side it was down. Iowa voter turnout on the Democratic side was DOWN from 2008!”

Clearly Bernie’s campaign is running a scam, right? The entire rationale for his candidacy is built on sand. His “revolution” isn’t happening so far, so why might it happen later? Time to doubt that Bernie’s claims of political change are even possible, much less reasonable.

However…

Rachel missed a few facts – something unusual for her usually brilliant political analysis...

[Mike Nelson]

88. Interesting article and worth reading...

...she's correct about lower turnout for Democrats, but that doesn't mean Bernie isn't bringing in new voters - which are needed if Democrats are to win. Failing to add that to her segment was unfair. And, Rachel's not stupid; she would have read and pondered the copy before going on air... still, it's my view that Trump has probably brought in more new voters than Bernie. But, two contests is too early... IA and NH do not always pan out... people could be crossing sides to help Trump in order to help the Democrat. I think the picture will be clearer after March... with Rachel and other "media" celebrities making clearer preferences. In my opinion, she has given Bernie's campaign mostly good attention.

[kristopher]

89. RE Trump

What would reality on the ground look like if they gave Bernie 1/2 the coverage they've given Bernie.

Remember there has been a near universal blackout on coverage of the Sander's campaign.

[mariawr]

83. K and R. nt

[JTFrog]

86. Gonna need a bigger bus.

[mhatrw]

90. Wow. Even THEIR FUCKING CHARTS LIE!!!

[kristopher]

92. kick