2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumWhoop... There It Is... Gawd I Love The InterWebs !!!
6 Reasons Sanders Actually Won the Debate Despite What Pundits ClaimBernie Sanders crushed the debates by every measurable indicator except one: pundits’ opinion.
C. Robert Gibson | U.S. Uncut
October 14, 2015
<snip>
If we had to decide the winner of last night’s Democratic debate with only the opinions of establishment media pundits, Hillary Clinton won by a landslide. But social media and online polls overwhelmingly chose Bernie Sanders as the winner. So which is true? Is Hillary the inevitable candidate the insider media has been telling us she is since day one, or is the corporate media pushing a pro-Hillary agenda on a pro-Bernie electorate?
The punditocracy is in full agreement that Hillary Clinton was the winner:
–NPR wrote, “Hillary Clinton, the candidate with the most to lose, may have come away having gained the most.”
-In a New York Times article with the highly-misleading headline, Who Won and Lost the Debate? The Web Has Its Say, The Times wrote, “Hillary Rodham Clinton was the clear victor, according to the opinion shapers in the political world (even conservative commentators),” citing the opinions of overpaid pundits rather than actual people on the internet.
–The Guardian added to the mix, stating,”If you need to pick a winner from Tuesday night’s Democratic debate, Hillary Clinton will do.”
-Vox.com — launched by former Washington Post Wonkblog editor Ezra Klein (who launched Vox after WaPo laughed his $10 million funding proposal out of the room) — has been vociferous in their defense of Clinton. Today they ran the headline, Hillary Clinton Silenced Her Critics, full of breathless praise for the former Secretary of State. The article mentioned Bernie Sanders exactly once.
-Revealingly, Poynter.org, which covers the news media, pointed out the media’s favoritism, saying, “Press calls Hillary Clinton the winner, no contest.”
<snip>
And...
Out of every mainstream media organization conducting an online poll asking participants who won, Bernie Sanders destroyed the competition. It wasn’t even close. Even Fox News and Drudge participants said Sanders won by a huge margin.
One of the biggest embarrassments for big media last night showed in online polls conducted by CNN. Two separate polls each picked Sanders as the winner.
Curiously, this poll was removed from CNN’s website, and is only shown here thanks to a Reddit user’s screenshot. CNN removed the poll and replaced it with a pro-Clinton headline:
Why would CNN so obviously disregard its viewers’ opinions in favor of pushing a pro-Clinton narrative? It might be partially because CNN’s parent company, Time Warner, is one of Hillary Clinton’s biggest donors:
More: http://usuncut.com/politics/6-reasons-bernie-sanders-actually-owned-the-debate-despite-what-pundits-claim/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)thanks willyt!
WillyT
(72,631 posts)
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)
sheshe2
(97,637 posts)workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)sgtbenobo
(327 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Reality is, Bernie's platform framed this debate in totality. every other candidate ended up sounding like Sanders-lite. Clinton had the smoothest style, which is apparently worth more than substance according to pundits, but the only spot where she actually out-did Sanders was on parental leave - and only because she got first bite at that one.
frylock
(34,825 posts)all is forgiven! They lurvs them some punditocracy.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)It's so coordinated! If I were going to do this I would mix it up a little, they way they do when Congress has to vote on a Corporate issue. The let some of their Corporate funded Reps vote 'no' or 'yes' on one umpopular bill then they rotate the Reps for the next unpopular bill.
What did someone call this tactic? 'Rotating Villains or something!
But here they just totally revealed how the Corporate owned media receives their memos and delivers their 'scientific' conclusions in total agreement.
However, they are the OLD MEDIA. Their ratings are so low you wonder if anyone even watches them anymore.
The New Media is far more powerful due to the fact that this is where MOST people go to find the facts.
After they lied us into war, then made Elder Statesmen out of the War Criminals, Judith Miller and the Rendon Group's role in the whole, terrible deception was revealed, who in their right mind still bothers with what they have to say.
zentrum
(9,870 posts)The fix is in.
zentrum
(9,870 posts)The fix is in.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)Well said
zentrum
(9,870 posts)Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)so either a complex series of lag and clicking with scripting latency, or gremlins.
Most likely it's gremlins.
zentrum
(9,870 posts)….thought of that. Some of them must have got out of my sock drawer.
Iwillnevergiveup
(9,298 posts)to see these guys at the Night Owl in Greenwich Village eons ago. And I clearly remember that song at G7 on the juke box at the local high school hangout. Loved it then, love it now. Thanks for posting.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)How many times have these "pundits" been disastrously WRONG over the last 15 years?
Most of these "pundits" supported George Bush's WARS, the Wall Street Bailout, The Patriot Act, "Shock & Awe", and the very worst aspects of Corporatism. "They" all thought Hillary Won (of course, their bosses already gave them their "opinion" before the candidates ever took the stage).
OTOH, the online "unscientific" polls have been more representative of America's opinions.
Do you SEE the disconnect?
You would be better off, and have a better grasp of reality if you just put all the so called "pundits" on mute.
Uncle Joe
(65,140 posts)Thanks for the thread, WillyT.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251682065
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Yeah....that sample really reflects the electorate.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)get off their dead *** and vote in actual elections of the non-internet type LOL
jeff47
(26,549 posts)
arcane1
(38,613 posts) workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)President Rmoney and his rallies were way bigger than Bernie's
Just sayin
arcane1
(38,613 posts)And Clinton has already lost to one of them, after out-polling them a year before election day.
Joey Joe Joe
(50 posts)Marty McGraw
(1,024 posts)Delivered by tabernacle bussing.
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)...does that count?
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Just sayin'
zeemike
(18,998 posts)Instead you want to give them more of the same and then cuss them out for not voting.
People get feed up with that crap and there is only one choice...to abstain...or vote for the crazy ones out of spite.
If you want someone to blame try looking in the establishment mirror.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)and that is what scares the shit out of Hillary supporter.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)She could have had two more shots at glory instead of just this one. And this one is starting to look a lot like the last one.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)sheshe2
(97,637 posts)We have children and grandchildren and great grandchildren. You don't think we want the very best for their future. Does our vote and voice not count. We have worked our whole life to try to make this a better place for the next generation that we BIRTHED!
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Tell you what. You can say this is unfair ageism after you explain how my third grade class should have stopped the Greenspan commission.
I am saying that everything I do is to fight for my nieces and nephews and their babies. You want to spin that go fore it.
Baseless attack my ass, yet you tried to light the match.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Over-50 now (over 45 then, if we allow some rounding) voted for Romney. Obama voters over 45 in 2012 were about 28% of the electorate. They made up 60% of this poll.
Reality is not ageism.
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)and I and quite a few of my age cohorts voted for Obama. Not a scientific poll, I know, and definitely skewed because I simply won't spend much time with right wing jerks. Or even very many moderate Republicans if I have a choice.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)Which is what this subthread is about.
George II
(67,782 posts)Yep, that sample really reflects the electorate.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)To make it a presidential year, let's use 2012:
http://www.businessinsider.com/voting-by-sex-age-race-money-and-education-2012-11
28% of the electorate was over 45 and voted for Obama. Decent enough proxy for "will vote for a Democrat".
28% is quite a bit less than 60%.
George II
(67,782 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)Romney won "Older voters" (60+) by 9 points (54% to 45%). These were 25% of voters.
47% of 29% is about 13%
45% of 25% is about 11%
Leave the decimal places in and you get 24.88% of the electorate was over 45 at the time, and voted for Obama. (OMG! I had a typo above and said 28% instead of 24%!!! AHHHHHH!!!!)
Assuming voting for Obama as a proxy for "Democrats", you get 24.88% of the electorate is ~50+ and Democrats.
The poll result in the headline only included Democrats, and 60% of them were over 50. 60 is nowhere near 24.88.
And that still doesn't address the self-selection from being a landline-only robo-poll.
George II
(67,782 posts)"28% of the electorate was over 45 and voted for Obama......28% is quite a bit less than 60%." - even if your 28% was correct (I don't think so) that's not the entire electorate over 45, it's only the electorate over 45 who voted for Obama.
In fact the % of the electorate over 45 is 29 (45-59) PLUS 25 (60+) = 54, much closer to 60% than 28%, and considering it was four years ago (and there was an election between 2012 and now where that number was higher), the 60% in the realistic poll under discussion is not far off.
From your link:
Romney won "Middle-aged voters" (45-59) by 5 points (52% to 47%). These were 29% of voters.
Romney won "Older voters" (60+) by 9 points (54% to 45%). These were 25% of voters.
I don't know where your 28% came from.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)The poll question in the OP was of Democrats.
To add back in the remaining over 45 voters from 2012, we'd be adding back in Republicans. Who would be excluded from the poll in the OP.
George II
(67,782 posts)You first jumped into this discussion to discredit the poll presented by workinclasszero, claiming that that poll was inaccurate due to the close to 60% of those polled over 50 (your post #11). You then presented another link to a poll to "disprove" that demographic but it only confirmed it.
Now that I've cleared that up, you're back to the OP online poll again (actually for the first time)?
As far as the OP poll(s) are concerned and your comment, it's accurate ONLY if those who responded to the ONLINE poll were being honest about their age and/or party affiliation. There's no way of knowing. Yet another fallacy of online polls, which was wokinclasszero's point in the first place.
I think I've proven my point several times. Have a good day.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Only when you drop the "registered Democrats" part of the poll in the OP. Which either you did, or you are claiming 100% of voters over 50 are Democrats.
Because people never lie on a telephone robo-poll? THAT is the basis of your discrediting?
The sample in the OP's poll is very skewed. Both by age (too many over 50) and skewed much more by technology (robo-polling landlines). That is the entirety of my point. It is no more reliable than an online poll, despite the effort to dress up the OP's poll with statistics.
That you only read what agrees with you? Yes, you've definitely proven that.
George II
(67,782 posts)...responded to in post #11.
I read it all, and the objective conclusion that I came to (which isn't really a conclusion but an observation of fact) is that roughly 60% of the electorate in recent elections AND those that generally vote are 45+ or 50+ years old.
That was what you initially balked at, but it's simply true.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)The question was only asked of Democratic voters. Not all voters. Democratic voters != all voters. All voters are not Democrats.
Would you like me to say that a few more ways to get the point across?
last1standing
(11,709 posts)Seriously, we all know the poster you're replying to has no interest in anything that doesn't fit his agenda. He's also probably trying to goad you into a hide like he did Cali. He's disingenuous at best, and likely something far, far worse in reality.
Posters who spend their time trying to silence differing viewpoints are the lowest form of internet troll.
RichVRichV
(885 posts)Hillary is down 4 points, Bernie is up 10 points, Webb is up 12 points, Chaffee is up 8 points, O'Malley is up 4 points, and Biden (who so far isn't running) isn't counted.
Looks to me like the only people who lost from this debate are Hillary and Biden according to this poll. Unless the objective of the debate is a popularity contest and not to actually, you know, get elected.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Believe it or not, this moron who thinks that internet polls are scientific is only the tip of the iceberg in terms of nonsense that gets posted on the internet. Look around, it's fun!
WillyT
(72,631 posts)***********************************************************
One of the biggest embarrassments for big media last night showed in online polls conducted by CNN. Two separate polls each picked Sanders as the winner.
Curiously, this poll was removed from CNN’s website, and is only shown here thanks to a Reddit user’s screenshot. CNN removed the poll and replaced it with a pro-Clinton headline:
Why would CNN so obviously disregard its viewers’ opinions in favor of pushing a pro-Clinton narrative? It might be partially because CNN’s parent company, Time Warner, is one of Hillary Clinton’s biggest donors:
From OP Article.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Circling Time Warner? Wow.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)Really ???
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)And what explains that 99% of other non Time Warner media agrees? Is it all a giant sinister plot against Bernie Sanders? How far down this rabbit hole are we going?
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)Now there's a representational sample of...what? exactly?
questionseverything
(11,841 posts)i am sure you are all for that censorship also
after the citizens that had to be at work or some previous commitment have no right to see the debate at their leisure, huh?
wth are they so worried about the American people seeing if hc did so well?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251685174
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)of skewing?
Only the old USSR "elections" were that skewed!
Metric System
(6,048 posts)
MADem
(135,425 posts)If all the votes for Bernie are coming from people who were last on the "I HATE HILLARY" and "BERNIE IZ DE BEST" pages, they can figure that the word went forth and votes were "drummed up"--i.e., not sincere.
Even the FEELTHEBERN.ORG folks don't think he won:
https://www.reddit.com/r/SandersForPresident/comments/3oqax1/no_bernie_didnt_win_the_debate_last_night/
submitted 10 hours ago * by MiskellaneousnessNew York - Dir. of Sanders Research Division - feelthebern.org
It is striking to see that the front page of this subreddit is filled up with references to Bernie winning last night's debate as measured by 11 person focus groups and CNN online "live debate polling".
Cut it out. I'm a Bernie supporter, and he didn't win the debate last night in terms of performance. Hillary did. It's not the end of the world. I think there are some big takeaways from this debate that will allow us to adjust our message and tactics going forward, but please, let's not peddle a narrative that makes us seem completely out of touch.
Let's just take a quick look at the sort of evidence present on this subreddit illustrating Bernie won the debate:
First, the "focus" groups indicating Bernie won. Apparently there were three. I clicked on the most upvoted one. There were 11 people. They were all 18-34 year olds. If that's what we have to go on to indicate Bernie won, let's just stop.
Second, the "Who won the debate polls?" There's this unspoken knowledge that we all hit those polls hard (they were posted numerous times in this subreddit of 120,000), almost unanimously voted for Sanders regardless of what we actually thought of the debate, and then we reference those same polls as legitimate measures of how the debate went and complain about the MSM saying Hillary won in the face of those polls.
The Reality
Hillary won quite clearly. While Bernie got off to a rough start, getting hit on guns and appearing off guard of foreign policy, Hillary seemed extremely well prepared for even the toughest issues she faces (emails, Iraq vote). She performed really, really strongly. She didn't seem too aggressive, but was certainly forceful, and appeared very knowledgeable on the issues. As such, she was able to allay fears that she was unexciting, and potentially a crumbling candidate.
Bernie, meanwhile, drew a lot of the same rhetoric from his stump speech, but failed to articulate why his vision was more compelling when Hillary would respond with things like "I too, have a tuition-free college plan, and mine is even more feasible." On the hallmark progressive issues of Bernie's campaign (criminal justice reform, social welfare programs, paid family and medical leave, wealth and income inequality, better education systems), Hillary essentially agreed and gave a "more polished" response. Other issues where distinctions should have been much more clear, they were also not (i.e. single payer, campaign finance).
O'Malley perfomed well, but it likely wasn't a breakout performance. Chafee and Webb are done.....
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)There is no outfit that is more dedicated to getting out the word about Sanders--it's an issues clarifyer, a rapid response, a "here's the basics" website for people looking for information about the Senator and his candidacy: http://feelthebern.org/
I think he realizes that unrealistic expectations and attitudes don't help an 'insurgent' campaign.
People who want to call the other side cheaters and declare victory are just fooling themselves. I think his point is that there's more work to be done, and railing (falsely) against the evil corporate media, when redditers themselves gamed the damned polls, is a bit .... disingenuous.
That's the OTHER thing about the internet. Someone's gonna speak the truth. In this instance, it was someone from the "B" Team.
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)Like the donations and the Google searches.
Surprising that this person didn't see the live focus groups, though.
I still think she sounded awful - but she sounded like her - stilted, fake and offering nothing new.
MADem
(135,425 posts)I think this author had sufficient information at his command to come to valid conclusions.
The business with the reddit links to polls posted repeatedly all over the site can't be dismissed. And we know full well that's not the only place those links were put up.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)They even have a whole sub-reddit dedicated to ethics in gaming journalism.
MADem
(135,425 posts)reputation, and this guy is a researcher for that outfit.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)
Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)Get a post on the front page, seen by millions of users.
Here...very small pond.
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)I guess the M$M knows who they can count on not to derail their gravy train of Citizens United ad money.
LiberalElite
(14,691 posts)That having been said - THANK YOU FOR THIS!
WillyT
(72,631 posts)
LiberalElite
(14,691 posts)service Above and Beyond. 
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)have their marching orders. Which they always faithfully obey and never, ever question.
appalachiablue
(44,024 posts)have no value. Very interesting.
Thank you Willy T.
Marty McGraw
(1,024 posts)gets to large, it loses track of it's appendages. Ask Zerox
WillyT
(72,631 posts)
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)There, answered your question.
Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)I sense an awakening. The people aren't buying what the corporate media is trying to sell.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)Those "kids" on FB who support Bernie.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251680083
WillyT
(72,631 posts)
840high
(17,196 posts)WillyT
(72,631 posts)
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Hillary knows REAL polls.
She should. She pays $300,000 a month on polling.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)
That's actually pretty accurate.
What most people took away from this first one was Bernie getting a standing ovation and Hillary shaking his hand. Hillary saying she "represented Wall Street and told them to cut it out" (which did NOTHING to stop the crash) and Bernie saying Wall Street regulates congress.
What was her memorable moment?
MADem
(135,425 posts)Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)There's plenty out there that disagrees.
MADem
(135,425 posts)We learned the reason/source for that unreasonable and completely unlikely polling result. Explains why they got shut down--if every voter is coming from partisan pages at reddit with links to the poll on them, the validity is trashed from the get-go.
This person's analysis was thoughtful and valid--many of his compadres in that group agreed with him. And, like I noted, he is likely closer to the campaign than most.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)In 2008 Kucinich was winning the debates up until the moment they locked him out.
MyNameGoesHere
(7,638 posts)it went something like this
If the election were held now who would you vote for. It was a majority for Sanders.
Next question was Who do you think will be the candidate. Overwhelmingly Clinton.
I am glad people are realist.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)And they think the PTB will do the selection, not people.
MyNameGoesHere
(7,638 posts)Some people realize their feelings aren't the center of the universe.
MissDeeds
(7,499 posts)Thank you!!!!!
WillyT
(72,631 posts)
bbgrunt
(5,281 posts)promote a horserace to keep the ads coming into their coffers. In this case, however, they seem totally bought and paid for since they aren't expecting big bucks for tv ads from Bernie....at least not in the primary. It is so obvious what they are doing it's shameful.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)
Yallow
(1,926 posts)F You CNN
grasswire
(50,130 posts)The report was full of distortions, praising Hillary and denigrating Bernie.
Any casual viewer or low-information voter would believe that bias as truth.
It's just astounding. They aren't even trying to hide it any more.
Now the question is: Will Hillary allow the election to be stolen for her if it comes to that?
marym625
(17,997 posts)Laughable.
The people are pissed and fed up. They're not buying what corporate America is selling. And that includes Hillary Rodham Clinton
K&R!
#FeelTheBern
oberliner
(58,724 posts)By a similarly wide margin. They aren't scientific.
frylock
(34,825 posts)dougolat
(716 posts)oberliner
(58,724 posts)I am just suggesting that the online polls aren't one of them.
The fundraising you mention is a much better indicator, for instance.
BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)
WillyT
(72,631 posts)
cui bono
(19,926 posts)
Hissyspit
(45,790 posts)BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)WillyT
(72,631 posts)CNN takes it's own poll down...
Then replaces it with HRC favorability poll...
And then denies the entire episode.
dougolat
(716 posts)...even if they were independent and not owned by the crony-crooks!
youceyec
(394 posts)also suffer from CDS. sad.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)Really ???
Bye.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)Clinton Fatigue Syndrome
I had 12 years of Hillary as 1st Lady of Arkansas
Then 8 years as First Lady of the US
Then her promoting Bush's war in Iraq in the Senate in 2002.
Then 4 years as Secretary of State, when she laughed about killing people and potentially starting wars, and pushed for fracking and the TPP. Her time at State seemed like it came straight out of her mentor, Henry Kissinger's, playbook.
And then there is her husband, who is all chummy with the Bushes, even though they stole the 2000 election from his Vice President. And he came to Arkansas in 2010 to campaign against a good Democrat in the Senate primary.
I for one am tired of the Clintons.
With as name like this, I'm not about to come out here WillyT! You trying to get me fragged????
mythology
(9,527 posts)The non-scientific polls are literally meaningless. As was shown in this thread, the Sanders subreddit was eagerly encouraging people to vote for Sanders.
There is absolutely nothing to demonstrate how the poll respondents compare to the demographics of the likely voting population.
The Facebook poll issue is really the same as the online unscientific polls. It shouldn't get its own section as it's not different. To be fair, the author doesn't actually explain why he thinks it should be different, so maybe he had already written the headline and couldn't come up with a real 6th item.
The author fails to establish what incentive a British paper like the Guardian would have for proclaiming Clinton the winner, other than in leading language like "Revealingly, Poynter.org, which covers the news media, pointed out the media’s favoritism, saying, “Press calls Hillary Clinton the winner, no contest.” without actually establishing that this was a result of media favoritism, instead taking it as a given and claiming that because most media outlets say Clinton won, it is in fact proof of their assumption.
The Twitter section is embarrassing because it completely ignores that Twitter is most popular with the same demographic that Sanders is popular with. Obviously he's going to get the most positive response there. Likewise I'd suspect that if you took a poll of the my family, you'd probably get a lot of positive feedback.
For fundraising, yes he raised an impressive amount, but Clinton raised more. I'm not sure how that shows Sanders is the obvious winner of a debate as the two aren't actually related. You can make an argument for the 1.4 million raised after the debate, but we haven't seen what other campaigns brought in, nor does it account for the fact that debates or other large events like conventions or naming of VP candidates can cause bumps by being a rallying point.
For the focus groups, I'm not going to dignify a Frank Luntz group and shocking that the focus group of millennials would break for Sanders. Please see the section on Twitter demographics.
Online unscientific non-randomized polls that don't account for demographic bias are worthless. That's been repeatedly illustrated today.
You can maybe make an argument for the Google searches, but that can possibly be explained by younger voters being more likely to be online searching for politics. Demographics would be helpful in sorting that out, but it's hard to get that from Google.
This is just shoddy bullshit being passed off as reason by people who want to believe in it rather than some sort of actual investigation or expose of some grand conspiracy. It's silly that it's being passed off here as some sort of rallying cry.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)Thanks, WillyT.
silenttigersong
(957 posts)Will not vote for Hillary Clinton ,war hawk,1%er,poor judgement.It looks more and more like a selection.
NiceTryGuy
(53 posts)This happened he last two election cycles. The Internet picked its candidate, and then everybody learns that the Internet doesnt actually vote in real polls.
proud patriot
(102,514 posts)
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)
wyldwolf
(43,891 posts)
Oh and an article from (who?) USuncut.
Admiral Loinpresser
(3,859 posts)The Establishment is afraid of a real progressive in the WH. CNN took down the poll to avoid cognitive dissonance with their preferred theme. I did not cite one online poll in making that argument. Get the idea?
in_cog_ni_to
(41,600 posts)BERNIE'S ARMY - The Internet Savvy Generation.
The corrupt Corporate Owned MSM and CORRUPT DNC will NOT be allowed to steal the Primaries.
I read a ton if articles yesterday that were about the debate and if they had a "comments" section, I read those too. Out of hundreds and hundred of comments, almost all of them were in support of Bernie. Now, are we supposed to disregard those posting human beings because they aren't supporting The Hillary?
When people are given a CHOICE (Bernie), instead of more of the same bullshit, Wall St., Corporate Owned, CORRUPT candidates to vote for, they will come out and vote. We witnessed it with Obama in both of his elections - even though he bamboozled us and wasn't really as Liberal as he portrayed himself to be. Nevertheless, people showed up in droves to vote for him. People waited hours in lines to cast votes for him. That's what we're going to see happen for Bernie.
His base, the Internet savvy generation, will not allow the election to be stolen via electronic voting machines. Hear that, DWS?
Election theft is what this is all about. If the Corporate Owned MSM can keep people thinking The Hillary is ahead in polls and the favored candidate, when the Corporate Owned DNC hacks the electronic voting machines for The Hillary, no one will be shocked at the win. Luckily, it's BERNIE who has the power of the Internet behind him, so they will stop the theft.
There's a reason BOTH corrupt political parties never got rid of electronic voting machines. It makes choosing their Corporate Owned corrupt candidates so much easier! A hack here, another hack there - easy peasy! NOT THIS TIME. BERNIE'S "kids" will not allow it. Sorry!
Thanks for the great post Willy! K&R!
Sienna86
(2,153 posts)Great graphics.
sulphurdunn
(6,891 posts)or it is not. If it is, and that seems likely, the HRC contingent needs to stop catapulting the corporate propaganda.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)There seems to be a bubble of denial out there. Everything points to the fact that big corporations love HRC. The Corp-Media are big contributors to her campaign. Goldman-Sachs and other corps have "paid" her huge "fees" for her personal wealth. Mega Corps from around the world make points by donating to her foundation. The Corps love her. She is the 1%.
It's plain as day that big corporations love HRC and the grass-roots people love Sen Sanders.
So the question is why are so many hiding in the denial bubble? Here are my guesses. Help me out.
1. They are comfortable with the status quo and can ignore the 50 million Americans living in poverty.
2. They recognize the problem with the ever growing wealth gap but afraid to fight. Think if they keep their heads down, it will all go away.
3. They believe that those with wealth got that way because they worked hard and maybe some day they can achieve such wealth.
4. Authoritarianism. Always follow the biggest bully. Corps are the biggest bullies.
d_legendary1
(2,586 posts)is because the Corporate Media™ keeps droning on about her emails and Benghazi. Other than that the media loves her since they keep harping about her sizeable lead and how she kicked ass in the debates. Not to mention the fact that they've started this new narrative about HRC slamming the door on Joe Biden. According to the media she's our only hope.
Meanwhile those of us who watched it know who really won:
stage left
(3,308 posts)Mind if I tweet it?
d_legendary1
(2,586 posts)99Forever
(14,524 posts)Don't you dare get on the way.
Logical
(22,457 posts)stage left
(3,308 posts)
Angry Dragon
(36,693 posts)