Bernie Sanders truthers, step down: There’s no conspiracy to hide that he “won” the debate

[JaneyVee]

Tuesday night’s Democratic debate had hardly been over 24 hours before an alarming conspiracy theory began to form: That the media is in cahoots with the Clinton campaign to cover up the “fact” that Bernie Sanders won the debate.

Things really kicked off with this short piece by Adam Johnson of Alternet that argues that, “by all objective measures”, Sanders won the debate. “[T]he very idea of ‘winning’ a debate is silly to me,” Johnson sniffs (causing me to wonder if he also feels morally superior to those of us who are invested in the process of “winning” an election), but despite this, he’s extremely angry that the “the echo chamber musings of establishment liberal pundits” pointed to a Clinton win instead. Johnson pulls back from outright accusing the pundits of conspiracy, but already Sanders supporters are taking it to the next level, starting a Change.org petition accusing CNN, Time Warner, and “SuperPACs” of somehow conspiring to silence the truth.

As one of those apparently establishment liberal pundits who felt Clinton won the debate—though Sanders also did a great job!—I can assure you that the Clinton campaign in no way brainwashed me or bought me off. No one told me what to say or how to feel about this. It is a sincerely held opinion.

Johnson’s article, while being wielded like a weapon in said social media debates, is unfortunately poorly argued. For one thing, his entire argument is built on a straw man, which is that pundits aren’t being “objective” in their assessments. The problem is that no one ever said they were. Pundits, by their nature, are there to share their opinion.

Johnson, unlike the pundits he decries, actually does hold himself out as an “objective” observer. To bolster his claim that Sanders objectively won the debate—not that he trucks with such nonsense as “winning” debates!—he cites the focus groups and online polls that showed Sanders as a winner. He admits that they are “obviously not scientific”, but then still rests his entire argument on them as the “only relatively objective metric we have.”

The rest: http://www.salon.com/2015/10/15/bernie_sanders_truthers_step_down_theres_no_conspiracy_to_hide_that_he_won_the_debate/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=socialflow

[onehandle]

1. LOL! I always enjoy Senator Sanders slapping down foolishness from his 'supporters.'

Well done, sir.

[Fawke Em]

4. ???

Where, in that personal opinion piece from some writer over at Salon, did Sanders "slap down" his supporters?

[Admiral Loinpresser]

6. +1 n/t

[99th_Monkey]

22. LOL - accusatory non sequiturs are very much in vogue now w/ Hillary shills. -nt-

[MissDeeds]

47. +1000 n/t

[Fearless]

43. The newest meme is to present lies as facts using non sequitur examples.

[Fawke Em]

91. It works, too, until you hit the social media hub.

Both my son and husband, who didn't watch the debate (they were watching baseball), said they heard Hillary had wiped the floor. Then, they got on their social media accounts: "Why," they said, "did the media declare Hillary the winner when all the people I (follow/know/watch/read) say Bernie took it to the wood shed?"

"Corporate media," I answered.

Knowing I was a reporter for 13 years, prompted the next question.

"Did you get paid to present a certain point of view?", my son asked.

"No," I mused. "Thirteen years ago, when I was a newspaper reporter, it would never have crossed my mind to spin a debate. However, I was poor as a church mouse. Newspaper reporters don't make much money, so, when you have kids or, heck, need a new car, you either have to marry wealthy, change professions or shill. I think that's how the powers that be have controlled the media. They're paid less than teachers, on average, unless they are an opinion-maker."

"So, Bernie won?"

"That's subjective, but I think so, yes."

"Why?"

"Because he won all the online polls - which you can rig, so that's besides the point - but he also won all the focus groups, he got 40,000 people to donate $2 million dollars, he was the most searched candidate - even over Trump - on Google and he gained the most followers and created the most buzz on social media," I said.

"Hmmm," was my son's reply. "So, it really is true."

"What is?"

"That the people want Bernie and the rich people that rule everything don't."

"Yes," I sighed. "Probably. It's not so much a conspiracy as the need for these people to not be uncomfortable."

"What about the millions who are poor or working hard and are uncomfortable no matter what they do?"

"They have to vote."

"I wish I could vote for Bernie," said my 16 year old son.

So, yes, using non sequiturs work - temporarily.

[BeanMusical]

86. Diagnostic: Hallucination.

Cause: LSD laced Kool-Aid distributed at The Political Pub.

[Major Hogwash]

2. Calling supporters of any candidate names isn't going to win them over.

Last edited Fri Oct 16, 2015, 04:25 AM - Edit history (1)

They called me an Obamabot for months, but it had no affect.

[Armstead]

3. I agree it's not a conspiracy. Just shallow pack-behavior from the elites.

[JaneyVee]

5. Liberal bloggers aren't "elites".

They barely even get paid.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

9. Chris Matthews, Chuck Todd, NYT, WaPo, etc. etc., etc. n/t

[JaneyVee]

13. Yeah, NYT is totally in the tank for HRC.

This only proves that even her most critical opponents think she won.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

33. Of course it isn't.

My point is it is an Establishment institution distorting the truth about the debate.

[tularetom]

53. Apparently you missed this from the pages of the NYT

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/15/opinion/hillary-clinton-the-queen-came-to-play.html?ref=opinion&_r=2

"Queen Hillary" Came to Play? WTF?

Looks pretty in the tank to me

[That Guy 888]

69. The first line of that op-ed? "Hillary Clinton crushed it! There is no other way for me to put it."

If she were a male candidate he probably would have said king...

Hillary supporters seem a little thin-skinned to me.

[enid602]

10. DU

They get paid too much, given the quality of their postings here on DU.

[erronis]

42. "paid too much given the quality" - maybe they're in bed with those losers

Payment can come from $s and from the pleasures of rubbing up against the powerful. WaPo and NYT have always had a very "close" relationship. Now CNN, (MS)(NBC) are snuggling on up to the rub fest.

[Armstead]

12. Liberal boggers are all over the map on it

The only major consensus that Hillary Won is in the mainstream media.

Bloggers have a multitude of opinions.

[Fawke Em]

92. And that's fine.

Hell, some people even thought Jim Webb was the best.

But, when, to a Tee, every mainstream media blabbermouth declares it for Hillary, you know something stinks in Denmark - and it's not the Social Democracy!

[Admiral Loinpresser]

7. +1,000 n/t

[Fawke Em]

11. This!!

I do think corporate-owned media elites favor the status quo that Clinton represents over the changes Sanders would represent.

People who have marked their territory on the top of the heap are fearful of change.

That the corporate-owned media declared Clinton the winner was more about access and expediency than conspiracy.

[JaneyVee]

15. You think the NYTimes, a paper who has plastered their front page

With numerous lies about Hillary, a paper whose editor promised more glowing coverage of Bernie, is in the tank for HRC???

A paper who signed on with rightwing author of Clinton Cash???

[mcar]

24. Boggles the mind, doesn't it?

[Fawke Em]

39. Oh, you understand journalism?

I have a degree in it, worked in it for 13 years and now work on the other side of it - public relations.

Trust me. It doesn't boggle the mind of people who know how the profession works.

[mcar]

49. I've been a PR professional for 35

years. I've worked as a freelance writer/journalist off and on over about 10 years. I know very well how the profession works.

[BeanMusical]

72. I've been an F1 driver for 10 years then got bored and am now an astronaut.

Also, in a past life I was Edward Bernays. So I know a thing or 2 about PR.

[mcar]

73. Isn't that lovely

[BeanMusical]

76. It is indeed!

[Fawke Em]

93. OK... but were you ever a reporter?

My point is that I can see both sides of it having worked both sides of it.

[Fawke Em]

38. Yes because of access.

Many of these reporters like the status quo, they like having access to the "known known," so to speak, and they don't understand the desperation out in the Heartland because they're so ensconced in their Beltway bubbles. It's an unfortunate reality: you develop your sources so well that you become an echo for them instead of challenging them.

I used to be a reporter. I understand why access is so coveted, although I also understand that if reporters were really doing their jobs, the access couldn't be revoked because everyone would be reporting evenhandedly. My former editor used to change our beats from time to time to keep us from becoming echo chambers.

BTW, the people writing on the editorial pages aren't reporters. They could hire the Ayatollah to write a column and it wouldn't be any skin off the noses of the reporting staff.

Nice tin-foil hat you have there. It seems to be blocking the Internet from your brain considering some of your recent posts.

[JaneyVee]

50. Yeah, that's totally what the NYT is doing.

[Dawgs]

8. Another opinion about opinions that proves nothing.

Mostly bullshit.

[RobertEarl]

14. What we see in the media is shock

Shock that someone who isn't 'one of them' coming on so strong.

Shock that someone who rails against the elites and the corporates come from practically nowhere and become such a huge presence.

Shock that they have not played a hand in bringing Bernie to the masses, since they think of them selves as the only game in town - the kingmakers, the gateway keepers.

Clinton, now that Bernie is here, is like family to the M$M, and Bernie s the outsider. They are doing their best to ignore Bernie.

[99th_Monkey]

28. M$M's habit of ignoring Bernie has clearly not worked, and you're right, they are shocked

and embarrassed, and didn't have any scripted lines prepared for how well Bernie did, because,
well. because they've been habitually ignoring him all summer into the fall.

You have to love the inter-webs for carrying tons of water on this one, exposing the M$M's
duplicity and complicity in trying to silence a powerful voice for economic & racial justice for all.

[RobertEarl]

95. I love the inter-webs

And this place, DU... rocks. I mean really, you people are the best.

History is going to show the revolution was not televised, is was webalised. And we're all in on the first rotation!

[rhett o rick]

16. You are correct. HRC won in the eyes of the Billionaires but not the People.

Funny that some times you cry because you say the Corp-Media hates HRC. But how soon you decide to side with the Corp-Media.

The Corp-Media are big donors to Clinton's campaign, hello.

Ask the People and they will tell you Sen Sanders won 80 to 15 while your friends in the Corp-Media see it different. Goldman-Sachs and the billionaires want HRC to win while the People side with Sen Sanders. Who do you side with? The big Corps or the People?

[JaneyVee]

25. Where are you getting 80-15?

Please don't tell me an online poll.

[NuclearDem]

31. CNN's Facebook poll, I think.

[JaneyVee]

34. LOL.

[NuclearDem]

30. Something something Goldman Sachs something something the People.

You don't speak for "the People", Rick, so stop pretending you do. In fact, seeing as how Clinton has a double digit lead over Sanders in polls conducted by professional statisticians, "the People" seem to be in disagreement with you.

[99th_Monkey]

17. I'll simply refer you to another OP

here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/128062750

1. C-SPAN: Sanders (7.2k) |Clinton (938)
2. TIME: Sanders 60% | Clinton 12%
3. CNN: Sanders 81% | Clinton 12%
4. Drudge: Sanders 61% (126,448 votes) | Clinton 6.74% (13,925 votes)
5. Dailykos: Sanders 59% (7,970 votes) | Clinton 34% (4,659 votes)
6. Slate: Sanders 75% | Clinton 18%
7. Syracuse: Sanders 78.11% (3,190 votes) | Clinton 15.77% (644 votes)
8. Fox5: Sanders 77.35% (30,248) | Clinton 15.86% (6,204 votes)
9. MSNBC: Sanders 81% | Clinton 12%
10. Wishtv8: Sanders 77.65% | Clinton 13.15%
11. Advocate: Sanders 77% | Clinton 19%
12. Nationalreview: Sanders 558 votes | Clinton 39 votes
13. 9news: Sanders 8.9k votes | Clinton 2.2k votes
14. Wwnc: Sanders 78% | Clinton 15%
15. Philadelphia.cbslocal: Sanders 81.03% | Clinton 14.56%
16. Postonpolitics: Sanders 84% | Clinton 10%
17. AJC: Sanders +225 -20 | Clinton +62 -108
18. Controversialtimes: Sanders 84.42 | Clinton 10.39
19. Tcpalm: Sanders 74% | Clinton 18%
20. WRIC 8NEWS: Sanders 75% | Clinton 6%
21. WGY: Sanders 68% | Clinton 12%

All three focus groups declared Sanders the victor.

Please stop attacking Bernie supporters, for simply stating the obvious
truth about last night's debate. By every conceivable measure -- other than paid
political pendants -- Bernie "won" in the opinion of a clear majority of viewers.

Even Chris Mathews had to admit Bernie won, breaking ranks with 90% of
the M$M paid pendants who carry water for the 1% and for BIG Corporate Media,
media that loves Citizens United and that salivating over getting most of Hillary's
super-pac millions.

If you think this^ is being "a conspiracy nut" then I have nothing else to say to you.

[JaneyVee]

20. If you believe online polls I have nothing to say to you.

I guess we can leave it there.

[artislife]

27. We won, we won, we won

stomped the supporter.


Good gawd, I thought we all agreed that online polls and pundits' opinions have no science.

We will see the effects of the debates over time. We are now more than 72 hours out and we can relax about that debate. We have 5 more...lets take bets on how many candidates will be at the podiums.

[Android3.14]

56. "5 more"

Your naivete is so sweet.

[99th_Monkey]

41. .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=685050

[AgingAmerican]

64. Unless they favor Clinton, which they do not

Every single one shows Sanders slaughtering her. EVERY one. The trend is clear.

Corporate media/pundits vs we the people.

[workinclasszero]

23. Oh look at all the unscientific BS internet push polls that a few hundred

Bernie true believers spammed all night after the debates.

[99th_Monkey]

37. Push Polls

push poll
noun:
an ostensible opinion poll in which the true objective is to sway voters using loaded or manipulative questions.

A) Since when it "Who Won the Debate?" a "loaded or manipulative question"?
B) Since when has 'the true objective" of MSNBC, C-Span, CNN, Time, Slate, et. al. been to "sway voters" to say Bernie won the debate?
C) Are Hillary supporters (along with public viewers) who think Hillary DID win, unable to call-in and register their opinion about "who won?"


FAIL

[Metric System]

35. Those numbers are so unbalanced you'd have to live under a dictatorship to think they're normal.

[99th_Monkey]

44. .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=685050

[Metric System]

48. Let's put it this way...even people who didn't watch the debate could vote, including multiple times

if they felt inclined. He

[Spitfire of ATJ]

65. LOL!!! Oh sure, Hillary was the victim of another conspiracy!

[BeanMusical]

75. "could vote, including multiple times if they felt inclined."

Nope. I just tried this poll on MSNBC and you can only vote once:

Do you plan on voting for Hillary Clinton for president in 2016?

110k votes

No: 84%

Yes: 13%

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/poll-hillary-2016#56789

Of course there's a way to vote again but it's a PITA if you plan to do this many times.

[passiveporcupine]

67. They can't help it

It's cognitive dissonance. They have to be right and will do anything to convince themselves they are right because they are too invested in her winning.

[virtualobserver]

18. Why are Hillary supporters so obsessed with "disproving" the validity of these online polls?

Who cares?

[Blue_In_AK]

26. "Who cares" is precisely my opinion.

The fact that there's even an argument about it proves that they both did well and they both have ardent supporters. So what? Everyone has an opinion.

[NuclearDem]

32. Because people are using unscientific bullshit to attempt to shape public opinion.

[Fumesucker]

36. Indeed, pundit blathering is extremely unscientific

People should stop using it so much and speak in their own words more, same for the polls.

[artislife]

71. They do not see it. They can't

They are like the Natives who couldn't see Columbus' ships because they didn't exist in their awareness.

[Fumesucker]

97. Blindsight

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blindsight

Blindsight is the ability of people who are cortically blind due to lesions in their striate cortex, also known as primary visual cortex or V1, to respond to visual stimuli that they do not consciously see.[1] The majority of studies on blindsight are conducted on patients who have the "blindness" on only one side of their visual field. Following the destruction of the striate cortex, patients are asked to detect, localize, and discriminate amongst visual stimuli that are presented to their blind side, often in a forced-response or guessing situation, even though they don't consciously recognise the visual stimulus. Research shows that blind patients achieve a higher accuracy than would be expected from chance alone. Type 1 blindsight is the term given to this ability to guess—at levels significantly above chance—aspects of a visual stimulus (such as location or type of movement) without any conscious awareness of any stimuli. Type 2 blindsight occurs when patients claim to have a feeling that there has been a change within their blind area—e.g. movement—but that it was not a visual percept.[2] Blindsight challenges the common belief that perceptions must enter consciousness to affect our behavior;[3] it shows that our behavior can be guided by sensory information of which we have no conscious awareness

[artislife]

99. Gee, Fume, that sounds kind of....scientific! nt

[virtualobserver]

60. people are also promoting blathering pundits in an attemot to shaoe public opinion

also Hillary supporters are also promoting predictive markets data in an attempt to shape public opinion.

[mythology]

57. I'm not a Clinton supporter (I don't care who wins)

But I hate seeing people pass off obviously incorrect information because they want to believe it. I feel the same about creationists, those who don't believe in climate change and those who think vaccines cause autism.

I expect a minimum level of basic scientific literacy of people.

[virtualobserver]

62. it isn't incorrect.....it measures something.....it measures intensity

[workinclasszero]

19. Word on the street is...its a vast DLC conspiracy

Say no more.

[JaneyVee]

21. The MSM couldn't wait to declare Hillary the loser.

But they couldn't resist her obvious win.

[BeanMusical]

80. Roflmao!!!

Tell me this is a joke, please! Can't. stop. laughing!!!

[paleotn]

63. No, it's the Establishment being the establisment....

...They paid good money for Hillary (Comcast, JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs et. al.) and they'll be damned if some upstart, crazy haired, self described democratic socialist is going to muck it up for them. Most of them not having a clue what democratic socialist actually means or they really would be losing their minds.

No conspiracy. Just the monyed classes doing what they've been doing since the Old Kingdom, Egyptian Pharaohs. Shitting on the little guy.

[GoneFishin]

94. Yep. "They paid good money... ". LOL.

[whatchamacallit]

29. More foaming flamebait

Just what we need...

[Cali_Democrat]

40. Bernie didn't even show up

It was kinda sad.

Next time he should be more prepared.

[BeanMusical]

83. Why is the bird in your avatar shitting on Obama?

[Maedhros]

45. Amanda Marcotte at Salon is not even close to being an objective voice on this issue.

She is a dyed-in-the-wool Hillary supporter, so it's no surprise that she would chide us for daring to criticize media giants like Time Warner for protecting their monetary investment in a Hillary nomination.

No conspiracy needed - just standard propaganda from the usual suspects.

[AgingAmerican]

46. Corporations would never do that!

They love Sanders!

[shenmue]

51. Wow, Salon gets off the anti-Hillary shtick for once

[Bernblu]

52. We know that Clinton won the debate with the Corporate Media. There was some evidence that Sanders

won with voters (focus groups and large margins in internet polls, Twitter responses, and Google searches).

Because of media influence, we may never actually know who actually won the debate.

Any scientific poll will now be tainted because many voters who didn't watch the debate and voters who did watch the debate but didn't have a strong favorite will now be influenced by the media to believe Clinton won.

It is my opinion what the corporate media did was reprehensible. Declaring a winner after a debate is in a way worse than declaring an election before all of the votes have been cast. At least an election call may be backed by scientific data. The media should analyze a debate, discussing what the candidates said and what they thought the candidates were trying to accomplish and the like. But they should never declare winners explicitly or implicitly.

[stevenleser]

54. And there goes Amanda Marcotte under the bus for not drinking the Kool-Aid...

Sanders supporters are going to need a bigger bus.

[Marty McGraw]

58. ( ._.)

The Verdict is In: Bernie Sanders Wins First Democratic Debate by Huge Margin

October 14, 2015Timothy Bertrand Politics

https://reverbpress.com/politics/verdict-bernie-sanders-wins-first-democratic-debate-huge-margin/

Republish Reprint

The web is buzzing after the first Democratic debate, and the big winner definitely seems to be Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders. The candidate has been a surprise hit this primary election season, but has suffered from a lack of name recognition among mainstream Democrats — a problem that may all but vanish after his stellar performance at the debates.

A number of online outlets seem to indicate a majority of internet users believe Bernie Sanders won the debate. Google search data and gains in social media followers also support this outcome. One of the most significant victories comes from CNN’s Facebook poll, which declares Sanders as the winner with 82 percent of the vote. By contrast, Hillary Clinton managed to get 11 percent, Martin O’Malley got 4 percent, Jim Webb garnered 2 percent, and Lincoln Chafee took away one percent of the vote.

CNN FACEBOOK POLL: Bernie SANDERS WINS WITH 82 PERCENT

Smaller online polls also reflect a Bernie Sanders victory. A poll of Daily Kos readers has Sanders winning with 55 percent to Clinton’s 38 percent. O’Malley managed 2 percent, while Webb and Chafee tie for one.

DAILY KOS READER POLL: SANDERS WINS WITH 55 PERCENT

Local news stations also got in on the action with online polls of their own. Fox 5 San Diego has Bernie Sanders winning with 77.03 percent of the vote, compared to Clinton’s 15.34 percent. Webb edges out O’Malley with 3.43 to 2.61 percent, while Chafee doesn’t even crack one percent.

FOX 5 SAN DIEGO POLL: SANDERS WINS WITH 77 PERCENT

Likewise, the Knoxville News Sentinel has Sanders winning with 63 percent of the vote.

KNOXVILLE NEWS SENTINEL: SANDERS WINS WITH 63 PERCENT

The results are almost too overwhelming and numerous to list in their entirety. Readers of Time magazine said Bernie Sanders won 69% to 16%. Readers of the Telegraph likewise declared Sanders the winner. C-SPAN’s Facebook poll results were also overwhelmingly in favor of Sanders.

TIME, TELEGRAPH, AND C-SPAN POLLS DECLARE SANDERS THE WINNER

Critics will inevitably point to the unreliability of online polling, and they have a point. Sanders enjoys a large online following, and his grassroots campaigners have been known to swarm social media with support. The online polls, then, should be viewed as only one piece of evidence indicative of Sanders’ victory at the debates. There’s far more evidence at hand which supports this conclusion.

The majority of focus groups have likewise declared Bernie Sanders the winner. A group from the key swing state of Florida describes Sanders as “strong, straightforward, confident, sincere, smart and direct.” A Fusion focus group declared Sanders the winner 8 to 3. CNN’s focus group likewise declared Sanders the clear winner.

MAJORITY OF FOCUS GROUPS DECLARE SANDERS THE WINNER

Winning, however, is a somewhat difficult concept to define within the parameters of this debate. The candidate who “wins” does so not merely through popular opinion, but in terms of actual gains made to their campaign. Perhaps unsurprisingly, Sanders comes out on top in this aspect, as well.

GOOGLE SEARCH DATA SHOWS SPIKE IN INTEREST FOR SANDERS

Google search data confirms the candidate received massive traffic spikes for terms relating to him and his political ideology, while interest in Hillary Clinton remained stagnant. This wave of exposure will be reflected in the next round of national, scientific polls — and we will find out, once and for all, if Bernie Sanders’ ideas really do resonate deeply with the American public.

SANDERS CAMPAIGN RAISES $1.4 MILLION ON HEELS OF DEBATE

Bernie Sanders may have won in another important area: financially. According to a campaign email, Sanders raised $1.4 million from 44,000 individual donors on the heels of the debate. Those numbers aren’t just impressive, they’re unprecedented — nearly unheard of in modern American politics.

oh... an there is this

TELEVISION PUNDITS GIVE DEBATE TO HILLARY

Viewers of the debates may have noticed an odd phenomenon among the post-debate commentators . Despite CNN’s own polling reflecting otherwise, they overwhelmingly declared Clinton, not Sanders, the winner. The available data, however, seems to indicate otherwise.

[MisterP]

66. a little more for good measure

they're the MLB of parties now

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251685174

[restorefreedom]

59. because i believe in transparency.......

i actually agree with what the "hide it" advocates said, but i almost always err on the side of leaving, other than threats or really nasty personal stuff.

but this one was pretty near freeper talk and did push me close fwiw

On Thu Oct 15, 2015, 02:03 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Bernie Sanders truthers, step down: There’s no conspiracy to hide that he “won” the debate
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251684764

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Headlining an OP calling out what is a majority of DUers with an insult. If this meets community standards then we will see nothing but this kind of personal attack in other headlines. I think DU is better than this.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Oct 15, 2015, 02:11 PM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Alerter, you get insulted way too easily. Take a breath.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The use of the term "truther" is obnoxious, and the TOS cautions us against conspiracy talk, but I would leave it. It is borderline, though.


Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Agree that this poster's headline describing Bernie's supporters as "truthers," similar to Trump's birthers or 9/11 or Sandy Hook truthers, is unacceptable.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Calling Sanders supporters "truthers" is offensive on so many levels, remove that term from the title of the OP and I would be fine with the whole post
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Not worth a hide. Plenty of posters are addressing it.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: FFS

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[Unknown Beatle]

61. Yeah! Wots up wit dat? Accusing the pundits of conspiracy?

Why, CNN even shut down Bernie2016TV to prove to Adam Johnson of Alternet that conspiracies don't exist.



Fell The Bern!

[mhatrw]

68. LOL. I love this stuff! Keep digging your own grave, corporate media! n/t

[Aerows]

70. Agreed

Now don't expect Bernie Sanders supporters to listen to your contrivances when he wins the Primary.

Have a nice day.

[Matariki]

74. I'll use lots and lots of "scare quotes", Marcotte sniffs

[hrmjustin]

77. It was hilarious watching them try to sell online polls.

[BeanMusical]

81. "It was hilarious watching them try to sell onoine polls."

What's wrong with selling onions rolls?

[hrmjustin]

82. Absolutely nothing. I particularly like red onion polls.

[BeanMusical]

84. OK, but there's also nothing hilarious about it.

Normal people cry when cutting onions to make rolls.

[hrmjustin]

85. Mea culpa!

[BeanMusical]

87. I forgive you my son.

Now let me tell you about the time I caught the ferry over to Shelbyville. I needed a new heel for my shoe, so, I decided to go to Morganville, which is what they called Shelbyville in those days. So I tied an onion to my belt, which was the style at the time. Now, to take the ferry cost a nickel, and in those days, nickels had pictures of bumblebees on 'em. "Give me five bees for a quarter," you'd say.

Now where were we? Oh yeah: the important thing was I had an onion on my belt, which was the style at the time. They didn't have white onions because of the war. The only thing you could get was those big yellow ones...

[hrmjustin]

88. This is too funny.

[BeanMusical]

89. Lol, yes it is.

[floriduck]

78. Do you feel better for

getting this off your chest? When a few national polls come out, we'll know which candidate had the greatest influence on the listening audience. Patience, Grasshopper.....

[1StrongBlackMan]

79. Posted to for later.

[WDIM]

90. Of course there is. Media bias and propaganda.

Its the same conspiracy that kept Web and Chafee and OMalley from speaking. Its called media bias. The media is only propaganda.

[MisterP]

96. Marcotte: sinister scheming Papists behind claims of dislike of Clinton

"I saw a cassock in my bushes!" Amanda reports; "only the Vatican has any power, the DNC is just a coffee club: what we really have to worry about is the Second Armada coming over the horizon"

[jfern]

98. If we believe the media, Bush won all the debates in 2000