Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: Melissa Harris-Perry Walks Off Her MSNBC Show After Pre-emptions [View all]kristopher
(29,798 posts)67. Clinton ethics claim another victim.
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.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511257526
And then there is this as noted by Hartmann. It's been an ongoing line of BS from Rachel.
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
http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/bernies-political-revolution-actually-happening-although-corporate-media-wont-tell-you
Bernies 'Political Revolution' Is Actually Happening, Although the Corporate Media Wont 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 its no big deal what hes 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 Bernies becoming president and actually getting something done (when Obama had such difficulty) is that Bernies mobilizing huge numbers of new and energized voters. She showed a bunch of examples of his talking about his political revolution and how hes 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 Obamas 2008! If thats the case and it is then how could Bernie possibly claim that hes energizing new people? He must be running a con on us, or hes just a deluded old man who dreams of revolution but nobodys 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 years 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 Bernies campaign is running a scam, right? The entire rationale for his candidacy is built on sand. His revolution isnt happening so far, so why might it happen later? Time to doubt that Bernies claims of political change are even possible, much less reasonable.
However
Rachel missed a few facts something unusual for her usually brilliant political analysis...
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 its no big deal what hes 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 Bernies becoming president and actually getting something done (when Obama had such difficulty) is that Bernies mobilizing huge numbers of new and energized voters. She showed a bunch of examples of his talking about his political revolution and how hes 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 Obamas 2008! If thats the case and it is then how could Bernie possibly claim that hes energizing new people? He must be running a con on us, or hes just a deluded old man who dreams of revolution but nobodys 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 years 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 Bernies campaign is running a scam, right? The entire rationale for his candidacy is built on sand. His revolution isnt happening so far, so why might it happen later? Time to doubt that Bernies claims of political change are even possible, much less reasonable.
However
Rachel missed a few facts something unusual for her usually brilliant political analysis...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1259975
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
115 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
They've been slowly but surely silencing the progressive voices as time has gone by.
Bubzer
Feb 2016
#72
Yeah.... FSTV is about the best resource out there for progresive media these days.
Bubzer
Feb 2016
#87
Holy cow. I didn't say she did. I said she broke the mess, and nationally, she did.
mahina
Feb 2016
#44
Please show me a link to a national broadcast on the emergency manager law in Michigan that precedes
mahina
Feb 2016
#93
I loved Rachel on radio, tried to watch her TV show a couple of times. I couldn't do it. They had
GoneFishin
Feb 2016
#42
extreme hyperbole. how is it you use a term in quotes even though it hasn't been used?
uhnope
Feb 2016
#108
No, Maddow did not lie or misrepresent the data. Her chart shows very different results...
Nitram
Feb 2016
#76
Maybe it's also a question of "Do as you are told, or else!" If this keeps up, MSNBC
Cal33
Feb 2016
#71
looks to me like MHP has shot herself in the foot in a bizarre and unprofessional manner. nt
uhnope
Feb 2016
#105
Does Joe have a job waiting too, or do you only fantasize about women you dislike doing BDSM porn?
LeftyMom
Feb 2016
#34
Does she support Bernie? If so, they wouldn't want her on before Super Tuesday!
Dustlawyer
Feb 2016
#3
Melissa Harris-Perry Praises Bernie Sanders For "Genuine" Response To Black Lives Matter's Demands
virtualobserver
Feb 2016
#10
No, the issue (at least the latest one) was that she wanted to talk about Beyonce
William Seger
Feb 2016
#68
M$NBCComcast is getting ready for a Trump presidency. Or it's doing all it can for one. nt
valerief
Feb 2016
#6
MSNBC follows the money. MSNBC does not give a F who they support/promote, they're just looking
RKP5637
Feb 2016
#78
"In the last few months, Mr. Lack has steered MSNBC away from its liberal identity"
Triana
Feb 2016
#13
Wish he had enhanced it instead. So sick of clips of GOP liars. I can see those everywhere.
Overseas
Feb 2016
#29
It's not really surprising they're purging most of their black anchors because Obama is about to be
craigmatic
Feb 2016
#17
I watched the MHP Show every weekend. I hope MSNBC apologizes and brings it back.
Overseas
Feb 2016
#23
I've Always Thought MSNBC Was The Most Liberal Network, If They're Not Who The Hell Do I Watch?
Corey_Baker08
Feb 2016
#32
It's Comcast. BIG corporate media. Does anyone think they want their taxes raised?
jalan48
Feb 2016
#36
Melissa joins the greats, Phil Donhue, Kieth Obeman, Cenk Uygur, Ed Schultz and anyone I missed.
Dont call me Shirley
Feb 2016
#94
Sounds like MHP is really losing it. God, what an unpro move. Career suicide. nt
uhnope
Feb 2016
#101