[US Election 2016] Democratic Primary Megathread II

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

It's difficult to call it clean or fair when Clintons campaign was transparently backed by the media establishment, and Clinton herself has repeatedly lied to the public to gain their support.

Was it rigged?
No.

But it wasn't clean or fair.

Oh please.

There isn't a single candidate running for president who hasn't "repeatedly lied" by those standards. Hillary Clinton has used self-serving narratives and been disingenuous at times. So has Bernie Sanders. So have all of the Republicans. There's nothing unfair about a plurality of voters preferring Clinton's narratives to Sanders'.

There's "lying" by changing views on policy to gain support, and there's "lyiong" like stating multiple times you landed under sniper fire when there's video evidence otherwise. One of those things got Brian Williams removed from his position due in part to the fact that it made him no longer trustworthy to the public, and it's not the first one.

[Ngelmish]

I understand your point, but it's facile on its face.
*snip*
But to declare that Sanders would necessarily be walking away with the votes in those circumstances is unknowable. People who vote for Clinton and get their news from mainstream outlets are not all going to be automatons, and the implication that the only reason they aren't voting for Sanders is because they don't know the facts is absurd.

Well then, it's a good thing I've never said that.

I've never stated or implied that Clinton voters are establishment media automatons that only vote for her because they are ill-informed, only that the narratives being pushed by establishment media are creating an environment that favours Clinton over Sanders, which has a quantifiable effect on the votes and delegates that each of them receive.

You have repeatedly claimed that the establishment media is pushing a pro-Clinton message, at times in much less careful language than you're using presently.

Or they vote for her because they simply favor Clinton's policies over Sanders'.

Of course they do; the only place they get their news from praises Clinton and demonizes Sanders.

I will accept that you didn't mean to imply that these Clinton supporters you're referring to were suffering some failure of critical thinking, but the word "demonize" clearly implies that these voters are in some way making choices based off of flawed information. Demonize isn't a neutral verb.

[Camicon]

Well then, it's a good thing I've never said that.

I've never stated or implied that Clinton voters are establishment media automatons that only vote for her because they are ill-informed, only that the narratives being pushed by establishment media are creating an environment that favours Clinton over Sanders, which has a quantifiable effect on the votes and delegates that each of them receive.

You have repeatedly claimed that the establishment media is pushing a pro-Clinton message, at times in much less careful language than you're using presently.

Of course they do; the only place they get their news from praises Clinton and demonizes Sanders.

I will accept that you didn't mean to imply that these Clinton supporters you're referring to were suffering some failure of critical thinking, but the word "demonize" clearly implies that these voters are in some way making choices based off of flawed information. Demonize isn't a neutral verb.

No, it isn't. And establishment media isn't neutral in how they report on Clinton and Sanders. They are transparently biased, and lie in her favour incredibly frequently.

And my language is not any more "careful", only more precise, because you seem intent on assuming that I'm saying thing which I am not.

*snip*
If traditional news coverage was equally critical an salutary to both candidates, then Clinton's support would be lower than it currently is, and Sander's would be higher.
*snip*

*snip*

If you don't think traditional news media (which is obviously biased to anyone who eschews them as a their primary source for news) influences voters, then you are a fool.*snip*

What is the difference between that and people who vote for Bernie because they get all their news from the internet...

Because you find both narratives online. You don't find both narratives on CNN, or MSNBC.
*snip*

I have said that Sanders would be doing better if the establishment media gave fair and equal coverage to both he and Clinton.
I have said that most Clinton supporters receive all their news, and thus are greatly influenced by, establishment media.
I have said that the biased coverage being pushed by the establishment media is driving voters to Clinton, and away from Sanders.

Nowhere have I declared that Sanders is losing because establishment media is backing Clinton.
Nowhere have I declared that Clinton supporters are mindless automatons.
Nowhere have I implied that people are supporting Clinton only because they are ignorant.

[Geilinor]

I have said that most Clinton supporters receive all their news, and thus are greatly influenced by, establishment media.

All of their news? Considering that most people in America use the Internet, I doubt that.

[Eol Sha]

Agreed, this is an unquestionable and undebatable win for Secretary Clinton. Although I will say that the "Coin tosses" didn't exactly give her Iowa, but rather the super delegates themselves. Which is why in New Hampshire, where Sanders won by a large margin, he only got around half of the delegates (and she could technically tie him in delegates received there). Personally, I believe that is a crime that it's allowed by the Democratic party and the DNC itself, but I suppose when the "Establishment" controls the rules; they make sure one of their own are given a lead. Even if that means taking away from the real winner.

As for the VP conversation that we've recently been discussing, I have heard about the Cory Booker and Tim Kaine rumors as well. It is worth noting that both are first-term freshman senators from their respective states. What seems to be consistent here is that all three: Castro (D-TX), Booker (D-NJ), and Kaine (D-VA) are young, fresh faces to the Democratic party.

Kaine would be in his 60s by the time a Clinton administration finished two terms, so not quite in the same age bracket. That's one of the reasons I hope she picks him: Of those three he seems less likely to want to run for president himself and less likely to make running on a ticket with her a major platform to spring off in the next 4 to 8 years.

Tim Kaine was former DNC chair. For some Democrats that won't look too good.

Sure, although the vitriol aimed at the DNC is deeply misguided. Booker is a corporate shill, that won't play well with some Democrats. Castro is vacuous and without any crowning policy achievements or projects. That won't look great either. More problematic for Kaine is the fact that he's a bit more conservative than most Democrats these days.

Honestly, none of these men would be my first choice for a VP. I'd take O'Malley or Gillibrand in a heartbeat.

Misguided or not, the anger at, or at least frustration with, the DNC is real. Granted Kaine would be a bit removed from DWS's tenure, but I think, even more than Bernie supporters, a Kaine pick might play badly (if miniscule) with independent voters who already see Clinton as a corporate shill.

We all know you'd prefer O'Malley.

In my opinion, she should pick someone from out west. Maybe Jay Inslee or Kate Brown. Maybe Jerry Brown or John Hickenlooper. Maybe go wild and choose Steve Bullock. Although that last choice would take away a fairly hard to regain governor seat. At the very least, the western choice might bring in a different perspective to the campaign trail and, ultimately, the White House.

[Camicon]

I have said that most Clinton supporters receive all their news, and thus are greatly influenced by, establishment media.

All of their news? Considering that most people in America use the Internet, I doubt that.

How many retirees and grandmothers do you think go online to get their news from Mediaite? TYT? Tumblr? Reddit?

Using the internet does not mean you get your news from the internet.

[Conserative Morality]

All of their news? Considering that most people in America use the Internet, I doubt that.

Speaking as someone who lives in a part of Appalachia with a large retiree population, you might be surprised.

[Geilinor]

In my opinion, she should pick someone from out west. Maybe Jay Inslee or Kate Brown. Maybe Jerry Brown or John Hickenlooper. Maybe go wild and choose Steve Bullock. Although that last choice would take away a fairly hard to regain governor seat. At the very least, the western choice might bring in a different perspective to the campaign trail and, ultimately, the White House.

I'd love to have one of those governors on the ticket, the problem is that picking someone from a safe state doesn't really help.

[Geilinor]

All of their news? Considering that most people in America use the Internet, I doubt that.

How many retirees and grandmothers do you think go online to get their news from Mediaite? TYT? Tumblr? Reddit?

Using the internet does not mean you get your news from the internet.

Most Clinton supporters aren't retirees and grandmothers.

[Myrensis]

All of their news? Considering that most people in America use the Internet, I doubt that.

How many retirees and grandmothers do you think go online to get their news from Mediaite? TYT? Tumblr? Reddit?

Using the internet does not mean you get your news from the internet.

how many ordinary working adults do you think gets their news from the same?

I could just as easily turn it around and say that most Bernie supporters receive all their news, and thus are greatly influenced by, progressive internet echo chambers.

[Camicon]

How many retirees and grandmothers do you think go online to get their news from Mediaite? TYT? Tumblr? Reddit?

Using the internet does not mean you get your news from the internet.

Most Clinton supporters aren't retirees and grandmothers.

No, they aren't. But most Clinton supporters are older people who, regardless of whether or not they use the internet in the first place, do not use it to consume news outside of the establishment media.

[Ngelmish]

You have repeatedly claimed that the establishment media is pushing a pro-Clinton message, at times in much less careful language than you're using presently.



I will accept that you didn't mean to imply that these Clinton supporters you're referring to were suffering some failure of critical thinking, but the word "demonize" clearly implies that these voters are in some way making choices based off of flawed information. Demonize isn't a neutral verb.

No, it isn't. And establishment media isn't neutral in how they report on Clinton and Sanders. They are transparently biased, and lie in her favour incredibly frequently.

And my language is not any more "careful", only more precise, because you seem intent on assuming that I'm saying thing which I am not.

*snip*
If traditional news coverage was equally critical an salutary to both candidates, then Clinton's support would be lower than it currently is, and Sander's would be higher.
*snip*

If you don't think traditional news media (which is obviously biased to anyone who eschews them as a their primary source for news) influences voters, then you are a fool.*snip*

Because you find both narratives online. You don't find both narratives on CNN, or MSNBC.
*snip*

I have said that Sanders would be doing better if the establishment media gave fair and equal coverage to both he and Clinton.
I have said that most Clinton supporters receive all their news, and thus are greatly influenced by, establishment media.
I have said that the biased coverage being pushed by the establishment media is driving voters to Clinton, and away from Sanders.

Nowhere have I declared that Sanders is losing because establishment media is backing Clinton.
Nowhere have I declared that Clinton supporters are mindless automatons.
Nowhere have I implied that people are supporting Clinton only because they are ignorant.

Biased coverage.

If biased coverage is pushing voters in a certain direction then unbiased, less biased or differently biased coverage would be pushing them in other directions. If I accept your premise (and I recall that I did do just that, at least in the broad strokes a few posts back) then I am also accepting the premise that the influence this biased coverage produces has some sort of deleterious effect on the quality of these voters' decision making.

You keep running away from that point, but it is implicit to the concept of biased coverage.

[Camicon]

How many retirees and grandmothers do you think go online to get their news from Mediaite? TYT? Tumblr? Reddit?

Using the internet does not mean you get your news from the internet.

how many ordinary working adults do you think gets their news from the same?

I could just as easily turn it around and say that most Bernie supporters receive all their news, and thus are greatly influenced by, progressive internet echo chambers.

You could try to make that argument. But consuming news from non-traditional sources on the internet exposes you to multiple narratives, no matter how hard you may try otherwise, even if that exposure comes in the form of something to circle-jerk to.

Establishment media has a largely unified narrative, and when offline they have the ability to completely cut other narratives out of the picture.

[Conserative Morality]

Biased coverage.

If biased coverage is pushing voters in a certain direction then unbiased, less biased or differently biased coverage would be pushing them in other directions. If I accept your premise (and I recall that I did do just that, at least in the broad strokes a few posts back) then I am also accepting the premise that the influence this biased coverage produces has some sort of deleterious effect on the quality of these voters' decision making.

Insofar as biased coverage gives a broader understanding of one candidate's position as opposed to the other's. Shit, how many people knew jack shit about O'Malley because of the lack of coverage on his campaign?

[Camicon]

No, it isn't. And establishment media isn't neutral in how they report on Clinton and Sanders. They are transparently biased, and lie in her favour incredibly frequently.

And my language is not any more "careful", only more precise, because you seem intent on assuming that I'm saying thing which I am not.



I have said that Sanders would be doing better if the establishment media gave fair and equal coverage to both he and Clinton.
I have said that most Clinton supporters receive all their news, and thus are greatly influenced by, establishment media.
I have said that the biased coverage being pushed by the establishment media is driving voters to Clinton, and away from Sanders.

Nowhere have I declared that Sanders is losing because establishment media is backing Clinton.
Nowhere have I declared that Clinton supporters are mindless automatons.
Nowhere have I implied that people are supporting Clinton only because they are ignorant.

Biased coverage.

If biased coverage is pushing voters in a certain direction then unbiased, less biased or differently biased coverage would be pushing them in other directions. If I accept your premise (and I recall that I did do just that, at least in the broad strokes a few posts back) then I am also accepting the premise that the influence this biased coverage produces has some sort of deleterious effect on the quality of these voters' decision making.

You keep running away from that point, but it is implicit to the concept of biased coverage.

I think that journalists and news media have a responsibility to report the news in as unbiased a way as possible. I consider it a dereliction of their duty as the press when they do not. To be clear, I have no problem with opinion pieces; however, when the bias of the author, and more so of the owners of these media corporations, colours the reporting of news that should be strictly analytical and fact based, I see that as a major problem.

Case in point: Larry Lessig's presidential campaign.

[Eol Sha]

In my opinion, she should pick someone from out west. Maybe Jay Inslee or Kate Brown. Maybe Jerry Brown or John Hickenlooper. Maybe go wild and choose Steve Bullock. Although that last choice would take away a fairly hard to regain governor seat. At the very least, the western choice might bring in a different perspective to the campaign trail and, ultimately, the White House.

I'd love to have one of those governors on the ticket, the problem is that picking someone from a safe state doesn't really help.

Colorado isn't a safe state. Washington and Oregon kind of are, but not as much as California.

[Ngelmish]

Biased coverage.

If biased coverage is pushing voters in a certain direction then unbiased, less biased or differently biased coverage would be pushing them in other directions. If I accept your premise (and I recall that I did do just that, at least in the broad strokes a few posts back) then I am also accepting the premise that the influence this biased coverage produces has some sort of deleterious effect on the quality of these voters' decision making.

You keep running away from that point, but it is implicit to the concept of biased coverage.

I think that journalists and news media have a responsibility to report the news in as unbiased a way as possible. I consider it a dereliction of their duty as the press when they do not. To be clear, I have no problem with opinion pieces; however, when the bias of the author, and more so of the owners of these media corporations, colours the reporting of news that should be strictly analytical and fact based, I see that as a major problem.

Case in point: Larry Lessig's presidential campaign.

That's completely reasonable and in those terms, I don't think we have any disagreement. I don't think that I see the pro-Clinton bias being quite as stark as you do, but as an ethical objection it's a fair point.

[Mahdistan]

JEB just dropped out. That's probably votes for Rubio, but it's a relief to have him out.

[Alouite]

Breaking News, Hillary Supporters have been caught on camera voting without registering in Nevada: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Ug9hHe_iZg

[The Lone Alliance]

It's difficult to call it clean or fair when Clintons campaign was transparently backed by the media establishment, and Clinton herself has repeatedly lied to the public to gain their support.

The media has been setting Hillary up for this for years.

[Ngelmish]

Biased coverage.

If biased coverage is pushing voters in a certain direction then unbiased, less biased or differently biased coverage would be pushing them in other directions. If I accept your premise (and I recall that I did do just that, at least in the broad strokes a few posts back) then I am also accepting the premise that the influence this biased coverage produces has some sort of deleterious effect on the quality of these voters' decision making.

Insofar as biased coverage gives a broader understanding of one candidate's position as opposed to the other's. Shit, how many people knew jack shit about O'Malley because of the lack of coverage on his campaign?

I absolutely hold the media more accountable than anything else for O'Malley's lack of traction. Their coverage, or rather lack thereof, of his campaign was utterly disgraceful.

I'd love to have one of those governors on the ticket, the problem is that picking someone from a safe state doesn't really help.

Colorado isn't a safe state. Washington and Oregon kind of are, but not as much as California.

Hickenlooper would be an excellent choice, near the top of my list. I know it'd be risky in terms of Colorado state politics, but I admire that man and think he'd be a fine president himself.

As for O'Malley, if my fever dream of him bouncing back and into power in the next four years is to be true, I have to shamelessly plug him every chance I get. If Bernie Sanders were to make a personal guarantee to me that O'Malley would be on his ticket then I would switch to being a Sanders enthusiast in five seconds flat.

[Ashmoria]

Most Clinton supporters aren't retirees and grandmothers.

No, they aren't. But most Clinton supporters are older people who, regardless of whether or not they use the internet in the first place, do not use it to consume news outside of the establishment media.

so what? every vote counts, eh?

[Alouite]

No, they aren't. But most Clinton supporters are older people who, regardless of whether or not they use the internet in the first place, do not use it to consume news outside of the establishment media.

so what? every vote counts, eh?

Voter Fraud may have helped her win in Nevada. Of course, this video is only one instance of it caught on camera, but if this was allowed to happen it could've been widespread. We'll see what happens.

[Eol Sha]

Insofar as biased coverage gives a broader understanding of one candidate's position as opposed to the other's. Shit, how many people knew jack shit about O'Malley because of the lack of coverage on his campaign?

I absolutely hold the media more accountable than anything else for O'Malley's lack of traction. Their coverage, or rather lack thereof, of his campaign was utterly disgraceful.

Colorado isn't a safe state. Washington and Oregon kind of are, but not as much as California.

Hickenlooper would be an excellent choice, near the top of my list. I know it'd be risky in terms of Colorado state politics, but I admire that man and think he'd be a fine president himself.

As for O'Malley, if my fever dream of him bouncing back and into power in the next four years is to be true, I have to shamelessly plug him every chance I get. If Bernie Sanders were to make a personal guarantee to me that O'Malley would be on his ticket then I would switch to being a Sanders enthusiast in five seconds flat.

Maybe he'll run for Maryland's open Senate seat later this year. He probably has enough time to get his name on the ballot. Or maybe in 2018 if Ben Cardin decides to retire. He is 75 after all.

[Ashmoria]

so what? every vote counts, eh?

Voter Fraud may have helped her win in Nevada. Of course, this video is only one instance of it caught on camera, but if this was allowed to happen it could've been widespread. We'll see what happens.

*rolling my eyes*

you need to do what Bernie is doing--suck it up and work on the next vote.