must be something going on there, amrite?

If one is going post glibness, it should be properly spelled.

And before you go all "pro-whomever-it-is-you're-supporting" I'm whatever with the two candidates.

she wants to keep her job and stuff!

during his victory speech after New Hampshire and in last night's debate in Wisconsin.

You won't see Bernie criticizing the corporate media in snippets of last night's debate or the other occasions on television, those parts are always edited out but the corporate media has taken notice.

Bernie has plenty of good reason to do so, our media is dysfunctional and dominated by the almighty mega-dollar just as the government is, but I have no doubt the bosses in the ivory towers of the six corporate media conglomerates which control 90+ % of everything the 300 million American People see on television, hear on radio and read in printed publications have made their opinions known and even if they haven't the well paid pundits no matter the network knows who cuts their checks.

I crack myself up sometimes.

And who knows, maybe she's on board with them. We're in a Democratic Party civil war.

She feeding at the corporate trough just like the rest of the shills.

Now highlighting one poll and saying how Bernie is not tied. I would rather see the BIG DNC story. But that might not look good for Hillary of DWS.

Putting things into historical context? Not just cherry picking the one thing that could diminish Sanders historic win in NH and making it the center of a biased agenda?

That's called journalism and you're doing it but highly-paid Rachel Maddow chooses not to. I wish we had peeps like you covering the primary season.

In a very real sense she is reporting the results of her station's efforts.

Why do people still watch cable news? Just to complain? Turn it off. Problem solved.

I turned it off and that didn't solve any problems I'm aware of.

Rachel is well respected. And there have been a few post critically examining her program of late and raising reasonable questions.

That is actually a tremendous service we are afforded here on DU. Please try not to complain about it.

Before the firing, you could tell she was pro-Sanders. After, she didn't mention his name unless she had to. I guess I can't blame her for wanting to keep her job, but I do.

I'm sure she thinks she's doing the greater good but she never seemed bothered by the MIC after her embedded(?) press tour of Afghanistan.

...correct. Iowa and NH had record turnout - for the Republicans. Democratic turnout was down.

argument has been that only Sanders can turn the dems out and unify the base. Right? The yuuuuuge voter turnout!!11!!1 Which is not happening.

Wait, is Maddow under the bus now too? Cool. I always liked her. It's a partaaaay under here now

Infomercial the night before New Hampshire ? That Rachel?

MSNBC seems in the tank for HRC.

Reported there was a poll showing the race tied but then, surprise! Turns out it's a totally unreliable poll by a republican pollster commissioned by a right wing website. Uh, okay. Why did you report on it at all?

Or should the media only report news that favors Bernie? Is that your idea of a fair media? How about if media reports all of the news, and (geez, I know this sound like the Fox news slogan) let the voters decide?

questions? And the claim of 2.9% accuracy? Something was very fishy. Inquiring minds need to know.

as far as Bernie goes is that MSNBC, CNN, and the rest of the media put a blackout on him pretty much all through 2015. A lot of people around the country are trying to get to know him. Almost all of the coverage has been for Trump and Hillary.

Rachel Maddow isn't being biased because you don't like what she's saying.

But yes Sanders does need to replicate Obama's success given that Obama didn't beat Clinton by much and in theory she and her team learned from that experience. So Sanders needs to be at or above the Obama level to beat Clinton. So far he's 1 for 2 in that regard, but he's also facing less favorable upcoming states. For whatever reason, Sanders has lagged in polling with minority groups. Given how important it was for Obama's ability to win the nomination, it does impact his ability to edge out Clinton.

We aren't going to get close to the majority in the House that we had in 2008. The House is substantially gerrymandered such that Democrats won a majority of the votes in House races in 2012 but only won 46% of the seats. By one estimate, Democratic candidates would have to win 55% of the vote to take the majority. That is exceedingly unlikely to happen.

Her whole segment was just about Iowa/NH. We have yet to see other states, so its not fair to comment.

In terms of house. 08, Dems won 52% of total votes & 233 seats. 12, GOP won 52% of total votes & 244 seats. The whole point of Sanders revolution is to reach voters who typically say the two parties are the same. No matter who GOP put up, there will be clear and distinctive differences between the two. Obama was all about hope and change, and he was not specific about anything. Bernie is putting 1) Single Payer Health Care 2) $15 minimum wage 3) Free Tuition 4) Increase in SS payments, etc.

I don't see a scenario in which voters vote for Bernie and his "radical" ideas, and also vote for GOP congressman who is taking opposing view.

One this current trajectory



Please read this thread .There's trouble ahead

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511210373

In her segment on "low turnout" she failed to mention that Bernie garnered the highest number of votes ever in New Hampshire primaries. Apparently someone else's voters didn't show up or something.

I'll pretend it was an oversight.

Bernie, if you include his 2000 Republican write in votes, received 38,000 more votes than anyone else in a New Hampshire primary ever! To say that he didn't bring out the vote is journalistic malpractice.

No one has seen any evidence of the so-called Sanders revolution https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/02/10/sorry-bernie-sanders-there-is-zero-evidence-of-your-political-revolution-yet/

Bernie Sanders recorded a resounding victory in New Hampshire's Democratic primary Tuesday. He crushed his rival, Hillary Clinton, with no less than 60 percent of the vote. If Sanders hopes not only to win the election but to achieve his ambitious progressive agenda, though, that might not be enough.

To succeed, Sanders might have to drive Americans who don't normally participate to the polls. Unfortunately for him, groups who usually do not vote did not turn out in unusually large numbers in New Hampshire, according to exit polling data.

https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=&w=1484

...As for Sanders, he credited his victory to turnout. "Because of a huge voter turnout -- and I say huge -- we won," he said in his speech declaring victory, dropping the "h" in "huge." "We harnessed the energy, and the excitement that the Democratic party will need to succeed in November."

In fact, Sanders won by persuading many habitual Democratic primary voters to support him. With 95 percent of precincts reporting their results as of Wednesday morning, just 241,000 ballots had been cast in the Democratic primary, fewer than the 268,000 projected by New Hampshire Secretary of State William Gardner last week. Nearly 289,000 voters cast ballots in the state's Democratic primary in 2008.

To be sure, the general election is still seven months away. Ordinary Americans might be paying little attention to the campaign at this point, and if Sanders wins the nomination, he'll have the help of the Democratic Party apparatus in registering new voters. The political revolution hasn't started, though, at least not yet.

Being objective and not agreeing with DU Sanders supporters is not mutually exclusive. Sometimes both can be absolutely true FACT.