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 All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Jefferson23

(30,099 posts)
Sun Mar 20, 2016, 11:32 AM Mar 2016

Sanders Campaign Could Win In Spite of Corporate Media Spin

Robert W. McChesney, Prof. of Media and Communications, University of Illinois, says that Sanders has a good fighting chance to secure the Democratic nomination in spite of the traditional media's effort to undermine his success

March 20, 2016

Video only, running time 4.5 minutes approx.




Bio

Robert W. McChesney is the Gutgsell Endowed Professor in the Department of Communication at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. In 2002 he was the co-founder of Free Press, a national media reform organization – www.freepress.net – and served as its President until April 2008, and remains on its Board of Directors. McChesney also hosts the “Media Matters” weekly radio program every Sunday afternoon on NPR-affiliate WILL-AM radio – http://will.uiuc.edu/am/mediamatters/default.htm; it is the top-rated program in its time slot in the Champaign-Urbana area. McChesney has written or edited eighteen books. His work has been professionally translated into 28 languages. His latest books is called "Will the Last Reporter Please Turn Out the Lights: The Collapse of Journalism and What Can Be Done to Fix It". In 2008 the Utne Reader listed McChesney among their “50 visionaries who are changing the world.” In 2001 Adbusters Magazine named him one of the “Nine Pioneers of Mental Environmentalism.” In 2006 right-winger David Horowitz included McChesney on his list of the “101 most dangerous professors in America.” In 2010, along with John Nichols, McChesney was awarded the U.S. Newspaper Guild’s 2010 Herbert Block Freedom Award; according to the Guild’s Executive Council, “the two of you have done more for press freedom than anyone. Your body of work is second to none. This is a transformative year for journalism. If we're able to chart a course that will preserve what matters, it will be in large part due to both of you.” In 2011 McChesney was given the “Communication Research as an Agent of Change” lifetime achievement award from the International Communication Assn.
123 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Sanders Campaign Could Win In Spite of Corporate Media Spin (Original Post) Jefferson23 Mar 2016 OP
Yes he can! NWCorona Mar 2016 #1
Sanders would win, Hillary, not Baobab Mar 2016 #13
"Voters wont turn out for Hillary..." kristopher Mar 2016 #42
Triangulation getting old and tired Baobab Mar 2016 #45
Tough To "Write In" On Electronic Voting Machines... However TOTALLY AGREE... CorporatistNation Mar 2016 #66
She's also the strongest vote getter in the field. onenote Mar 2016 #74
Not fact, you are drawing a conclusion based on only appx. 50% of planned sampling. kristopher Mar 2016 #77
To date, she is the strongest vote getter in the field onenote Mar 2016 #81
And that makes it meaningless as regarding your point, doesn't it. kristopher Mar 2016 #85
The fact that the usual schedule worked to Clinton's favor doesn't indicate a conspiracy onenote Mar 2016 #88
Didn't say it was a conspiracy - that's a poor attempt to deflect away from yr failure kristopher Mar 2016 #90
As a student of social science I suggest you study Jesse Jackson's run onenote Mar 2016 #97
Post the '88, '12 and '16 primary schedules and lets do it here. kristopher Mar 2016 #100
here are schedules going back 100 years. Knock yourself out. onenote Mar 2016 #102
Y'all are the ones denying that the primary schedule is front loaded to favor Clinton kristopher Mar 2016 #104
And so it was front loaded to favor that well-known conservative Jesse Jackson? onenote Mar 2016 #106
Sure, that's why she has more votes than any other candidate running lunamagica Mar 2016 #93
Poor reasoning skills seem to plague the Clinton supporters kristopher Mar 2016 #94
But the straws, they are so graspy! dchill Mar 2016 #95
See you on April 19! Oh, can't wait for NY where the Sanders camp will be CHRUSHED lunamagica Mar 2016 #99
Bookmarking for when she wins both the delegates and the popular vote. Your pesonal attacks lunamagica Mar 2016 #98
It isn't a personal attack to point out that the LOGIC of a persons argument fails scrutiny. kristopher Mar 2016 #101
" Poor reasoning skills seem to plague the Clinton supporters" Sure is an attack. Very insulting lunamagica Mar 2016 #105
Yes indeed! vintx Mar 2016 #2
K&R Rebkeh Mar 2016 #3
Bolding a whole text ALWAYS makes it seem "truthier"... Surya Gayatri Mar 2016 #4
Please knock yourself out and find anything about the author that is false, then post Jefferson23 Mar 2016 #6
.../... Surya Gayatri Mar 2016 #10
Clearly your point is you enjoy creating posts with zero merit. Jefferson23 Mar 2016 #11
As pkdu so aptly says elsewhere in this thread... Surya Gayatri Mar 2016 #12
You made a false claim in your first post. I called you out on it and you came up Jefferson23 Mar 2016 #14
That's what passes for informed discussion among the Clinton supporters. kristopher Mar 2016 #19
I saw that and recommended it, and one can see from the responses how Jefferson23 Mar 2016 #26
Get go, let go....whatever. Pointing out the annoying and manipulative Surya Gayatri Mar 2016 #20
You equated the highlight not as annoying, you equated it to mean it was used to make Jefferson23 Mar 2016 #22
Just what IS the justification for bolding a whole long passage, Surya Gayatri Mar 2016 #30
Does the Clinton campaign have a primer on discussion disruption? kristopher Mar 2016 #32
Hum, let me think. No, can't say I've undergone any training Surya Gayatri Mar 2016 #37
Bolding is what you claim its to be for? Bullshit, you're merely attempting to cover up Jefferson23 Mar 2016 #33
Yep. kristopher Mar 2016 #39
Say, what? Surya Gayatri Mar 2016 #41
You don't own the reasoning and to claim you do is absurd. Nothing was garbled by me, Jefferson23 Mar 2016 #43
Yikes...spare me more of this: Surya Gayatri Mar 2016 #44
More tabloid nonsense, the same tactic you used when you entered the thread. Jefferson23 Mar 2016 #46
Brock, Brock? Someone related to Spock? Never heard of Brock. Surya Gayatri Mar 2016 #47
You know him well, you've been demonstrating the connection/tactics since your first Jefferson23 Mar 2016 #50
Sorry, can't say I do. Who be he? Surya Gayatri Mar 2016 #51
Look in the mirror. n/t Jefferson23 Mar 2016 #53
I see a greying 70-year-old female retiree. Is that what I'm supposed to see? Surya Gayatri Mar 2016 #55
He's right there...the evidence is in each of your posts from your first Jefferson23 Mar 2016 #60
Sorry, but who the hell is "HE"? Very cryptic. Surya Gayatri Mar 2016 #61
lol You do rely on pretending not to be aware of Clinton's Brock campaign Jefferson23 Mar 2016 #64
.../... Surya Gayatri Mar 2016 #67
It's my thread and you decided to add baseless smears not me. Jefferson23 Mar 2016 #69
Hilarious exchange. First time I've laughed my ass off on this site in a long time. kerry-is-my-prez Mar 2016 #107
No conspiracy, just her baseless smears. n/t Jefferson23 Mar 2016 #108
Her criticisms of you bolding your text or is there something I missed? kerry-is-my-prez Mar 2016 #109
The claim was, bolding the text was utilized to ensure it was viewed as "truthier." Jefferson23 Mar 2016 #110
My tongue was firmly in my cheek, I must admit... Surya Gayatri Mar 2016 #115
Tabloids and yellow journalists, eh? SMC22307 Mar 2016 #111
Your observation is perfectly valid. Overbearingly bold style can be VERY annoying, Surya Gayatri Mar 2016 #116
lol Still doubling down I see. n/t Jefferson23 Mar 2016 #118
Thank you both for giving me a good laugh. It is very needed in this frequently ugly place! kerry-is-my-prez Mar 2016 #121
You're very welcome...it was a funny exchange. lol Jefferson23 Mar 2016 #122
Don't waste your time.... brooklynite Mar 2016 #5
Your concern for our time is duly noted...thanks for stopping by. n/t Jefferson23 Mar 2016 #8
Do me a favor and post some graphs tracking your claims, 'kay? kristopher Mar 2016 #17
The more I got to know him.... MaggieD Mar 2016 #27
You earned my first total ignore. nt DemocracyDirect Mar 2016 #34
Agreed, had the same experiences. And he completely turned my husband off in a short R B Garr Mar 2016 #123
Robert is a Professor of Media and not Political Science. Thats why , presumably , he says things pkdu Mar 2016 #7
Yea, I mean what would he know. lol Jefferson23 Mar 2016 #9
Well, that is the questin, innit? Adrahil Mar 2016 #40
Supposed expertise, you mean like Nate Silver who screwed up big time about Jefferson23 Mar 2016 #48
I listened to the interview onenote Mar 2016 #75
You may believe he undercuts his own argument yet you have just highlighted Jefferson23 Mar 2016 #78
A chance is there. But his claim that his chances are still "very strong" is a stretch onenote Mar 2016 #86
Look, you can ignore that he beat the odds thus far or not. I'm not ignoring Jefferson23 Mar 2016 #89
“101 most dangerous professors in America.” kristopher Mar 2016 #15
A badge of honor, yes. n/t Jefferson23 Mar 2016 #18
And maybe they'd think about doing their job again. pdsimdars Mar 2016 #16
Yes! Waiting For Everyman Mar 2016 #21
Kicked and recommended. Uncle Joe Mar 2016 #23
Excellent video! marions ghost Mar 2016 #24
LMAO! MaggieD Mar 2016 #25
Its not Corporate Media - Its the Centerist Dems FreakinDJ Mar 2016 #28
Owned by and working for the same people, what's the difference? nolabels Mar 2016 #112
Message auto-removed Name removed Mar 2016 #29
Bernie Is The Only Antidote To Rampant DNC DWS DLC HRC Third-Way Corporatist Corruption cantbeserious Mar 2016 #31
1172 to 846...nt SidDithers Mar 2016 #35
We know, maybe you aren't aware of the meaning of could win. Jefferson23 Mar 2016 #38
I understand the meaning of "could win". But he's claiming there is a good chance Bernie will win onenote Mar 2016 #76
He does have a good chance, based on the fact he has already beaten the odds Jefferson23 Mar 2016 #79
We will just have to agree to disagree on what a 'good chance' means. onenote Mar 2016 #82
Yes, evidently his past performance is not a confidence builder for some. Jefferson23 Mar 2016 #84
McChesney is denying those odds, however. Garrett78 Mar 2016 #119
An upset is not impossible, that is how I interpreted his assessment. Jefferson23 Mar 2016 #120
excellent and accurate yourpaljoey Mar 2016 #36
And if he does, I hope that all Democrats will ban together and support him. anotherproletariat Mar 2016 #49
Yes, and pigs could fly outta my butt. n/t Lil Missy Mar 2016 #52
Hmm. That's rough. nt ladjf Mar 2016 #56
Do you prefer to present visuals like that, what does it mean..exactly? n/t Jefferson23 Mar 2016 #58
It might be close to being a miracle but then there have been some ladjf Mar 2016 #54
I agree but the point is we have enough going for us to fight it out and Jefferson23 Mar 2016 #57
The media and his opponent are doing everything they can to squish Bernie Rosa Luxemburg Mar 2016 #59
Or maybe more democrats feel Clinton is the better candidate? tia uponit7771 Mar 2016 #62
No one is suggesting a conspiracy theory, if that's what you meant. Jefferson23 Mar 2016 #72
I was thinking about this earlier today. Vinca Mar 2016 #63
There is no doubt in my mind if Bernie succeeded he would receive similar Jefferson23 Mar 2016 #65
You're right. I must be having a faint hearted kind of day. Vinca Mar 2016 #68
I apologize if my response came across suggesting you were not Jefferson23 Mar 2016 #70
I didn't take it that way at all. Vinca Mar 2016 #71
Ok , good..thanks. Jefferson23 Mar 2016 #73
It's a long way until August. Anything can happen. If I were Bernie, I'd stay in! reformist2 Mar 2016 #87
I saw the thread subject line and thought--oh noonzz-its H. A. Goodman!! riversedge Mar 2016 #80
If you were as confident as you claim I doubt you'd be in this thread. n/t Jefferson23 Mar 2016 #83
What a silly post. riversedge Mar 2016 #91
You enter the thread with a baseless smear and add a Clinton flower logo and I'm Jefferson23 Mar 2016 #92
I am not confused, i always come to primaries forum to see flowers nolabels Mar 2016 #114
Yes We Can! Jenny_92808 Mar 2016 #96
K & R AzDar Mar 2016 #103
McChesney is right that Sanders has done amazingly well, but... Garrett78 Mar 2016 #113
KICK! ('n' rec) pat_k Mar 2016 #117

kristopher

(29,798 posts)
42. "Voters wont turn out for Hillary..."
Sun Mar 20, 2016, 12:50 PM
Mar 2016

That isn't the same as saying Hillary won't motivate voters. She is the strongest vote motivator on the field - unfortunately, it's a motivation to vote against her.

Baobab

(4,667 posts)
45. Triangulation getting old and tired
Sun Mar 20, 2016, 01:09 PM
Mar 2016

People are just fed up with manipulation and manipulators.

A strong campaign to write in Bernie and/or Elizabeth Warren might work to prevent a bloodbath for other Democratic candidates nationally. In terms of getting out the vote. Otherwise the unwillingness to vote for Hillary would likely result in GOP candidates getting a huge number of victories they would not otherwise get.

And possibly the death of the Democratic Party by irrelevance.

CorporatistNation

(2,546 posts)
66. Tough To "Write In" On Electronic Voting Machines... However TOTALLY AGREE...
Sun Mar 20, 2016, 02:07 PM
Mar 2016

Hillary will NEVER become POTUS unless the election is "FIXED" by the Corporatist Oligarchy...

kristopher

(29,798 posts)
77. Not fact, you are drawing a conclusion based on only appx. 50% of planned sampling.
Sun Mar 20, 2016, 02:39 PM
Mar 2016

Half the country hasn't voted yet and the half that has was deliberately front loaded to favor Clinton. So not only is the sample you are extrapolating from incomplete, it is deliberately non-representative of the population being measured.

Doesn't anyone understand basic social science anymore?

onenote

(42,383 posts)
81. To date, she is the strongest vote getter in the field
Sun Mar 20, 2016, 02:56 PM
Mar 2016

Better?

And "deliberately front loaded"? The schedule of the primaries was set in August 2014 when Clinton's most likely opponent was Biden. And the 2016 schedule is not appreciably different than the 2012 schedule. Pretty much the same states had voted by March 13 2012 as had voted by March 15 2016. The exceptions are a mixed lot: Arkansas, Colorado, Michigan, Illinois, North Carolina and Texas all voted after (but generally not long after) March 13, 2012.

That's some basic social science for you. With an emphasis on science.

kristopher

(29,798 posts)
85. And that makes it meaningless as regarding your point, doesn't it.
Sun Mar 20, 2016, 03:02 PM
Mar 2016

As for the denial of the order being front loaded for hillary, would you care to tackle an explanation for what "firewall" meant as used up to Mar. 15th?

Disingenuous and challenged by basic science. Press on my friend, press on.

onenote

(42,383 posts)
88. The fact that the usual schedule worked to Clinton's favor doesn't indicate a conspiracy
Sun Mar 20, 2016, 03:06 PM
Mar 2016

As for meaningless, that would seem an apt description of your point.

And returning to your post about who is the biggest vote motivator in the race thus far -- that would be Trump, who has had more people turn out not to vote for him than have voted for him.

kristopher

(29,798 posts)
90. Didn't say it was a conspiracy - that's a poor attempt to deflect away from yr failure
Sun Mar 20, 2016, 03:20 PM
Mar 2016

It isn't a conspiracy, it is a deliberate plan by the DNC to insulate the party from grass roots challenges to the 3rd way candidates.

onenote

(42,383 posts)
97. As a student of social science I suggest you study Jesse Jackson's run
Sun Mar 20, 2016, 03:55 PM
Mar 2016

in the 1988 Democratic primaries and see how it fits with your "deliberate plan" theory. The schedule in 1988, as it is this year and has been most years, "front loaded" a lot of southern states as well as New England states. The result was a very strong early performance by Jackson (not exactly the establishment candidate) making him the front runner for a period of time before the later primaries shifted the momentum back to Dukakis.

kristopher

(29,798 posts)
100. Post the '88, '12 and '16 primary schedules and lets do it here.
Sun Mar 20, 2016, 04:08 PM
Mar 2016

Don't forget to include the when the schedules were set.

kristopher

(29,798 posts)
104. Y'all are the ones denying that the primary schedule is front loaded to favor Clinton
Sun Mar 20, 2016, 04:38 PM
Mar 2016

It is accepted common wisdom that the general schedule is as it is in order to favor the conservative Dem candidate - which is Clinton. It's honed and polished for every Presidential cycle and the specific needs of the party to further support the Establishment candidate.


onenote

(42,383 posts)
106. And so it was front loaded to favor that well-known conservative Jesse Jackson?
Sun Mar 20, 2016, 05:06 PM
Mar 2016

You can make up whatever you want, but you have zero evidence to back up your conspiracy (and yes, you are claiming some sort of conspiratorial action to achieve a particular result) theory.

The dates of the primaries have not fluctuated all that much for many election cycles -- cycles occurring long before there was any "third way".

Do you really think the 1968 schedule, which made New Hampshire, Wisconsin, and Massachusetts three of the first four primaries was set up specifically to help LBJ against Eugene McCarthy? In fact, it wasn't set up with that thought at all or any other thought of helping one type of candidacy over another and the result was that McCarthy's early strength in states that were in his wheelhouse forced LBJ out of the race.

Social science involves more than agenda driven speculation and assumptions.

kristopher

(29,798 posts)
94. Poor reasoning skills seem to plague the Clinton supporters
Sun Mar 20, 2016, 03:41 PM
Mar 2016

.Perhaps someone needs to look for a statistically significant link...

Sorry, got sidetracked. See: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1537528

lunamagica

(9,967 posts)
98. Bookmarking for when she wins both the delegates and the popular vote. Your pesonal attacks
Sun Mar 20, 2016, 04:01 PM
Mar 2016

won't change anything.

I can't wait for NY!

lunamagica

(9,967 posts)
105. " Poor reasoning skills seem to plague the Clinton supporters" Sure is an attack. Very insulting
Sun Mar 20, 2016, 04:41 PM
Mar 2016

I could have alerted on it, but meh, I won't bother

Jefferson23

(30,099 posts)
6. Please knock yourself out and find anything about the author that is false, then post
Sun Mar 20, 2016, 11:45 AM
Mar 2016

it here. Your "truthier" snide remark is without merit otherwise.

Jefferson23

(30,099 posts)
11. Clearly your point is you enjoy creating posts with zero merit.
Sun Mar 20, 2016, 12:02 PM
Mar 2016

Also evident, you could not find anything negative about the
author you attempted to skewer earlier.

 

Surya Gayatri

(15,445 posts)
12. As pkdu so aptly says elsewhere in this thread...
Sun Mar 20, 2016, 12:08 PM
Mar 2016
"...the rest is horseshit IMO."


Way with words has our friend, pkdu.

Jefferson23

(30,099 posts)
14. You made a false claim in your first post. I called you out on it and you came up
Sun Mar 20, 2016, 12:12 PM
Mar 2016

empty, twice. You attacked his bio b/c it was highlighted..that is your idea
of a legitimate critique. Now you're relying on another poster..you're weak
snide remarks have no merit from the get go.

kristopher

(29,798 posts)
19. That's what passes for informed discussion among the Clinton supporters.
Sun Mar 20, 2016, 12:19 PM
Mar 2016

Given a sincere chance to put forth the best of their candidates positions, this is what you get.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511532343

Jefferson23

(30,099 posts)
26. I saw that and recommended it, and one can see from the responses how
Sun Mar 20, 2016, 12:30 PM
Mar 2016

unprepared they are to argue Clinton policy. I posted about single payer the other
day, the OP covered how it was a myth among others, that pursuing single payer would destroy ACA.

No takers from Clinton supporters.

 

Surya Gayatri

(15,445 posts)
20. Get go, let go....whatever. Pointing out the annoying and manipulative
Sun Mar 20, 2016, 12:19 PM
Mar 2016

habit of bolding a whole excerpt, does NOT equate to attacking the ideas propounded within, however spurious said ideas may be.

So...

Jefferson23

(30,099 posts)
22. You equated the highlight not as annoying, you equated it to mean it was used to make
Sun Mar 20, 2016, 12:24 PM
Mar 2016

it "truthier." You had zero ability to find anything false about his bio, which was
the highlighted excerpt. You had nothing now nor then of substance to offer.

There's a word for your kind of critique, it's called baseless.

 

Surya Gayatri

(15,445 posts)
30. Just what IS the justification for bolding a whole long passage,
Sun Mar 20, 2016, 12:33 PM
Mar 2016

if not to influence the unfortunate reader to think that somehow it is the unvarnished TRUTH!!!!! etched in stone.



These are the techniques used by tabloids and other 'yellow journalism' practitioners.

kristopher

(29,798 posts)
32. Does the Clinton campaign have a primer on discussion disruption?
Sun Mar 20, 2016, 12:37 PM
Mar 2016

There is a consistency about the tactics y'all are using which hints at training...

 

Surya Gayatri

(15,445 posts)
37. Hum, let me think. No, can't say I've undergone any training
Sun Mar 20, 2016, 12:45 PM
Mar 2016

in or received any information about "discussion disruption".

I do however, have a background in journalistic deontology and propaganda techniques. Recognize it when you see it.

Jefferson23

(30,099 posts)
33. Bolding is what you claim its to be for? Bullshit, you're merely attempting to cover up
Sun Mar 20, 2016, 12:37 PM
Mar 2016

for your baseless critique. There was nothing false in his bio, you were given'
the challenge to post what was not accurate, you failed.

I can bold what is relevant to me, which was his background. Your critique
was nothing but tabloid cheap comments.

 

Surya Gayatri

(15,445 posts)
41. Say, what?
Sun Mar 20, 2016, 12:50 PM
Mar 2016
"Bolding is what you claim its to be for?"


Garbled delivery. Come again?

Excessive bolding, like upper-casing, is used to give a semblance and veneer of seriousness or veracity to an otherwise unnoteworthy text.

Jefferson23

(30,099 posts)
43. You don't own the reasoning and to claim you do is absurd. Nothing was garbled by me,
Sun Mar 20, 2016, 12:57 PM
Mar 2016

my emphasis was his background. YOU attempted to smear him by asserting I highlighted
it to make it appear "truthier." I called you out on it and you could not produce anything
that backed up your claim. His bio is entirely accurate, you brought tabloid cheap shots
at him and now pretend to feign understanding.

Jefferson23

(30,099 posts)
46. More tabloid nonsense, the same tactic you used when you entered the thread.
Sun Mar 20, 2016, 01:11 PM
Mar 2016

Brock would be proud of you.

Jefferson23

(30,099 posts)
64. lol You do rely on pretending not to be aware of Clinton's Brock campaign
Sun Mar 20, 2016, 01:54 PM
Mar 2016

tactics...nothing cryptic about what I said to you.

I understand your dilemma, you had no legitimate critique of the professor
so you went with attacking his "truthiness" based on his bio being highlighted
in bold.



kerry-is-my-prez

(8,133 posts)
107. Hilarious exchange. First time I've laughed my ass off on this site in a long time.
Sun Mar 20, 2016, 09:29 PM
Mar 2016

Conspiracy theorist vs a 70 year-old woman with gray hair.

Jefferson23

(30,099 posts)
110. The claim was, bolding the text was utilized to ensure it was viewed as "truthier."
Sun Mar 20, 2016, 10:21 PM
Mar 2016

There was no transcript, she was smearing his bio, when asked what was inaccurate
about it she came up empty.

 

Surya Gayatri

(15,445 posts)
115. My tongue was firmly in my cheek, I must admit...
Mon Mar 21, 2016, 02:23 AM
Mar 2016

But, hand on heart, I really AM just an old retired lady, who happens to have some old-fashioned ideas about good journalistic style.

SMC22307

(8,088 posts)
111. Tabloids and yellow journalists, eh?
Sun Mar 20, 2016, 11:50 PM
Mar 2016
http://www.democraticunderground.com/110778361

Pics, tweets, bolding, blue links, smilies... Jefferson23's got nuthin' on the above *truthy* post.
 

Surya Gayatri

(15,445 posts)
116. Your observation is perfectly valid. Overbearingly bold style can be VERY annoying,
Mon Mar 21, 2016, 02:46 AM
Mar 2016

and may ultimately overwhelm the inherent force of the contextual ideas, whatever their political bent may be.

kerry-is-my-prez

(8,133 posts)
121. Thank you both for giving me a good laugh. It is very needed in this frequently ugly place!
Mon Mar 21, 2016, 11:02 PM
Mar 2016

Enjoyed the rapid-fire exchanges.

brooklynite

(93,879 posts)
5. Don't waste your time....
Sun Mar 20, 2016, 11:42 AM
Mar 2016

...this "Sanders campaign could win" argument is built on "as Sanders gets known, he does better"; except that it's not true. His support among African American voters is still poor, and his support among actual Democrats isn't getting better either. The second cliched argument is that after "winning the next 7-8 States" he'll have momentum that will carry him into New York. Sorry, but winning some Western Caucus States (remember when "Red States were meaningless"?) and possible Washington and Wisconsin isn't going to change the fact that Clinton will still be 200-250 PLEDGED delegates ahead going into CLOSED PRIMARIES in NY, NJ, PA and MD.

kristopher

(29,798 posts)
17. Do me a favor and post some graphs tracking your claims, 'kay?
Sun Mar 20, 2016, 12:16 PM
Mar 2016

Because from what I've seen in the trend lines, your claims are totally wrong, totally baseless, partisan bunkum.

 

MaggieD

(7,393 posts)
27. The more I got to know him....
Sun Mar 20, 2016, 12:30 PM
Mar 2016

The more I came to absolutely loathe him. And his supporters colored those thoughts as well. My apolitical wife absolutely loathes him after getting to know him.

R B Garr

(16,920 posts)
123. Agreed, had the same experiences. And he completely turned my husband off in a short
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 09:15 AM
Mar 2016

amount of time with his inability to articulate anything beyond his generalized smears. Now my husband just turns away in disgust when he starts in with his glib talking points. My husband's words about him: "that guy is a clown".

pkdu

(3,977 posts)
7. Robert is a Professor of Media and not Political Science. Thats why , presumably , he says things
Sun Mar 20, 2016, 11:45 AM
Mar 2016

like

".. he only had one week to campaign.."
"...when he announced in July , or June or April.."

Apart from the Superdelegate count bit , which I agree with , the rest is horseshit IMO.

 

Adrahil

(13,340 posts)
40. Well, that is the questin, innit?
Sun Mar 20, 2016, 12:48 PM
Mar 2016

What is the basis of his supposed expertise?

At the end of the day, this is about delegates. He hasn't shown a realistic path to getting the requid delegates. And Sanders' path is looking narrower all the time.

But I guess some folks just wanna here there still is a Santa Claus.

Jefferson23

(30,099 posts)
48. Supposed expertise, you mean like Nate Silver who screwed up big time about
Sun Mar 20, 2016, 01:22 PM
Mar 2016

Trump and Sanders?

I can't tell from your response if you listened to the interview, it appears
clear to me that he is speaking to the absurd presumption that Sanders
should drop out, there is no chance at all. If you have not voted and you
support him, you want a chance to see this through and no you do not
know what the end result will be.

onenote

(42,383 posts)
75. I listened to the interview
Sun Mar 20, 2016, 02:28 PM
Mar 2016

and he's doing a lot more than speaking to the presumption that Bernie has no chance at all. He's claiming that Bernie has a good chance. And while he conditions that claim at the very end by saying Bernie's good chance is depending on Bernie winning the next seven or eight primaries/caucuses and then taking that momentum into NY, that's like saying the Philadelphia 76ers (9 wins, 60 losses) have a good chance of defeating the Golden State Warriors (62 wins, 7 losses) if they just go out and score more points than the Warriors. Of course it's possible. But a "good" chance? Not really. Even if his assumption about a 7 or 8 in a row win streak turns out to be accurate, the issue at the end of the day is how much does that cut into Clinton's lead? And by not addressing that issue, he undercuts the credibility of his own argument.

Jefferson23

(30,099 posts)
78. You may believe he undercuts his own argument yet you have just highlighted
Sun Mar 20, 2016, 02:42 PM
Mar 2016

what could means in the context of his usage. Upsets happen in elections, Bernie
has already proven that fact with his delegate count. He was not expected to do as well
as he has.

A good chance is there for the taking, he did not suggest he would probably win
nor likely win...significant difference.



onenote

(42,383 posts)
86. A chance is there. But his claim that his chances are still "very strong" is a stretch
Sun Mar 20, 2016, 03:04 PM
Mar 2016

As for the states coming up being there "for the taking", I'm not sure what that exactly means. All of the states before now also have been there 'for the taking', but that doesn't tell you anything about how likely it is that they can or will be taken.

Jefferson23

(30,099 posts)
89. Look, you can ignore that he beat the odds thus far or not. I'm not ignoring
Sun Mar 20, 2016, 03:15 PM
Mar 2016

his chances nor is the professor inflating them, this has been an
election where the guru Silver fucked up twice. So I don't expect
Sanders to win and I also do not see evidence he has such terrible
odds to make that impossible..which is what is being presumed
by the msm.

Does that clarify my position? I hope so, since this thread has become
a means to parse a viable candidate hopeless and I don't agree
with that mindset.

Response to Jefferson23 (Original post)

Jefferson23

(30,099 posts)
38. We know, maybe you aren't aware of the meaning of could win.
Sun Mar 20, 2016, 12:47 PM
Mar 2016

If you're ahead, you should feel confident not to remind the underdog 24/7.

onenote

(42,383 posts)
76. I understand the meaning of "could win". But he's claiming there is a good chance Bernie will win
Sun Mar 20, 2016, 02:29 PM
Mar 2016

And that's not borne out by the facts on the ground.

Jefferson23

(30,099 posts)
79. He does have a good chance, based on the fact he has already beaten the odds
Sun Mar 20, 2016, 02:46 PM
Mar 2016

thus far. Good chance, could win....why believe he can't? As I said, he
is not selling a false hope, he is not saying he is likely to win.

Jefferson23

(30,099 posts)
84. Yes, evidently his past performance is not a confidence builder for some.
Sun Mar 20, 2016, 03:01 PM
Mar 2016

I will help him to win until its over...we know the odds.

Garrett78

(10,721 posts)
119. McChesney is denying those odds, however.
Mon Mar 21, 2016, 11:59 AM
Mar 2016

While it's true that Sanders has done amazingly well, to say his chances of securing the nomination are still "very strong" is absurd. Clinton does best in larger, more diverse states. Sanders does best in smaller, less diverse states. That pattern is not going to get flipped upside down. This means that Clinton's lead will, in all likelihood, be larger at the end of April than it is currently. A delegate margin of, say, 400 at the end of April means game over.

It's one thing to say Sanders could conceivably still win. It's another thing to suggest he has a good or 'very strong' chance.

Jefferson23

(30,099 posts)
120. An upset is not impossible, that is how I interpreted his assessment.
Mon Mar 21, 2016, 12:06 PM
Mar 2016

His past performance was not shabby..but I also appreciate what you're
saying and I do not feel he was over stating his case. That is where
we disagree..besides, we'll find out soon enough.

 

anotherproletariat

(1,446 posts)
49. And if he does, I hope that all Democrats will ban together and support him.
Sun Mar 20, 2016, 01:23 PM
Mar 2016

Just as I do if it turns out that Hillary is nominated.

ladjf

(17,320 posts)
54. It might be close to being a miracle but then there have been some
Sun Mar 20, 2016, 01:32 PM
Mar 2016

unusual event already during his campaign.

Jefferson23

(30,099 posts)
57. I agree but the point is we have enough going for us to fight it out and
Sun Mar 20, 2016, 01:38 PM
Mar 2016

if we lose, we lose...if we're fortunate for an upset, we could win.

Have you noticed in this thread what a threat the word could
has posed for some? I mean, Clinton is ahead, and if they're
so confident, why the need to remind everyone there is no hope?

The msm disgusts me.

Jefferson23

(30,099 posts)
72. No one is suggesting a conspiracy theory, if that's what you meant.
Sun Mar 20, 2016, 02:18 PM
Mar 2016

It is more an acknowledgement of the obstacles he has had vs her
advantages. I have often said, there are Democrats who do indeed
appreciate and support her policies and we should not ignore that
fact. That is one reason among many why I believe we may eventually
see a split party in the years ahead.

Vinca

(50,172 posts)
63. I was thinking about this earlier today.
Sun Mar 20, 2016, 01:51 PM
Mar 2016

It is possible for him to exceed her in pledged delegates in the states that are left to vote. Then he would need to convince the superdelegates to flip based on the votes in their states. A big hill to climb, but not totally impossible. I was also thinking (I was baking bread so there was plenty of time to muse), maybe, in the end, if Hillary is the nominee that's not so bad this year. There is so much enthusiasm on the right, chances are good they'll will the general election. If Bernie is the candidate, going left would be blamed for the loss until the end of time. If Hillary loses, the thought would be we should have picked Bernie and stayed to the left rather than accepting the status quo candidate. In the end, who the hell knows.

Jefferson23

(30,099 posts)
65. There is no doubt in my mind if Bernie succeeded he would receive similar
Sun Mar 20, 2016, 02:02 PM
Mar 2016

reaction from the DNC...like what the GOP is showing Trump. Where I disagree
is that Bernie would likely win..very much so. True he would have the power
of the people supporting him and not much else from within but a political revolution
is not for the faint hearted.

The DNC is invested in the status quo and they never expected Bernie to be
where he is today.

Jefferson23

(30,099 posts)
70. I apologize if my response came across suggesting you were not
Sun Mar 20, 2016, 02:13 PM
Mar 2016

supportive of Bernie..not my intention.

riversedge

(69,730 posts)
80. I saw the thread subject line and thought--oh noonzz-its H. A. Goodman!!
Sun Mar 20, 2016, 02:51 PM
Mar 2016

Might as well have been.


HAPPY FIRST DAY OF SPRING


Jefferson23

(30,099 posts)
92. You enter the thread with a baseless smear and add a Clinton flower logo and I'm
Sun Mar 20, 2016, 03:24 PM
Mar 2016

the one being silly? You're a very confused person.

nolabels

(13,133 posts)
114. I am not confused, i always come to primaries forum to see flowers
Mon Mar 21, 2016, 12:20 AM
Mar 2016

It makes my day so much brighter, even at night

Garrett78

(10,721 posts)
113. McChesney is right that Sanders has done amazingly well, but...
Mon Mar 21, 2016, 12:07 AM
Mar 2016

...to say his chances of securing the nomination are still "very strong" is rather absurd. Clinton does best in larger, more diverse states. Sanders does best in smaller, less diverse states. That pattern is not going to get flipped upside down. This means that Clinton's lead will, in all likelihood, be larger at the end of April than it is currently. A delegate margin of, say, 400 at the end of April means game over.

It's one thing to say Sanders could conceivably still win. It's another thing to suggest he has a good or 'very strong' chance.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Sanders Campaign Could Wi...