only a few Corporations to own of it. Now there are NO standards that favor the people's right to fair and honest reporting.

Since deregulation, many voices are never heard on that medium. But they didn't count on the New Media thankfully, which I'm sure, now that they are beginning to see the power the people have which they thought they had under control, they will work hard to control that also.

If the TPP passes, that will begin to happen.

Which is why it is imperative that we have a president who is not Corporate owned.

unless Bernie overwhelms their machinations, they will win with their chosen ones.

There are far many voices being heard today thanks to the Internet than ever were heard during any period this.

The Fairness Doctrine was repealed in 1987. Since that time, the Repubs won the WH in 1988, 2000 (sort of), and 2004. Democrats won the White House in 1992, 1996, 2008 and 2012.

In the 28 years before the FD was repealed, repubs won the WH in 1968, 1972, 1980, and 1984 (Nixon twice and Reagan twice). The Democrats won in 1960, 1964, and 1976.

Conclusion: the FD really didn't wasn't all that significant. I began practicing communications law in 1978 - I've observed it up close when it was in effect and after its repeal.

Finally, the 1996 Act was passed by nearly unanimous and overwhelmingly veto proof majorities in the House and Senate, with the support of the vast majority of Democratic members. While there are provisions in the act that I think were misguided, there also a number of provisions in the law that benefited the public. The ones that were misguided in my opinion were those that loosened certain ownership restrictions on broadcast radio and television. For example, the Act got rid of the FCC's national ownership cap for radio stations and increased the number of radio stations a single entity could control in a local market to
local radio ownership limits (allowing ownership of up to 8 stations in a market that has at least 45 stations, with lower limits for markets with fewer stations). The result of this has been more concentration in the broadcast radio industry, but it still isn't a very concentrated market by most standards. Nationally, the four largest group owners of radio stations together control around 1660 stations (roughly 11 percent of all over the air radio stations). The total number of radio stations has increased since 1995 by nearly 30 percent -- most of this growth has been in the number of FM educational stations (which increased from around 1800 stations to over 4000 stations); the number of commercial FM stations increased by over 1300 stations (from around 5300 to around 6650). I don't think relaxing the ownership limits was a good idea, particularly since it helped grow Limbaugh's distribution. But the reality is that Limbaugh is carried on around 600 stations (and dropping); NPR is syndicated to around 900 stations. Both have around 13 million listeners weekly.

Over on the broadcast television side, the act increased the national audience reach for TV station ownership to 35% from 25%, eliminated the FCC's network-cable cross ownership rule and the statutory broadcast station-cable cross ownership restriction, but left in place the FCC's broadcast-cable and broadcast-newspaper ownership bans, leaving the FCC the same power to continue or eliminate those rules as it had prior to the Act. Other provisions, not relating to broadcast television, included one that deregulated the expanded tier of cable service (but left in place regulation of the basic tier).

You'd be hard pressed to make the case that those changes in the law are the reason that the electorate is divided today. It's been divided for a long time.

Poll than any corporate owned MSM poll and THESE results are much more in sync with what we are witnessing on the ground and in real life. No one is ever going to convince me that the massive groundswell of support we witness at Bernie's rallies and online doesn't translate into huge poll numbers on corporate owned MSM polls.


DOES-NOT-COMPUTE

Okay...

and Iowa which last week were 'irrelevant' are now 'scientific'. Lol! I'll remember all this when the next corporate poll shows Bernie beating Hillary and we are told again that they are not relevant!

It's just a poll, you would think he had just won the election or something seeing all the angst in this thread.

But you're right. The huge crowds, 33,000 at one event this week alone, combined with the fact that he wins nearly all internet polls, seems like a sign of something to me.

DOES-NOT-COMPUTE

Everywhere I go, people look at those polls and say, "huh?".

DOES-NOT-COMPUTE.

It's totally believable that Sanders is winning every single state.

Totally believable.

And in Hillary's home state of New York:

SANDERS - 62.8 %
Clinton - 37.2 %
w/ 24,279 responses

In Bernie's home state of Vermont:

SANDERS - 88.8 %
Clinton - 11.2 %%
w/1243 responses

Pretty sweet!

Cuz everybody knows what happens on DU doesn't happen in the rest of the country!!

to make her the winner, I bet it would become 'SCIENTIFIC' instantly

about polling methodology? It's no laughing matter.

Someone's on a roll!

Not my fault if there are no UNscientific polls where Hillary is the winner. I looked to be fair but just couldn't find one.

nt

of a so-called scientific poll that can't be verified and/or proven. Prove the methodology of the poll by revealing the contact names and numbers so the methodology can stand up to scrutiny.

that CANNOT be verified and proven

"We were underpolled because we didn't have land lines"

"We won all the internet polls"

Yet their candidate lost big

because I'm sure you're not proposing these phone polls have been 100% accurate all the time.

Why are they so angry, it's just a poll!

including multiple times, and a scientific poll?

Prove to me that a respondent in a phone poll wasn't counted multiple times.

'scientific' are polls that leave out more than half the voters they should be polling? Regardless, Bernie wins hands down in all Internet polls, scientific or not.

They are free to post some internet polls Hillary has won. I couldn't find any. Maybe that's the reason for the distress.

I do have a landline. It is for my blind brother. He could never figure out a cell phone.

That, plus, I could not get the smallest amount of information in answer to my question above, which you helped to answer.

Sounds like posing any question or trying to analyze the comparison provokes that distress. It's just a question, and any question is met with anger.

that phone polls don't call the same number several time? How many polls are contacting people who don't use land lines anymore. They have acknowledged that with the increase of cell phone use, they are not getting to an awful lot of voters.

Pollsters themselves say they are concerned about their methology considering how wrong they got several major elections recently

If they are so scientific how come they got the UK election so wrong? Seeing the rising up of the people against neoliberal policies everywhere, you don't even need a poll to make an educated guess at the possibility that neolibs are likely to be thrown out of office wherever they are running.

There is no reason to be so rude.

Every voter should be as enthusiastic about a candidate in the election. We all need to turn out and vote, otherwise we will keep getting the same recycled candidates that do little besides feather their own nests at the expense of the people.

what makes a poll scientific?

It is scientific if it gives Hillary a horrendous and insurmountable lead over everyone; it is not scientific if Sanders is ahead.

Source: Take a guess.

How eg, are the dealing with the fact that a majority of voters no longer use landlines? Yes, we know, some of them are adding a % of cell phone users now trying to catch up with the technology.

And how do we know that they are not calling the same numbers more than once?

How come they are getting it so wrong lately, acknowledged by the 'scientific' pollsters themselves?

I am getting lots of kicks out of this poll, thanks for yours btw.

Maybe if you post another few shit internet polls you'll feel better.

60. "Prove that the world of political pollsters is legitimate

Bring to DU lists of contact names and numbers from individual polls so we can verify these numbers and make sure one respondent didn't get counted multiple times or if they just made up the numbers to please their MSM payers. I'll be waiting champ"

Still waiting champ

Or fail to understand that simply poking holes in another method doesn't validate theirs.

Whether phone polls are accurate or not is irrelevant. There's been no evidence presented that this internet poll is reliable, controlled for duplicate responses, or randomly sampled.

that phone polls are "reliable, controlled for duplicate responses, or randomly sampled."

I'll continue to wait champ.

The person making a claim has to provide evidence. Even at that, reliability of phone polls has absolutely zero bearing on the reliability of Internet polls.

You're the one calling an important element of the social sciences "propaganda." You provide the evidence, not me.

good so you think they are meaningless too, glad we agree

"Reliability," it seems to be the common thread among polls, so I'm delighted that you think phone polls are unreliable too.

I didn't say phone polls were unreliable. I said I'm not defending them because, again, the reliability of phone polls has nothing to do with the reliability of Internet polls.

You brought up the topic to deflect from how utterly unreliable this poll is.

You say this poll is "unreliable", tell which phone polls are "unreliable" too.

You're the one who keeps trying to change the topic.

So they must not be worth your time and unreliable, I'm glad your not a wobbler.

Polls are polls are polls and are naturally related

will from now on. Voters are voting in all these online polls and Bernie is winining in all of them.

No one from the 'accepted' poll companies will be calling me, eg, because I have a cell phone. My MIL, otoh, a lifelong Dem was called consistently while I received no calls from pollsters.

E' xplain how 'scientific' it is to eliminate a huge part of he electorate in polls?

Face it, people like Sanders, millions of people. Hundreds of thousands are volunteering their time and professional skills to help him win this race. They are voting in online polls obviously, though not all of them, I haven't eg.

So, explain how 'scientific' a Primary poll is when half the population isn't being polled.

And how 'scientific' is it to include people who are not even in the race.

THIS poll focused only on those who are actually running.

Your 'scientific' polls are skewing the results by including Biden who isn't running.

How scientific is that?

My God. Some folks around here are acting like the Democratic Primary is the Super Bowl, and yelling at the TV somehow makes their favored team play better.

'Course, pretending that polls from September the year before the convention are meaningful towards the final outcome is pretty fucking hilarious too, but that hasn't stopped any of the Hillaryclintonsupporters.

So let Sabrina have her fun.

Woo!

Oh and unicorns and rainbow sparkles too!

Thanks sabrina 1,

This went up on my G+ first thing this morning.
Hope everybody will share this out on whatever social media you use.

they would be informed enough to understand that this is literally worthless as a measure of public opinion. I would be embarrassed to show this to people as some representation of a candidate's support.

& Rec.

Thanks for posting, Sabrina! Love this!

Thank you, sabrina.

thanks!

who hooooo!

It's hard to tell where the colors go from HRC to Bernie, so I played with the settings and got this:

http://iSideWith.com/map/kc-y

State results from 352,790 voters since Jul 2015
for the question "If the Presidential election were held today, which candidate would you vote for?"

Bernie Sanders: 51/51 (100%) states won
Hillary Clinton: 0/51 states won

much over usage!

If one person wants to vote in a poll two thousand times, who should we be to stop him?

so we only voted seven times: my five email addies and her two.

Shame on any who might have gamed this by cheating.