Hillary is there............oh wait my bad

fascist of the year no doubt

BLM hopefully is a strong contender.

Racism is being challenged on more than one front now. Those activists have been inspiring.

"Sanders' rival for the democratic nomination and current front-runner, Hillary Clinton, only received 1.4% of the vote, shockingly coming in even behind hate-monger Donald Trump. The GOP front-runner received 1.8% of this year’s reader votes."
http://www.bipartisanreport.com/2015/12/07/bernie-sanders-wins-the-peoples-vote-for-time-magazine-person-of-the-year/

wouldn't they have at least made her a finalist?

so they discretely pulled BOTH Sanders and Clinton from the short list, to
save face and not completely blow their cover re how in the tank they are
for HRC.

because they're in the tank for her.

Makes total sense.

"His rival for the democratic nomination and current front-runner, Hillary Clinton, only received 1.4% of the vote, shockingly coming in even behind hate-monger Donald Trump"
http://www.bipartisanreport.com/2015/12/07/bernie-sanders-wins-the-peoples-vote-for-time-magazine-person-of-the-year/

and Time being in the tank for Hillary?

You're all over the place.

I can hardly make sense of what you're trying to say.

Bernie = 10%
Hillary = 1.4% <-- embarrassingly low showing

If I were a Time CEO making this decision, even if I was in the tank for Hills, I would be embarrassed to
put Hillary on the cover after she comes in 8.6% behind Bernie, and .4% behind Donald Trump.

Ignore the obvious if you wish, that's your choice of course.

I'm going to have to believe that your message is really divine snark of the most rarefied king. Cause otherwise....

Neither Clinton or Sanders should be in the running. Neither have particularly accomplished something this year. By that reasoning Trump also shouldn't be on the list.

"Bernie's rival for the democratic nomination and current front-runner, Hillary Clinton, only received 1.4% of the vote, shockingly coming in even behind hate-monger Donald Trump. The GOP front-runner received 1.8% of this year’s reader votes."
http://www.bipartisanreport.com/2015/12/07/bernie-sanders-wins-the-peoples-vote-for-time-magazine-person-of-the-year/

Hell, in 2013, Miley Cyrus got 16 percent of the readers' poll and finished third.

There's no way to spin that, compared to Hillary's 1.4%.

Sorry, bur no cigar.

him in the finalists group? Not much of a case. Certainly no case can be made that Bernie is being singled out in any way. Especially when past winners of the readers' poll who garnered a much higher share of the readers poll haven't been included in the finalists' group.

when:
a) it's a primary election year,
b) the 2 top Dem candidates get readers preference of over 1%
c) Time/Warner is a big backer of ONE of those 2, but she only gets 1.4%
d) the TOP readers preference is the other Dem, who Time/Warner doesn't support gets 10%

You can certainly disagree with that case, but it can be -- and is being -- made.

First, if anything the fact that its a primary year makes the case weaker. Frankly I think it was a reach to include Trump, but at least he's leading in his race for the nomination.

Second, no matter how many times you say it, the readers' 'preference' is not and has not been a factor in deciding who gets to be a POTY finalist. Not in a primary year or any other year.

Third, Time Magazine is owned by Time Inc. Time Inc was spun off by Time Warner Inc. in mid-2014 and is a completely separate, publicly traded company. The two companies do not have any officers or directors in common and neither owns any shares in the other. Surprised you didn't know that.

Fourth, like I said, you can whine about the readers' preference being ignored all you want, but in that regard you have absolutely no case that Bernie is being singled out. The top readers' pick has often not made the final list from which the editors' choose. I get that you don't want to accept that fact, but your refusal to accept it doesn't make it less a fact.

I have no problem with that ... I think it's cool that Bernie came in first
at 10% though. .. even if Time choses to ignore their own readers.

Which presumably means that you think the folks that made Kim Jong Un the winner in 2012 were readers of the magazine or that it was readers of the magazine that made General Al-Sisi the winner of the readers' poll in 2013 or Norendra Modi the winner in 2014.

That's actually very funny!

even if you are obnoxiously over-reaching with your snark.

As I've said many times, I'm backing Bernie in the primaries and expect that people will be surprised at the results of the early primaries and caucuses.

But I'm not so blind as to think that Bernie remotely comes close to meeting the POTY standard of being someone who has had more influence on world events, for good or bad, than anyone (or anything) this year.

yet you go out of your way to attack other Bernie supporters. You can't just have an honest
disagreement .. and just agree to disagree... no.

You feel compelled to go on the attack with an apparently endless litany of snark.

.... so much so that Hillary supporters cheer you on.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=882185

Playing both sides of the fence much?

I've made it clear that I think the polls are pointless. I've also made it clear that I think its absurd to assume that because Obama came back from a big deficit against Clinton is a sure thing that Bernie will and I've also made it clear that I think that there a lot of Clinton supporters here that are spiking the football before the kickoff has even occurred.

But in many ways I do feel more strongly compelled to hold those who share my support for Bernie to a higher standard and I see nothing wrong with that.

Ten times over .. AKA ad nauseum ..

But that's ok .. Gladly my skin's already been thickened-up by Clinton fans .. So no biggie.

their faves.

Maybe that's starting to sink in.

then it should be done away with altogether, because it's pointless and meaningless.

Just a thought.

Our race for the candidate is important, but maybe people who read time care about other stuff too?

Do you think the voters in last year's "readers" poll who gave Narendra Modi (who got 16 percent of the votes cast) are all or even mostly readers of Time?

Do you think that the voters in the 2013 "readers" poll who gave General Al-Sisi the win with 26 percent of the vote are big Time readers?

Do you think the voters who stuffed the ballot box for Kim Jong Un so he could win in 2012 were readers of Time (which as far as I know doesn't have a Korean edition).

All but 5 million of Time's 25 million readers are in the US.

Last year Narendra Modi won the readers' poll with 16 percent of the vote. Didn't make the final group being considered by the editors. In fact three of the top five vote getters in the readers' poll didn't make the final editors' group.

In 2013, much the same thing. General Al-Sisi of Egypt swept the readers' poll with 26 percent of the votes. And didn't make the cut for the editors' finalists. Nor did the second place finisher, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, who tallied almost 21 percent of the votes, but didn't make the final group.

I'm curious how you explain those results.

The "Readers Poll" is a scam to keep the little people believing they have input.
Truth is...this is an Editor's Pick, and the poll means nothing.

The Editors at Time had a problem this year.
They couldn't highlight Hillary without mentioning the Bernie beat the crap out of her in the poll by 10 times as much,
so they punted.

They're not hiding anything. I've seen threads here in past years railing again Time for not picking whatever won the ridiculous online click bait poll wasn't on the magazine cover. Time has always stated the editorial board makes the decision for the cover person of the year.

If you thought the poll was going to have any effect you weren't paying attention to what Time actually says.

Regardless, why the hell would Bernie win this? No presidential candidate has won before, and going on past history if they were to pick one it would be Trump. I don't like the guy, but he's had the most jarring effect on the current race. In the grand scope of things, compared to a group like Black Lives Matter they clearly beat out all candidates on someone that's has a big impact on the US this year.

Why so many people here are incapable of grasping this fact is a mystery.

I guess Isis does have a big social media following???

Truth be told, this post sounds conspiratorial.

'discretely pulled BOTH' names is your accusation.

Where is the proof of that?

The standard is the person, group, object or idea that has had the greatest influence on the year's events , FOR GOOD OR BAD.

You make no sense.

So it could be someone evil although thst have changed it to make it more of an honor in recent years.

It should have been bin Laden at least once based on original standard but thst went with Giuliani.

He's in second place and hasn't won anything. If he wins the GE, he will probably deserve it depending on what else happens.

There is a reality deficit in Sanders camp.

That is a big accomplishment.

I have a feeling it will be Black Lives Matter activists, just my opinion.

the biggest reaction to a problem that generated very little interest until they acted on their concerns.That alone may be the deciding factor.

If the measure is "impact on the world."

That's refreshing!

....but not Sanders

Well. How . . . . TELLING.

Person, group, object, or idea that has had the greatest influence on the year's events, FOR GOOD OR BAD.

It's not supposed to pick the year's pinkest pony.

....giving fawning attention to terrorists and psychopaths -- no matter what their reasoning. It's self-serving and irresponsible.

Apparently it's always sunshine and rainbows where you live.

in a "person of the year" piece is freaking asinine, IMO.

on the world's events than good people.

It is a fact that ISIS has had a greater impact worldwide on the events of this past year than anyone or anything else.

You may think that its wrong to acknowledge that fact, but if you want to create an award that only considers those who have done good in the world, no one is stopping you.

The POTY has never been about "honoring" someone or something. It's been about acknowledging that someone' or something's impact.

"When good news becomes news, that's bad news."

I'll will not be surprised if Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi takes it.
Man of the year is not about popularity.

and think that Time's cover should be reserved for people or events that make them smile.

And we know who to blame

you can win any internet poll, and your cadre can brag about
how much support you have.

is that it would indicate a lack of belief in him actually winning the presidency. He'd have to get it 2 years in a row in that case. OTH, my guess is HRC wasn't considered this year in part because of the high likelihood (at this point in time - certainly, this can change) of her winning it next year.

...now I ask you, was that nice?

but that's the OP's SOP here.

Gets fed way too often.

In any case, I vote for BLM activists. Along with the excellent work they are doing to keep these issues front and center I credit them with ensuring Bernie cannot win. I remember fondly sitting on my deck reading the news this summer when his terrible response at Netroots went viral. And then of course his supporters immediate responses to BLM via social media, which made it all the worse for Sanders.

I said to myself, right then and there, Bernie is toast. He will never, ever get the AA vote after this, and he cannot win without it.

Who they want to pick. That is clear. Your opinion means nothing.

2016 person of the Year, just as Hillary would be if she is elected.

In all reality, BLM and their efforts completely changed the Sanders campaign. That is how much influence they have over Sanders. Yet he won the keyboard warrior vote. I really thought I was going to read the headline "Sanders Beats Refugee's."

It could be BLM or Trump, but I think its far more likely to be the head of ISIS or Putin.

He's got a large part of the world after him.

NT

Or is it that you can't stop youself from posting everything negative you can find, no matter how trivial and irrelevant?

There had been post after post telling us how well Bernie is doing in these polls. It's only natural to want to see where it all went after so much excited enthusiasm.

of Hillary Supporters pissed off at Bernie Supporters.......who'd a thunk?

And yes, judging by all the alert stalking and the uptick in Hillary supporter hides, there is a lot of hate and vengeance going on from the Bernie side of things. Did you not think people would notice? And the fact that Hillary supporters talk about it elsewhere...OMFG!

What's really happening is that you can't control what they are saying at hillaryclintonsupporters.com and ...."Screenshots" and it bugs the flipping daylight out of you and yours.

Funniest thing in the whole wide world is that no one is fooling themselves into thinking your team doesn't think and say the same thing elsewhere.....except you. You act as though your team is an innocent victim in all of the comments.

I completely agree with the response in the screenshot. You guys never let up. Fuck it all.

Maybe I should be sad at the ridiculousness

That's a fact. I love this place regardless of that fact.

I have laughed alot and have been pissed myself on occasion.

happy.

Good luck. The only place you see a Time Magazine is a doctor's waiting room.

They have no interest in promoting someone who is against their economic views.

The person, group, object or idea that has had the greatest influence on events during the past year for good or bad.

Do you seriously think that Sanders has had a bigger influence on world events this past year than ISIS? Or Putin? Or even Merkel?
Do you seriously think that Sanders has had a bigger influence on events than BLM?

I'm supporting Bernie and if wins the nomination and the election, I have little doubt he'd win POTY next year? But this year? He's run an outsider's campaign that hasn't been in a single electoral contest yet. Seems more than a bit premature.

BTW, I think it's premature to consider Trump for the POTY nod as well, but at least he's actually held the lead in his party's nominating race and he's had far more of an influence (a bad influence I might add) on his party's nominees than Bernie has had on the other Democratic party nominees. (Further evidence of the difference in the influence of the two: a recent poll posted here on DU showing that Bernie has a high favorability rating among Asians also revealed that only 53 percent have any opinion of him. On the other hand more than 80 percent had a view of Trump, who is viewed quite unfavorably. When there is that big a difference in the number of people who have an opinion of someone, it's difficult to say that the one that far more people know about has had a bigger impact on events.

Definitively changed the national conversation on race.

putting away their weapons of mass delusion.

My vote goes for Black Lives Matter activists. All day.