The parent company of Fox News is also a major donor to her campaign. Hillary brings in their views = more money.

And Politico and Slate never dragged her.

I should've been more clear, Politico and Slate also praised her. Alejandrawr and I were disagreeing about whether or not it's trustworthy to listen to the pundits who said Hillary won the debate.

Well 21st Century Fox (owner of Fox Entertainment group & Fox "News"), is also one of Hillary's top 10 known donors, in excess of ~300k throughout her 2000-2008 campaigns. I figured it wasn't worth mentioning them because I'm still not entirely sure what Fox News' angle is at the moment. They too, concluded she won (though not with all the fanfare as more centrist/liberal sites did, for obvious reasons), but I feel they are MUCH more beholden to their many republican puppets and viewers to be actively pushing Hillary. And if anything, that "focus group" might show that as a result of their obviously pro-republican bias, they will try to raise Bernie against Hillary due to the (imo misguided) notion that they have a better chance in the general against him. Statistically speaking, they do, but they will still lose either way.

Don't know about the money trails which lead to Slate/Politico if any, but at the very least they still fit the mainstream media narrative. There are really tons of other reasons for insiders favoring Hillary at this point - the seeming inevitability of her win making it more profitable to their bottom line to publicly come out on her side if she becomes president (ie: having a greater chance at exclusive interviews, which is very much done in Washington). No need to force the narrative of their being a race now that Bernie is actually known and making it a race, etc.

While I'm still open to discussion, I would also like to get off this topic if you don't have anything substantial to add/rebut, as the longer we stay on it the more I feel like people will draw the assumption that I'm somehow in denial about her performance at the debate, when in fact I've stated before that I and most democrats I know thought she did VERY well in addition to Bernie, and just found the ubiquity of headlines that she singularly "dominated" by the mainstream media to be suspect. I would also find it inaccurate if you swapped Hillary's name with Bernie in the headlines.

Regarding the latter part of your statement, I'll just preface this paragraph with "tldr; any press is good press". Negative press regarding what were always non-issues like the email "scandal" is still preferable to zero coverage at all, which for candidates with less name recognition is essentially cancer for their campaigns. Now in no way shape or form am I saying the blowing up of those "scandals" was some Clinton plan or something she would have even preferred to a more quiet campaign in her very unique situation among the democratic candidates (being the ONLY one with any name recognition at all among the GP), but at the very least the likes of Webb or Chafee would have killed for 1/4 of the coverage she got, even if it was for burning kittens.

Additionally, it's not like even I believe supporting the more safe/establishment candidate is the ONLY agenda the media has. They also care about online page views and TV ratings. Thus, pretending there is a race when there really wasn't one (such as the early articles spelling doom & gloom for Clinton if she dropped 5 pts in polls) was basically attempting to offset the uninteresting narrative of the inevitable coronation of President Clinton II.

But no, the media isn't "secretly supporting Clinton the minute they don't agree with those polls". The media has ALWAYS had a bias towards what their executives perceive as weaker and more pro-establishment candidates, just look at the 2008 election when Obama was equally for-sale, but younger and with less experience, more bankable (with less of a record to track), and the media DEFINITELY pushed him over Hillary.

edit: wasn't paying attention to this tab for an hour or so, didn't see that downbywednesday addressed the Fox part. I promise I'm not just parroting what he said!

*she but you worded it better than I ever could so

Didn't see the segment yet, but based on what you said I will say I agree and disagree with my good sis Rachel Maddow, or at least to a certain extent. Rather, I agree and kinda agree, I'll start with the latter:

1) While I would mostly agree that there was not one standout, the conclusion I draw is instead, that 2.5 people "won" the debate, rather than no one won.

- Hillary came out with a clear strategy and got most if not all of the boxes checked that I would have had on my list: finally went on the offensive against Bernie when the very nature of her campaign put her on the back foot against the upstart challenging her from the left (grilling him on guns), mentioning the two main arguments her supporters have in favor of supporting her "I'm the candidate who gets things done" and subtly insinuating that she's the one we need in order to beat republicans (again, I disagree, but it's a good notion to run on), and lastly, definitely putting the email "scandal" behind her, at least in the minds of non-insane voters.
- Bernie Sanders, while he could have prepared better, finally appeared to the general public (not young internet users or people at his rallies) as an actual candidate with policies, rather than the faceless concept of "socialist drawing big crowds" which media narratives reduced him to previously. Being generally considered charismatic and with a populist message, getting that message out on the big stage was the main thing currently on Bernie's agenda, it's why his supporters were whining about a lack of debates, and he did it well earning probably more crowd support than anyone else.
- Martin O'Malley - while his winning would be the upset of the century at this point in what is a two-person race at best - he at least made his debut appearance to the GP, didn't make a fool of himself, and appeared "presidential" overall. If nothing else, he poised himself for the prospect of VP, a good cabinet position, a better presidential run in the future, my sugar daddy, etc. I also give him bonus points for being the only one who didn't give an answer I felt to be a gaffe.

So instead of saying no one won, I'd say 2-3 people won, in so far as they accomplished the goals they had to have set for themselves pre-debate. Hillary probably gets a B+, Bernie a B, O'Malley like, a C-.

2) On the other hand, I do wholeheartedly agree that the democratic party won overall. The main problem I had with the DNC's decision to have such few debates is that debates draw headlines. By allowing republicans to run rampant with, what is it, twice as many official debates(?), they are essentially allowing them to control the national conversation. We shouldn't be discussing how hard we want to persecute women for making decisions concerning their bodies, or how fervently we want to demonize immigrants. I like that I'm hearing regular people talking about free/affordable college now, things like that are why it's a net win for the democratic party, and liberals/progressives in general.
_________________________

Now this is once again purely anecdotal, but related to my first point. About an hour ago, Obama, with Joe Biden by his side just interrupted The View which my mom and I were watching (after Wendy ). I brought up how Biden missed his chance not showing up to the debate, which prompted her to say she now supports Sanders. Not zealously, she certainly didn't sound like a 20 year old collegiate tumblr user in her support, but this is big coming from a black woman in her 50s, generally a moderate democrat who was very pro Bill Clinton, and raised me with the old "Bill was the first black president" saying. Keep in mind we're a family which generally does not discuss politics (me being a far left progressive, my mom being a more moderate democrat, and my older brother being a conservative-leaning independent, it's a topic we shy from), so it's not like I've been lowkey campaigning for Sanders or ever even mentioned that's who I support. This is what visibility does, and why candidates like Bernie Sanders desperately wanted it.

Ummm in her book she expressed reservations about the TPP. Of course she wasn't going to badmouth her former employer... however the article I posted shows the evolution had been happening since at least 2014. So... that isn't right before she got elected and even if she did flip flop, as long as its the right answer I don't care. Flip Flop to the right answer. Why stick with something that's changed or something that people you represent have serious reservations about?

I still personally believe only Hillary or Biden can win the general election for us.

But anyway, I'm just happy her poll numbers are doing well, she's 30 points ahead in NJ today, she's 30+ points ahead of Bernie when Biden's not in the mix, and her numbers are trending up again. I have no complaints or arguments to make today.

Oops, thanks sis

Did you miss the part where she's flipped on every single free trade legislation?

She supported NAFTA for almost ten years and it was just coincidence she changed her mind when running for office? Delusional.

Next GOP debate is on the 28th and the Don is already telling CNBC to listen to his terms or he's not going:

"On the call, according to three sources who were on the line, Corey Lewandowski, Trump’s campaign manager, said that if the debate does not include opening or closing statements and is longer than two hours total, including commercial breaks, the real estate mogul would have to reconsider his participation."

Cruz and Paul aren't threatening to boycott, but also voiced their complaints that the format needs to be changed.

I caught the Ivanka Trump interview on CNN
She's so poised, articulate and likeable, you'd think she's the one to run for president and not her dad.

Ivanka is a brilliant woman.

What do people see in Ben Carson? I tried to watch an interview with him and I nearly fell asleep - and that's aside from him being offensive and extra-religious.

The media is saying Hilary won the debate because she obviously did. I don't think it has anything to do with media bias or campaign contributions. Only die-hard liberals think Bernie won because he said the things they wanted to hear.

She did not see any new information since then, it's has not been made public and she is not privy to the info. That's why it's being called a flip flop. Even the white house called her out on it. She spent five years negotiating, and all of a sudden a new leak that completely changes the TPP from being the gold standard to an F. It's a lie, she's doing this to keep her Union support and the other Dems have turned against it.

Well, when there are 11 people on stage, the debate has to be long so that everyone can get their message across. Those Republicans polling at less than 5% need to drop out already.

Five people in the Democrat debate was a perfect number, even though two of them were woefully unprepared and unqualified.

Let's just make it Jeb, Carly, Rubio, Cruz, Carson (ugh), and Trump and do away with the rest.

Webb should just stay home.

Yes, that's exactly what it needs to be. Those are the people polling over 5%.

Webb AND Chafee. Chafee is the most uncharismatic politician I've ever seen.