Quote:
Originally posted by welham
1) she still got WAY more positive media coverage during the PRIMARIES especially compared to bernie while there were people who didn't even hear bernie's name let alone his his record and image
2) the news outlets that democrats use and which covered the democratic primaries were extremely favorable towards clinton while they kept tearing bernie and calling his ideas and vision in a negative way
You do realize we're talking about the liberal media coverage (minus the ones that are primarily on internet) on the democratic candidates during the ****ing democratic primaries? What is it that you don't understand
|
Honey...Sanders got half the coverage of Sanders, but Hillary had 80% of her coverage be negative while Sanders only had 17% of his press be negative.
That literally means he got twice as much good coverage as Hillary
You're proving nothing. Sit down.
Them being favorable means absolutely **** in the end. They worked against her HARD after the primaries, probably because they thought she had it in the back and could risk the horse race narrative.
How it backfired on their face! Ha!
- Defund Planned Parenthood, repeal obamacare, Supreme Court justices that may probably repeal gay marriage etc. And no one to stop them. Welp.