Quote:
Originally posted by Lebanese Dude
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! |
My god you're trying your best to avoid it
BERNIE DIDNT HAVE EVEN HALF OF HER COVERAGE
And the media basically kept ******** on him and his supporters
Like literally where the **** were during the primaries to keep spinning and avoiding **** like this
And that last part doesn't make any ****ing sense. YES IT DOES MATTER them being favourable, especially when one of the candidates was barely known for the most part of the primaries and when he fianlly started getting to people's attention he started getting WAY more support than he did before that, and mind you, this was the result of delivering his message through the internet. Are you going to tell me that if media outlets outside the internet treated bernie equally he wouldn't have had a much bigger support? (giving him same time of coverage and on the same level of positivity they showed towards clinton, and again, I'm talking about the news outlets that reach most democrats)
If your answer is "no" then I'm basically wasting my time arguing with you
this is the worst…
Though a bit hopeful I guess. Most American voters were against this man, a shame their votes couldn't count cause they weren't Floridians or Michigan natives.
Cherry on top: they voted for Trump!
