Quote:
Originally posted by Chanel.
How many times do we have to establish that the online polls are ******** and the focus groups are not definitively in favor of Bernie? How many times will we go over this?
|
1) I didn't @ you, so I'm wondering why the abrasive tone as if anyone in particular asked you to "go over this" is necessary.
2) No one is saying online polls are definitively indicative of what will happen in an election,
of course they are unreliable. But when virtually
every single poll and focus group had Bernie "winning" the debate with varying margins (from CNN/Time and dozens of others, to conservative polls like Fox/Drudge), and all of the focus groups so far favored Sanders at least slightly, it definitely seems suspect that, paradoxically, there is
unanimous consensus among the mainstream media that Hillary "dominated" "eclipsed Sanders", and so on. Should these polls be on headlines and given the treatment as national/primary/otherwise credible scientific polls? No, but it at the very least begs the question of why a site should even poll it's viewers if it is a waste of bandwidth that should never be referenced even in passing, and that the opinions of
their own viewers don't even warrant a footnote in any of the articles I've read so far.
Quote:
Originally posted by Meowster
It's funny how the media is "biased" towards Hillary when they dragged her through the mud through Benghazi, her email scandal, and constantly ripped her apart throughout her husbands presidency.  Tumblr is so predictable.
EDIT: Forgot about how awfully they treated her throughout her Presidential bid in 2008 when Obama started making steam. |
1) Obama was pro-establishment as well. That was a dream election for the corporate media, and I will grant you that during that election they favored Obama by this stage in the democratic race iirc. Clinton-Obama is still a completely different dynamic than Clinton-Sanders
2) No one on this planet seriously believes the media inherently loves Hillary Rodham Clinton as a person. Just that media executives, being the same wealthy elite someone like Sanders is railing against and often having direct political ties to more establishment candidates, will ensure that their journalists and pundits back people like her over non-establishment "outsiders". I would say the republican party is just as bought out and thus protected by the media as Clinton, but the party as a whole far outperforms her in that regard. Thus it's natural that the media fueled the republican-driven narratives of Hillary's email "scandal" or Benghazi being legitimate issues worth our attention, Hillary is FAR from the only person they are tied to. With all that being said, they still clearly prefer her to someone like Sanders.
____________________
I have a serious question for Hillary supporters: Do you guys really not believe that our media would have a vested interest in ensuring that whoever gets the democratic and/or national nomination will be more pro-establishment and better for their bottom line? Just a question, I'm not asking this to debate with or berate anyone over their opinion (unless someone wants to), I'm simply curious as to where you guys stand on this since it's never mentioned from your side.
Can't read any article on Facebook without these ****ers bitching in the comments.