Bernie is trying to save the majority of american people and if going negative in a campaign helps so be it. I'd rather have a negative campaign but clean record than a dirty, rotting, corpse of a records like hilary.
Yes, we all get them in via a email subscription from Bernie's website, it's quite nice and informational. Would you like to sign up? No if course it's a ignorant talking point, it means nothing that a major news station is owned by big Clinton donors and supporters. Absolutely nothing. In no way shape or form, could the owners of a news station have any input at all on their own channel/business.
So you're saying there's a chance? . He's polling 10 points down in NY. Demographically (per 538) the state could be tie. So assume a tie, he then has to win 67% of the remaining delegates to lead in pledged. Then he has to switch the supers so that he gets a majority of them. He's also polling 10 down in Pennsylvania. Again, 538s demographic breakdown puts that one at a tie. So with a tie there too he'd need 70% of the remaining delegates. The 538 demo projections have been a better measure than early polls and he's only beat them by any relevant margin in caucus states. Of which there are none remaining. He could break 70% in California and still not win the pledged. (he's polling 10 down there too, although its very early). So at what point to you say "uncle" or stop claiming its media bias.
Bernie has been down double digits in basically all poles except for Vermont lol You cut out the part of my post where I stated its unlikely he will win big in those 3 states. But tying in NY and Pensilvanya, a big win in Cal + multiple large margin small wins could be a real route for Bernie to pull of a win or convention. I'm not saying it's realistic, but it isn't realistic that Bernie was 7 of the last 8 States by an average of about 65+%, its isn't realistic that Bernie has even made it this far, so, what I'm saying is, yes there's a chance
Again........ so a 50 billion dollar corporation AND it's employees donate less than $450,000 over nearly two decades and we are to believe that based CNN and Time Warner have some strong bias towards Clinton? That doesn't pass the BS test.
Passes everything but the confirmation bias test. From manipulating narratives: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brian-hanley/money-talks-why-cnn-wants_b_8313536.html Here is an article showing Contributions from 1989 to October 2015, totaling ~500k http://randomnerds.com/one-of-hillary-clintons-biggest-donors-owns-cnn-hows-that-fair/ Here is the number now. https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cid=N00000019&cycle=Career And that would be more than 100k in the past 6 months, and this is just the primaries.
Your percentages are wrong. He currently needs about 56.5% of the remaining pledged delegates to take the lead (in only pledged delegates). If he were tie in New York, he would need 57.5% of the remaining pledged delegates to take the lead (in only pledged delegates). After both scenarios he would need a favorable split of the supers to put him over the top (which at that point, it would be the greatest political comeback in history and the supers would begrudgingly oblige) Ironically, the media bias you're scoffing at has already misinformed you. It's either that, or you're convinced the supers won't switch. There's no historical basis for that assumption. Those are the only two explanations for your 67% and 70% figures.
I am not sure if you are a Clinton supporter or you are just naive. I am not here to discredit you or hate on you for your own beliefs. But a simple visit to CNN's politics website sort of gives you an idea of the favoritism that certain media sites like CNN show towards a particular candidate. Just take a look with an objective eye; you may have a different opinion than I do but I personally think it is odd that Bernie's win is nowhere mentioned. http://imgur.com/a/uNEPZ Can you honestly say that this page is not odd in the fact that his victory is not extensively covered? Is this how an "objective, reputable" news organization should present its news to the mass?
I think if you're counting on the Superdelegates switching I doubt that happens barring him winning an outright majority of the pledged delegates or something like an indictmen of Clinton happening. Sanders and his supporters have been complaining about the Democratic establishment so why would that establishment now support him? For that matter since Sanders hasn't been an official Democrat until recently what incentive is there for the establishment of the Democratic party to support him?
I just took a look at your link and I don't see what's odd about it. It shows that Sanders and Cruz won Wisconsin and then goes on to talk about the GOP race. The GOP race is far more interesting than the Democratic race as the math is more uncertain there and a contested convention isn't something that has been seen in decades. If anything you could say that CNN has a bias towards the GOP than a Clinton bias by reporting more on the GOP race than the Dem.
How does that really change anything? All of it is from individuals that work for Time Warner ($575,000) other than ($25,000) from a PAC. It is even less than the University of California has given to Hilary. It isn't some staggering amount, especially not for someone running for President and from a corporation worth billions.
If you don't understand how lobbyists can have a corruptive effect on politicians, I don't know what to tell you.
How is that any different that any other politician? How is it any different than the unions giving Clinton or Sanders money? So I again ask, what real support is there for the talking point that Time Warner has some large vested interest in Clinton, to the point that they will promote her and put down Sanders?
Because a union represents people, which is what government serves. A corporation represents profit, which is not what the government is supposed to serve. The support is the money trail. You don't seem to want to accept the plain as day money trail. What TWC is after, who knows, maybe they bought interview rights, or good seats in the press room, or whatever.
I agree that the GOP race is interesting, but I think it would make sense to report on the Sanders victory too if you are a "reputable" news organization. If somebody who does not follow news often goes to CNN.com politics section, it would be really difficult to see right away that Sanders had won. Just wanted to point out a few of those article links to sort of guide to you my point 1) How Walker helped Sanders win 2) Clinton plan: Defeat Sanders and unite Dem party 3) Clinton: I am not even sure Sanders is a Democrat 4) FBI: no rush on Clinton emails 5) Sanders feeling media heat 6) Obama to appear on Fox News first time since 2014 There are more news with negative connotations for Sanders after he won big in Wisconsin last night, as opposed to links reporting on that actual victory itself. There is a dedicated news link to Obama appearing on Fox News (is this even news?) but no more than 1 regarding Sanders victory... We all have different views so maybe you didn't see it the way that I did. So I hope I explained my points clearly enough for you to perhaps see a glimpse of my POV. I do not think that what I am saying is crazy and far-fetched when I say that there is some media bias at play.
Hey! Don't hold back, dude. You're really helping Senator Sanders' image. Putting aside someone (was it you?) telling me I have a "double standard" because I am pointing out how Senator Sanders is, in fact, behaving like a politician (The Horror! How could that be?), something most of his supporters seem to think is something he does not do, I'd like to mention the peccadilloes of the New York and Pennsylvania Democratic primaries (they are far from the only states having these kinds of primaries and caucuses, but are of particular interest now for obvious reasons). As I understand them, they are what are generally referred to as "closed primaries" (I know - I don't know anything about politics), primary states that only allow registered voters of the Democratic Party (in this case) to vote in the primary. In other words, only actual registered Democrats can vote. What New York will tell us, and Pennsylvania a week later, is how well the Sanders campaign has prepared for those elections by getting his supporters registered as Democrats. I'll be looking closely at the New York results. They will show how well Sanders has prepared for this closed primary by getting his people to register and what inroads he has made among registered Democrats. A substantial win by Clinton would be good for her going forward. So far, she has polled strongly with registered Democrats, just as the strength of Sanders has been with independents and young voters. If the race is a close contest for Clinton, or if there is a huge upset and Sanders wins, the Clinton camp will become more worried than they are today. We'll see on the 19th!
Almost agree. More with your previous post as well. It's not 'bias' to assume that super delegates (long time party members) will be hesitant to switch their support to someone who just joined the party for this election and has spent a lot of time calling the party corrupt. It just doesn't make sense. I guess this will get me labeled a "Hillary supporter." Sigh, no. I want the best president we can get, and I feel confident that the option is not Trump or Cruz. Now, on the CNN front, I do think posters have a point on a slight pro-Hillary lean. They often paint the narrative of Burnie having an impossible "hill" to climb, etc, etc. And the examples from their politics page today are a good example, as SuperBeeKay detailed.
Your math is right. My bad. It's not the media bias that misinformed me, it's my own math skills. For shame. I'm not sure what the supers would do. Delegate count? Popular vote? Their own judgement (which is why they're there)? I really don't think it will matter as I think she wins the pledged easily. But, my math was off. And I admit I am a slave to 538s analysis (and their demographic projection did mirror Wisconsin and continues to paint a bleak picture for old man Bernie).
Sandy Hook was devastating but how are the gun manufacturers at fault? I don't understand how anyone can possibly agree with suing them.
