MSM Claiming Clinton Won Debate, Polls Show Differently

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

Hillary has been steadily slipping while Bernie has been steadily gaining.

Bernie's going to win in Iowa and New Hampshire. Once he has the first two wins under his belt, he's going to have a lot of enthusiasm behind him.

If Uncle Joe gets in it may be a bit premature to state who will win what primary or caucus.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

Hillary has been steadily slipping while Bernie has been steadily gaining.

Bernie's going to win in Iowa and New Hampshire. Once he has the first two wins under his belt, he's going to have a lot of enthusiasm behind him.

If Uncle Joe gets in it may be a bit premature to state who will win what primary or caucus.

I am referring to the current polling which includes Joe. The wording is something like, "If the election were held today and these names were on the ballot, who would you vote for..."

Besides, since they've been polling Joe, over the last two months, Hillary has lost 14+ points, Joe has gained 12+ points....and Bernie has gained 12+ points.

Joe isn't peeling away Bernie supporters.

If Joe runs he will split the moderate democratic vote and that will benefit the liberal democrats...Bernie.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

I am referring to the current polling which includes Joe. The wording is something like, "If the election were held today and these names were on the ballot, who would you vote for...

The majority of pollsters that I have seen interviewed made it clear that once a candidate officially declares you get a more clear representation of their chances in the polls.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

I am referring to the current polling which includes Joe. The wording is something like, "If the election were held today and these names were on the ballot, who would you vote for...

The majority of pollsters that I have seen interviewed made it clear that once a candidate officially declares you get a more clear representation of their chances in the polls.

Oh, I agree.

My point is that since they have been polling Joe, Bernie has only GAINED support. Hillary has lost 14+ points. It doesn't look like Joe would peel away many Bernie votes, if any.

Joe's policies are more akin to Hillary's. And Hillary's supporters have every reason to stray from her. Bernie's supporters have no reason to stray from him.

(Besides, and this part is just my opinion -- Joe's not a good person. Anyone paying critical attention in the summer of 2008 knows that. Bernie comes off as a pretty nice guy.)

originally posted by: MotherMayEye


Oh, I agree.

My point is that since they have been polling Joe, Bernie has only GAINED support. Hillary has lost 14+ points. It doesn't look like Joe would peel away many Bernie votes, if any.

Joe's policies are more akin to Hillary's. And Hillary's supporters have every reason to stray from her. Bernie's supporters have no reason to stray from him.

(Besides, and this part is just my opinion -- Joe's not a good person. Anyone paying critical attention in the summer of 2008 knows that. Bernie comes off as a pretty nice guy.)

I tend to agree. What makes me skeptical is that the media will, in my opinion, fall in for Biden and you will see more and more unflattering pieces about Sanders. That will eventually reflect in his numbers.

originally posted by: the owlbear
a reply to: UnBreakable

Billionaires and their ponies, or sports teams, or whatever...
They make money from the entertainment value that common folk give it.

Outright buying a political candidate, Walker, Rubio, Clinton?
(Or buying a candidacy ala Trump?)

The Supreme Court said it was okay. So it must be okay, right?

Not that I think it's ok but as you say the Supreme Court says so, unfortunately they're the rules we have to live under, unless you're lucky enough to have a few million lying around to buy a candidate.

originally posted by: Moresby
a reply to: newWorldSamurai

None of those are scientific polls.

I stated such in the OP along with a question "can they all be wrong?". I take it that your sentiment is that they are?

originally posted by: ketsuko
You mean the DEMOCRAT people do. There is a different between the Democrat base and the entire country.

Do you know that "Democrat" is a noun? It's not an adjective, as you have used it twice, here. I have heard that some people think saying "democrat" when they really mean "democratic" is supposed to be some kind of insult to Democrats, but it just shows a lack of proper grammar.

So, the proper way to say that would be, "the democratic people do". Likewise, it's the "democratic" base.

In any case, I know a lot of people who are not Democrats (me, for example) who want Bernie. Didn't mean to offend anyone.

i support Hillary 100%.....she's been through over 20 years of republican crap, who have accused her of a multitude of felonies, and even plotting the murder of Vince Foster. that's leaving out the grief "horndog bill" gave her. she's been a senator, and secretary of state...so, she has an idea what a president goes through, what a senator goes through, and what a cabinet member goes through....I think she is past the point where she will take crap from anyone else, foreign or domestic

originally posted by: newWorldSamurai

originally posted by: Moresby
a reply to: newWorldSamurai

None of those are scientific polls.

I stated such in the OP along with a question "can they all be wrong?". I take it that your sentiment is that they are?

"can they all be wrong" about D. Trump on the republican side?.....

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: ketsuko
You mean the DEMOCRAT people do. There is a different between the Democrat base and the entire country.

Do you know that "Democrat" is a noun? It's not an adjective, as you have used it twice, here. I have heard that some people think saying "democrat" when they really mean "democratic" is supposed to be some kind of insult to Democrats, but it just shows a lack of proper grammar.

So, the proper way to say that would be, "the democratic people do". Likewise, it's the "democratic" base.

In any case, I know a lot of people who are not Democrats (me, for example) who want Bernie. Didn't mean to offend anyone.

we should just start calling them republics from now on, instead of republicans

originally posted by: UnBreakable

originally posted by: the owlbear
a reply to: UnBreakable

Billionaires and their ponies, or sports teams, or whatever...
They make money from the entertainment value that common folk give it.

Outright buying a political candidate, Walker, Rubio, Clinton?
(Or buying a candidacy ala Trump?)

The Supreme Court said it was okay. So it must be okay, right?

Not that I think it's ok but as you say the Supreme Court says so, unfortunately they're the rules we have to live under, unless you're lucky enough to have a few million lying around to buy a candidate.

Yeah...
As I said in an earlier post.
Those in the ivory towers have won and have total control now. Over everything. They bought the candidates for pennies of their dollars and made millions from the benefits of those relationships. Too big to fail? My ass. And it is fairly big. It's all imaginary numbers behind the scenes. Fickle in order to keep the chattle in line.

I wish not to derail the thread but had to answer.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: MotherMayEye


Oh, I agree.

My point is that since they have been polling Joe, Bernie has only GAINED support. Hillary has lost 14+ points. It doesn't look like Joe would peel away many Bernie votes, if any.

Joe's policies are more akin to Hillary's. And Hillary's supporters have every reason to stray from her. Bernie's supporters have no reason to stray from him.

(Besides, and this part is just my opinion -- Joe's not a good person. Anyone paying critical attention in the summer of 2008 knows that. Bernie comes off as a pretty nice guy.)

I tend to agree. What makes me skeptical is that the media will, in my opinion, fall in for Biden and you will see more and more unflattering pieces about Sanders. That will eventually reflect in his numbers.

Could be. If I start to see the media turn against Bernie, I could change my tune.

Lavishing love on Joe or Hillary does not play well with the current political atmosphere though -- so it's not enough to convince me. Left and Right -- people are anti-Establishment, right now.

But the Establishment always gets their way, so I think they will do anything and everything to convince voters their candidate is anti-Establishment. That's not Joe. He was just VP to a disappointing president who promised progressive policies and turned out to be anything but.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: ketsuko
You mean the DEMOCRAT people do. There is a different between the Democrat base and the entire country.

Do you know that "Democrat" is a noun? It's not an adjective, as you have used it twice, here. I have heard that some people think saying "democrat" when they really mean "democratic" is supposed to be some kind of insult to Democrats, but it just shows a lack of proper grammar.

So, the proper way to say that would be, "the democratic people do". Likewise, it's the "democratic" base.

In any case, I know a lot of people who are not Democrats (me, for example) who want Bernie. Didn't mean to offend anyone.

I'm glad someone caught it.

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: newWorldSamurai

originally posted by: Moresby
a reply to: newWorldSamurai

None of those are scientific polls.

I stated such in the OP along with a question "can they all be wrong?". I take it that your sentiment is that they are?

"can they all be wrong" about D. Trump on the republican side?.....

The purpose of the OP was to juxtapose the media's interpretation of the results with the public's interpretation. If your assertion is all of this does not reflect the public opinion, I would disagree with you. Google, Facebook, Time, Slate and Drudge all conspiring to deceive the public is not reasonably plausible.

originally posted by: jimmyx
i support Hillary 100%.....she's been through over 20 years of republican crap, who have accused her of a multitude of felonies, and even plotting the murder of Vince Foster. that's leaving out the grief "horndog bill" gave her. she's been a senator, and secretary of state...so, she has an idea what a president goes through, what a senator goes through, and what a cabinet member goes through....I think she is past the point where she will take crap from anyone else, foreign or domestic

Were you a Hillary supporter in 2008? I ask because I was and have since come to look at the 2008 DNC primary under a different lens.

Obama was dragged across the finish line -- Hillary actually won the popular vote. Without the debacle in Michigan (and Florida) Obama wouldn't have won. In hindsight though, I wonder if Hillary helped Obama by keeping her name on the Michigan ballot.

And, considering the factors favoring Bernie this election season, I wonder if Hillary isn't playing along with the email scandal.

The State Department could have optically scanned 55,000 paper emails to text in 36 hours. Instead they have dragged this scandal out to Bernie's benefit for months -- acting like they have to read each one by hand. I don't think Hillary will be charged with anything. I think this whole scandal will just 'cause the demise' of her campaign. Hillary knows if there is anything indicating she committed a crime in those emails, she's a lawyer. She could have asked the State Department to auto-scan the paper emails and search for the 'keywords' they keep announcing -- confidential, secret, etc.. -- and be done with it. Her campaign is a great reason for a judge to consider such a request.

I feel like the email scandal is manufactured to help Bernie (or Joe, I suppose -- I won't discount the possibility).

All of that said, I liked Hillary for the very reasons you do. So, I understand your enthusiasm.

But, I've looked at her past scandals critically in the last few years and feel like the ugly truth is that she is dirty -- yes, Vince Foster...and Mena....and Systematics, Inc., and BCCI....and in cahoots with Bush Sr.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Yes, I know. You're a socialist. Also, it is wrong to characterize the adjective as democractic when democrats are anything but.



I should have said Democrats and everyone to their left.

I mentioned this already. However, that does not describe the people as a body of the American public.

a reply to: newWorldSamurai

Hillary may have won "show," but Bernie won substance hands down and the truth about that won't be found on MSM.

Furthermore, while MSM may have occupied the "drivers seat" in the past, with respect to controlling what people hear and accept as truth, the advent of social media has changed all that. Nowadays, the bulk of their influence is limited to those who are "willfully ignorant."

IMO, Hillary exposed some very troubling policy positions during that debate, like her opposition to reinstating Glass-Steagall, or her idea for a no-fly zone over Syria along with those Russian jets and cruise missiles flying everywhere. (No chance of escalation there!)

Then she attempted to copy some of Bernie's ideas like free public college, but she neglected to say how she would pay for it. She sure as hell didn't propose a tax on Wall St. to pay for it like Bernie did. I wonder why??????

Then she spent some time attempting to explain why she reversed her position on the "gold standard" of trade pacts as well as her indecision on Keystone. And of course, it was due to anything but political expediency.

I didn't hear her support a $15 minimum wage or single payer healthcare, but I did hear her apologize for yet another bad judgement call, (with respect to her decision to utilize a private email server.) just like she has admitted that her senate vote to support the Iraq War was bad judgement.

The last thing I want in a POTUS is to be constantly listening to their apologies for bad judgement calls.

While she may have "appeared" more presidential than Bernie to some, her actual policy positions suck.

In the eyes of the people and they're the ones who actually vote, Bernie won the debate, hands down.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Yes, I know. You're a socialist. Also, it is wrong to characterize the adjective as democractic when democrats are anything but.

I should have said Democrats and everyone to their left.

I mentioned this already. However, that does not describe the people as a body of the American public.

Ha! Touché! It was democrats who howled when the Supreme Court awarded 537 votes to George W. Bush. And then when their own Rules and Bylaws committee took 600,000 Michigan votes cast for Hillary Clinton, in 2008, and just handed them to Obama -- even though he withdrew his name from the ballot -- Democrats rewarded Obama and the DNC with their votes.

Democratic...yeah, that word really doesn't apply to the DNC and their members, does it?

a reply to: MotherMayEye

I wasn't thinking about it in that way. I was picturing the massive protests that always pour in whenever the ballot box has failed to elect them enough representatives and the ensuing government enacts something they don't like so they throw some of the biggest temper tantrum protests around screaming that this is what democracy looks like.

No, I thought voting was what it was supposed to look like.