Bullish on Bernie: The Bernie Sanders 2016 Thread II

[Skeptic Ginger]

LA Times[/I] has an embedded link behind the portion bolded in the above. One would expect said link to go directly to the Internet Archive's presidential tracker project, or something summarizing its data and results. It does not. Rather, it goes to this page at the Pew Research Center. When one goes through the (somewhat lengthy) article on that page, one finds no mention whatsoever of Internet Archive or any presidential press coverage tracking.

That's because you are reading the report. The data base and methodology are elsewhere on the site:

http://www.pewresearch.org/data/
http://www.pewresearch.org/methods/

You can go trough the details but I trust Pew Research to be publishing well supported conclusions.

There is a section about voters' perception of news coverage for each candidate, but voter perception of coverage of a candidate is not the same as actual coverage a candidate has received.

That's because the article spends a lot of time talking about the voters' perceptions. That's the point of the article, showing the perceptions don't match the data. (No surprise there.)

I next turned my attention to the other study mentioned in the LA Times article. The embedded link for that does go to the correct page, with an article on that study by the study's author (Boyle).

But both the LA Times piece and the offered source link written by Boyle mention the same limitation of this study: it only examined a one-week (seven day) period of news coverage. A seven-day sample from a months-long campaign would not, to me at least, seem to be much in the way of a proper sample size from which to draw any meaningful conclusion over the amount of coverage granted to Clinton as compared to Sanders.

Furthermore, in the LA Times article (which quoted from Boyle's piece) says this:

Yet when one actually looks at the graph ("Media Coverage of the Presidential Candidates") given in Boyle's article, classifying the result as "close to the same level" of coverage for Sanders as compared to Clinton seems a rather generous interpretation. The graph (sadly, only a graph is available, not the specific numbers) shows that Clinton had some 40% more news coverage than Sanders. How a 40% advantage translates into "close to the same level" is, apparently, left as an exercise for the (skeptical) reader.

From the Boyle link:

3. The “Bernie Blackout” isn’t really a thing — At least not in our sample of online news (to be fair, the “blackout” originally referred to network news coverage). Based on the gap we found between Trump and everyone else, it’s more accurate to call it an “everyone but Trump” blackout. While Clinton’s name appeared more than Sanders’ over these 7 days, Bernie kept it close — and received more coverage than any of the other Republicans.

So I'm not sure what you are concerned about? I mean the graphs are based on data. I see no evidence of any Sanders news coverage deficit compared to Clinton. Do you think the Sanders coverage is lacking? Is there any evidence from 2016 that that is the case?

I'm sure there was in 2015 but that's legit and not so good for Clinton anyway.

 

[logger]

Since this is the Bernie Sanders thread, what do you libs think about this?
Sanders doesn't like charities.


http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/04/sanders-to-charities-drop-dead.php

 

[Fudbucker]

"”I don’t believe in charities,” said Mayor Sanders, bringing a shocked silence to a packed hotel banquet room. The Mayor, who is a Socialist, went on to question the ”fundamental concepts on which charities are based” and contended that government, rather than charity organizations, should take over responsibility for social programs."

It makes me like him even more. I don't want people depending on churches for donated goods or bake-sales to pay for operations.

If the government safety net is strong enough, there would be no need for charities, except for the niche kind, like Save the Whales, which I don't think he was referring to.

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

Since this is the Bernie Sanders thread, what do you libs think about this?

Jesus H. Christ that's incredible.

 

[Fudbucker]

Jesus H. Christ that's incredible.

Think about it: does it make sense there are charities that help out veterans, like WoundedWarriors? Isn't the existence of a charity like that an indictment of our veteran's care organizations? They're so inadequate, veterans have to go outside the government to get the care they need.

 

[Fudbucker]

From the link:
That's a tad premature.
Same old same old... The right wing hate the welfare state and socialism with a passion. And more than a few right wing women can empathize with the unfair attacks on Clinton. Some of the GOP women may very well vote Clinton, especially the more moderate among them.

See, I can come up with a scenario too.

Wow, that's some warped perception of the facts.

You don't hear many Clinton supporters saying if Sanders wins they won't support him. But some Sanders supporters are rabid Clinton haters. Like Susan Sarandon saying she might vote for Trump to speed the revolution. Even she recognized how bad that was and took it back but a lot of Sanders supporters have absolute hatred toward Clinton.

That's nothing but a repeat of #1. Guess they are trying to pad the list, or maybe they wanted a round number.

Cruz is beatable, he's too far to the right. Kasich remains an unknown but it's unlikely he's going to win.

So we should nominate the guy that is losing?

That's absurd. It's not happening at all.

IOW, reject the actual winner and nominate Sanders despite his losing the primary based on some imaginary formula that he can win the blue states. But the blue states are not going to vote for Trump or Cruz.

An outright falsehood even without the hyperbole.

And the Democrats are controlling this how?

Not on purpose. But here again are Sanders supporters saying he should win when he is losing.


I hate to use the analogy of imagining-they-are-persecuted Christians, but it does smack of that sometimes. For example:
News coverage is up, but 'Bernie blackout' is a rallying cry for Sanders supporters

The data from two different media researchers provides evidence Sanders supporters are not perceiving reality in focus.

Mostly the news media, especially CNN and MSNBC, want Sanders to be doing well, it's better for their bottom line and their need to not get boring. If the race is over, how are they going to keep the audience interested 24/7 when all they are talking about is the primary?

It really shows with the most recent coverage, talking like Sanders is pulling ahead in NY when he's still double digits behind in the polls. Noting he had a big crowd in Brooklyn, diminishing the number of people who showed up for Clinton at the Apollo describing it as "a few hundred" when it was well over 1,000 and not mentioning only half the hall was filled at the last Sanders event in Milwaukee.

There is no way the news favors Clinton over Sanders. But I see it claimed again and again on this and other forums.

I'm a Bernie supporter, but if Hillary gets a majority of pledged delegates, she should be the nominee. That's only fair. I think almost all Bernie supporters will fall in line if he gets close, Hillary gets the nod, and Bernie is given the respect he deserves at the convention.

Bernie's not a spoiler, like Nader. He knows he can't put the knife in Hillary too deep, or she becomes too wounded to run effectively in the general. He'll support her if he comes up short.

The only wild card is the FBI. If Hillary gets indicted before the convention, then the party will have a tough decision to make: go with the suspected criminal, or the old Socialist? THEN the superdelegates will earn their paychecks.

 

[d4m10n]

The only wild card is the FBI. If Hillary gets indicted before the convention, then the party will have a tough decision to make: go with the suspected criminal, or the old Socialist? THEN the superdelegates will earn their paychecks.

Not to mention the D.C. madam phone records and the Panama Papers.

 

[Fudbucker]

Not to mention the D.C. madam phone records and the Panama Papers.

No, because FBI investigations have ended in indictments before. Why should the one investigating Clinton be any different? Do you know something we don't?

 

[logger]

"”I don’t believe in charities,” said Mayor Sanders, bringing a shocked silence to a packed hotel banquet room. The Mayor, who is a Socialist, went on to question the ”fundamental concepts on which charities are based” and contended that government, rather than charity organizations, should take over responsibility for social programs."

It makes me like him even more. I don't want people depending on churches for donated goods or bake-sales to pay for operations.

If the government safety net is strong enough, there would be no need for charities, except for the niche kind, like Save the Whales, which I don't think he was referring to.

I just looked at as more proof on how stingy and ungiving liberals truly are.

 

[d4m10n]

No, because FBI investigations have ended in indictments before. Why should the one investigating Clinton be any different? Do you know something we don't?

Prostitution scandals and financial leaks have ended careers before.

 

[The Big Dog]

On Wisconsin! on Wisconsin!

Feel the Bern!

 

[d4m10n]

On Wisconsin! on Wisconsin!

Feel the Bern!

Did he win by enough to decrease how much he needs to win by going forward?

 

[The Big Dog]

Did he win by enough to decrease how much he needs to win by going forward?

Cripes, I certainly think so!

 

[Maya22]

On Wisconsin! on Wisconsin!

Feel the Bern!

Do you also have a Team Red favorite?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Did he win by enough to decrease how much he needs to win by going forward?

Not yet. With 18% in he's got 52% He needs 57% of all the remaining delegates. But he'll probably pull a little further ahead than that.

 

[The Big Dog]

Cripes, I certainly think so!

Holy crap! Bernie won Wisconsin? Fingers crossed.

 

[Trakar]

Its all about the numbers now. When it was called by MSNBC with 2% in, Sanders had a 56% to 44%, now at 20% it's looking like 53% to 47% (12, now 6) Matthews is saying the people he is talking to, suggest Cruz and Sanders should both pull close to a 20% win out of this which would put this into good territory,...but in these, the most important polls, it's best not celebrate counts while sub-totals are still being counted.

No pain, no gain, ...feel the Bern!

 

[Fudbucker]

Not yet. With 18% in he's got 52% He needs 57% of all the remaining delegates. But he'll probably pull a little further ahead than that.

He needs to win by double digits to carry momentum into New York.

 

[The Big Dog]

Its all about the numbers now. When it was called by MSNBC with 2% in, Sanders had a 56% to 44%, now at 20% it's looking like 53% to 47% (12, now 6) Matthews is saying the people he is talking to, suggest Cruz and Sanders should both pull close to a 20% win out of this which would put this into good territory,...but in these, the most important polls, it's best not celebrate counts while sub-totals are still being counted.

No pain, no gain, ...feel the Bern!

I am going to celebrate. How big was Hillary up a few months ago?

Don't matter! Feel the Bern baby!

Absolutely fantastic!

 

[Trakar]

35% in, 54% to 46%, up 8%