the 2020 democratic candidate (and VP)

[Big_Lou]

If you @UncleBuck and @ttystikk wanna suck each other off this desperately, at least film it so the rest of us can watch/enjoy!

 

[Fogdog]

CU is in Boulder and this is in Ft Collins in a neighborhood full of owner occupied housing, not so many students.

As it happens, CU isn't nearly so liberal as many would have you believe. It's gotten pretty trendy with the upper crust over the past 30 years.

There was a nationally known TV reporter from CNN at the high school where mine and many other precinct caucuses were held; there were none that showed a majority for Mrs Clinton. NONE, at least that night.

Agreed it's a small sample. I still believe I saw media suppression of Mr Sanders' campaign at work.

Did that totally non biased media outlet mention the record turnout for a primary? I bet not. How about the historic tilt towards one candidate? Nope.

Still think the media isn't biased? Come on, dude, YOU were the one who posted evidence of the toothless FCC 'policy' about truthful reporting! Connect the dots, or does someone else have to hold your crayon?

I don't understand your point. Your precinct is one of how many? Some were won by Clinton. I didn't hear ballyhoos over Clinton's win in Bumfuck CO. What was reported was that Bernie won big in CO. Your precinct, I'm sure, is wonderful but didn't make news where I live. Then again, why should it? Even if it went big for Bernie. The media truthfully reported that Bernie won big in CO. There was no cover up.

But then again, the real news was Clinton won that day and won big. There were twelve states holding primaries on that day.

558 delegates won by Clinton on March 1
350 delegates won by Sanders on March 1

Bernie had his ass handed to him that day. Or maybe he just lost by a wide margin. THAT was the real story of the day. What happened in Ft Collins was not a big story. I supported Bernie but after March 1, Sanders' cause was nearly lost. March 15 was the next big date and Bernie didn't win a single primary that day. Surely you don't think those losses were because your precinct didn't get enough attention.

After March 15, Bernie needed to win with 65% of the vote in every single state in order to win the primary. He didn't.

I can connect dots pretty well. Was there media bias against Bernie? What I saw was more positive news for Bernie and much more negative news against Clinton during that time. Do you call negative stories against Clinton - bias for her?

 

[tangerinegreen555]

I don't understand your point. Your precinct is one of how many? Some were won by Clinton. I didn't hear ballyhoos over Clinton's win in Bumfuck CO. What was reported was that Bernie won big in CO. Your precinct, I'm sure, is wonderful but didn't make news where I live. Then again, why should it? Even if it went big for Bernie. The media truthfully reported that Bernie won big in CO. There was no cover up.

But then again, the real news was Clinton won that day and won big. There were twelve states holding primaries on that day.

558 delegates won by Clinton on March 1
350 delegates won by Sanders on March 1

Bernie had his ass handed to him that day. Or maybe he just lost by a wide margin. THAT was the real story of the day. What happened in Ft Collins was not a big story. I supported Bernie but after March 1, Sanders' cause was nearly lost. March 15 was the next big date and Bernie didn't win a single primary that day. Surely you don't think those losses were because your precinct didn't get enough attention.

After March 15, Bernie needed to win with 65% of the vote in every single state in order to win the primary. He didn't.

I can connect dots pretty well. Was there media bias against Bernie? What I saw was more positive news for Bernie and much more negative news against Clinton during that time. Do you call negative stories against Clinton - bias for her?

I think either one would have won by 2.5 to 3 million votes.


Hey wait a minute, one of them did.

 

[Padawanbater2]

I can connect dots pretty well. Was there media bias against Bernie? What I saw was more positive news for Bernie and much more negative news against Clinton during that time. Do you call negative stories against Clinton - bias for her?

Anecdotal evidence

The tone of the report isn't what's important, positive/negative, "all press is good press", use Donald Trump as evidence of this, I'm sure the overwhelming majority of reports about him during the campaign were negative but he still won the nomination. The establishment media's strategy for someone like Sanders is to ignore them, which is exactly what they did by and large

Shift focus towards identity politics and away from actual substance

 

[Padawanbater2]

"As the presumed loser from the outset, Sanders didn’t get negative coverage so much as he got negligible coverage. An analysis by the TV News Archive of cable television coverage since January 2015 provides graphs of Clinton’s and Sanders’ mentions that look alike, save for one thing: Clinton was getting vastly more coverage than Sanders. How much more? On CNN, Clinton got more than 70,000 of the Democratic-candidate mentions, while Sanders got just under 42,000. On MSNBC, Clinton got more than 93,000 mentions to Sanders’ roughly 51,000. On Fox News, she got more than 71,000 mentions to his more than 28,000. The numbers are similar on the Lexis-Nexis database of newspapers. In the past 30 days, Clinton received 2,591 mentions, Sanders only 922. By comparison, Trump got 5,568.

The numbers, of course, are constantly being updated. But the ratios remain more or less constant."

http://billmoyers.com/story/press-take-bernie-sanders/

 

[ttystikk]

it's hitting bubble status as we speak.

Welllllll... I certainly hope so.

 

[ttystikk]

"As the presumed loser from the outset, Sanders didn’t get negative coverage so much as he got negligible coverage. An analysis by the TV News Archive of cable television coverage since January 2015 provides graphs of Clinton’s and Sanders’ mentions that look alike, save for one thing: Clinton was getting vastly more coverage than Sanders. How much more? On CNN, Clinton got more than 70,000 of the Democratic-candidate mentions, while Sanders got just under 42,000. On MSNBC, Clinton got more than 93,000 mentions to Sanders’ roughly 51,000. On Fox News, she got more than 71,000 mentions to his more than 28,000. The numbers are similar on the Lexis-Nexis database of newspapers. In the past 30 days, Clinton received 2,591 mentions, Sanders only 922. By comparison, Trump got 5,568.

The numbers, of course, are constantly being updated. But the ratios remain more or less constant."

http://billmoyers.com/story/press-take-bernie-sanders/

We're a media driven society. I believe this counts as bias.

 

[schuylaar]

"As the presumed loser from the outset, Sanders didn’t get negative coverage so much as he got negligible coverage. An analysis by the TV News Archive of cable television coverage since January 2015 provides graphs of Clinton’s and Sanders’ mentions that look alike, save for one thing: Clinton was getting vastly more coverage than Sanders. How much more? On CNN, Clinton got more than 70,000 of the Democratic-candidate mentions, while Sanders got just under 42,000. On MSNBC, Clinton got more than 93,000 mentions to Sanders’ roughly 51,000. On Fox News, she got more than 71,000 mentions to his more than 28,000. The numbers are similar on the Lexis-Nexis database of newspapers. In the past 30 days, Clinton received 2,591 mentions, Sanders only 922. By comparison, Trump got 5,568.

The numbers, of course, are constantly being updated. But the ratios remain more or less constant."

http://billmoyers.com/story/press-take-bernie-sanders/

And you should've seen the comment section on these stations during this time..'we the people' were FURIOUS, not to be fooled by what they were doing = 7M DIDNT SHOW!!!

Try it again Dems and see what happens..'we the people' would rather take our chances with the unknown than with the known.

We will not fall in line any longer and this includes myself. I voted for Clinton against my will, taken hostage by the turn of events from Russia involving itself..that was the deciding factor for me, this time. I felt railroaded by the lies and cheating of Clinton & Cronies then railroaded again by the hacking turn of events. It's now being reported Comey knew, the Gang of 12 met and decided to keep this from us with all Dems voting to release this information and only half the Pukilcans..

Why do they even bother pretending anymore?

'What do you have to lose?' Simple question yet defining moment.

A true patriot doesn't throw their vote away by not voting. In hindsight, the true patriots were the Gang of 7M, who stood up to this.

 

[schuylaar]

Why aren't you guys uncomfortable with the fact that the largest group and most vocal group of people still butt hurt over Bernie's loss is young white men and not young people in general? And then you two show up all in a rash over PC culture. As if moderate democrats are the ones who created racism and identity politics. As if identity politics are something new. Do you know who are the largest group that contributed to results in the recent presidential election? White men over 40.

Makes me think the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/06/2016-bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-democrats-race-racial-divide-213948
How Bernie Sanders Exposed the Democrats’ Racial Rift

Though it might offend his uber-progressive supporters to hear this, the Sanders insurgency is largely a white revolution. All the talk about Sanders representing the future of the Democratic Party because of his overwhelming popularity among young people leaves out an important caveat: He couldn’t persuade minority voters to sign on. In many ways a Sanders victory, propelled by the least diverse states in the nation, would have been a step backward in American race relations.
.............

Sanders coming from seemingly nowhere to seriously challenge Clinton while drawing historically large and enthusiastic crowds has soaked up much of the attention in the Democratic race, making it feel as though he’s hit a chord that resonates throughout the party. But his brand of idealism has been rejected by the majority of minority voters—Clinton won every contest with at least a 10 percent black population, except Michigan, and each state where Latinos make up at least 10 percent of eligible voters, except Colorado, according to Harry Enten of FiveThirtyEight.com. On top of that, they have been mocked by some Sanders supporters for supposedly “voting against their self-interest” because they refuse to believe a political revolution is at hand. That has been particularly galling to black voters who had to endure claims from conservatives in 2008 that they were voting for Barack Obama only because of race—even though they had spent their entire adult lives voting mostly for white presidential candidates. Now their preference for Clinton’s brand of pragmatism, something they’ve seen result in real progress time and again, is being questioned as well, this time by fellow Democrats.

Sanders has been a civil servant for over 40 years.

The interpretation that 'he seemingly came out of nowhere', is blatantly false.

He came out of nowhere to those not involved in our political processes.

Shame on those of you who didn't know who he is in the first place.

Elections remind me of Midnight Mass or Easter Sunday..have you ever noticed the crowd on these days v. all the other days of worship?

Everyone wants to give their opinion when they don't have the slightest clue.

Fair weather voting..by fair weather people.

 

[londonfog]

Sanders has been a civil servant for over 40 years.

The interpretation that 'he seemingly came out of nowhere', is blatantly false.

He came out of nowhere to those not involved in our political processes.

Shame on those of you who didn't know who he is in the first place.

Elections remind me of Midnight Mass or Easter Sunday..have you ever noticed the crowd on these days v. all the other days of worship?

Everyone wants to give their opinion when they don't have the slightest clue.

Fair weather voting..by fair weather people.

Shame on you for not voting for Sanders...EVER
People want to give their opinion when they don't have the slightest clue how to even vote in the primary

 

[Fogdog]

Sanders has been a civil servant for over 40 years.

The interpretation that 'he seemingly came out of nowhere', is blatantly false.

He came out of nowhere to those not involved in our political processes.

Shame on those of you who didn't know who he is in the first place.

Elections remind me of Midnight Mass or Easter Sunday..have you ever noticed the crowd on these days v. all the other days of worship?

Everyone wants to give their opinion when they don't have the slightest clue.

Fair weather voting..by fair weather people.

He was a senator of a small state who for most of the time wasn't even a member of the Democratic Party. It is a fact that the vast majority of voters couldn't tell you who they like in the Senate other than a couple of names. This is not media skulduggery. We are busy people who put their time elsewhere. I agree that people should know better and so I'll ask you later who you support for 2020. The fact that people did not know who Bernie was in spring of 2015 is what Bernie's campaign had to deal with. That was his obstacle to the presidency, along with about 40% of the electorate who are conservatives and would be very hesitant to vote for him ever. He also had the advantage of not carrying much baggage in terms of negative image in part because he was not a target of a vile right wing propaganda machine. Almost won too. I voted for him, so did the majority in Oregon even when it didn't matter anymore.

In the interest of improving myself I'll ask a self proclaimed expert for some suggestions on who to watch and learn about over the next four years as the next presidential election season plays out. Including Bernie, who I guess you still want to run, who else are you hoping will run for prez in 2020?

 

[ttystikk]

He was a senator of a small state who for most of the time wasn't even a member of the Democratic Party. It is a fact that the vast majority of voters couldn't tell you who they like in the Senate other than a couple of names. This is not media skulduggery. We are busy people who put their time elsewhere. I agree that people should know better and so I'll ask you later who you support for 2020. The fact that people did not know who Bernie was in spring of 2015 is what Bernie's campaign had to deal with. That was his obstacle to the presidency, along with about 40% of the electorate who are conservatives and would be very hesitant to vote for him ever. He also had the advantage of not carrying much baggage in terms of negative image in part because he was not a target of a vile right wing propaganda machine. Almost won too. I voted for him, so did the majority in Oregon even when it didn't matter anymore.

In the interest of improving myself I'll ask a self proclaimed expert for some suggestions on who to watch and learn about over the next four years as the next presidential election season plays out. Including Bernie, who I guess you still want to run, who else are you hoping will run for prez in 2020?

ELIZABETH WARREN.

 

[Fogdog]

ELIZABETH WARREN.

She's on my watch list too. I wonder if Sky has other names to provide.

 

[SneekyNinja]

She's on my watch list too. I wonder if Sky has other names to provide.

She's busy Googling it now cos she hasn't the slightest fucking clue.

She's not even a Democrat, was last registered as a Republican and then became Independent.

Was too stupid to register as a Democrat and couldn't even vote for the guy she was shilling for.

 

[Fogdog]

She's busy Googling it now cos she hasn't the slightest fucking clue.

She's not even a Democrat, was last registered as a Republican and then became Independent.

Was too stupid to register as a Democrat and couldn't even vote for the guy she was shilling for.

@schuylaar 's mistake was an honest one that she made because she wasn't paying attention. She wasn't shilling either. She loves Bernie so much she forgot to register. Those fair weather voters who voted for Bernie should be ashamed of themselves for not being as well informed as she is (snicker).

 

[SneekyNinja]

@schuylaar 's mistake was an honest one that she made because she wasn't paying attention. She wasn't shilling either. She loves Bernie so much she forgot to register. Those fair weather voters who voted for Bernie should be ashamed of themselves for not being as well informed as she is (snicker).

If she'd stop mentioning it I'd stop giving her shit for it.

But she has me on ignore so it shouldn't really matter either way.

 

[schuylaar]

He was a senator of a small state who for most of the time wasn't even a member of the Democratic Party. It is a fact that the vast majority of voters couldn't tell you who they like in the Senate other than a couple of names. This is not media skulduggery. We are busy people who put their time elsewhere. I agree that people should know better and so I'll ask you later who you support for 2020. The fact that people did not know who Bernie was in spring of 2015 is what Bernie's campaign had to deal with. That was his obstacle to the presidency, along with about 40% of the electorate who are conservatives and would be very hesitant to vote for him ever. He also had the advantage of not carrying much baggage in terms of negative image in part because he was not a target of a vile right wing propaganda machine. Almost won too. I voted for him, so did the majority in Oregon even when it didn't matter anymore.

In the interest of improving myself I'll ask a self proclaimed expert for some suggestions on who to watch and learn about over the next four years as the next presidential election season plays out. Including Bernie, who I guess you still want to run, who else are you hoping will run for prez in 2020?

How well did you know Barak Obama in 2007?

 

[ttystikk]

If she'd stop mentioning it I'd stop giving her shit for it.

But she has me on ignore so it shouldn't really matter either way.

So do I. I check in on you from time to time to see if you've regained your senses.

Current 'whether' report; partly troubled with occasional flashes of insight.

 

[londonfog]

If she'd stop mentioning it I'd stop giving her shit for it.

But she has me on ignore so it shouldn't really matter either way.

you know that nosy chick has to peek. Her ignore never works.
Right @schuylaar

 

[schuylaar]

@schuylaar 's mistake was an honest one that she made because she wasn't paying attention. She wasn't shilling either. She loves Bernie so much she forgot to register. Those fair weather voters who voted for Bernie should be ashamed of themselves for not being as well informed as she is (snicker).

I had forgotten I registered as Independent after being a Dem for so many years.

I was growing my own back then and it was great weed.