Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

kristopher

(29,798 posts)
68. Bullpucky - it is a consistent unmistakable pattern
Wed Feb 17, 2016, 09:19 PM
Feb 2016

I noticed this one also, but Hartmann has done a masterful job of showing the deception.

http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/bernies-political-revolution-actually-happening-although-corporate-media-wont-tell-you

Bernie’s 'Political Revolution' Is Actually Happening, Although the Corporate Media Won’t Tell You That
Don't rely on the media to tell you what's going on.


Bernie Sanders has made voter-turnout history, getting about a third more votes than any other primary candidate in the history of New Hampshire primaries, but much of our media is reporting the opposite; that it’s no big deal what he’s accomplishing.

Rachel Maddow rolled out the latest confused bit of reporting on the evening of Friday, February 12th. Whether this ended up on the air as a Maddow-producer “brilliant idea” or was suggested by the Clinton campaign is unknown, but the entire piece was confounding.

Rachel started by saying that the rationale for Bernie’s becoming president and actually getting something done (when Obama had such difficulty) is that Bernie’s mobilizing huge numbers of new and energized voters. She showed a bunch of examples of his talking about his “political revolution” and how he’s bringing new people into politics.

Then she dropped the anvil, as she does so well.

It turns out that fewer people showed up to vote Democratic in New Hampshire and Iowa this year than they did in Obama’s 2008! If that’s the case – and it is – then how could Bernie possibly claim that he’s “energizing” “new” people? He must be running a con on us, or he’s just a deluded old man who dreams of revolution but nobody’s really showing up.

Time to doubt both Bernie and his ideas, right?

After all, as Rachel points out, “40,000 fewer people voted in this year’s New Hampshire Democratic primary than did in 2008,” she said. Adding, for emphasis, the three-word sentence: “Forty thousand less!”

“And it was the same story in Iowa last week,” Rachel continued. “Voter turnout was a record for Republicans in Iowa, but on the Democratic side it was down. Iowa voter turnout on the Democratic side was DOWN from 2008!”

Clearly Bernie’s campaign is running a scam, right? The entire rationale for his candidacy is built on sand. His “revolution” isn’t happening so far, so why might it happen later? Time to doubt that Bernie’s claims of political change are even possible, much less reasonable.

However…

Rachel missed a few facts – something unusual for her usually brilliant political analysis...
Is the second chart noamnety Feb 2016 #1
That is what my 2 bullet points at the end addresses. kristopher Feb 2016 #3
I must admit, I watched the show and didn't pick up on the timeline rufus dog Feb 2016 #16
I think you are misrepresenting this badly. noamnety Feb 2016 #51
Given that a year ago, Sanders only had something like 4% planning to vote for him nationally, Erich Bloodaxe BSN Feb 2016 #53
That's why I added text addressed to you below the charts kristopher Feb 2016 #73
That doesn't change that the text ABOVE the 2nd chart is a lie. noamnety Feb 2016 #74
It isn't a lie as it is noted as being different in the remarks. kristopher Feb 2016 #75
No, it is NOT noted as being different. noamnety Feb 2016 #79
Well, I guess I just assumed that people would be smart enough to relate the remarks to the charts. kristopher Feb 2016 #81
The personal attacks aren't necessary. (nt) noamnety Feb 2016 #82
Neither is the deliberate obtuseness. kristopher Feb 2016 #87
RM is in the bag for Hillary and has been for some time. Ferd Berfel Feb 2016 #13
You obviously don't watch her show on a regular basis. If you had you would know that she's as far politicaljunkie41910 Feb 2016 #66
Bullpucky - it is a consistent unmistakable pattern kristopher Feb 2016 #68
I havne't seen it. I used to watch her show Ferd Berfel Feb 2016 #69
I think the top chart is who people *expect* to win, according to NBC/SurveyMonkey, thesquanderer Feb 2016 #31
I think it's just to show that Erich Bloodaxe BSN Feb 2016 #55
Under the bus she goes. randys1 Feb 2016 #2
So you approve of her recent hyper-partisan reporting? kristopher Feb 2016 #4
At least giver her some overalls to wear, wouldnt want to mess up her nice clothes. randys1 Feb 2016 #5
First... Kittycat Feb 2016 #15
Kind of sad that any type of disagreement.... daleanime Feb 2016 #10
NO! UNDADABUS!!!! jberryhill Feb 2016 #12
Ha! SammyWinstonJack Feb 2016 #19
That same old "under the bus" line is infantile and so over used CoffeeCat Feb 2016 #17
Ouch! SammyWinstonJack Feb 2016 #20
If they are really in the tank, then they should be undadabus, unless they jump the shark jberryhill Feb 2016 #22
Now that is what I call a smackdown! nadinbrzezinski Feb 2016 #39
You are dead to Bernie fans Rachel workinclasszero Feb 2016 #42
Not to this one, but I get your point randys1 Feb 2016 #47
to be fair to rachel questionseverything Feb 2016 #6
I don't think so. She is doing this with exceptional enthusiasm. kristopher Feb 2016 #8
they do ask the question in polls about who do you think the dem nominee will be questionseverything Feb 2016 #11
Do me a favor then - would you mind finding the question and posting it here kristopher Feb 2016 #14
sorry i had life stuff questionseverything Feb 2016 #43
Abby Martin has been my preference over Rachel for quite some time. truedelphi Feb 2016 #32
but that's the point, isn't it ellennelle Feb 2016 #38
i agree with everything you say questionseverything Feb 2016 #46
Maddow is establishment! Big Banks! Wall Street! nt LexVegas Feb 2016 #7
How does your snarky post chervilant Feb 2016 #24
I understand now why she survived the culling. NorthCarolina Feb 2016 #9
..+1 840high Feb 2016 #18
I did hear her say FlaGranny Feb 2016 #33
how did you miss ed schultz? ellennelle Feb 2016 #40
Sorry, I don't FlaGranny Feb 2016 #91
the Clinton Party makes good people do bad things MisterP Feb 2016 #21
it could mean mgmaggiemg Feb 2016 #23
"Who do you think will win?" = only relevant in a casino. lumberjack_jeff Feb 2016 #25
she has caved to the right wing CEO who took over & scrapped lots of shows amborin Feb 2016 #26
Add Maddow's Voter Turnout Piece to the Exhibit. Billsmile Feb 2016 #27
Thanks for that link. Erich Bloodaxe BSN Feb 2016 #56
I used to think Rachel was one of the best, At least we still have Amy Goodman and Anna Kasparian. jalan48 Feb 2016 #28
Rachel has become quite Clitonian. n/t Skwmom Feb 2016 #29
Clinton ethics? Aren't you cute..... Beacool Feb 2016 #30
Yep monicaangela Feb 2016 #34
GE no longer owns MSNBC. It's now owned by Comcast, which is probably worse. Fawke Em Feb 2016 #49
My mistake.. monicaangela Feb 2016 #85
I think the entire news media is under orders to oppose Bernie Sanders. Zen Democrat Feb 2016 #35
this right here ^^^^^^^^^ nt restorefreedom Feb 2016 #65
she has become rather a disappointment, but I knew from her bbgrunt Feb 2016 #36
Funny you should be demanding ethics, considering your 2 charts measure different things. SunSeeker Feb 2016 #37
please reread ellennelle Feb 2016 #44
sorry; addendum ellennelle Feb 2016 #45
The two charts measure entirely different things. noamnety Feb 2016 #57
Did you read the remarks? kristopher Feb 2016 #60
Yes, several times. (nt) noamnety Feb 2016 #63
Then what are you bitching about? kristopher Feb 2016 #64
Did you want to rephrase that in a less sexist way? noamnety Feb 2016 #67
Trying to deflect the topic when your rhetoric is challenged? kristopher Feb 2016 #70
I agree. The OP is much ado nothing expect opportunity to once again hit on Hillary. riversedge Feb 2016 #84
Inevitably a corporate media will serve its corporate masters... sahel Feb 2016 #41
Let me guess. moondust Feb 2016 #48
I used to enjoy her show iwannaknow Feb 2016 #50
"They" have decided Hillary will be the Democratic candidate, now just jump on their corrupt Todays_Illusion Feb 2016 #52
you post a blatant falsehood and lecture others about ethics while doing so dsc Feb 2016 #54
Thank you for your opinion. kristopher Feb 2016 #62
You are comparing two totally different things. From different sources too. Lucinda Feb 2016 #58
Yes, that is what I wrote. kristopher Feb 2016 #61
I'm beginning to see, why Randi Rhodes felt the way she did about Maddow and Franken. nt Snotcicles Feb 2016 #59
Rachel is in the bag for Clinton. Bernblu Feb 2016 #71
I stopped watching her in 2012 when she put her personal friendship CharlotteVale Feb 2016 #72
I interpreted the top chart totally differently. Vinca Feb 2016 #76
Even under that assumption, the top chart makes no sense if it the narrative is Erich Bloodaxe BSN Feb 2016 #77
I don't see her being too overt... Mike Nelson Feb 2016 #78
She isn't overt. kristopher Feb 2016 #80
Interesting article and worth reading... Mike Nelson Feb 2016 #88
RE Trump kristopher Feb 2016 #89
K and R. nt mariawr Feb 2016 #83
Gonna need a bigger bus. JTFrog Feb 2016 #86
Wow. Even THEIR FUCKING CHARTS LIE!!! mhatrw Feb 2016 #90
kick kristopher Feb 2016 #92
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Clinton ethics claim anot...»Reply #68