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
2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: Clinton ethics claim another victim as Rachel Maddow plays chart game [View all]kristopher
(29,798 posts)68. Bullpucky - it is a consistent unmistakable pattern
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
Bernies 'Political Revolution' Is Actually Happening, Although the Corporate Media Wont 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 its no big deal what hes 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 Bernies becoming president and actually getting something done (when Obama had such difficulty) is that Bernies mobilizing huge numbers of new and energized voters. She showed a bunch of examples of his talking about his political revolution and how hes 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 Obamas 2008! If thats the case and it is then how could Bernie possibly claim that hes energizing new people? He must be running a con on us, or hes just a deluded old man who dreams of revolution but nobodys 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 years 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 Bernies campaign is running a scam, right? The entire rationale for his candidacy is built on sand. His revolution isnt happening so far, so why might it happen later? Time to doubt that Bernies claims of political change are even possible, much less reasonable.
However
Rachel missed a few facts something unusual for her usually brilliant political analysis...
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 its no big deal what hes 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 Bernies becoming president and actually getting something done (when Obama had such difficulty) is that Bernies mobilizing huge numbers of new and energized voters. She showed a bunch of examples of his talking about his political revolution and how hes 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 Obamas 2008! If thats the case and it is then how could Bernie possibly claim that hes energizing new people? He must be running a con on us, or hes just a deluded old man who dreams of revolution but nobodys 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 years 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 Bernies campaign is running a scam, right? The entire rationale for his candidacy is built on sand. His revolution isnt happening so far, so why might it happen later? Time to doubt that Bernies claims of political change are even possible, much less reasonable.
However
Rachel missed a few facts something unusual for her usually brilliant political analysis...
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
92 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Clinton ethics claim another victim as Rachel Maddow plays chart game [View all]
kristopher
Feb 2016
OP
Given that a year ago, Sanders only had something like 4% planning to vote for him nationally,
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
Feb 2016
#53
Well, I guess I just assumed that people would be smart enough to relate the remarks to the charts.
kristopher
Feb 2016
#81
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
I think the top chart is who people *expect* to win, according to NBC/SurveyMonkey,
thesquanderer
Feb 2016
#31
At least giver her some overalls to wear, wouldnt want to mess up her nice clothes.
randys1
Feb 2016
#5
If they are really in the tank, then they should be undadabus, unless they jump the shark
jberryhill
Feb 2016
#22
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
I used to think Rachel was one of the best, At least we still have Amy Goodman and Anna Kasparian.
jalan48
Feb 2016
#28
Funny you should be demanding ethics, considering your 2 charts measure different things.
SunSeeker
Feb 2016
#37
I agree. The OP is much ado nothing expect opportunity to once again hit on Hillary.
riversedge
Feb 2016
#84
"They" have decided Hillary will be the Democratic candidate, now just jump on their corrupt
Todays_Illusion
Feb 2016
#52
I'm beginning to see, why Randi Rhodes felt the way she did about Maddow and Franken. nt
Snotcicles
Feb 2016
#59
Even under that assumption, the top chart makes no sense if it the narrative is
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
Feb 2016
#77