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


(2,262 posts)
Fri Feb 5, 2016, 12:10 PM Feb 2016

The more the corporate media backs Hillary,

the more they wake up young and independent voters who are taking positive views of Bernie. I am actually pleased with what the Tweety's of the world are doing to help Bernie. And the corporate generals are living in a fantasy world since they only pay attention to their peers. Even young women, who Hill has pandered to since day one, are turning away from her.

This is a really fun race!



(6,409 posts)
1. Not just fun
Fri Feb 5, 2016, 12:15 PM
Feb 2016

Interesting as it could be. This is the first time in my memory the public has refused to accept the corporate media slant on the candidates. I do think younger voters have a lot to do with that. They are not conditioned to get all their information from the "approved" outlets.


(39,451 posts)
3. They don't get it that young people are not watching Hardball or Chucky on Sunday mornings.
Fri Feb 5, 2016, 12:19 PM
Feb 2016

Still they manage to get their news.


(9,841 posts)
8. Exactly. Young people are more likely to discuss the news than listen to it. That's a big difference
Fri Feb 5, 2016, 12:41 PM
Feb 2016

The MSM has lost control of how we (or at least those of us 40 and under) are supposed to think of a given news event. Young people take in the facts, and then their interpretation of them takes on a life of their own. I'm not saying it always adheres to reality, but it usually goes off in a direction *not* to the liking of the 1%.


(4,775 posts)
4. I hope you are right
Fri Feb 5, 2016, 12:20 PM
Feb 2016

My feeling is that propaganda still works more often than not, and we have our work cut out for us to counter it.


(5,614 posts)
6. I had to laugh when Rachel brought up Goldwater.
Fri Feb 5, 2016, 12:37 PM
Feb 2016

I think HRC could have been happy not having that name brought up.

It was harmless, of course, because Rachel just used him and the dem candidate to point out how "extremists"don't win. She didn't mention THE AD that the LBJ campaign ran against Barry. You may recall the picture of a cute little girl with a flower pulling leaves off the bloom while counting down to zero. At zero an atomic bomb went off. Hard not to miss the point.

Years later I met the man who put that commercial together, and he led me and others in the class to believe that he regretted doing it. LBJ was no weakling as a President and he was a firm believer in doing whatever it took to win. The professor apparently felt that ONE AD not only destroyed Barry's campaign but its success gave permission for all the lies and deceit that have infested the political debate ever since.

I had no counterargument to give him.

If anything killed Goldwater, and whatever honesty ads had contained up to that point, THAT AD killed it. I was really surprised Rachel didn't include it in her comments on the Johnson/Goldwater campaign.

It wasn't fear of Goldwater's politics that derailed him, it was the fear he was ready and willing to kill little girls with atomic bombs that did.

Of course, she wasn't brown skinned like little kids in the Middle East, so I guess she was worth more than the victims of cluster bombs and land-mines.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»The more the corporate me...