Sanders: DNC Trying to 'PROTECT' Hillary Clinton From Her Primary Rivals

[Segami]

Time’s online poll on Democratic Debate #3 in NH

It's not the first time anyone has pointed out the blatant tipping-the-scales for Hillary Clinton the DNC is engaged in, to the detriment of other Democratic candidates, but it still needs to be said:

MANCHESTER, N.H. — Presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders said in a television interview that the Democratic National Committee deliberately scheduled debates at times when viewership would be low in an effort to “protect” the party’s front-runner, Hillary Clinton.

The criticism from Sanders followed the third Democratic debate of the 2016 contest, held here on Saturday night, six days before Christmas and at a time of heightened tensions between the Sanders campaign and the DNC over a data-breach controversy.

Asked whether he thought the timing of Saturday’s debate was intended to hold down viewership, Sanders said: “Yes, I do.”

“I hope a lot of people watched the debate tonight,” the Vermont senator said on WMUR, the local ABC affiliate. “I think it was a good debate, but I think there is a desire on the part of the DNC to protect Secretary Clinton.”

Sanders also pointed to the timing of the previous Democratic debate, held last month on a Saturday night in Des Moines at a time when the Iowa Hawkeyes were playing football against the Minnesota Golden Gophers.

“In Iowa, do you know when the debate was held?” Sanders said. “It was the night of the big football game in Iowa. Do you think that’s a coincidence?”...

“I think everybody understands that Hillary Clinton, who I have a lot of respect for, is the establishment candidate,” Sanders said. “Virtually the entire establishment is supporting her, including the leadership of the DNC.”


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/12/20/sanders-says-dncs-timing-of-saturday-nights-debate-was-meant-to-protect-clinton/

I think all three candidates did well, despite the unrelenting awfulness of the moderators and the war-mongering egging-on they put into everything that was said, not to mention the clear favoring of Hillary Clinton, by giving her the most time and the chance to answer questions while shushing the other candidates, even when they'd just been attacked or their positions presented in a distorted fashion.

If few people saw the debate, I think that's just as well, considering what it was. The relevant portions will still continue to circulate on social media, right through the primaries, minus the thumb-on-the-scale provided by both the DNC and ABC News.

[RandySF]

1. Howard Dean told MSNBC this morning

That the networks determined televised debate schedules when he was DNC chairman.

[rhett o rick]

5. The corp-controlled media likes Clinton.

[RandySF]

7. But this thread blames DWS

Let's keep our conspiracy theories straight.

[rhett o rick]

9. It's crystal clear that DWS favors Clinton as does the corp-media which chose to donate to

her campaign. Sanders has the support of the grassroots not the wealthy 1%. Why would a Democrat choose to side with the 1%?

[senz]

33. Because Third Way is not the Democratic Party.

The Democrats should expel them.

[Dont call me Shirley]

18. And didn't Dean endorse Hilary?

[JaneyVee]

21. And all the campaigns are involved in setting schedule.

[Scootaloo]

29. Really? Two of them wanted more debates, and the other stated it was "open to more"

having a suggestion box next to the paper shredder isn't really 'involvement'

[zeemike]

30. That is only partially true.

If the networks says OK how about Thursday and the DNC says no we can't do it then because of a scheduling conflict that is not like they dictate the time

[highprincipleswork]

42. Really? So they think the Republicans should get so much more and at better times?

[totodeinhere]

51. Then why have the Republicans been able to have several debates on weeknights? n/t

[libdem4life]

2. That's the way I remember it, too. I haven't watched in years because I always knew far in advance

who I would be voting for. And I don't have the patience for rhetoric. And also, maybe just in California, but the League of Women Voters organized it so there would be no questions, well, like we have now. More than questions, but that's another topic.

[TIME TO PANIC]

3. Almost every online pole after every debate,

have Sanders winning with 80% plus. These polls may not be scientific, but notice a pattern?

[TIME TO PANIC]

10. Clinton supporters don't?

[dlwickham]

11. not to my knowledge

not to my knowledge but maybe I'm out of the loop

[TIME TO PANIC]

12. They just swindle billions from the American public.

[dlwickham]

22. we do?

someone owes me a check then

[eggplant]

17. But Sanders supporters do, to your knowledge?

What knowledge?

[dlwickham]

24. how else would he get 80%+ support in an on-line poll

to my knowledge

[Scootaloo]

31. Greater support, I would presume

Occam's razor, and all that.

[pnwmom]

62. No, because scientifically designed surveys of random voters -- not self-selected fans --

put Hillary ahead by 20 - 30 points.

[Scootaloo]

64. We're talking about this online polls, pnwmom

Do at least try to keep up.

[pnwmom]

69. I just explained why online polls are worthless. They aren't predictive of anything. nt

[artislife]

36. Why not? You understand the internet, obviously.

The Sanders supporters are a wide mix of ages and other demographics like the Hillary and Martin supporters. Why do they take the next step in following their supporter differently than the other two?

That makes no sense.

[highprincipleswork]

43. Well, I guess that's a shitload of supporters then, huh?

[uponit7771]

4. Come on Sanders, ... no one is trying to hold down viewership... that's bunk. I remember in 2008...

... that blacks didn't even know Obama till South Carolina and he still didn't have a strong majority after that states primaries.

His profile grew because of his ground game and strategy for delegates, something I don't see out of Sanders yet

[CoffeeCat]

39. I'm in Iowa and I see plenty of ground game...

I've been called twice by the Sanders campaign and a Sanders canvasser has come to our door. They even talked me into making some phone calls.

The communication has been great. I live in a small Des Moines suburb and Bernie has an office here. They have an active Facebook page where volunteer efforts are coordinated. I'm actually kind of shocked at what the Sander's campaign has going on here.

Hillary has no office here. No FB presence either.

[uponit7771]

47. I was speaking of SC and the southern states, I don't see any ground game from Sanders there

[CoffeeCat]

60. And of course, you wouldn't...

...ground games generally, aren't in full swing until closer to the day of that primary in that particular state.

[Uncle Joe]

6. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Segami.

[stonecutter357]

13. .

"Yes, I apologize," he said on stage when asked by ABC's David Muir whether Clinton was owed an apology. "Not only do I apologize, I want to apologize to my supporters. This is not the kind of campaign that we run. If I find anybody else involved in this, they will be fired."

[Uncle Joe]

16. Bernie didn't apologize for the DNC's punitive actions against him, nor the vendor's negligence

he apologized because his staffer (s) viewed Hillary's voter information when there was no firewall.

Bernie also stated that his voter information has also been at risk and perhaps members of Hillary's staff had seen it.

[draa]

25. And he was promptly ignored.

I didn't watch the debate at all. I know who I'm supporting so there was little reason to watch that shit show. It's clear they want Clinton but hopefully I'm not the only one looking to spoil their fun. One damn way or another.

[jalan48]

14. Well, everyone knows American's prefer a conservative, Wall Street Democrat anyway.

Why do we even need debates?

[NurseJackie]

15. What's the margin of error?

[Dont call me Shirley]

19. K & R

[Tarc]

20. Is math a lost art nowadays?

I mean, people don't genuinely think self-selected polls are statistically valid, do they?

[Scootaloo]

34. The time poll says that it's to be taken as a measure of inthusiasm on the internet.

[Tarc]

58. As opposed to outthusiasm?

[Scootaloo]

59. ...

[pnwmom]

63. Individual enthusiasm that can't be used to predict public-in-general enthusiasm. n/t

[Scootaloo]

65. Maybe you ought to call Time and fill them in on your astounding revelations

[pnwmom]

66. They already know it. It's just some of their readers that think what they want to think,

true or not.

[Scootaloo]

67. I'm saying what the page with the poll said, on time.com

That it acknowledged it was not a scientific poll measuring national support, but should be taken as a measure of enthusiasm from engaged people on the internet.

The exact quote:

A disclaimer: Online reader polls like this one are not statistically representative of eligible primary voters. They are a measure, however imprecise, of which candidates have the most energized online supporters, or most social media savvy fan base. After all, what they are counting is the number of Internet-devices controlled by people who want to vote.

[pnwmom]

68. Uh-huh. "From engaged people on the Internet" does not mean "from the general public at large."

[Scootaloo]

70. The exact quote from time.com:

A disclaimer: Online reader polls like this one are not statistically representative of eligible primary voters. They are a measure, however imprecise, of which candidates have the most energized online supporters, or most social media savvy fan base. After all, what they are counting is the number of Internet-devices controlled by people who want to vote.

If you're trying to raise a point, it seems you were already beaten to the punch by the source you're trying to chide. Which I had noted a good many hours before you decided to start creeping on me.

[pnwmom]

71. Before I started "creeping on" you? My, aren't you sensitive? n/t

[Scootaloo]

72. Shoo.

[pnwmom]

73. Nah. n/t

[JaneyVee]

23. Hillary is 3-0 on debate stage. DWS is protecting Bernie.

[TIME TO PANIC]

26. Where can I get what you're smoking?

[JaneyVee]

28. Reality is free.

[TIME TO PANIC]

32. If you vote Sanders Health Care can be too.

So come on, tell me where you got that shit.

[JaneyVee]

41. Just because Bernie can't name a price doesn't mean its free.

And you will have to ask doctors how they feel about becoming govt employees.

[Scootaloo]

46. Can you cite any statement from the Sanders campaign about making doctors government employees?

[JaneyVee]

54. Are they not govt employees in the UK?

[Scootaloo]

57. Can you cite any statement by the Sanders campaign about making doctors government employees?

[TIME TO PANIC]

49. I don't care how doctors feel about becoming govt employees.

[JaneyVee]

55. And no one will want to be a doctor with that attitude.

So they get big pay cuts and we have doctor shortages due to lack of incentive. On top of that you don't care what they want. That sure sounds....authoritarian.

[ThePhilosopher04]

61. You sound like a Republican ...

which is no surprise since Clinton might as well be one.

[TIME TO PANIC]

74. That's absurd!

1. I'm not sure Doctors will have to be govt employees.
2. Pay cuts will not cause a lack of incentive, but maybe people will want to become doctors for the right reason.
3 What's a more important priority, keeping doctors from making less money or people dying because they can't afford health care?
4. Check the definition of authoritarian.
5. No I don't care what doctors want, I care about what the public needs.

LIFE ABOVE PROFIT!

[zeemike]

40. I have had free reality before

Found them growing out of a cow patties...and man was it real.

[TIME TO PANIC]

50. Almost too real. LOL!

[senz]

35. From Hillary HQ, of course.

[TIME TO PANIC]

38. LOL!

[Scootaloo]

37. Well, we know you're totally free of bias

After all, you're even willing to give Stormfront the benefit of the doubt.

[JaneyVee]

44. You remind me of another poster who has gone missing...

[Scootaloo]

45. Oh? Who's that?

[highprincipleswork]

48. It's pretty f'ed up when you chose to protect an adult against their own wishes, clearly stated!!!

We're all going to have to work together in the general, but why Clinton supporters, who thinks she does so great in the debates anyway, don't call on their peeps to go for more debates is completely beyond me. Sanders, O'Malley and their supporters want more debates. Hillary is doing fine in debates, winning them all according to her supporters anyway. Why not hold more debates and get back some semblance of party unity?

I realize that people are basically irrational as can be, but this would be the wise move to make. DNC and DWS and Hillary can even appear to be completely magnanimous and gracious and everything about it.

WIn, win.

[senz]

27. The Sanders and O'Malley campaigns have known this from the start.

I wonder how Hillary would be doing on a level playing field?

[Thinkingabout]

52. Remember this, there are more people and many of them are not members

Of DU nor other social media who likes and respects Secretary Clinton, realize she is very qualified to be president. Even if DWS disliked Hillary and liked Sanders, DWS would not be able to flip a switch and give the nomination to Sanders.

Somewhere the reality of Hillary polling higher and DWS does not control this nor does she control the number of supporters Sanders has. The DNC has accepted Sanders running in the DNC primary, I dont think the DNC wants to hurt Sanders. Conspiracy theories works for some people, not for others.

[Lil Missy]

53. I seriously doubt it. HRC doesn't need the help. n/t

[NuclearDem]

56. It's twoo! The internet polls pwoove it!