I’m having problems with how Josh manages his publication. Fox News for the left is being to sound just about right; ignoring the big substantive matters that define us and going for the jugular. Props to the reporters you mentioned, but a few others go for the quick and dirty and bound to enrage our fee fees.
1 Like
Yes, it’s simple-minded, at best.
2 Likes
We’ve all been offenders because we live with outrage and no outlet for it other than to turn to like minded people and sound off in a save space.
2 Likes
This is a really unfortunate headline, yet again, from TPM. They also, like W. Post, have a
strong anti-sanders bias. I have never seen a positive story about Bernie! Only thing, I suppose
Josh is not billionaire - ha. Here is the headline about this from Townhall (a Breitbart clone) -
TPM - you are in pretty sorry company on this garbage headline.
Yes Bernie make a joke at a rally asking if it was a coincidence that he who owns a press
gets to print the news (a pretty common complaint about capitalist press, I think). So big deal.
And despite the constant negative press, it seems Bernie is now leading in NH!
Sanders 21 Biden 15 Warren 12 Harris 8
and Sanders beating Trump by 10 pts.
By the way, is it interesting that every poll has Bernie beating Trump by large margins,
as in Texas recently, while Warren is within margin of error.
Are we just interested in bashing Bernie, or in beating Trump. I like both
Bernie and Warren
but evidence is pretty clear that Bernie does much better
with independents than Warren.
Onward!
2 Likes
How many TPMers do you think don’t order through Amazon. A small percentage probably. It’s only those folks who are free to criticize what we all hate about this monster but use for a variety of reasons including prices and avoiding the madness of brick and mortar shopping.
2 Likes
What is your objection?
Is it that “Ivy League liberalism” is not a real thing?
Or is it that Our Gracious Host is not afflicted by it?
Or is it something else?
Cf. @rick’s original comment:
2 Likes
I don’t think you understand my point. First, note that Amazon fought hard against instituting a $15/hr wage for its workers before finally relenting. The point was that WaPo chose to post an article that implied that the $15/hr wage hurt workers, and mentioned in the title that the study was “credible” based on the opinion of only one economist who read the study. But, deep in the article, it was mentioned that by far the majority of studies found the opposite and that the supposedly “credible” study, which was an extreme outlier, had some serious flaws. One would never guess that by reading the title of the article or the first two thirds of it.
It may not have involved Bezos’ direct intervention, but perhaps a reporter wanting to please the big boss? Or, it may be that the reporter had his own personal biases. At any rate, the way the study was reported in the article I quoted was slanted. So why shouldn’t we at least entertain the possibility that WaPo’s coverage of Sanders is too?
2 Likes
How do you know this?
1 Like
Because there is zero proof that the two things are connected.
None.
3 Likes
Oh good grief.
Its one freaking poll. Of only 250 people, with a MOE of 6.2%.
And just stop the stupid ( yes, it really is stupid) nonsense about “Bernie beats Trump by a larger margin than anyone in Texas…so Bernie is gonna win Texas!!” Because nothing could be further from the truth.
Bernie is running neck and neck with Warren in Texas…for 3rd place. Right now, Texas is a Biden-O’Rourke battle. And if Biden collapses, that ain’t going to be good news for your candidate, either.
3 Likes
Your “point” is unrelated to the subject at hand.
Because the only evidence you are presenting is a headline from 2 years ago, that didn’t line up with what the article actually reported on a topic that was specific to actual studies, and not covering Sanders (or Bezos or Amazon, for that matter).
You then go on to assert, with zero evidence, that the City of Seattle slanted the study at the behest of Bezos and Amazon. You then go on to say, since you have on evidence of that, Bernie is correct in making his assertions about WaPo and Bezos too.
Not sure what you are basing that upon. But just to cut off any other mistakes…we don’t make nominations based on national polling. We hold elections in each state, and determine the number of delegates based on those elections…and it varies how the elections are held and how the delegates are awarded, state by state.
Bernie is not in fact, in second place in most of the key states. He is in 4th place in Iowa right now, 2nd place in NH, 3rd place in SC, 4th place in CA and neck and neck with Warren for 3rd place in Texas.
Now, as you Berners loved to say in 2016 and every year since…“Bernie started out at 1% and went on to get 40% of the vote!”…Bernie started out at the top in every state when he announced, now he isn’t at the top anywhere. What’s up with that?
2 Likes
Ah, but have you looked at where he stands in terms of match up polling for the general election. In poll after poll, he runs second only to Biden: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/general_election/
…so, what happens if Biden fails and all the smearing of Bernie is successful? Why, we’ll have some other candidate less likely to beat Trump! That’s not what I want and I just can’t understand why so many seem determined to put us in that situation.
2 Likes
You seem to have difficulty in understanding the whole primary vote and elected delegate concept.
I guess the only conclusion that can be drawn if B.S. fails to secure the nomination is that it “must be rigged”.
1 Like
Bernie only beats Trump in polls.
Reality is a lot different.
Try getting acquainted with it.
4 Likes
It doesn’t change the fact that his numbers in the primary are dropping. If he can’t win a PRIMARY, what the hell kind of logic dictates he would win in a general?
3 Likes
Yes indeed. If I remember right, the polls in 2016 gave Trump a snowball’s chance in hell against Clinton.
@aiddon I’m not sure winning a primary is any indication at all of ability to win the general. I think the inverse may be a bit less true, but true as well.
1 Like
I’m with you on the “we need to put our strongest candidate forward to beat Trump,” but I don’t think we should shy away from criticizing any of the candidates when they do something worthy of criticism.
2 Likes
Pro tip—don’t live in the past. It’s over.
And Trump didn’t beat Hillary—Comey and the Russians did, but only in the EC and only by about 70,000 votes.
2 Likes
And only by virtue of the Comey malfeasance, the Trump/Russian chicanery, and the #NeverHillary/Jill Stein ratf*cking.
2 Likes