Posted on 11/15/2016 11:21:11 PM PST by Zakeet
Edited on 11/16/2016 12:22:47 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
That is my read as well.
Sanders would have turned out his young supporters and they would have worked hard for him.
Ironically a more neutral media (i.e., only anti-Trump 80% of the time instead of 99.9% of the time) would have made folks more likely to take them seriously, and that would have hurt Trump.
Sanders would have won all the rust belt states while Trump probably would have taken Virginia—result a narrow Sanders win.
When has the mainstream media been right on just about anything?
Aside from your spelling, are you claiming that gun control prevents violent crimes?
I ask my Democratic friends why Joe Biden was muscled aside and they have no answer. I think Biden would have won comfortably.
No apology needed; I agree to a large extent. The pollsters employed by major media outlets knew what results their sponsors wanted and worked to produce those results.
There was no “positive” coverage of Trump. His candidacy was promoted by the media because they thought he would be a joke. He received a lot more airtime than the other candidates because the media though it would make for good Republican-bashing copy. They thought they were helping hillary but little did they know that he was the only person on the stage at the time that could take out hillary.
Like Obama, he’s a product of the media. But I think this man understands what he’s supposed to do versus the clueless Kenyan pothead.
We are moving towards a time when persona and imagery will replace competence and experience. Trump might be the last candidate with the competence and experience.
That's my suspicion. Scranton might well have brought PA to him, as an example.
There was once a 3D map like this for 1980 I think or some election after that showed the red and blue areas with heights proportional to their populations. It is STUNNING when you see it like that. It shows you why popular vote is just mob rule.
You have it right. Whether the source of money is media tycoons or candidates, Pollsters are in the business of keeping their source of money happy and getting repeat business.
The same is true of paid political consultants. Their #1 skill is raising money for the campaign, which means for themselves. Examples: Shrum and Murphy can raise money even though they always lose.
The pollster who seeks the truth is rare, but might exist.
The paid political consultant whose #1 priority is his candidate winning is rare, but might exist.
Sanders would of secured the current “democrat” States (North East/West Coast/Illinois) and protected most of the rust belt States. Florida could have been a wash. Democrats shot themselves in the foot and “don’t it feel good.”
They exist. Campaign management may not release their results even to the campaign staff, but they have to know the truth. That's most of what I did for a living, and I always reported accurate results to the best of my ability. I included the uncertainties, not just the classic statistical uncertainty but also in my assumptions.
They liked Sanders because they didn’t know him....when his Commie roots were exposed, he would have been toast.
2) Sanders had a better chance of beating Trump -- say the same polls that had Hillary in a landslide (?)
3) Trump took an overwhelming majority of U.S. counties -- Ditto Romney-Obama, McCain-Obama, heck probably even Dole-Clinton.
4) The Numbers show Trump did NOT win because of racism and sexism -- but what the heck, why ruin a good liberal narrative?
I think Biden would have also carried Michigan and Wisconsin. The Democrats were fools to bypass him. They're loss, America's gain.
“(Is this why the mainstream media’s coverage of Trump was fairly positive up until his nomination ... and then universally negative after?)”
I have now heard that line for months. And my challenge is for anyone to submit an example, on video or audio, of when the press treated Trump fairly positively.
I watched the whole whole campaign closely, and the coverage of Trump always began with a sardonic smear, and ended the same way.
Drudge offered up a sample the other day.
He might not be on our side, but Biden does have what hillary couldn’t fake. He comes across as authentic.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.