How Hillary's win is already paid for...

So the dems had their first debate, set their cute little record of 11 million viewers, and the resulting opinions of the "winner" have been announced.

Hillary seems to have swept it.... but...

CNN was running a live poll online and Sanders had won it with over 80% of the vote.

So CNN, owned by Time Warner.... one of Hillary's biggest donors... removed the poll and called Hillary the winner instead.

Slate, owned by Graham Holdings Co. did the very same thing.

The polls on the left ....... the "winner" on the right.

​

Sure we all know elections are paid for, and that a Hillary Clinton is no different than those she condemns for this kind of thing... but my question is:

How do the Bernie supporters feel knowing he hasn't a chance against her big money?


I heard on morning radio yesterday, as they made fun of the cartoon cast of characters, that the debate was a bit funny. Seems Bernie helped there.... along with Jim Webb.

​

 

Not that anyone cares, lol.... but noticed more....

​

 

I don't understand why you even let corporate media run these debates. It could easily be handled by a small government entity guaranteeing impartiality. That goes for all the debates.

 

Not sure there is any conspiracy here. Hillary mopped the floor with those guys. Any objective observer could see that. Bernie has some fantastic ideas, Hillary has none except to stay the course on globalization. But she won the debate. And it wasn't close.

It doesn't help Bernie to shake her hand right before (or after, I forget) he calls out Congress for being regulated by the banks when Hillary's fingerprints are all over that condition. From Bill's signing the bill to allow banks to do whatever they want with the public's money right down to Chelsea's investment banker husband, the Clintons have always been the bankers' #1 family. But kiss her ass and shake her hand. Bernie seems to be naive enough to think Hillary is a victim or an unwitting accomplice of the banks. Not so. She is more in league with them than any gop candidate, maybe even Jeb.

 

These elections are determined in some country club resort, years before a voter ever casts a vote. Been pretty obvious for about 3 decades, or longer, maybe always. People are so stupid they deserve to be played like this, but it is so obvious these days they don't even try to hide it.

 

A poor person cannot run for President in America. That's the way it is, regardless of political Party.

 

But people are saying virtually every online poll had Bernie not only winning... but by a hell of a lot.
Sure, these polls can be stacked, regardless of outcome, I understand.. but CNN removed the poll, and also removed the comments from people who praised Sanders.

I think what JoeSixpack says is true. It's predetermined.

It will be interesting if any mention comes of this on the other news outlets.

 

You also ignore the fact that there are two completely separate sources of analysis: the online poll, and the professional opinion of CNN's political journalists. There's no particular reason to expect the latter to follow the former, or vice versa.

Ron/Rand Paul supporters always did this in previous cycles: gaming the online polls to make it seem like their candidate had massive support and won every matchup. Which is why online polls are entertainment, not data.

Can't speak for CNN. Is this different than past moderating practice? What I read was that CNN removed posts that accused CNN of being biased. Since Sanders supporters are the Dem equivalent of Paul supporters, I imagine such accusations flowed rather freely.

I'm not defending that practice; if you're going to allow comments, you should only remove comments that are profane or libelous. But I suspect it's something like that, not political bias.

Dark conspiracy theories (one requiring secret collusion between CNN and the Democratic Party) aren't really a good way to go. To make that happen, too many people would have to be involved. You couldn't keep it a secret.

What this looks like is conservatives already laying the groundwork of excuses for Hillary winning in 2016 -- rather than dealing with the straightforward reality of craptastic GOP candidates, a base that is far-right, and a party at war with itself. Which is just a recipe for losing in 2020 and beyond.

 

I'm not sure that matters. From a donors perspective, am I going to write a check based on poll numbers or because a candidate supports MY positions? I think the latter. Or, for example, are Hillary's possibly contrived poll numbers meant to drive off donations to Bernie as futile?

 

Not ignoring that at all. I realize the online polls are different than the analyst's polls. That's basically the point I'm making. The online polls showed Sanders winning by 60% in some cases.... the CNN poll was removed and they ran a story of how Hillary "swept" the debate.

Why remove it?
Why have it in the first place?

Understood... entertainment.
As are the employees of CNN.
The question isn't who.... but why would they do this?

The employees of CNN are employed by the 7th biggest donor to Hillary... the thousands taking the online polls are not. That's my guess.

Who said anything about "secret" ?

 

I agree donors are looking at issues, not polls... and I don't think anyone is worried that Bernie will get more donations than a Clinton. It just seems strange, to me at least (certainly not others) that a major news outlet is so blatantly pro-Hillary... despite the polls they themselves took.

But they aren't the only ones... Time and Slate did the same thing.

 

this reminds me of something... what was it... what does this remind me of... oh yeah...



history has a funny way of repeating itself sometimes... seems folks don't learn from the past after all...

could we see another misprint of millions of newspapers for the democrat primary? I mean my newspaper has a morning edition and they often cut off stories around 8pm the night before... and on elections they've held presses until midnight and delivered late the next morning... will they just go ahead and print HILLARY WINS, and then simply skip delivering the newspaper that morning... or will they turn it into a giant advertising snafu to get attention and readership online... who knows...

 

you mean the same government entity that investigated hundreds of pro-republican organizations, and not a single pro-democrat organization, and called it a "mistake of a low level employee who has been disciplined"... which was code for, promoted to another office?

you mean that impartial and unbiased government?

or did you mean we allow some other countries government, clearly it can't be ours...

 

I dunno, seems Obama didn't get the message it was Hillary's turn and he can wait 8 years after her... maybe they didn't go to the same country clubs...

 

It seems that it's not only the Democratic party that is clearing the way for Hillary, but the GOP as well, with Hillary supporter Trump at the wheel, ready to drive the GOP into a ditch.

 

Fox did the same thing to Ron Paul who was winning all of the on line polls.

 

The information I have read and heard about the IRS is a bit more balanced than that. But what does the Revenue Office have to do with having a bipartisan or non-partisan entity to to take care of the debates?
Heck, For the primaries they could be run by party members. Do you really have so little faith in human reasoning that they can't set up a system fair for all that does not need rules set up by the media conglomerations you have over there?

Have you ever taken the time to educate yourself on how other countries do elections and whether you could learn from their experiences and systems? What is this adversity to learning from and using other systems?

Jesus... You trust corporations more than the state to be impartial?

 

I didn't know that.

But did FOX run the debate? and have direct financial ties (big money support) ?

Not arguing with you.... I'm genuinely curious.

I don't think it's a big deal that Slate did this to Bernie... but Time and CNN are owned by one of her biggest financial supporters.

 

10 years max as it says now, but who really pays attention to the laws of the land or the constitution these days?

 

Yeah, if you can't trust bureaucrats who can you?

 

Bureaucrats follow the rules set out by the state. How well a state functions depends exactly on whether the state is set up well and has an efficient bureaucracy. Every successful state in human history has had an effective bureaucracy. Now we even have the luxury of thousands of years of knowledge to draw from so we should be able to set them up better than ever.

 

Uhm. no.

You have no idea if the polls were closed or not at the time of the screenshot. For all we know, they could have been the first 15 minutes, with just so and so many people having given input and at that time, Sanders was at 80% or so.

Do you understand the term intellectual dishonesty?

I think you do.

Plus, there is a difference between an online, all-skate poll and a pro poll taken by people who know what they are doing, namely, accurately measuring the pulse of the nation. We saw this crap with the Ron Paulians of the world in 2012....

Try again, this time, with talent.

 

who said I trusted corporations or wasn't willing to learn from others... I never said that...

just because I am critical and challenge the proposed solution, doesn't mean I am against it, I just am demonstrating the current government is incapable of being impartial and fair in its actions... and thats a direct conflict with what you're proposing, a fair and equitable playing field not controlled by outside influences... when clearly outside influences of political parties would directly impact the system if it were run by the very government corrupt with these individuals already...

I'm not opposed to a government or corporate run debate... but I'm not willing to swap one for the other if both are filled with the same corruption... neither is acceptable at this point...

but please, stop assuming criticism of one thing, means support for the other... I NEVER indicated I supported corporations over governments, just pointing out the hypocrisy and irony in your claims that would be fair and balanced...

 

There is no irony or hypocrisy in believing you can have electoral debates that are fair and balanced by letting the people decide how to run them? Most European countries have extremely strict rules concerning debates and elections. No private tv debates for example, no political adds, only a few weeks of campaign, state sponsored campaigns.

Just claiming that public run debates will be just as corrupt as private corporation run debates is ludicrous. And based on the lack of imagination in how you could easily set up an unbiased process. It isn't that hard.

 

Oh yea, because government entities do everything so well...

And small government entity??? What the hell is that?