2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumSanders Campaign Could Win In Spite of Corporate Media Spin
Robert W. McChesney, Prof. of Media and Communications, University of Illinois, says that Sanders has a good fighting chance to secure the Democratic nomination in spite of the traditional media's effort to undermine his successMarch 20, 2016
Video only, running time 4.5 minutes approx.
Bio
Robert W. McChesney is the Gutgsell Endowed Professor in the Department of Communication at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. In 2002 he was the co-founder of Free Press, a national media reform organization www.freepress.net and served as its President until April 2008, and remains on its Board of Directors. McChesney also hosts the Media Matters weekly radio program every Sunday afternoon on NPR-affiliate WILL-AM radio http://will.uiuc.edu/am/mediamatters/default.htm; it is the top-rated program in its time slot in the Champaign-Urbana area. McChesney has written or edited eighteen books. His work has been professionally translated into 28 languages. His latest books is called "Will the Last Reporter Please Turn Out the Lights: The Collapse of Journalism and What Can Be Done to Fix It". In 2008 the Utne Reader listed McChesney among their 50 visionaries who are changing the world. In 2001 Adbusters Magazine named him one of the Nine Pioneers of Mental Environmentalism. In 2006 right-winger David Horowitz included McChesney on his list of the 101 most dangerous professors in America. In 2010, along with John Nichols, McChesney was awarded the U.S. Newspaper Guilds 2010 Herbert Block Freedom Award; according to the Guilds Executive Council, the two of you have done more for press freedom than anyone. Your body of work is second to none. This is a transformative year for journalism. If we're able to chart a course that will preserve what matters, it will be in large part due to both of you. In 2011 McChesney was given the Communication Research as an Agent of Change lifetime achievement award from the International Communication Assn.
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)Baobab
(4,667 posts)Voters wont turn out for Hillary or Trump.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)That isn't the same as saying Hillary won't motivate voters. She is the strongest vote motivator on the field - unfortunately, it's a motivation to vote against her.
Baobab
(4,667 posts)People are just fed up with manipulation and manipulators.
A strong campaign to write in Bernie and/or Elizabeth Warren might work to prevent a bloodbath for other Democratic candidates nationally. In terms of getting out the vote. Otherwise the unwillingness to vote for Hillary would likely result in GOP candidates getting a huge number of victories they would not otherwise get.
And possibly the death of the Democratic Party by irrelevance.
CorporatistNation
(2,546 posts)Hillary will NEVER become POTUS unless the election is "FIXED" by the Corporatist Oligarchy...
onenote
(42,374 posts)Facts.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)Half the country hasn't voted yet and the half that has was deliberately front loaded to favor Clinton. So not only is the sample you are extrapolating from incomplete, it is deliberately non-representative of the population being measured.
Doesn't anyone understand basic social science anymore?
onenote
(42,374 posts)Better?
And "deliberately front loaded"? The schedule of the primaries was set in August 2014 when Clinton's most likely opponent was Biden. And the 2016 schedule is not appreciably different than the 2012 schedule. Pretty much the same states had voted by March 13 2012 as had voted by March 15 2016. The exceptions are a mixed lot: Arkansas, Colorado, Michigan, Illinois, North Carolina and Texas all voted after (but generally not long after) March 13, 2012.
That's some basic social science for you. With an emphasis on science.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)As for the denial of the order being front loaded for hillary, would you care to tackle an explanation for what "firewall" meant as used up to Mar. 15th?
Disingenuous and challenged by basic science. Press on my friend, press on.
onenote
(42,374 posts)As for meaningless, that would seem an apt description of your point.
And returning to your post about who is the biggest vote motivator in the race thus far -- that would be Trump, who has had more people turn out not to vote for him than have voted for him.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)It isn't a conspiracy, it is a deliberate plan by the DNC to insulate the party from grass roots challenges to the 3rd way candidates.
onenote
(42,374 posts)in the 1988 Democratic primaries and see how it fits with your "deliberate plan" theory. The schedule in 1988, as it is this year and has been most years, "front loaded" a lot of southern states as well as New England states. The result was a very strong early performance by Jackson (not exactly the establishment candidate) making him the front runner for a period of time before the later primaries shifted the momentum back to Dukakis.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)Don't forget to include the when the schedules were set.
onenote
(42,374 posts)kristopher
(29,798 posts)It is accepted common wisdom that the general schedule is as it is in order to favor the conservative Dem candidate - which is Clinton. It's honed and polished for every Presidential cycle and the specific needs of the party to further support the Establishment candidate.
onenote
(42,374 posts)You can make up whatever you want, but you have zero evidence to back up your conspiracy (and yes, you are claiming some sort of conspiratorial action to achieve a particular result) theory.
The dates of the primaries have not fluctuated all that much for many election cycles -- cycles occurring long before there was any "third way".
Do you really think the 1968 schedule, which made New Hampshire, Wisconsin, and Massachusetts three of the first four primaries was set up specifically to help LBJ against Eugene McCarthy? In fact, it wasn't set up with that thought at all or any other thought of helping one type of candidacy over another and the result was that McCarthy's early strength in states that were in his wheelhouse forced LBJ out of the race.
Social science involves more than agenda driven speculation and assumptions.
lunamagica
(9,967 posts)kristopher
(29,798 posts).Perhaps someone needs to look for a statistically significant link...
Sorry, got sidetracked. See: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1537528
dchill
(38,320 posts)lunamagica
(9,967 posts)lunamagica
(9,967 posts)won't change anything.
I can't wait for NY!
kristopher
(29,798 posts)lunamagica
(9,967 posts)I could have alerted on it, but meh, I won't bother
vintx
(1,748 posts)Rebkeh
(2,450 posts)Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)it here. Your "truthier" snide remark is without merit otherwise.
Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)Also evident, you could not find anything negative about the
author you attempted to skewer earlier.
Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)Way with words has our friend, pkdu.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)empty, twice. You attacked his bio b/c it was highlighted..that is your idea
of a legitimate critique. Now you're relying on another poster..you're weak
snide remarks have no merit from the get go.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)Given a sincere chance to put forth the best of their candidates positions, this is what you get.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511532343
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)unprepared they are to argue Clinton policy. I posted about single payer the other
day, the OP covered how it was a myth among others, that pursuing single payer would destroy ACA.
No takers from Clinton supporters.
Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)habit of bolding a whole excerpt, does NOT equate to attacking the ideas propounded within, however spurious said ideas may be.
So...
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)it "truthier." You had zero ability to find anything false about his bio, which was
the highlighted excerpt. You had nothing now nor then of substance to offer.
There's a word for your kind of critique, it's called baseless.
Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)if not to influence the unfortunate reader to think that somehow it is the unvarnished TRUTH!!!!! etched in stone.
These are the techniques used by tabloids and other 'yellow journalism' practitioners.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)There is a consistency about the tactics y'all are using which hints at training...
Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)in or received any information about "discussion disruption".
I do however, have a background in journalistic deontology and propaganda techniques. Recognize it when you see it.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)for your baseless critique. There was nothing false in his bio, you were given'
the challenge to post what was not accurate, you failed.
I can bold what is relevant to me, which was his background. Your critique
was nothing but tabloid cheap comments.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)Garbled delivery. Come again?
Excessive bolding, like upper-casing, is used to give a semblance and veneer of seriousness or veracity to an otherwise unnoteworthy text.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)my emphasis was his background. YOU attempted to smear him by asserting I highlighted
it to make it appear "truthier." I called you out on it and you could not produce anything
that backed up your claim. His bio is entirely accurate, you brought tabloid cheap shots
at him and now pretend to feign understanding.
Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)My brain hurts...gobbledygook can be physically painful.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)Brock would be proud of you.
Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)post.
Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)post onward..same tactics.
Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)tactics...nothing cryptic about what I said to you.
I understand your dilemma, you had no legitimate critique of the professor
so you went with attacking his "truthiness" based on his bio being highlighted
in bold.
Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)I will challenge that every time.
kerry-is-my-prez
(8,133 posts)Conspiracy theorist vs a 70 year-old woman with gray hair.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)kerry-is-my-prez
(8,133 posts)Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)There was no transcript, she was smearing his bio, when asked what was inaccurate
about it she came up empty.
Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)But, hand on heart, I really AM just an old retired lady, who happens to have some old-fashioned ideas about good journalistic style.
SMC22307
(8,088 posts)Pics, tweets, bolding, blue links, smilies... Jefferson23's got nuthin' on the above *truthy* post.
Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)and may ultimately overwhelm the inherent force of the contextual ideas, whatever their political bent may be.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)kerry-is-my-prez
(8,133 posts)Enjoyed the rapid-fire exchanges.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)brooklynite
(93,851 posts)...this "Sanders campaign could win" argument is built on "as Sanders gets known, he does better"; except that it's not true. His support among African American voters is still poor, and his support among actual Democrats isn't getting better either. The second cliched argument is that after "winning the next 7-8 States" he'll have momentum that will carry him into New York. Sorry, but winning some Western Caucus States (remember when "Red States were meaningless"?) and possible Washington and Wisconsin isn't going to change the fact that Clinton will still be 200-250 PLEDGED delegates ahead going into CLOSED PRIMARIES in NY, NJ, PA and MD.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)kristopher
(29,798 posts)Because from what I've seen in the trend lines, your claims are totally wrong, totally baseless, partisan bunkum.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)The more I came to absolutely loathe him. And his supporters colored those thoughts as well. My apolitical wife absolutely loathes him after getting to know him.
DemocracyDirect
(708 posts)R B Garr
(16,920 posts)amount of time with his inability to articulate anything beyond his generalized smears. Now my husband just turns away in disgust when he starts in with his glib talking points. My husband's words about him: "that guy is a clown".
pkdu
(3,977 posts)like
".. he only had one week to campaign.."
"...when he announced in July , or June or April.."
Apart from the Superdelegate count bit , which I agree with , the rest is horseshit IMO.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)Adrahil
(13,340 posts)What is the basis of his supposed expertise?
At the end of the day, this is about delegates. He hasn't shown a realistic path to getting the requid delegates. And Sanders' path is looking narrower all the time.
But I guess some folks just wanna here there still is a Santa Claus.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)Trump and Sanders?
I can't tell from your response if you listened to the interview, it appears
clear to me that he is speaking to the absurd presumption that Sanders
should drop out, there is no chance at all. If you have not voted and you
support him, you want a chance to see this through and no you do not
know what the end result will be.
onenote
(42,374 posts)and he's doing a lot more than speaking to the presumption that Bernie has no chance at all. He's claiming that Bernie has a good chance. And while he conditions that claim at the very end by saying Bernie's good chance is depending on Bernie winning the next seven or eight primaries/caucuses and then taking that momentum into NY, that's like saying the Philadelphia 76ers (9 wins, 60 losses) have a good chance of defeating the Golden State Warriors (62 wins, 7 losses) if they just go out and score more points than the Warriors. Of course it's possible. But a "good" chance? Not really. Even if his assumption about a 7 or 8 in a row win streak turns out to be accurate, the issue at the end of the day is how much does that cut into Clinton's lead? And by not addressing that issue, he undercuts the credibility of his own argument.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)what could means in the context of his usage. Upsets happen in elections, Bernie
has already proven that fact with his delegate count. He was not expected to do as well
as he has.
A good chance is there for the taking, he did not suggest he would probably win
nor likely win...significant difference.
onenote
(42,374 posts)As for the states coming up being there "for the taking", I'm not sure what that exactly means. All of the states before now also have been there 'for the taking', but that doesn't tell you anything about how likely it is that they can or will be taken.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)his chances nor is the professor inflating them, this has been an
election where the guru Silver fucked up twice. So I don't expect
Sanders to win and I also do not see evidence he has such terrible
odds to make that impossible..which is what is being presumed
by the msm.
Does that clarify my position? I hope so, since this thread has become
a means to parse a viable candidate hopeless and I don't agree
with that mindset.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)A true mark of distinction when from Horowitz.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)Waiting For Everyman
(9,385 posts)Thanks for posting this!
Uncle Joe
(58,112 posts)Thanks for the thread, Jefferson23.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)McChesney makes many good points very well--
thanks
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)nolabels
(13,133 posts)Response to Jefferson23 (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)If you're ahead, you should feel confident not to remind the underdog 24/7.
onenote
(42,374 posts)And that's not borne out by the facts on the ground.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)thus far. Good chance, could win....why believe he can't? As I said, he
is not selling a false hope, he is not saying he is likely to win.
onenote
(42,374 posts)Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)I will help him to win until its over...we know the odds.
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)While it's true that Sanders has done amazingly well, to say his chances of securing the nomination are still "very strong" is absurd. Clinton does best in larger, more diverse states. Sanders does best in smaller, less diverse states. That pattern is not going to get flipped upside down. This means that Clinton's lead will, in all likelihood, be larger at the end of April than it is currently. A delegate margin of, say, 400 at the end of April means game over.
It's one thing to say Sanders could conceivably still win. It's another thing to suggest he has a good or 'very strong' chance.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)His past performance was not shabby..but I also appreciate what you're
saying and I do not feel he was over stating his case. That is where
we disagree..besides, we'll find out soon enough.
yourpaljoey
(2,166 posts)anotherproletariat
(1,446 posts)Just as I do if it turns out that Hillary is nominated.
Lil Missy
(17,865 posts)ladjf
(17,320 posts)Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)ladjf
(17,320 posts)unusual event already during his campaign.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)if we lose, we lose...if we're fortunate for an upset, we could win.
Have you noticed in this thread what a threat the word could
has posed for some? I mean, Clinton is ahead, and if they're
so confident, why the need to remind everyone there is no hope?
The msm disgusts me.
Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)but we will prevail!
uponit7771
(90,225 posts)Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)It is more an acknowledgement of the obstacles he has had vs her
advantages. I have often said, there are Democrats who do indeed
appreciate and support her policies and we should not ignore that
fact. That is one reason among many why I believe we may eventually
see a split party in the years ahead.
Vinca
(50,170 posts)It is possible for him to exceed her in pledged delegates in the states that are left to vote. Then he would need to convince the superdelegates to flip based on the votes in their states. A big hill to climb, but not totally impossible. I was also thinking (I was baking bread so there was plenty of time to muse), maybe, in the end, if Hillary is the nominee that's not so bad this year. There is so much enthusiasm on the right, chances are good they'll will the general election. If Bernie is the candidate, going left would be blamed for the loss until the end of time. If Hillary loses, the thought would be we should have picked Bernie and stayed to the left rather than accepting the status quo candidate. In the end, who the hell knows.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)reaction from the DNC...like what the GOP is showing Trump. Where I disagree
is that Bernie would likely win..very much so. True he would have the power
of the people supporting him and not much else from within but a political revolution
is not for the faint hearted.
The DNC is invested in the status quo and they never expected Bernie to be
where he is today.
Vinca
(50,170 posts)Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)supportive of Bernie..not my intention.
Vinca
(50,170 posts)Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)reformist2
(9,841 posts)riversedge
(69,721 posts)Might as well have been.
HAPPY FIRST DAY OF SPRING
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)riversedge
(69,721 posts)Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)the one being silly? You're a very confused person.
nolabels
(13,133 posts)It makes my day so much brighter, even at night
Jenny_92808
(1,342 posts)Go Bernie!
[IMG][/IMG]
AzDar
(14,023 posts)Garrett78
(10,721 posts)...to say his chances of securing the nomination are still "very strong" is rather absurd. Clinton does best in larger, more diverse states. Sanders does best in smaller, less diverse states. That pattern is not going to get flipped upside down. This means that Clinton's lead will, in all likelihood, be larger at the end of April than it is currently. A delegate margin of, say, 400 at the end of April means game over.
It's one thing to say Sanders could conceivably still win. It's another thing to suggest he has a good or 'very strong' chance.