Reply With Quote
3 years left. That is a lot of time in politics. If Trump continues along this path anything can happen.
Ducks, you better hope they reject Sanders like they did last year. Even the corpse of Sanders would beat the outta Trump.
3 years left. That is a lot of time in politics. If Trump continues along this path anything can happen.
It's easier to listen to that cough when it's put to musiccant even watch the whole thing. Had to stop it. Even im embarrased
Its like the wicked witch of the west falling apart in front of her kingdom
Sad
Keep laughing.
Hillary won the election by nearly 3M votes.
She lost the election due to Pootin/Assange strategy of dribbling out emails over many weeks, and
above due to Comey trashing her last summer on a false do ent and
then again days before the election
which Silver says caused a clear shift to Trash in three key states and their large electoral votes, where she lost each by tiny fractions of a percent.
As Dems always do, Hillary won the women's and black vote by a huge margin, while Trash won the men's vote. All are "iden y politics".
Too Easy: How Republicans Would Tear Apart an Unvetted Bernie Sanders in the General Election
Bernie Sanders should have never gotten this far.
For nearly eight months, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders was able to skate by thanks to a willing media in bad need of a horse race on the Democratic side. Sure, it would be a historic first in our country for a woman to be the first ever nominee from a major political party, but that kind of history is so boring. There's no drama in having a clear frontrunner, running a clean campaign, avoiding any major slip ups or scandals all while running against a weak, inept, and single-issue fringe candidate with no real legislative accomplishments to his name. By giving the race the sense of being a "coronation" the networks knew that the majority of viewers wouldn't be tuning it, despite that opportunity to see what the history books will eventually show as being a historical campaign. The media needed drama and the only way to create drama was to create a sense that the race was much closer than it actually was.
So like the good little Orwellian puppets that they are, our media did everything it could to create a horse race when one never existed. Sanders does well in Iowa and New Hampshire? The media simply ignores the fact that the demographics there play to Sanders' strengths. Sanders gets destroyed in South Carolina? The media simply ignores the fact that it's clear he hasn't won over the increasingly integral African-American voting bloc. Sanders struggles to win over Latinos? The media simply ignores the fact that he is unable to recreate the Obama coalition that was so successful in 2008 and 2012. Sanders wins a handful of states of Super Tuesday? The media simply ignores the fact that Sanders faced an impossible uphill climb to win the nomination from that point forward. Sanders wins 7 out of 8 primaries and caucuses in April? The media simply ignores the fact that Sanders is still down 240 delegates with multiple closed primaries looming. Sanders gets his second upset win in Indiana? The media simply ignores the fact that Hillary Clinton didn't spend any money on ad buys in the state and had already begun to shift her resources for the general election.
Along with simply ignoring basic delegate math, the media also had to bury any stories that made Sanders look bad. Thanks to some clever manipulation by the Sanders campaign themselves, they were able to successfully do this by creating counter narratives to try and justify the campaign's deceitful actions. Bernie Sanders caught stealing information from Hillary Clinton's voter files? Sue the DNC for shutting off the Sanders campaign's own access to their information as a punishment! Bernie Sanders flying to the Vatican to try and pander to New York's Catholic population? Claim it's because you've had a lifelong admiration for the Pope and simply couldn't pass up this opportunity! Bernie Sanders refusing to release more than one year of tax returns? Say that you'll do so when Hillary Clinton releases her full Goldman Sachs speech transcripts! Bernie Sanders' supporters creating a near-riot at the Nevada state convention? Blame the Democratic Party rather than taking responsibility for your supporters and your campaign!
Yet despite the media doing its best to create a sense of suspense, it's now painfully obvious to anyone not stuck in the cult of Bernie that Hillary Clinton will unquestionably be the Democratic nominee for president. Hillary's lead is insurmountable and she has significant leads in both New Jersey and California, the last two major delegates prizes this primary season. Despite being less than a month away from history in having the first ever woman officially clinch the nomination for a major political party in this country, that news is still bad news for the media. That would mean nearly a month and a half of no drama from either Republicans or Democrats which our news media simply cannot have. With Donald Trump now being the unquestioned nominee on the Republican side, it's up to Democrats to create some sort of drama between now and the July convention.
Fortunately for the media, they have a willing stooge in Bernie Sanders to do this.
Despite having no chance of winning the nomination, Bernie Sanders is now openly intent upon doing damage to Hillary Clinton. While Clinton rightfully asserts that she will be the Democratic nominee for president, Sanders still somehow and some way believes that he still has a chance. Should he lose New Jersey and California on June 7th (which appears more than likely) Sanders will have not only lost the popular vote by over 3 million, the delegate count by over 300, and more states than Clinton but he will also have lost any claim about having momentum leading up to the convention. Were that to happen then the only case Sanders would be left with would be the fact that certain polls show he would do better in a head-to-head matchup against Donald Trump. However, this very argument is flawed for a very obvious reason: an unvetted Bernie Sanders would get absolutely torn apart by Republicans in a general election campaign.
Don't believe me? What's the worst thing you've heard about Bernie Sanders from the mainstream media over the past year? The fact that he once supported Castro? The fact that he was unable to explain how he'd break up the banks in his New York Daily News interview? How he won't release his tax returns? How he refused to commit to fundraising for down-ballot Democratic candidates for nearly ten months? Chances are you've read more about Sanders' interactions with the local Portland avian community than you have about criticisms of his campaign and his voting record.
Republicans are keenly aware of this. It's why Donald Trump has stated he wants to run against Bernie Sanders. He knows the kind of portrait Republicans would paint with all the opposition research they have done. Being called 'Crazy Bernie' would be the nicest thing Donald Trump and Republicans would say about Bernie Sanders. They'd attack his background, his family, his voting record, you name it. When all is said and done, they'd make Sanders look like the second coming of Karl Marx, ready to create a world of poverty and despair through Soviet-style communism. Most of us know that isn't true, but the average voter does not. But that's what the general election will be: reaching out to the average, low-information voter. And unfortunately, Bernie Sanders' closet is filled with skeletons that the mainstream media has gleefully ignored. Were he to actually be the Democratic nominee, Republicans would without question unleash a barrage of attacks that would invoke such les as:
Bernie The Rapist
Think everything in Bernie's past is off-limits? Republicans know better. They know Bernie Sanders wrote a fic ious essay in 1972 describing the a woman enjoying being raped by three men. This was not the work of a high school boy. Or a horny college student. This was the work of a thirty-one-year-old man. With a child. If you think Republicans wouldn't go after this essay in an attempt to hurt Sanders' standing among women you'd be crazy. Republicans would plaster this essay all over a series of ads to discredit Sanders support among women voters and they'd do it without giving it a second thought.
Bernie The Bum
Think Republicans wouldn't attempt to portray Sanders as a drain on the system? Sanders collected unemployment through his mid-30s and did a series of odd jobs including carpentry, teaching, working as a hospital aid, and working for a nonprofit. At one point, he stole electricity from his neighbor because he had failed to pay his own bills. At this time, Sanders also shared custody of his son and quite possibly struggled to pay child support. Think Republicans wouldn't try to portray Bernie as a deadbeat dad? Then you clearly don't know Republicans.
Bernie's Disdain For Latinos
Think Republicans wouldn't attempt to lessen Sanders' support among key Democratic voting blocs like Latinos? In 1994, Sanders co-sponsored a bill that would have allow low-level nuclear waste from Vermont to be shipped to the poor Latino community of Sierra Blanca, Texas. Activists from Sierra Blanca fought back for four years and even traveled 2,000 miles to Vermont to speak with then Congressman Sanders. Sanders' response? He told the activists he didn't care and that he had a re-election campaign to worry about. Republicans would be certain that Sanders would be forever associated with the terms 'Sierra Blanca' and 'environmental racism.'
Bernie's Apathy Toward African-Americans
Besides women and Latinos, African-Americans represent another essential part of the Obama coalition needed to win a general election. Sanders is proud of his early civil rights work but don't think for a second that Republicans wouldn't remind the voters that Sanders has been noticeably absent for the past half-century. They'd point out how Sanders was "invisible" to African-Americans activists in Vermont and how civil rights icon John Lewis "never saw" Sanders go to bat for civil rights issues while in Congress. Don't doubt that Republicans wouldn't gleefully use these instances to portray Sanders as someone who simply isn't invested in the African-American community.
"Bernie The Bomber"
Think Republicans wouldn't love to shatter Sanders' angelic reputation among his core supporters? Sanders consistently touts his anti-war record. Yet in 1999, he voted in favor of NATO's military mission in Yugoslavia, much to the dismay of his hometown supporters. In fact, his supporters were so upset that they went to Congressman Sanders' office to speak to him or someone with his staff. Sanders was in D.C. but the protesters were promptly arrested without being given an audience. Yup, that's right. Civil rights hero Bernie Sanders openly arrested protesters in his own congressional office. Republicans could literally kill two birds with one stone by using this instance to show Sanders and being pro-war and pro-establishment at the same time.
Bernie The War Hawk
Sanders has also gone on record against excessive military spending. Yet Republicans would gladly point out how he openly supports the military's $1.5 trillion F-35 boondoggle that epitomizes superfluous military spending as well as perpetual war. Why does Sanders support this? Because it brings jobs to his home state of Vermont. And anything that brings jobs helps to get Senator Sanders re-elected every six years which is much more important than one's principled anti-war stance. Republicans would be sure to remind everyone in the other 49 states that Sanders loves to enrich his own pockets through war.
Calamity Jane
As we've already seen with Donald Trump, spouses are fair game in the year 2016. Unfortunately, for Bernie Sanders, his wife Jane has more than enough baggage for Donald Trump and Republicans to use. Not only has she continued to profit off of the same nuclear commission involved in the Sierra Blanca case, but she also received a $200,000 golden parachute from Burlington College, where she served as president to a for-profit school that is scheduled to close later this month due to crushing debt. She also has been accused of bank fraud for potentially having scammed the Catholic Church out of nearly $2 million in a land deal. If Donald Trump would criticize a woman for her looks, imagine what he'd do to someone who has a shady background concerning business deals and personal finances.
Bolshevik Bernie
Republicans know it's one thing to paint someone a certain way because of their policies, but it's another one entirely to paint someone a certain way because of their lifestyle. Bernie Sanders was an open supporter of Communism in the 1980s. He honeymooned in the USSR and traveled to Cuba in 1989 in an unsuccessful attempt to meet with Fidel Castro. Yet these two instances pale in comparison to Sanders' interactions in Nicaragua. Not only has Sanders gone on record in praise of the Sandinistas but he also attended an anti-American rally where the crowd chanted for "death to the Yankees." Combine this nugget of information along with Sanders' radical ideas on income inequality and Republicans could easily paint him as an unpatriotic anarchist -bent on destroying America.
Bernie The Crook
Don't think for a second that Donald Trump wouldn't attack Sanders on anything and everything related to finances. Unfortunately for Sanders, his campaign has left a lot to be desired in this regard. Sanders and his campaign have been flagged for multiple campaign finance violations including 639 pages worth this past month. These violations combined with the fact that the Sanders campaign has a mystery $10 million donation from one single address in Washington, D.C. that has yet to be accounted for. In addition, Sanders' long time friend and political advisor Tad Devine is raking in a cool $800,000 a month for his consulting firm. With this in mind, there can be no question that Donald Trump would go after Sanders for being a hustler, a con man, and a crook when it came to other people's money.
Bernie The Hypocrite
The last line of attack Republicans use would be a culmination of everything Sanders has said or done throughout his political career. They'd point out that Sanders has railed against super PACS but is being openly supported by the National Nurses United. They'd point out that Sanders went on the picket line to support Verizon workers but he uses Verizon at his campaign headquarters. They'd point out that Sanders has spoken out against Boeing but that he has accepted over $72,000 from them this election cycle alone. They'd point out that Sanders criticized Hillary Clinton for supporting the 1994 Crime Bill but Sanders himself expressed no regret in actually voting for the bill. They'd point out that Sanders claims to be against the NRA but was supported by them for his first successful congressional run in 1990. They'd point out that Sanders claims to be able to work across the aisle but that his blind ideology caused him to vote against the Amber Alert system. They'd point out that Sanders supports universal health care but it failed in his home state of Vermont due to high costs. They'd point out that Sanders has consistently bashed Democrats, including President Obama, and is admittedly using the party for his own personal gain. And, perhaps most damaging, Republicans would point out how Sanders has claimed to be able to save families money but has openly admitted that "we will raise taxes" in order to enact his agenda.
So that's the Bernie Sanders Republicans would present to us over the next five plus months. A womanizing, hypocritical, radical who along with his wife have fleeced the American public for both exposure and financial gain. An inept Senator who has done nothing for Latinos, African-Americans or other core Democratic voting blocs that he has professed to care deeply about. A closet war hawk, who loves war when it benefits his cons uents, loves guns when it helps get him elected, and who will blatantly ignore or even arrest those who have the audacity to question his motives. A man whose past has more questions than answers and who lived off unemployment for 13 years as he attempted to find a way to monetize his radical views. A man who willing to say or do anything to become elected for a "political revolution" that he completely ignored for the first 73 years of his life.
That Bernie Sanders would get undeniably obliterated by Donald Trump in the general election. Because unlike the media, Trump would willing use this information in the way described above. Trump wants to win and win badly and as we've seen with the Republican primary, he is willing to stoop to any level to do so. The rules of political engagement have been thrown out the window in the year 2016 and there is no doubt that Bernie Sanders would not be able to win this new, unregulated game. Whereas Hillary Clinton has the proven ability to rise above the fray, Sanders is irascible and erratic and cannot handle being verbally attacked or questioned, something Trump excels at. Combine that with the fact that Trump would certainly bully Sanders through low blows and crude remarks and you have the ingredients for a situation where Sanders would almost certainly be unable to defend himself on the national stage.
And that ultimately is why Sanders' argument in favor for his polling against Donald Trump holds no water. The American public is simply unaware of Sanders' background, even after him having been in the public eye for 13 months. Ninety-nine percent of Latinos don't know the significance of Sierra Blanca but if Bernie Sanders were to be the nominee you can certainly count on that number being cut in at least half. The same can be said of Sanders and his rape essay with women or Sanders and his inability to reach out to African-Americans. By hearing these targeted attacks, these core Democratic voting blocs would be less likely to turn out in a general election. Combine that with the fact that many low-information voters easily confuse communism with socialism and would be scared to vote for a socialist and you can easily see how Bernie Sanders would in no way be a stronger candidate than Hillary Clinton in the general election. Despite what any poll states in May about any hypothetical general election matchup in November, there's a lot to be said of the fact that Hillary Clinton has been excessively vetted so both her and her campaign are ready for what Donald Trump will throw at them over the next five months. The same unfortunately cannot be said for Bernie Sanders.
And that is why Sanders' claim that he is the stronger candidate against Donald Trump is a completely ridiculous argument.
http://www.thepeoplesview.net/main/2...ses-to-release
Looks like Google influenced the election much more than "Russia"
A Method for Detecting Bias in Search Rankings, with Evidence
of Systematic Bias Related to the 2016 Presidential Election
Robert Epstein ([email protected])
American Ins ute for Behavioral Research and Technology
Ronald E. Robertson
Northeastern University
Samantha J. Shepherd & Shu Zhang
American Ins ute for Behavioral Research and Technology
Summary
In a report published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences summarizing the
results of five randomized, controlled experiments with 4,556 participants in two countries,
Epstein and Robertson (2015) showed that search results favoring one political candidate can
shift the voting preferences of undecided voters substantially—up to 80% in some demographic
groups—and that this effect can easily be masked so that few or no people are aware they are
viewing biased search results. These and other experiments demonstrating the impact of the
Search Engine Manipulation Effect (SEME) beg the question, however, of whether real search
rankings are actually biased.
We now describe a method for creating a Nielsen-ratings-type network of confidants whose daily
online searches are automatically collected and pooled in a manner that allows for the detection
of actual bias in search rankings. The method was implemented in the spring of 2016 in
anticipation of the November presidential election. Ninety-five people from 24 U.S. states (mean
age 39.9) were recruited, 21 of whom identified themselves as “undecided.” In the months
leading up to Election Day, daily election-related searches automatically provided us with the
first page of results from a total of 13,207 searches conducted using Google, Bing and Yahoo
through the Firefox browser, allowing us to preserve 98,044 election-related web pages. Those
pages, in turn, were rated by people recruited from a crowdsourcing website, and the ratings
allowed us to compute the average bias per search position, as well as the overall average bias.
We are still analyzing this wealth of data—all of which will be made public by the Internet
Archive (http://archive.org) later in 2017—but so far we have found that between May and
November 2016, search results displayed in response to a wide range of election-related search
terms were, on average, biased in Mrs. Clinton’s favor in all 10 search-result positions. This bias
could not be accounted for by the bias in the search terms themselves. We also found different
levels of bias in different search engines, as well as evidence of demographically-targeted bias.
We don’t know what caused these patterns of bias, but no matter what the cause or causes, given
the power of search rankings to shift votes and opinions without people’s awareness
(http://bit.ly/1REqzEY), they are a matter for concern.
We believe our new tracking system can serve as a prototype for the development of a
worldwide ecosystem of software that passively monitors search results, search suggestions, news feeds, advertisements and other normally ephemeral internet content. Such a system might
someday play an important role in protecting the integrity of the free-and-fair election. It might
also bring, for the first time, some degree of accountability to the Big Tech companies that
control ephemeral content.
Selected Supporting Data
1) Issue: Were search results provided by search engines in the U.S. biased toward one
candidate or the other? Yes. Based on a sample of 4,045 election-related searches conducted
during a 25-day period from October 15 to November 8 (Election Day) using the Google and
Yahoo search engines through the Firefox browser, we found that search results were, on
average, biased to favor Hillary Clinton on all of those days. (Note: In the graph below, values
above 0 show a Clinton bias, and values below 0 show a Trump bias.)
http://aibrt.org/downloads/EPSTEIN_e...h_Rankings.pdf
2) Issue: On the first page of search results (10 positions), where was the bias expressed? We
found that the bias was expressed in all 10 search results:
http://aibrt.org/downloads/EPSTEIN_e...h_Rankings.pdf
3) Issue: Was the bias the same for all search engines? No. The level of pro-Clinton bias we
found on Google (0.19) was more than twice as high as the level of pro-Clinton bias we found on
Yahoo (0.09). The difference between these values was highly statistically significant (p <
0.001).
4) Issue: Did everyone see the same level of bias? No. We found evidence of demographic
targeting. For example:
a. Decided vs. undecided. Search results seen by people who said they had decided how to vote
were nearly twice as biased in favor of Clinton (0.21) as search results seen by people who said
they were undecided (0.11, p < 0.001).
b. Men vs. women. Search results seen by men were twice as biased in favor of Clinton (0.24) as
search results seen by women (0.12, p < 0.001).
c. Blue vs. red vs. swing states. People in blue states generally saw the highest level of proClinton
bias in search rankings (0.24); people in red states saw the next highest level of proClinton
bias (0.12); and people in swing states saw the lowest level of pro-Clinton bias (0.10, p <
0.001).
d. Young vs. old. Search results seen by people under age 35 were more than twice as biased in
favor of Clinton (0.21) as search results seen by people 35 and over (0.10, p < 0.001).
Interpretation: Our study doesn’t look at this issue directly, but the pattern of demographic
differences we found is somewhat consistent with the idea that Big Tech companies show people
what they want to see. Note, however, that people in blue (that is, pro-Clinton) states weren’t the
only ones to see pro-Clinton search results; people in red (that is, pro-Trump) and swing states
did too.
5) Issue: Could search results have been biased simply because people were selecting biased
search terms? On a scale from -5 (pro-Trump) to +5 (pro-Clinton), the average bias in people’s
search terms was slightly pro-Trump (-0.08). The search terms people used should therefore
have yielded a pro-Trump bias in search results, but they did not.
6) Issue: Was there bias before October 15? Yes, although we typically received data from only
a few searches per day before that date, so we are less certain of the numbers. Looking at data
from 1,050 searches conducted between May 19 and October 14, 2016, we found, on average, a
pro-Clinton bias throughout this period (0.17), as well as a pro-Clinton bias in all 10 search
positions on the first page of search results. To put this another way, we found evidence of a proClinton
bias in search rankings over a period of nearly six months before the election.
7) Issue: Did we use all the data we collected? No, for two reasons:
a. First, although we started collecting data on May 19, 2016, it took time for us to recruit
confidants for our new network, as well as to refine our new software and procedures. Beginning
on October 15, we began reliably to receive more than 50 searches per day, reaching a peak of
483 searches on November 8 (Election Day). We therefore have focused our analysis on this 25-
day period.
b. Second, we ultimately had to discard all the data we had received from confidants who
communicated with us using gmail, the email service owned by Google. Some of these data were
transmitted to us in spurts, with dozens of searches being conducted in a few seconds by the
same person; such searches were presumably automated. Some of the statistics these data yielded
were also suspect. Compare the pattern of bias values we obtained from non-gmail users of the
Google search engine (graph on the left) to the pattern of bias we obtained from gmail users of
the Google search engine (graph on the right):
http://aibrt.org/downloads/EPSTEIN_e...h_Rankings.pdf
As you can see, the search results seen by non-gmail users were far more biased (0.19) than the
results seen by gmail users (0.03, p < 0.001). Perhaps Google identified our confidants through
its gmail system and targeted them to receive unbiased results; we have no way to confirm this at
present, but it is a plausible explanation for the pattern of results we found. (Note: We are
missing data on October 25, 26, and 27 because our server was unable to keep up with the
rapidly increasing influx of data. We may be able to recover some of the missing data, but it is
unlikely. We made adjustments to our software during this period so our server could
accommodate a much faster data flow.)
8) Issue: What happened to the bias after the election? It appeared to decrease. The graph below
compares the bias observed during the 10 days leading up to the election to the bias observed
during the 10 days following the election:
http://aibrt.org/downloads/EPSTEIN_e...h_Rankings.pdf
9) Issue: Could the pro-Clinton bias in search results have shifted votes to Mrs. Clinton? A
comprehensive study published in 2015 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
found that biased search rankings can easily shift the voting preferences of undecided voters by
20% or more – up to 80% in some demographic groups. Extrapolating from the mathematics
introduced in this report, in articles published in February 2016 and thereafter, the lead author of
the PNAS study predicted that a pro-Clinton bias in Google’s search results would, over time,
shift at least 2.6 million votes to Clinton. She won the popular vote in the November election by
2,864,974 votes. Without the pro-Clinton bias in Google’s search results, her win margin in the
popular vote might have been negligible.
Just stop with the bat crazy conspiracy theories. Please.
Yah! That's showing him!
Thinking a spineless, crusty, poverty pimping cuckold, complicit in taking a dive and rigging the election, will fix this big scary, non-existant Trump-created apocalyptic monster-world your "worried" for. The Left is a bigger mess than how the Obama Administration left Aleppo.
Throws DNC under the bus.
So many excuses why this hag could'nt defeat pussy grabber.
Dems -- please run this corpse in 4 years.
lol... blaming the dnc after the massive support she got during primaries and outspent trump 2:1 in the general
Throws DNC under the bus.
So many excuses why this hag could'nt defeat pussy grabber.
Dems -- please run this corpse in 4 years.
Still blaming everyone else but herself. What a .
I could so easily switch parties if another JFK were around.
LOL, Still running against Hillary Clinton. She's not running 4 years from now. But if she did, I think she wins. Trump has been a DISASTER.Throws DNC under the bus.
So many excuses why this hag could'nt defeat pussy grabber.
Dems -- please run this corpse in 4 years.
LMAO. Trump getting clowned by Hillary. Pathetic all the way around.
he needs to stop giving her attention. i don't remember obama still talking about romney and the other guy after he won. dude is obsessed.
I think you may be confused.
No, he has it pretty much right.
He's easily baited.
that hillary tweet was a response to...
yes because that is common course of action for somebody who lost an election. i remember romney in december 2012 calling himself a terrible candidate. i'm sure if trump lost, he would have publicly called himself a terrible candidate
I'm not buying it when you haven't switched after another McCarthy became the face of your party.
Did she really blame the DNC? I can't stand to watch that talk so I'm not watching the video. But blaming the DNC when they were Clinton or bust is the most re ed thing I have heard (outside Trump's white house that is) in a while.
she complains that she inherited "nothing" when she got the nomination, the DNC was close to insolvent, etc
I would say it's at least good since there's no way she'll be able to run in 2020 after how stupid she looks for this crap, but god knows all the brain dead n!ggers in the dirty south will still blindly vote for anyone named Clinton.
and yeah
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
