urbanMSP

OK, if hypothetically we agreed that coverage should be proportional or something, what exactly would the news coverage about Hillary and Bernie look like?

Also, we're not talking about the general electorate. Primary voters and caucus attendees are pretty plugged in -- I don't think that they're having a hard time getting information about the positions of the two leading Democratic candidates.

Why give the the guy with the bronze(r) the vast majority of coverage?

Because they don't "give" coverage to candidates (perhaps they should, but they don't), they report the "news."

That election felt like it was entirely pushed through by the party elites.

They kind of all are.

Here to note that the next Democratic debate is on a Saturday evening on the weekend before Christmas, which is also the big star wars premier weekend. Most people won't watch the debate, and most people who do will see it through the filter of the establishment media.

He was giving what's called an example.

And really? 2 people? Lol.

Here's the list so far: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_B ... ents,_2016

Well national politicians are the most indicative. He has zero governors, zero US senators and two US representatives. Yes, he also has been endorsed by Jesse Ventura and the auditor of Vermont, but those endorsements have not traditionally carried a lot of weight. Even if you go down to state representatives, he only has 12 of them that aren't from Vermont and New Hampshire. And one mayoral endorsement (from New London).

Hillary has 12 governors, 38 senators and 145 representatives. She has thousands of state reps and hundreds of mayors.

So the Democratic weight is fully behind Hillary. And while it'd be nice to think Bernie could win without that (and with less money), I just don't see it happening.

There is a caveat, in which many of those endorsements happened before the actual election season, as far back as 2013 because of the "ready for Hillary" thing. We do know that "opinions" have "evolved" in much shorter periods of time.

As far as money goes, both had similar amounts of money last quarter, so we'll see who's doing better come new years. If I recall correctly, $16 million of the $28 million she raised in the 3rd quarter were from maxed-out donors.

Meanwhile on the Republican side, Jeb Bush has the largest number of endorsements from governors and members of Congress. He is averaging 5% in national primary polling. It looks like Trump has zero endorsements from that group (he doesn't appear on the list at all).

He was giving what's called an example.

And really? 2 people? Lol.

Here's the list so far: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_B ... ents,_2016

Well national politicians are the most indicative. He has zero governors, zero US senators and two US representatives. Yes, he also has been endorsed by Jesse Ventura and the auditor of Vermont, but those endorsements have not traditionally carried a lot of weight. Even if you go down to state representatives, he only has 12 of them that aren't from Vermont and New Hampshire. And one mayoral endorsement (from New London).

Hillary has 12 governors, 38 senators and 145 representatives. She has thousands of state reps and hundreds of mayors.

So the Democratic weight is fully behind Hillary. And while it'd be nice to think Bernie could win without that (and with less money), I just don't see it happening.

You forgot Bernie's most important endorsement: Patch Adams, physician, comedian, social activist, clown, and author.

Here to note that the next Democratic debate is on a Saturday evening on the weekend before Christmas, which is also the big star wars premier weekend. Most people won't watch the debate, and most people who do will see it through the filter of the establishment media.

While I get the argument that you shouldn't schedule other movies or entertainment events over the Star Wars weekend, it's a bit of a reach to say it will majorly impact the Democratic debate.

I mean, on a Venn diagram of "people who need to see Star Wars on opening weekend" and "people interested in politics before it even reaches general election time," what's the actual overlap?

In the best-case scenario for Star Wars, they get perhaps a few million people to watch. And that crowd is going to skew younger (despite Star Wars' near universal popularity) than voters in the Democratic Party's primaries.

People aren't watching the GOP debates because there are more of them or because they're at better times. We aren't better informed of the candidates or the issues they stand for (still too many people - it's unwieldy). People are watching because they want to see what Trump does next. He wows and worries the right (depending on where you fall on establishment/outsider) and provides fodder for the left's chattering class.

Explain to me how the reporting that private news organizations choose to do can be correlated to being anti-democratic.

Journalism is not just a private business, it's also a profession. The press has a unique responsibility to inform citizens which makes democracy possible.

Before we get on with the apologetics of oligarchy: http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/12/11 ... -on/207428
And a petition started by the Sanders campaign itself in response: https://go.berniesanders.com/page/s/tak ... rate-media

ABC’s “World News Tonight” has devoted 81 minutes to Donald Trump's campaign so far this year compared to a mere 20 seconds on Bernie Sanders through the end of November, according to a new report. NBC’s “Nightly News” afforded 2.9 minutes of coverage to Bernie since January. The “CBS Evening News” provided viewers 6.4 minutes of coverage.

So where exactly is that supportive fluffing up of the Sanders campaign someone talked about? Something about inflating Sanders' candidacy? I'm still waiting for the media to do its damn job instead of continuing to feed Donald Trump's ego.

In other media-related news:
http://www.theatlantic.com/notes/2015/1 ... bc/418893/

A baffling, surreal scene just played out on the two networks, where the landlord of the San Bernardino shooting suspects apparently allowed reporters into their apartment.

The result was disturbing. On live national television, reporters sifted through the remains of the lives of Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik. They picked over children’s toys. They held up photos, speculating about whether the woman depicted in one might be Malik. They displayed Social Security cards and driver’s licenses with readily identifiable information—and not just for the deceased suspects.

As if the journalistic irresponsibility of baselessly speculating while holding up images of potentially innocent people on TV wasn’t bad enough, it beggars belief the scene wasn’t taped off and guarded. Reporters were given free rein to walk through an apartment that is an important part of the investigation, and they were allowed to handle what one would expect to be evidence. Police didn’t appear to know the media tour was going on.

It's ok though because it wasn't the government doing it, and because they're a private entity that can do what they want for profit.

In other media-related news:
http://www.theatlantic.com/notes/2015/1 ... bc/418893/

A baffling, surreal scene just played out on the two networks, where the landlord of the San Bernardino shooting suspects apparently allowed reporters into their apartment.

The result was disturbing. On live national television, reporters sifted through the remains of the lives of Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik. They picked over children’s toys. They held up photos, speculating about whether the woman depicted in one might be Malik. They displayed Social Security cards and driver’s licenses with readily identifiable information—and not just for the deceased suspects.

As if the journalistic irresponsibility of baselessly speculating while holding up images of potentially innocent people on TV wasn’t bad enough, it beggars belief the scene wasn’t taped off and guarded. Reporters were given free rein to walk through an apartment that is an important part of the investigation, and they were allowed to handle what one would expect to be evidence. Police didn’t appear to know the media tour was going on.

It's ok though because it wasn't the government doing it, and because they're a private entity that can do what they want for profit.

The apartment was no longer a crime scene, so they weren't handling evidence.

Holding up the mom's ID was irresponsible and I'm not defending that. But there's no reason to spread misinformation about them tampering with evidence.

^but it still was presumably under an in-force lease, and apparently the mother had been living there. The landlord probably had a right to go in and ensure it was safe and secure, but there was no more legal basis to bring a bunch a reporters through it than there would be if your apartment neighbor died and the landlord invited all the tenants in to dig through their stuff. Highly unethical, and quite likely illegal.

In other media-related news:
http://www.theatlantic.com/notes/2015/1 ... bc/418893/

A baffling, surreal scene just played out on the two networks, where the landlord of the San Bernardino shooting suspects apparently allowed reporters into their apartment.

The result was disturbing. On live national television, reporters sifted through the remains of the lives of Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik. They picked over children’s toys. They held up photos, speculating about whether the woman depicted in one might be Malik. They displayed Social Security cards and driver’s licenses with readily identifiable information—and not just for the deceased suspects.

As if the journalistic irresponsibility of baselessly speculating while holding up images of potentially innocent people on TV wasn’t bad enough, it beggars belief the scene wasn’t taped off and guarded. Reporters were given free rein to walk through an apartment that is an important part of the investigation, and they were allowed to handle what one would expect to be evidence. Police didn’t appear to know the media tour was going on.

It's ok though because it wasn't the government doing it, and because they're a private entity that can do what they want for profit.

The was media at its worst and certainly needs to be condemned (it widely was by pretty much every journalist I know).

That said, it doesn't really apply to anything regarding the election. I know it hurts your feelings that Donald Trump gets more coverage. Maybe you could suggest to your friend Bernie that he make more provocative statements?

It has nothing to do with feelings, and everything to do with the health and vitality of our democracy, and society. Of course, productive discourse isn't something everyone values, so whatever. I'm sure there's a new Trumpism to be gossiped about.

There's a Republican debate tonight, with 9 people on the main stage and 4 participating in the pre-debate debate. Ted Cruz's support has climbed in Iowa, and he's taken the lead in three recent polls, part of a trend that's been going on for 5-6 months, though it picked up steam when Ben Carson peaked and then came under scrutiny in October (Carson is still polling in double digits but his support is cratering rapidly).

Apparently Cruz has avoided attacking Donald Trump, but they are now beginning to engage (probably because of the polling). The only other Republican candidate who has consistently growing support is Marco Rubio, who is polling in 2nd place in New Hampshire. Chris Christie is also seeing growing support in NH, where he's showing up in 4th place, but only seems to be muddling along elsewhere.

Hillary Clinton will be at the U of M tomorrow with a speech on her counterterrorism strategy. Ted Cruz will be passing through town on Thursday.

Just to be sure, the debate is actually tomorrow. Meanwhile, the Democrats have their debate scheduled for Saturday at 8 p.m. ET.

I can't figure out why nobody is talking about these Democratic debates.

Oops. Thanks.

Just to be sure, the debate is actually tomorrow. Meanwhile, the Democrats have their debate scheduled for Saturday at 8 p.m. ET.

I can't figure out why nobody is talking about these Democratic debates.

Poor timing certainly has hurt ratings (though I highly doubt, as I mentioned above, that anyone who's actually voting in the primary isn't paying attention).

But mostly, it's because the Dem debates are pretty boring. The candidates agree on the issues more than not and they're respectful of each other. The GOP is getting attention because it's a cluster****.

Given the extremes Trump is now going to — unconstitutional immigration policy, unfeasible deportation policy, rewriting the standards of war — it seems like candidates should have a much easier time discrediting him. Yet the few candidates who try to attack Trump seem to do so in end-around, long-winded ways. You'd think Jeb, especially, could have come into last night with some sort of choreographed zinger.

Given the extremes Trump is now going to — unconstitutional immigration policy, unfeasible deportation policy, rewriting the standards of war — it seems like candidates should have a much easier time discrediting him. Yet the few candidates who try to attack Trump seem to do so in end-around, long-winded ways. You'd think Jeb, especially, could have come into last night with some sort of choreographed zinger.

Party is unconfident and unmoored...Trump is insane but confident as hell.