News US Republican candidates 2016 discussion

Indian Summer said:
I thought the same about Obama before he was first elected. In the meantime, the demographic groups that brought Obama to power in 2008 and 2012 have grown even more. The Democrats have not benefited from this in the Congress, somehow, but presidential elections are slightly different ...
Click to expand...

First, he has to win the primaries. Right now potential democratic voters are about 70% Hilary, and 30% Bernie. If she get's herself in a "scandal" that she can't blow off, he may have a chance, but otherwise, I really don't think so.
 
beancounter said:
First, he has to win the primaries. Right now potential democratic voters are about 70% Hilary, and 30% Bernie. If she get's herself in a "scandal" that she can't blow off, he may have a chance, but otherwise, I really don't think so.
Click to expand...

According to mainstream media, Sanders is behind, but TV news is distorting the information. Television in the US is pretty much owned by the Republicans, who want Hillary nominated, because they know she can be beaten. Bernie Sanders scares hell out of them. They are deliberately suppressing news about Sanders, and that 70/30% figure you cited is ridiculous. That's exactly what the Republicans want you to believe. The reality is, right now, Sanders is in the process of overtaking Hillary. He is already ahead of Clinton in New Hampshire, and in Iowa, he has caught up with her, and they are running neck-and-neck. With several weeks before the Iowa caucus, Bernie Sanders has an excellent chance of taking both states. He is also catching Hillary in Nevada, South Carolina, and California.

It was Ronald Reagan, who, in 1989, struck down the rule that broadcast television had to be unbiased in reporting the news. Since then, the Republican owned media- ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, Fox, etc.- have been playing the American public for suckers, using their venues to influence the political process. This is how Obama defeated Hillary in 2008, by using the internet and social media online- not broadcast punditry.

You're right, in order to win the presidency, Bernie first has to get the nomination, which is why it's critical people get out and vote, not just in the election, but in the primaries, first! The 2016 election could well be a deja vu for Hillary, seeing her soundly run over by the so-called "underdog." Online poll after online poll shows Bernie Sanders to be the candidate of choice for the American people.

You should not believe everything you hear through the mainstream media, because they are lying to us. I'm voting for Sanders in the Wisconsin primary, which occurs in April.
 
Last edited:
Source?

Capstan said:
According to mainstream media, Sanders is behind, but TV news is distorting the information. Television in the US is pretty much owned by the Republicans, who want Hillary nominated, because they know she can be beaten. Bernie Sanders scares hell out of them. They are deliberately suppressing news about Sanders, and that 70/30% figure you cited is ridiculous.
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: ledboots
This is from 2012 but very interesting
413e9050bdeab88d9e16eb4c72b80424.jpg

Maybe too tiny to read?

These 6 Corporations Control 90% Of The Media In America
 
beancounter said:
Source?
Click to expand...

Here's a recent poll you may find of interest. Please note, this poll will almost certainly not be discussed by the mainstream news outlets.

In 2016, Bernie Sanders Will Defeat Clinton And Dominate Trump To Become President

President Bernie Sanders? Poll Tips Sanders To Defeat Clinton And Prevail Over Trump

Last year, as of the end of November, ABC, NBC & CBS devoted 234-minutes of coverage to the Trump campaign, but gave just 10 to Sanders.* More specifically, ABC-News has given 81-minutes to Trump, but just 20-seconds to Senator Sanders. This is unbiased reporting? This, despite the fact Sanders has been making history, shattering records set by Obama in 2008 for fund raising, contributors, and rally attendance. They simply choose to ignore it. You don't have to be a rocket scientist or Albert Einstein to figure out what's going on. The numbers speak for themselves.

It should be noted too that the Democratic National Committee (DNC,) under the chairship of Debbie Wasserman-Schultz- a former employee and ally of Hillary Clinton- has been actively trying to suppress the campaigns of both Sanders and O'Malley, by scheduling just six Democratic debates this election, compared with twenty-six in 2008, and by scheduling them in time-slots, where they will have to compete with Saturday Night Football for viewers. The DNC is trying to rig the nomination in Clinton's favor. This too is something the big media outlets choose not to examine. It's bad for their wealthy owners.

If you're content to be spoon-fed propaganda by Big Media, then by all means, leave your television set switched on. They don't call it the Boob-Tube for nothing. But if you really want to know what's happening in America, get on the internet, roll your sleeves up, and do some digging.

* Source- CSM (Christian Science Monitor)
 
Last edited:
P.S.- About that 70/30% poll result you cited: the polls the networks conduct are typically based on landline telephone polling, yet the big majority of Americans do not use landlines, but cell phones. Their polls are not accurate; still, the results support their agenda, so they report them, even though they are unreliable.
 
OK, a single poll by a university. What groups did they survey. Just students? If that's the case then:
Why college students aren't voting (and why it matters)

I'll give him credit though. Offering free tuition is a great way to motivate them to vote.

Also, most polls have a margin of error of about +- 3% (points). so a 7 vs. 13 percent isn't significant.
"In the December 22 poll, Bernie Sanders defeats Trump by 13 points, while Clinton beats Trump by 7 points."

Voters often say one thing, but when they get to the voting booth, they do another. More often than not, tthey vote with what's familiar

Also, if Clinton felt threatened, she would engage in attack ads, which hasn't happened yet, but it will be interesting to see if she does. Probably will "leak" stories to the media, if anything.

I don't know which news outlets you watch, but I've only seen Sanders shown in a positive light.

In the history of the country, we've only had two non white WASP men as president. Kennedy (Catholic), and Obama (black). Will Sander's be the third? (Jewish) I don't know. I don't have faith in the American electorate. It would be nice though.


Capstan said:
Here's a recent poll you may find of interest. Please note, this poll will almost certainly not be discussed by the mainstream news outlets.

In 2016, Bernie Sanders Will Defeat Clinton And Dominate Trump To Become President

President Bernie Sanders? Poll Tips Sanders To Defeat Clinton And Prevail Over Trump

Last year, as of the end of November, ABC, NBC & CBS devoted 234-minutes of coverage to the Trump campaign, but gave just 10 to Sanders.* This, despite the fact Sanders has been making history, shattering records set by Obama in 2008 for fund raising, contributors, and rally attendance. They simply choose to ignore it. You don't have to be a rocket scientist or Albert Einstein to figure out what's going on.

It should be noted too that the Democratic National Committee (DNC,) under the chairship of Debbie Wasserman-Schultz- a former employee and ally of Hillary Clinton- has been actively trying to suppress the campaigns of both Sanders and O'Malley, by scheduling just six Democratic debates this election, compared with twenty-six in 2008, and by scheduling them in time-slots, where they will have to compete with Saturday Night Football for viewers. The DNC is trying to rig the nomination in Clinton's favor. This too is something the big media outlets choose not to examine. It's bad for their wealthy owners.

If you're content to be spoon-fed propaganda by Big Media, then by all means, leave your television set switched on. They don't call it the Boob-Tube for nothing. But if you really want to know what's happening in America, get on the internet, roll your sleeves up, and do some digging.

* Source- CSM (Christian Science Monitor)
Click to expand...
 
Capstan said:
P.S.- About that 70/30% poll result you cited: the polls the networks conduct are typically based on landline telephone polling, yet the big majority of Americans do not use landlines, but cell phones. Their polls are not accurate; still, the results support their agenda, so they report them, even though they are unreliable.
Click to expand...

No, the majority still use land lines. 60/40. I support Sanders, yet I use both...

The university poll didn't mention the sample size, the margin of error, methods used, etc. Without such info, how can you be sure it's accurate?
 
Last edited:
beancounter said:
In the history of the country, we've only had two non white WASP men as president. Kennedy (Catholic), and Obama (black). Will Sander's be the third? (Jewish) I don't know. I don't have faith in the American electorate. It would be nice though.
Click to expand...

Yes, it would be nice, but not because of his ancestry. Do you plan to vote in the primaries?
 
Capstan said:
Yes, it would be nice, but not because of his ancestry. Do you plan to vote in the primaries?
Click to expand...

What I meant is that it would be surprising if the electorate voted without racial or religious bias on a regular basis. That is certainly Hilary's Achilles heal. She not a white man. In that sense, Sanders has an advantage.
 
beancounter said:
What I meant is that it would be surprising if the electorate voted without racial or religious bias on a regular basis. That is certainly Hilary's Achilles heal. She not a white man. In that sense, Sanders has an advantage.
Click to expand...

Her Achilles' heal is that a majority of Americans don't trust her; meanwhile, there's a possibility Sanders may ask Elizabeth Warren, Senator from Massachusetts, to be his running-mate.
 
beancounter said:
Isn't that what the Republican owned mainstream media want you to believe? :p
Click to expand...

No, they want her nominated, because she's a weaker candidate than Sanders. They also want her nominated, because her agenda is more like theirs, more Republican than Democratic. They know she'll favor Big Business. Naturally, they'd like a Republican to win, hands down, but if they have to have a Democrat, they'd much prefer another Clinton in office, to a Bernie.
 
ledboots said:
Omg it is so disheartening about the Millennials. :(
Click to expand...
I didn't feel disheartened reading that. (I only read the USA Today article, though.) Compared to the older generations, to me these millennials seem more sensible. One could wish they were even more sensible, but all things considered, it could be much worse. Of course, as they grow older, their political outlook will likely change.
 
Top Bottom