The Next President

[Mangela Lansbury]

So, I was trying to find something somewhere that did a deep dive into Clinton's media coverage over lunch today. I hear a lot of Sanders supporters talk about how the media loves Hillary so much, and I've never really gotten that impression but didn't have data to back it up.

 

The best I could come up with was a 538 piece from September that shows overwhelmingly negative coverage of Clinton's campaign. Does the claim that Clinton has disproportionately positive coverage have any real support, or is it just your typical self-reinforcing anti-establishmentarian mindset?

[Cordeos]

So, I was trying to find something somewhere that did a deep dive into Clinton's media coverage over lunch today. I hear a lot of Sanders supporters talk about how the media loves Hillary so much, and I've never really gotten that impression but didn't have data to back it up.

 

The best I could come up with was a 538 piece from September that shows overwhelmingly negative coverage of Clinton's campaign. Does the claim that Clinton has disproportionately positive coverage have any real support, or is it just your typical self-reinforcing anti-establishmentarian mindset?

I think it's standard confirmation bias, people remember the things that make them angry so they have a skewed view of the reporting. 

Early on the issue was Sanders wasn't getting much coverage, but now I think its probably fine. The bigger issue is how trapped the media is by the two party narrative, there are so few stories that talk about issues outside of each parties talking points.

[Gormongous]

I think it's standard confirmation bias, people remember the things that make them angry so they have a skewed view of the reporting. 

Early on the issue was Sanders wasn't getting much coverage, but now I think its probably fine. The bigger issue is how trapped the media is by the two party narrative, there are so few stories that talk about issues outside of each parties talking points.

 

A New York Times chart two weeks ago shows that Clinton's still getting more than double the coverage that Sanders is getting. There's no systematic attempt to record what proportion of that coverage is positive, but for all the sexism and tone policing that Clinton certainly faces, she's not having any incidents like the New York Times stealth-editing positive coverage of Sanders into critical coverage and the Washington Post publishing sixteen negative articles (and two neutral articles) about Sanders in the space of sixteen hours. Basically, it's hard to say and depends on how much you believe that any press is good press.

[sclpls]

So, I was trying to find something somewhere that did a deep dive into Clinton's media coverage over lunch today. I hear a lot of Sanders supporters talk about how the media loves Hillary so much, and I've never really gotten that impression but didn't have data to back it up.

 

The best I could come up with was a 538 piece from September that shows overwhelmingly negative coverage of Clinton's campaign. Does the claim that Clinton has disproportionately positive coverage have any real support, or is it just your typical self-reinforcing anti-establishmentarian mindset?

 

He hasn't done any systematic study of it or anything, but Kevin Drum over at MotherJones has pointed out numerous times how the media is unusually critical of Clinton. For example, there is this today:

 

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/03/correction-day

 

Other instances:

 

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/02/clinton-derangement-syndrome-alive-and-well

 

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/07/new-york-times-needs-do-better-job-explaining-its-epic-hillary-clinton-screw

[Twig]

I think it's less that the media "loves" Hillary and more that they just give her way more attention. Well, they did at the start anyway. I talked to you about this in the slackyslack, but it's become more balanced over time.*

 

The incidents Gorm mentions, though, did and do stand out to me as particularly egregious.

 

*Or at least I thought it had, until I clicked the first link in Gorm's post!

[sclpls]

That being said, Clinton does receive more media coverage than Sanders, I don't think that is really up for debate. But as the links I posted point out, a lot of that coverage is pretty hostile/awful/shoddy journalism.

[Gormongous]

Side topic: http://www.clickhole.com/blogpost/sorry-bernie-bros-your-candidate-just-doesnt-have--4201

[Bjorn]

I think for a lot of Democrats and left leaning folks in general, some of the negative stories about Clinton are functionally invisible.  Like the email scandal and Benghazi, many Dems view those as total bullshit, and so even if they see a story about those, it doesn't register as being negative media coverage.  Because, like, who would ever believe that?  So it creates blind spots to actually digesting the full range of news that's produced about her. 

[Mangela Lansbury]

I see a not negligible amount of Sanders supporters saying that Clinton might be facing trial over her e-mails before the election, so I don't think that coverage is invisible.

[Gormongous]

I see a not negligible amount of Sanders supporters saying that Clinton might be facing trial over her e-mails before the election, so I don't think that coverage is invisible.

 

I hate it when I see people say that. It's such an obvious fantasy and not the way that Sanders should win, if he's going to win.

[Bjorn]

That seems to have been a fairly recent shift, and a disappointing one, from what I've seen.  The online Sanders supporters feel like they've completely flipped on the legitimacy of the email stuff over the course of a couple of months. 

[thefncrow]

It's the depressing thing about when you have this situation in the primary where's the candidate hasn't dropped out and it's not mathematically over but it's realistically over.  Clinton supporters in 2008 clung to their candidate in a similarly depressing manner, including after the primaries had actually concluded.  There was a core that was sure that they'd be able to outmaneuver Obama at the convention and ensure that she was the candidate in 2008, and who similarly would publicly swear off voting Obama if they couldn't get Clinton as the candidate (see: Susan Sarandon of late).

[Dewar]

I can say I'm pretty bummed when I sat down at my caucus that 9 of Washington's 17 superdelegates had already pledged to Hillary. At least pretend to wait until you hear the popular vote before you make your decision.

 

For reference, here are the sate-wide totals:

 

Statewide Totals from http://www.wa-democrats.org/caucus-results 

Hillary: 7138

Bernie: 19135

Undecided 43

Other: 0

Total: 26316

 

Related article from a local (generally well liked) opinion site: http://www.thestranger.com/slog/2016/03/29/23877594/washington-superdelegates-still-endorsing-clinton-spurning-pro-bernie-majority-of-state-voters 

[sclpls]

It's the depressing thing about when you have this situation in the primary where's the candidate hasn't dropped out and it's not mathematically over but it's realistically over.  Clinton supporters in 2008 clung to their candidate in a similarly depressing manner, including after the primaries had actually concluded.  There was a core that was sure that they'd be able to outmaneuver Obama at the convention and ensure that she was the candidate in 2008, and who similarly would publicly swear off voting Obama if they couldn't get Clinton as the candidate (see: Susan Sarandon of late).

 

Heh yeah, from the outside it's like watching a reenactment of Aguirre, the Wrath of God, but I guess realistically it is a bunch of campaign staff telling the candidate whatever he/she needs to hear to eke out another couple of paychecks.

[thefncrow]

I don't think it necessarily has anything to do with the candidate.  I don't think Bernie's really the one to blame here.  I'd put it more on the supporters.

 

Clinton in 2008 seemed a little more questionable because she pushed to new extremes in the late stages of the campaign in ways that soured me on her, but I don't really see that behavior from Bernie here.  In theory, I have no problem with either of them wanting to contest the primary all the way to the end of the process.

 

The problem seems to lie more with the diehard supporters, who have either demonized The Enemy so much or who have just bought in on their own candidate so hard that they behave in despicable ways and justify it to themselves as necessary.

[neonrev]

There's also the argument for maintaining a strong liberal voice all the way up to the convention. I don't see any way Hilary doesn't end up moving more to the center to grab up repubs and moderates fleeing Trump the moment she no longer needs to compete amoung the definitely-not-voting-republican crowd, and if that happens before the general then the earlier that starts. I haven't had the privilege of seeing a major party candidate who even slightly spoke to my views, I want them up there yelling for as long as humanly possible. 

[Badfinger]

Oh Bernie staying in absolutely has an impact beyond just running for president. The best hope is galvanizing people who support him into more downballot democratic socialist support. And I'm not saying he'll be speaking at the convention for her, but they do have a big chunk of overlap in spaces of their political stances. They can be allies of one another going forward.

 

 

I didn't think my primary would matter either, but here it is less than a month out and they're still in it. My vote matters, but a lot more people have already voted making my vote likely not for the winning candidate.

 

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/its-really-hard-to-get-bernie-sanders-988-more-delegates/

[YoThatLimp]

I can say I'm pretty bummed when I sat down at my caucus that 9 of Washington's 17 superdelegates had already pledged to Hillary. At least pretend to wait until you hear the popular vote before you make your decision.

 

For reference, here are the sate-wide totals:

 

Statewide Totals from http://www.wa-democrats.org/caucus-results 

Hillary: 7138

Bernie: 19135

Undecided 43

Other: 0

Total: 26316

 

Related article from a local (generally well liked) opinion site: http://www.thestranger.com/slog/2016/03/29/23877594/washington-superdelegates-still-endorsing-clinton-spurning-pro-bernie-majority-of-state-voters 

 

I know I am probably speaking to the choir but I find the whole super delegate thing complete non-sense, all it does it solidify establishment candidates.

 

 

There's also the argument for maintaining a strong liberal voice all the way up to the convention. I don't see any way Hilary doesn't end up moving more to the center to grab up repubs and moderates fleeing Trump the moment she no longer needs to compete amoung the definitely-not-voting-republican crowd, and if that happens before the general then the earlier that starts. I haven't had the privilege of seeing a major party candidate who even slightly spoke to my views, I want them up there yelling for as long as humanly possible. 

 

Totally agree, even if Bernie has slim chances (at best) of actually winning it, I am glad he forces Clinton to be left of center and to keep the conversation in that direction. I also think the longer he stays in it, the better he will poll. I think a lot of people automatically discount him as having no chance to win so default to Clinton when asked.

[Bjorn]

On the subject of positive/negative coverage, this is the kind of headline I find infuriating:

 

Clinton campaign: Sanders playing 'games' with debate

 

This headline could have been written multiple ways:

 

Neutral: Clinton, Sanders campaigns fight about New York debate schedule

Pro-Sanders: Sanders rejects Clinton offer to debate on night of NCAA Championship Game

Pro-Sanders: Clinton proposes debate on night when no one will watch (this one's pretty Oniony, but still accurate)

Neutral: Clinton, Sanders reject proposed debates as New York Primary looms

 

 

I mostly find it annoying that it isn't accurate.  It's a campaign staffer quote in a headline that had a lot of fodder for an interesting, but still factually accurate, headline.  I'd be curious to see if there are any examples of CNN quoting the Sanders campaign, favoring their narrative over the Clinton version of the story. 

[Wilds]

On the subject of positive/negative coverage, this is the kind of headline I find infuriating:

 

Clinton campaign: Sanders playing 'games' with debate

 

This headline could have been written multiple ways:

 

Neutral: Clinton, Sanders campaigns fight about New York debate schedule

Pro-Sanders: Sanders rejects Clinton offer to debate on night of NCAA Championship Game

Pro-Sanders: Clinton proposes debate on night when no one will watch (this one's pretty Oniony, but still accurate)

Neutral: Clinton, Sanders reject proposed debates as New York Primary looms

 

 

I mostly find it annoying that it isn't accurate.  It's a campaign staffer quote in a headline that had a lot of fodder for an interesting, but still factually accurate, headline.  I'd be curious to see if there are any examples of CNN quoting the Sanders campaign, favoring their narrative over the Clinton version of the story. 

There's been lots of completely, 100% false headlines this primary, and it's driving me up the wall. All the headlines about Susan Sarandon saying she'll vote for Trump, for example. She said nothing remotely fucking like that! She said some people might vote for Trump over Clinton because they're accelerationists. That's at best a neutral statement, and my interpretation is that it was said as a possible negative outcome of Clinton being selected, but instead a bunch of websites just went hog wild with this claim that Sarandon voiced support for Trump. Shit's crazy.

 

I'm also tired of all the handwaving of legit controversies and problems. There's a reason lots of talk of government corruption mentions "The appearance of corruption". Even if your behavior is legal, and defensible from your POV, if it looks gross to the general public then it's bad and you shouldn't do it as a public official. This is the kind of thing that makes people distrust the government, which means they don't bother participating, which means conservatives win in their mission to drown it in the bathtub.

 

Meanwhile though, both Democratic candidates have supporters (some way, way more influential than others) treating this shit like a game, where winning this single election is all that matters. What value is winning the Democratic nomination for 2016 if you rot any support for it going forward? If we get president Cruz in 2016 or in 2020, it'll still be a disaster. Winning this one election is totally possible without completely demolishing the youth movement and enthusiasm for social democracy that's absolutely key to sustaining a liberal politic in America, except lots of people think that no, it's impossible, we definitely can't dare consider criticism and reform of Our Candidate. Blargh.

[Wilds]

Speaking of the press being migraine-inducing:

[graddy]

Hey thumbs, help me be a more intelligent liberal and critique this video. At first blush it seems solid? Except for ignoring or quietly endorsing the fringe parts of the Tea Party (atheist Muslim Obama, etc) that laid the ground for Trump to rise.

https://www.facebook.com/TheYoungTurks/videos/10153515294709205/

[Gormongous]

I mostly find it annoying that it isn't accurate.  It's a campaign staffer quote in a headline that had a lot of fodder for an interesting, but still factually accurate, headline.  I'd be curious to see if there are any examples of CNN quoting the Sanders campaign, favoring their narrative over the Clinton version of the story. 

 

Building off of this, here's a pretty good breakdown of the "botched" interview that Sanders gave to the editorial board of the New York Daily News and how many of Sanders' supposed flubs were either factual errors on the part of the Daily News (its editors conflate the Treasury Department with the Federal Reserve and then interpret Sanders' attempt to correct them as confusion), admissions that he doesn't know trivia off the top of his head (Sanders is needled for being unable to cite the exact statute violated during the subprime mortgage crisis, though he explains the legal principles behind it), or completely off-topic (Sanders is asked to critique a recent action by the Israeli Army in Gaza). It's a downright embarrassing affair for the Daily News, to read the transcript, but the media's seized upon it as proof that Sanders isn't the serious candidate he pretends to be, of course.

[Mangela Lansbury]

My problem isn't necessarily that Sanders got anything wrong in that interview, but that all of his policies still seem like they're pulled from a Freshman comp 101 class. He says he wants to renegotiate NAFTA, PNCR, TPP, etc., but doesn't say how he's going to convince people to agree to something that's necessarily going to be worse for them, or how he's going to compensate for the strain on foreign relations, or even exactly what his demands would be. This naive approach to foreign relations is repeated when he moves to Israel -- sure, he's willing to say that the Israeli settlements are illegal and that he thinks that Israel should pull out from settlements on Palestinian land, but then he says that the Palestinians shouldn't be able to bring Israel to the ICC, and he refuses to say that he would act with any force about settlements in any kind of conversation with Israel. So what's the meaning of saying you think Israeli settlements are illegal if you don't want the words to have any power? Why say something if you're not confident enough on it to act?

 

I think this kind of half-formed idea theme is echoed in his too big to fail rhetoric as well. How does he plan to counteract the downward push that restructuring a fundamental part of the American financial system will necessarily have? Why should I have faith that Bernie Sanders, who doesn't have a great track record when it comes to staffing, will be able to name a Secretary of Treasury who is highly capable and will handle the immense power that Sanders wants to vest them with well? How big is too big to fail -- is it half a Lehman Brothers? Is it 95% of a Lehman Brothers? Have the protections put in place by Dodd-Frank lowered risk enough that it's 150% of a Lehman Brothers? What's the number -- or even, what's your definition of too big to fail? Is it "able to incur an amount of debt so large that its inability to pay would adversely affect the economy-at-large?" Or is it willing to incur that debt? Is it going to be rigorously defined with facts and figures or loosely defined with a kind of you know it if you see it attitude? If you can't define it now, how do you intend to come up with that definition in the future?

 

Basically, Sanders has really great ideas. I want to see him as president based solely on his ideas. But pretending like his ideas are fully developed, well articulated, and deep policies isn't doing anyone any favors -- least of all Sanders himself.

[YoThatLimp]

https://twitter.com/DanielDenvir/status/717702662611943424