Politics 2020 Field - DNC

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Lanny said:
The media had nothing to do with it. It happened because of the Democratic Party and the long held rules on the subject. Tulsi should have known wha
Click to expand...
The DNC has rules that major media outlets need to omit certain candidates from poll graphics?

You’re jumping into the middle of a conversation without context again Lanny.
 
Lanny said:
Sorry, but it's Trump committing all the dishonest. At least half the nation sees that.
Click to expand...

No corruption exists as long as Trump walks the earth, right Lanny? It’s all him.

Is anyone allowed to point out ANYTHING without you guys just jumping in and yelling trump?

I was talking about something completely unrelated to Donald Trump, thanks for typing his name though, glad it made you feel better.
 
jonnyboy said:
The DNC has rules that major media outlets need to omit certain candidates from poll graphics?

You’re jumping into the middle of a conversation without context again Lanny.
Click to expand...
Oh jonnyboy, it's always a pleasure to receive one of your replies.
In this case, I was thinking of the debate stage where the media broadcasts their every move.
Now, couldn't you find a way to disagree with that without getting deeper and deeper into that pissing match?
Anyhow, the media, with the exception of PBS, broadcasts what their viewers want to see. It's how they pay their bills.
 
Lanny said:
Oh jonnyboy, it's always a pleasure to receive one of your replies.
In this case, I was thinking of the debate stage where the media broadcasts their every move.
Now, couldn't you find a way to disagree with that without getting deeper and deeper into that pissing match?
Anyhow, the media, with the exception of PBS, broadcasts what their viewers want to see. It's how they pay their bills.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what you are responding to or suggesting. Nothing you are saying pertains to any point I was trying to make. I would very much like to not discuss this with you anymore, we are talking about different things.
 
jonnyboy said:
Smears like that are aimed at low information voters. Most intelligent people don’t buy into illogical blanket statements like that. If anything they just help bolster the candidates campaign (unintentionally of course). Like Hillary making claims about Tulsi being a Russian asset. It did nothing but help her numbers. Yang and MSNBC will have the same effect, it’s just bringing more attention to candidates who actually have policies to run on besides “I’m a billionaire” or “I’ve been feeding off of taxpayers my entire career, so that means I have experience”.
Click to expand...

So if media bias is a great thing and helps the candidate, what are you/Yang complaining about? Yang should be HAPPY that they left him off, it lets him play the victim.

The sad part is that once the scummy mainstream media smears backfire, they just result to blatant denial of the mere existence of candidates. When you black something out, people can’t see it, fyi.
Click to expand...

Sure... but as you say, that only bolsters their campaign. So it's a good thing.

You defending these tactics or pretending they don’t make a difference is just being intellectually dishonest. You are turning a blind eye because of your personal distaste for the candidates being affected by it. It’s kind of unfortunate that you feel you need to defend billion dollar corporations from grassroots campaigns.
Click to expand...

Sorry, you are barking up the wrong tree here. I wasn't defending the tactics. Unlike you, I think negative coverage hurts rather than helps candidates. I just realize that all the candidates get negative coverage at some point. And that Yang has gotten very little negative coverage so far (as is expected, given his standing in the polls. If he ever rises, he'll get more negative coverage, not less.)

barfo
 
barfo said:
So if media bias is a great thing and helps the candidate, what are you/Yang complaining about? Yang should be HAPPY that they left him off, it lets him play the victim.



Sure... but as you say, that only bolsters their campaign. So it's a good thing.



Sorry, you are barking up the wrong tree here. I wasn't defending the tactics. Unlike you, I think negative coverage hurts rather than helps candidates. I just realize that all the candidates get negative coverage at some point. And that Yang has gotten very little negative coverage so far (as is expected, given his standing in the polls. If he ever rises, he'll get more negative coverage, not less.)

barfo
Click to expand...
Blacking out a candidate is the LITERAL OPPOSITE of ‘coverage’ whether bad or good.
 
barfo said:
So if media bias is a great thing and helps the candidate, what are you/Yang complaining about? Yang should be HAPPY that they left him off, it lets him play the victim.

Sure... but as you say, that only bolsters their campaign. So it's a good thing.
Click to expand...

You contradicting yourself to prove a point doesn’t whitewash the ill intentions of the media.
 
jonnyboy said:
Blacking out a candidate is the LITERAL OPPOSITE of ‘coverage’ whether bad or good.
Click to expand...

Sure, but that doesn't change the point.

barfo
 
jonnyboy said:
You contradicting yourself to prove a point doesn’t whitewash the ill intentions of the media.
Click to expand...

How did I contradict myself?

barfo
 
jonnyboy said:
Smears like that are aimed at low information voters. Most intelligent people don’t buy into illogical blanket statements like that. If anything they just help bolster the candidates campaign (unintentionally of course). Like Hillary making claims about Tulsi being a Russian asset. It did nothing but help her numbers. Yang and MSNBC will have the same effect, it’s just bringing more attention to candidates who actually have policies to run on besides “I’m a billionaire” or “I’ve been feeding off of taxpayers my entire career, so that means I have experience”.
The sad part is that once the scummy mainstream media smears backfire, they just result to blatant denial of the mere existence of candidates. When you black something out, people can’t see it, fyi.
You defending these tactics or pretending they don’t make a difference is just being intellectually dishonest. You are turning a blind eye because of your personal distaste for the candidates being affected by it. It’s kind of unfortunate that you feel you need to defend billion dollar corporations from grassroots campaigns.
Click to expand...

You mean smears like trump does on a daily basis? Your hyperbole has been noted though. You need to deal with more facts and less hyperbole and when someone asks you to back up your assertion then put forth the appropriate material to support yourself. Otherwise your posts are mostly just vapor.
 
CupWizier said:
You mean smears like trump does on a daily basis?
Click to expand...

I was talking about the media smearing certain Democratic presidential candidates. That’s what I was talking about, because that’s what the discussion was about.

Was it a crime that I didn’t arbitrarily bring up Trump in a discussion about something else? Sorry I’ll try harder next time.
 
barfo said:
How did I contradict myself?

barfo
Click to expand...
By claiming media smears were a good thing because they bolster candidates campaigns when you actually believe the opposite. Clearly you were playing devils advocate in regards to what I said, but nonetheless, not being steadfast with your position doesn’t serve to clarify what you’re trying to say.
 
CupWizier said:
You mean smears like trump does on a daily basis? Your hyperbole has been noted though. You need to deal with more facts and less hyperbole and when someone asks you to back up your assertion then put forth the appropriate material to support yourself. Otherwise your posts are mostly just vapor.
Click to expand...

I asked him 2-3 days ago to back up an assertion he made about another topic...he said that "he didn't have to".
 
Last edited:
yankeesince59 said:
I ask him 2-3 days ago to back up an assertion he made about another topic...he said that "he didn't have to".
Click to expand...

Yep, been down that road a few times myself and he refuses to back up his claims. Hard to give anything he says much credence.
 
jonnyboy said:
By claiming media smears were a good thing because they bolster candidates campaigns when you actually believe the opposite. Clearly you were playing devils advocate in regards to what I said, but nonetheless, not being steadfast with your position doesn’t serve to clarify what you’re trying to say.
Click to expand...

Sorry you were confused :)
I was discussing your position, not endorsing it myself.

barfo
 
yankeesince59 said:
Yup, I don't recall anyone running around with seven fingers in the air and chanting; "We're #7, we're #7, we're #7..."
Click to expand...

context matters. 7 and rising from an unknown a few months ago is worth celebrating.
 
jonnyboy said:
You guys’ defense of cheating is ridiculous. Just because you personally don’t like the people at the brunt of it doesn’t make it a good precedent to set.
Click to expand...

The precedent has been set. This is brought to you by the "they are not real democrats so it is ok" crowd.
 
donkiez said:
context matters. 7 and rising from an unknown a few months ago is worth celebrating.
Click to expand...

Oregon wasn't unknown a few months ago.

barfo
 
donkiez said:
context matters. 7 and rising from an unknown a few months ago is worth celebrating.
Click to expand...

Yang is up from 2.8% four months ago all the way to 3.2% today. If his 3% support had been shown in a few MSNBC graphics, I'm sure he'd be at 30% today. The same goes for all the other candidates who were in the low single digits.

barfo
 
barfo said:
Yang is up from 2.8% four months ago all the way to 3.2% today. If his 3% support had been shown in a few MSNBC graphics, I'm sure he'd be at 30% today. The same goes for all the other candidates who were in the low single digits.

barfo
Click to expand...


https://www.npr.org/2019/12/10/7868...r-december-debate-bringing-diversity-to-stage

Candidates have until Thursday at midnight to meet the Democratic National Committee's debate requirements, which stipulate that a candidate must hit 4% in four early-state or national polls or 6% in two early-state polls from Oct. 16 through Dec. 12, along with having 200,000 unique donors, with 800 of those from 20 different states.
Click to expand...
 
donkiez said:
https://www.npr.org/2019/12/10/7868...r-december-debate-bringing-diversity-to-stage
Click to expand...

Not sure of your point. Obviously not every poll gives exactly the same result. Some polls he does better in, some he does worse. I was quoting the RCP polling average (which I'm not necessarily endorsing as a good methodology, I just happened to have that page handy at the time).

I'm also not anti-Yang, although he's not my first choice. I'd vote for him if he gets the nomination.

barfo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top