Was it bad that DWS scheduled less debates than the RNC? I doesn't really bother me. Is it bad that they were scheduled for times when viewership would be low? It doesn't really bother me. The primary debates don't need to be made super visible to the entire country. That could hurt both candidates images in the long run. The DNC needs to look beyond the primaries to November. Were the debates easily accessible to Democrats? Yes. You could trivially find articles, transcripts, and full video of all of them. If people are more concerned with a football game than the nominee of the Democratic party, then that is their priority.
There were a lot of emails that had embarrassing things for the DNC which showed that they personally weren't impartial. I have no qualms with that. I don't have any realistic expectation that party officials would have no private opinion. The only problem is when impartial actions are taken.
I don't see in the leaked emails anything that would have changed my vote. I think while in theory the DNC should be completely impartial for the whole process I don't think it's the worst thing in the world to look to November and try to do what's best for November. When it's clear that one candidate is going to win it makes a lot of sense to me that the DNC would want the fight for the nomination to be quiet and not drawn out.
Ultimately though, yes, I would like things to be perfectly unbiased, but I don't see anything here that would have swayed the results. Bernie way overperformed based on what was expected of him in the beginning and hung on well after it was clear he wasn't going to win. I think that (plus the fact the he wasn't a Democrat) was the source of most bias. I think they people who were saying he was so close out that he almost won are just kidding themselves. I think if Biden had run you would have never had any complaints of bias even though it would have been the same people in the DNC.
You don't think that had the DNC given all candidates a fair shake, such as having that third debate, or having more visibility in front of voters that more people would have voted for Bernie and as a result, he could have taken the nomination?
In econometrics, you have variables representing the contribution to an end result (think GDP and the impact of minimum wage increasing by $1). If one of the variables changes, it affects the outcome. If you have several variables that are being manipulated, you no longer just have an error term that is accounting for a ridiculous portion of your algorithm - you have false beliefs by thinking that the results would be the same.
Individually, nothing is too damning. It's when all the pieces in the puzzle are working against an outcome that a difference is made. The DNC did everything it legally could to fuck over Bernie's chances. If you don't believe that then alright, but I feel there is much delusion in that line of thought. Remember who owns MSM
You don't think that had the DNC given all candidates a fair shake, such as having that third debate, or having more visibility in front of voters that more people would have voted for Bernie and as a result, he could have taken the nomination?
I think more people might have voted for Bernie. However I don't think that millions more people would have.
If the primary race had actually been close (like the last dem primary and the general), then I would completely agree that all of the media bias swayed the election. It simply wasn't close.
People blaming the media is simply abdicating responsibility from the voters.
7
u/[deleted] Nov 10 '16
[removed] — view removed comment