• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Media is Cheating for Hillary Clinton (1 Viewer)

truthatallcost

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 1, 2014
Messages
26,719
Reaction score
6,278
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
From Stanford University:

A new working paper by Neil Malhotra of Stanford's Graduate School of Business, and David Rothschild of Microsoft Research, shows that some voters do, in fact, switch sides in an effort to feel accepted and to be part of a winning team.

The researchers asked a selected group of voters to state their opinions on a variety of real public policy questions, and then presented them with fabricated poll results on the same topics. When the test subjects learned that a large number of experts favored a position, opinions shifted by 11.3%. But the "opinions of people like me" changed opinions by just 6.2%, while a general poll saying that a majority of people favored one side or the other moved the needle by 8.1%.

This is why the media puts new voting polls in our faces every day, because Hillary needs all the help she can get. And the media have shown themselves to be completely biased and unfair in their coverage of political elections.

https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/how-polls-influence-behavior
 
I don't doubt that for a second.
And it's why it's so important for a campaign to flood all communication delivery systems with a message that you want to have repeated.
To do that you need media allies eager to make that happen.
 
News and other media have always been biased.

The owners of newspapers, magazines, radio stations, and television networks have always offered various levels of support to whichever political candidate they back.

This can range from slanting news reports and editorializing, like we see so often in talk shows...to outright endorsements.

This when combined with a basic human need to be a part of the winning team has helped to mold elections and select campaign winners for as long as such media have existed.

Their free coverage of Trump's escapades during the Republican primary campaign is what thrust him to the fore. Their constant negative slant of news about his Presidential campaign as compared to their more circumspect reporting about Hillary's is what is undermining his momentum now.

I don't think Trump is the best candidate for President that could have been selected, but despite all this slanted editorializing...I still prefer him to Hillary because this new support for her in the media cannot blind me from my observations of her performance over the last 20 years.
 
Last edited:
From Stanford University:



This is why the media puts new voting polls in our faces every day, because Hillary needs all the help she can get. And the media have shown themselves to be completely biased and unfair in their coverage of political elections.

https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/how-polls-influence-behavior

Stanford Study Proves Election Fraud through Exit Poll Discrepancies : snopes.com

Not so much a study as a couple students (probably Sandernistas) who do not understand basic science, making claims not supported by the evidence, using numbers from a Conspiricy theorist(JFK type), reviewed by one of the students dad. Not that you will let any of those details derail your wild asses notions.
 
The MSM in large, is a fixture of the establishment. This is not surprising at all.
 
Washington Post, NYT, Slate, etc are all basically state-run at this point.
 
Email story won’t end for Clinton

At the time, officials expressed concern that some of the materials in her private inbox were classified at some level, suggesting possible mishandling of sensitive information.

We can go on and on about the FBI's criminal investigation, the fact that there are certain superdelegates that are either in jail or facing their own criminal investigation, or their lobbying ties. But this election is about to get even more bizarre.
 
Isn't it amazing how pretty much no one in this thread is actually interested in facts? They just get in the way of ranting against their perceived enemies...
 
Stanford Study Proves Election Fraud through Exit Poll Discrepancies : snopes.com

Not so much a study as a couple students (probably Sandernistas) who do not understand basic science, making claims not supported by the evidence, using numbers from a Conspiricy theorist(JFK type), reviewed by one of the students dad. Not that you will let any of those details derail your wild asses notions.

Perhaps I'm missing something, but what does your post and the link have to do with the information provided in the OP?
 
Stanford Study Proves Election Fraud through Exit Poll Discrepancies : snopes.com

Not so much a study as a couple students (probably Sandernistas) who do not understand basic science, making claims not supported by the evidence, using numbers from a Conspiricy theorist(JFK type), reviewed by one of the students dad. Not that you will let any of those details derail your wild asses notions.

The only "wild asses" on this thread is you.

Your citing a completely different story: the authors of the paper that you provided are "Axel Geijsel of Tilburg University in The Netherlands and Rodolfo Cortes Barragan of Stanford University".

The study that I referenced was coauthored by Neil Malhothra of Stanford's Graduate School of Business, and David Rothschild of Microsoft Research.

You aren't even commenting on the right story.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom