Posts
***GOING TO THE CHAMPIONSHIP GAME!***
***TAR HEELS ALL THE WAY***
Were Changes to "New York Times" Sanders Article "Stealth Editing?"Because if so, the owners have been revealed fatally as not only Clinton backers, but journalistic integrity quislings. Click the link and decide for yourself. (Right-click for a private window.)
Then read the 1000+ comments like the ones immediately below, and after pausing to get a grasp, attempt to count the horrified readers who canceled their decades-long subscriptions.
Aaron Cohen - El Cerrito
I've been reading this paper regularly since 1989, and reading it addictively ever since the iPhone came out. And, I have been happily shelling out $35 a month not because I have multiple devices, but because I wanted to reward good, balanced journalism that is so difficult to find these days.
These last few months of heavily biased reporting have tempted me to cancel time and again - especially after this paper endorsed Clinton before single primary vote had been cast – but I held on because at least many reader comments approximated good, balanced journalism, even though almost none of the articles did.
This, however is the final straw. It is utterly reprehensible and lacking in journalistic integrity to change a positive article reporting historical fact into a negative opinion piece after it has been shared widely on social media.
It was bad enough yesterday in Mr. Blow's article where he and the Times pretended they did not know that "there's no such thing as bad publicity" even after it has helped Trump succeed and even though he and his editors are allegedly journalists, who should know one of the fundamental maxims of publishing.
But this is simply beyond the pale. Never again will I read this newspaper. Canceling now.
Ellen Liversidge - San Diego CA
So disappointed in the NYT, the journalists, and all of the editors!! They added no depth, no real time context, to the article....I am embarrassed to have been a loyal reader, subscriber to the NYT!!! Granted, this is not the first time, I have been disappointed in the Times, but, I will say, this was the first time , in which, I felt compelled to cancel my subscription....and after reading this article, I am so glad I did !!!!! Donald Trump on the front page, and in sooo many of the NYT articles, use to upset me, make me question, the integrity of the NYT .... but now, somehow, I find it quite fitting:)
Entropic Decline - NYC
The Times has been in the tank for Hillary ever since they were describing Bernie is an irascable 73 year old with tussled hair. The integrity of this paper has not recovered since the Iraq War debacle. Hegemony and oligarchy are the order of the day at the Times. Instead of giving us hard news and analysis, the editors try to distract informed readers through puff peices such as Emily Rossum reading about a kiss on a plane. Who cares about this garbage?! This is supposed to be the Paper of Record! I find myself reading the Times for the latest editorial outrage of the day, rather than any serious discussion of issues facing this country.
Sanford Jacoby - Los Angeles
Margaret, you failed to mention another troubling sign of bias: the attacks on the economic plan authored by Professor Gerald Friedman, a consultant to the Sanders campaign (but a Clinton supporter). Since January there have been seven articles in the Time criticizing Friedman's plan. Some articles reported on a public statement attacking the plan written by former Obama administration (and presumably pro-Clinton) economists, hardly an objective group. Some were opinion pieces by a colleague of the economists (Krugman) and also a piece by a spouse of another Obama economist (Wolfers) that ran on page 3 instead of the business section where it usually appears.
An analysis of Friedman's plan (the only one) was conducted by yet another Obama economist (Romer) and her husband, with positive comments from Romer's colleague, who's is a former Bill Clinton economist. You get the idea. The Times never conducted an interview of its own with Friedman, never reported positive opinions by Robert Reich, among others, and never conducted or opined on Hillary Clinton's own (sketchy) economic plan. Margaret, this supports claims that the Times has engaged in biased maneuvering masquerading as journalism. Shame.
Jennifer Hoult, J.D. - New York City
I have been a subscriber to the NYT for a long time. Maybe the black out on coverage of Bernie Sanders' across-the aisle work during his 35 year career as an elected public servant, and the blatant ongoing attempts to disparage his campaign and promote Clinton's campaign should not surprise me. After all I remember the NYT running articles throughout the Reagan years reporting that Reagan's administration reduced most people's taxes, only to run articles after that administration ended showing that the earlier coverage had no factual merit. But the blatant bias and clear attempt to denigrate Sanders' record, while bolstering Clinton's much shorter 12 years' record as an elected official, have led to me to seriously consider cancelling my subscription. The NYT is no longer a credible news source. This isn't "balanced reporting." It is just political marketing.
N - WayOutWest 1 day ago
So it's late Wednesday, March 30, nearly midnight EST, and where is the NYT breaking news story on how the WA D.C. Democratic Party failed to submit Bernie Sanders for inclusion on the ballot in D.C.'s upcoming primary? And how the Democratic Party waited until the day after the deadline to come clean?
This story is being widely reported tonight, in all its glory, in other media. I have read that the DNC claims it was some kind of error that Sanders was left out.
What's going on with the Democratic Party, and why is this not being reported in the NYT=personal megaphone for Hillary Clinton?
NYT, you will be losing many, many subscribers before the end of this campaign - and Hillary will be losing many, many Democratic voters. I can't wait for the boo-hooing in November, when the Dems yowl that they don't understand why they lost.
I had a brittle, almost friable conversation with a fairly well-educated (self- and other-described) extended family member several years ago about the two-tiered NYT reporting integrity and have never forgotten the sneer I received when I evinced my opinion that the Judith Miller/Iraq War/perverted overseas reporting scandals (see history of Ukraine, Panama, Honduras, etc., for verification) had never ceased and provided a perfect window through which to view their true (double-sided) colors.
Seems I win.
And we all lose.
Again.
As usual - as it becomes even more clear that the few newspapers left with any reporting integrity at all are becoming museum pieces.
But a real win for the Democrats and Independents (as well as a few Republicans) may be upcoming.
Florida Representative, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, DNC Chair, is being asked (not politely either) to resign due to her multiple infractions of sensibility, good taste, management and myriad (and self-serving) conflicts of (many times financial) interest. (Not that that any of these type people were ever stopped by a good argument's logic or common courtesy before.)
John Fetterman, the Bernie supporter and progressive mayor in the Pennsylvania Senate race, called on Debbie Wasserman Schultz to resign as DNC chair in an interview on Pittsburgh TV station, WTAE. He then sent out a tweet (above) endorsing her South Florida primary opponent, Tim Canova. The Huffington Post reported that when he was asked by WTAE anchor Jackie Cain if his opposition to Wasserman Schultz was "a bold move," he said it was more a matter of common decency.
“I wouldn’t call it a bold move. I would call it an appropriate one given her collusion with the sub-prime, payday loan, lending machine,” Fetterman said. “I can’t imagine-- the average interest rate they charge is 309 percent-- as a Democrat, how could you get in bed with those kind of people?”
He also pointed to her campaign’s donors.
“The fact that she would take tens of thousands of dollars from that industry, and the fact that she would try to pass legislation that benefits that industry - it’s deeply disappointing particularly for the head of the DNC,” Fetterman said. In a letter to his supporters he wrote that "It’s ridiculous that the leader of the Democratic Party would turn her back on some of the most vulnerable members of society - the very people that her candidates are pledging to fight for. That’s why today, I’m calling on the Chair to resign. Debbie Wasserman Schultz has made it clear that her values are no longer our values." He asked them to consider signing a petition asking her to resign from the DNC.
Payday lenders lure desperate, mostly poor customers with the promise of quick money - but the reality is filled with hidden fees and sky-high interest rates.
So why is the leader of the Democratic Party trying to protect this industry by supporting a bill in Congress that seeks to delay the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau's pending rules on the issue?
Tell Congresswoman and DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz: "You have abandoned the values of the Democratic Party and betrayed the most vulnerable members of society who depend on our party to fight for them. I urge you to resign from your position as DNC Chair immediately."
There are more than a few good economic sources in print right now to aid us in informing ourselves about the history of neoliberals and their destructive policies.
The Lies of Neoliberal Economics (or How America Became a Nation of Sharecroppers)
‘Wall Street Godfather’ Explains Why Bernie Is Best for U.S. Economy
Although the following essays were published on April 1, they are not April Fools tales.
The Clinton Campaign Collapse has been documented by a number of trustworthy sources.
It's only a surprise to those not paying attention.
And it's not Republicans doing the ratting out.
Feeling the Bern from the pen of Seth Abramson:
. . . today, Public Policy Polling, a widely respected polling organization, released a poll showing that Sanders leads Clinton among African-American voters in Wisconsin by 11 points.
It’s all part of a dramatic national trend that has seen Clinton’s support among nonwhite voters dwindle to well under a third of what it was just a month ago — not nearly enough support to carry her, as it did throughout the Deep South, to future electoral victories in the Midwest and Northeast.
So no, it’s not a coincidence that, in the 18 state primary elections since March 1st, Bernie Sanders has won on Election Day in 12 of them.
(That’s right: Bernie won among live and provisional ballots in Arizona, Illinois, and Missouri.)
Of Clinton’s five post-March 1st Election Day wins, four (Mississippi, Louisiana, Florida, and North Carolina) were in the South, and were made possible by a level of support among nonwhite voters that Clinton no longer enjoys.
Indeed, this coalition was already collapsing when Clinton won in Florida and North Carolina on March 15th. At the polls in North Carolina on Election Day, Clinton won just 52 percent to 48 percent, including the tens of thousands of provisional ballots cast (which, still being counted, have gone, as expected, 57 percent for Senator Sanders). In Florida, the 36-point edge Clinton held in the first three weeks of early voting (February 15th to March 7th) dwindled to a 13.4-point edge among those who made their decision regarding who to vote for from March 8th to March 15th.
In short, the Clinton campaign is in the midst of an historic collapse — much of it due to the unraveling of support for Clinton among nonwhite voters — and the national media has yet to take any notice.
Clinton’s 48-point lead in New York less than two weeks ago is now just a 12-point lead, according to the latest Quinnipiac Poll. That poll shows Sanders with approximately 300 percent more support among African-American voters in New York than he had in Mississippi earlier this month.
Meanwhile, in the only poll taken in Indiana, Sanders is said to be beating Clinton handily.
Sanders is leading by 8 points in West Virginia.
And the only polling done so far in Kentucky — among nearly 1,000 students at the University of Kentucky — has Sanders up on Clinton there by more than 70 points.
But what the latest "Reuters" polling underscores is that even Clinton’s support in the South has collapsed.
Between February 27th and March 26th, Clinton’s lead among Southerners — the group whose primary votes (and thus delegates) comprise the entirety of her 228-delegate lead over Bernie Sanders — decreased from 15 points to just 6. Given the percentage of Southern Democrats who are African-American, even without cross-tabs available there is reason to believe Clinton’s declining numbers among nonwhite voters are partially responsible for this decline. Certainly, it was the strength of Clinton’s support among this polling demographic that assured Clinton of massive delegate hauls in nearly every Southern state: according to CNN exit polling, on March 1st black voters in Mississippi favored Clinton by 77 points, in Georgia by 71 points, in Virginia by 68 points, in Texas by 68 points, in Tennessee by 79 points, in Arkansas by 66 points, and in Alabama by a whopping 85 points.
Now that Clinton’s lead among black voters nationwide is fluctuating between the high single-digits and the mid-teens, it appears the sort of voting margins among nonwhite voters that made Clinton’s present delegate lead possible are never coming back.
Case-in-point: last week, Sanders beat Clinton in three of the ten most diverse states in America (Hawaii, Washington, and Alaska) by 39.8 points, 45.6 points, and 61.5 points, respectively.
Yet even after “Western Saturday,” the media clung to its narrative that Sanders cannot win among nonwhite voters, arguing — sometimes implicitly, often explicitly — that only strong performances among African-American voters would be sufficient to dislodge the narrative the fourth estate has run with about Sanders since late 2015. Indeed, after the release of the latest Marquette University poll in Wisconsin, Harry Enten of FiveThirtyEight.com tweeted, “All I see on the Democratic side is the Marquette poll matching the demographic expectations [in the primary race].”
In fact, the poll showed Clinton leading Sanders among all nonwhite voters by a mere 16 percent.
Again, as a point of comparison, Clinton beat Sanders by 82 points among nonwhite voters in Alabama, by 66 in Arkansas, 62 in Georgia, 71 in Tennessee, 48 in Texas, and 52 in Virginia.
Outcry among Sanders supporters at the false narrative regarding Sanders and nonwhite voters continues to go unheard, even as, today, Public Policy Polling data showed the Senator beating Clinton among black voters in Wisconsin by 11 points. Instead of a mass mea culpa from the media, Sanders supporters were confronted with a Chicago Tribune column, published today, that says of polling in the Democratic primary race, “Of course polls can change, but there’s no particular reason to believe they will.”
No reason indeed.
Three weeks ago, Sanders won Michigan while losing among nonwhite voters by 29 points. So the 16-point deficit reported by Marquette and the 11-point advantage reported by PPP constitute dramatic improvements for Sanders over even a recent winning performance in the Midwest — in fact, Sanders’ most important win of this election season. This bodes well for Sanders’ future performance in other key Midwestern states like Pennsylvania, South Dakota, and Indiana.
As for Sanders’ performance among nonwhite voters in the Northeast — where New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and New Jersey voters will head to the polls in the coming weeks — it’s always been substantially stronger than the media, again inexplicably stuck on Deep-South exit polls, has claimed it to be.
In Massachusetts, Sanders lost the nonwhite vote by only 18 points, per CNN exit polling. In New Hampshire, where close to 20,000 nonwhite voters cast ballots back in February, Sanders actually won the nonwhite vote 50 percent to 49 percent.
In short, when the media — which seems to be reporting election results as though today were the “SEC Primary” — indicates that Sanders is in trouble in upcoming states with slightly more diverse populations, it’s not clear what recent numbers they’re looking at. Though the nonwhite voting population in the upcoming primaries and caucuses is exclusively a Midwestern and Northeastern one, the media appears to be ignoring all extant data from Wisconsin, Michigan, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire in favor of exit polls from states — like Alabama — that are nothing like these four politically, culturally, or in any other respect.
For those wondering about the exit polls in the Midwestern states that voted in mid-March — for instance, Illinois, Ohio, and Missouri — we can say that these, too, show that Clinton’s lead among nonwhite voters outside of the Deep South is nothing like it was in those red-state strongholds.
In Illinois, Sanders won Latino voters 50 percent to 49 percent and lost African-American voters by a percentage (-40) midway between his recent, improved performance in Wisconsin and his March 1st performance in the Deep South (-73.5 average). These numbers were born out also in Missouri, where Sanders lost African-American voters by 35 points and nonwhite voters by 23 points. These data aren’t surprising or disheartening for Sanders or his supporters — indeed, the figures, taken together, are almost algebraic — given that Sanders lost African-American voters by 73.5 points on March 1st, 40 points on March 15th, and was ahead in Wisconsin among this group by 11 points by March 31st.
In other words, nonwhite voting offers the media a clear and unambiguous narrative about Sanders — an unmissable trajectory — if only they’re willing to see it.
And the same dramatic trajectory — albeit in the opposite direction — is evident for Clinton.
Indeed, putting aside for a moment her loss of support among African-American voters, Clinton has offered the media a narrative of her domination among Latino voters that likewise has taken a serious hit of late.
While Clinton won early voting in Arizona — which took place around the time of voting in the Deep South — by a 25.4 percent margin, Election Day and provisional ballots in the heavily Latino state (which all came in as Sanders was decimating Clinton’s lead among nonwhite voters in mid-March) favored Sanders 51.4 percent to 48.6 percent (82,470 votes for Sanders, 77,849 for Clinton). Given that Arizona has the sixth-largest Latino population of any American state, it’s exceedingly difficult to imagine Sanders beating Clinton in non-early voting there by nearly 3 points without performing exponentially better among Latinos than he had at the beginning of the month (e.g., his 42-point loss among Latinos in Texas on March 1st, which contributed substantially to his 32-point loss in the state).
It’s worth noting, too, that Arizona still has thousands of predominantly Sanders-voter provisional ballots to count, so the Senator’s 3-point margin in Election Day and provisional voting there is almost certain to widen. And the counties now giving him the largest additional margin in provisional voting are counties with sizable populations of Latino voters.
In short, there simply is no evidence available to suggest that Hillary Clinton’s robust coalition of nonwhite voters still exists — certainly not in anything like the form it was just four weeks ago. How else to explain an 82-point margin among nonwhite voters in Alabama, and similar margins in every other Southern state, on March 1st, and just a 6-point lead among all Southern Democrats (who are, depending upon the state, between 27 percent and 71 percent African-American) on March 26th?
Indeed, even where Clinton now outperforms Sanders among nonwhite voters, the margin — when and as there is one — is perfectly in keeping with competitive politics in the contemporary era. And it is dwarfed, as it happens, by Sanders’ lead among other key groups, notably voters under 30 (particularly Latino voters under 30) and independent voters.
The Clinton-Sanders tilt remains at a stage in which nearly all the real-time data favors Sanders, and all the television and print coverage favors Clinton because of a delegate lead she built up during Deep-South voting a month ago. The race as it is being reported therefore bears no relation to the race as it is, which is why the Clinton camp has all but pulled out of Wisconsin — anticipating a sizable loss there that will emphasize the momentum (actual and internals-supported) Sanders developed in Mountain-state and Western voting over the past two weeks.
Consider: in North Carolina two weeks ago, Sanders handily defeated Clinton among white voters (+9) and narrowly lost among all voters on Election Day (-4). However, the Senator’s performance (-61) among African-American voters — many of whom voted early, well before March 15th — doomed him to lose the state as a whole by 13.8 percent.
If Sanders had had the African-American support during early voting (and some Election Day voting) in North Carolina that he enjoys today, he would have lost all voting in North Carolina by fewer than four and a half points — 52.7 percent to 47.3 percent (514,447 for Clinton, 460,828 for Sanders). But here’s the key: in a Midwestern or Northeastern state, rather than a Southern one — indeed, in any state with racial and ethnic demographics in the middle 50 percent of American states — those same internals would result in a massive Sanders win.
Which, as it happens, is what the State of Wisconsin may well be for Sanders in just five days.
KC - TN