patrick.net

"They were. Often the media put up superdelegate pledge votes before they happened, showing Bernie behind before one vote was cast."

No, they weren't. Clinton had a huge superdelegate lead over Obama too in the beginning. Made zero difference.

Again--I'm not sure why you think it's important to detail what the DNC did. I've already granted that their behavior was horrible. The point is that it didn't cost Bernie the election. His inability to reach minorities was the problem. And that had nothing to do with any DNC leaks or WAPO editorials.

The bears I respect didn't call recession this year. The bears I listen call recession in next 3 years.

Logan stop turning shit around. Nobody who's little intelligent listens that idiot Harry Dent.

I listen the reasonable guys who call recession in next 3 years. Now you can argue with that!

This year is almost over sir. That's you little pitty victory against Harry Dent supporters. Well they are idiots.

Philistine says

Not enough is said about turnout this election. It was like?, what?, at a 20 year low? You can guaran-damn-tee the lack of enthusiasm was on the Dem side. Lots of libocrats said "meh" to the Hillbot. Trump got out the vote, even if what galvanized his base was good old fashioned rabblerousing.

I'd love to see actual figures. Early vote totals didn't include some big blue states, so I don't know how it actually ranked compared to, say, the last 2 general election cycles. I thought it was lower overall (Trump's were lower too). These were two profoundly disliked candidates, and so any claim of a mandate is negated.

It could be lower as a percentage of voting eligible citizens too, I reckon, but higher totals. Let us know if anyone has that.

Wait forgot the MMT people.... and Secular stagnation Larry Summers

Anyone from Pimco who has been wrong for years now

tsk tsk... did you really think people could lie about this country and get away with it with data miners out there

No.... it's our turn to blow the Trolls and Anti America non sense out of the sky...

joeyjojojunior says

No, they weren't. Clinton had a huge superdelegate lead over Obama too in the beginning. Made zero difference.

She had a lead before the primaries began. The Media and the Dems fell in love with Obama during the primaries, and the superdelegates began switching to his camp.

Trump as well

The U.S. stock market is a Great Fat Ugly Bubble .. 2016 September .. countless bears now and forever...

The battle has just began

"She had a lead before the primaries began. The Media and the Dems fell in love with Obama during the primaries, and the superdelegates began switching to his camp."

Not exactly. Obama was winning and superdelegates are nothing if not self interested, so they naturally switched to the candidate who they thought would win. Bernie never really had a path to win. He could never connect with minorities.

joeyjojojunior says

Not exactly. Obama was winning and superdelegates are nothing if not self interested, so they naturally switched to the candidate who they thought would win. Bernie never really had a path to win. He could never connect with minorities.

Not true. Her non-appeal to minorities, esp. minority youth, was a factor in Trump's victory.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-abramson/hillary-clintons-support-_b_9579544.html

"Bring them to heel"

Of course it's true. Bernie lost minorities by like 50 points in every state.

Read the article. His support among minorities was growing steadily, and hers shrinking.

It's why Bernie had a shock win in Michigan, that Hillary should have won handily because of Detroit Minorities. All the pollsters thought the minorities were going to go for her, big league.

Instead, he beat her by 20 pts.

It was this that did it:
www.youtube.com/embed/wQ4PYVATBac

Dan8267 says

Blurtman says

Unlike the MSM. We all have to do our own homework.

That doesn't justify using thoroughly discredited sources. A writer shouldn't take the stance of "reader beware, everything I cite may be a lie". A writer should at least put a little effort into trying to use good sources.

The NY Times cannot be credible. They didn't do something as reprehensible as publishing bogus information about Plato, but their mobile weapons lab stories did have negative consequences.

Ditto all of the MSM issuing bogus stories on WMD in Iraq. Or the babies being pulled from incubators by the rascally Kuwaitis.

I doubt that you could provide a reference for credibility rankings by a respected rating agency, and who rates the raters, then?

As I have said, we all have the responsibility to determine the truth as best we can. You can't be a lazy ass and expect others to do the work for you.

"Read the article. His support among minorities was growing steadily, and hers shrinking. It's why Bernie had a shock win in Michigan, that Hillary should have won handily because of Detroit Minorities. All the pollsters thought the minorities were going to go for her, big league. Instead, he beat her by 20 pts."

I will say I was surprised when I went back and looked at the data. It was more age related than race related.

Still no evidence that anything the DNC did had any effect.

Had the DNC and the media not colluded to rig the election against Bernie,he would have smashed Hillary even worse than he would have thumped Trump.

You can't post data from the rigged election as evidence that he would have lost a fair election. Come on, people. Use your brains

errc says

Had the DNC and the media not colluded to rig the election against Bernie,he would have smashed Hillary even worse than he would have thumped Trump.

You can't post data from the rigged election as evidence that he would have lost a fair election. Come on, people. Use your brains

Sure I can. If the DNC rigging caused him to lose, you should be able to look at points on the above charts and show me inflection points caused by the DNC interference. I see no such points.

And the Republican race was similarly "rigged" against Trump with no effect. If anything, I think media support hurt candidates in 2016

Blurtman says

The NY Times cannot be credible.

You may not like the NY Times, but overall, it's a largely credible source. Hell, even Fox News is far more reliable than Wikipedia.

I think media support hurt candidates in 2016

Quit while you're behind. The media was 24/7 Trump save for a quick update of how Hillary had already won the primary because of all the superdelegates that they included in her tally every single time since six months + prior to them having an opportunity to vote.

The mouth breathing idiots that watch that shit are the same people that voted Clinton

The media never gave Bernie a fair shake, had they given each candidate equitable coverage, Bernie would be president elect. I say this with 100% certainty

Thunderlips is Tovbot2 says

It's why Bernie had a shock win in Michigan, that Hillary should have won handily because of Detroit Minorities. All the pollsters thought the minorities were going to go for her, big league.

Instead, he beat her by 20 pts.

It was this that did it:

Bernie Sanders has a very long history of fighting for the civil rights of African Americans. He's walked the walk and even was arrested for protesting segregation. He has real street cred.

Unfortunately, most African American voters are low-information voters and didn't even realize all that Bernie has done for them throughout his life, or the crap that Hillary Clinton has done against them including promoting the war on drugs, which is a blatant front for destroying minority voting power and economic opportunity.

Some black voters, however, did remember or learn history, and they voted for Sanders.

Low-information voters are the greatest problem in a republic. They are easily manipulated by dishonest campaigns and the media. This is why money can buy elections. It buys ads and propaganda that influences low-information voters.

Ironman says

Dan8267 says

Unfortunately, most African American DEM voters are low-information voters and didn't even realize all that Bernie has HASN'T done for them throughout his life

Dan8267 says

Low-information DEM voters are the greatest problem in a republic. They are easily manipulated by dishonest campaigns and the media. This is why money can buy elections. It buys ads and propaganda that influences low-information DEM voters.

There, now it's more accurate.

Poor Dan. Still trying to figure out why the Dems screwed up.
Simple:
Illegal Immigration
Terrorism
Slow economy

Ironman says

'disgusted' Democratic whistleblowers.

i heard two people got killed over this.

this is the CIA who claimed Iraq had WMD?

Strategist says

Poor Dan. Still trying to figure out why the Dems screwed up georgies shut down right in the middle of YMCA night...

"It's why Bernie had a shock win in Michigan, that Hillary should have won handily because of Detroit Minorities. All the pollsters thought the minorities were going to go for her, big league."

Oh, and by the way, this is incorrect. 538 had a great demographic model that actually predicted a very close race in MI despite polls saying Clinton was up double digits. Demographics suggested a close race.

"i heard two people got killed over this."

I'm sure you did.

I blame the Washington Post and their fake news department.

Ironman says

Democratic National Committee and the e-mails of John Podesta,

Neither of whom are government entities or employees : Just a reminder.

Putin has an operative pretend to be an intermediary for a disgruntled DNC employee and meet with Wikileaks to share data that he got from hacks. He then had Seth Rich killed to cover his tracks*.

...
*The above has lots of speculation in it. It's about as well sourced and more likely to be true than most of the lame ass crap CIC posts.

The whole OP is based on a statement from a guy who met with an intermediary supposedly between himself and a DNC employee. So, even if we take him at his word, we don't know who the intermediary met with. Further, there is no information on how a low level DNC employee got access to everybody's email accounts or how he conveyed the data to Wikileaks. If a liberal posted such a story, you all would be saying it was absolute shite.

Ironman says

marcus says

I blame the Washington Post and their fake news department.

FINALLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

He finally managed to put 2 and 2 together. Pretty good for a math teacher.

Ironman says

Is Seth Rich alive or dead today?

I believe that he's dead, but you might not. After all, it was reported in the WaPo.
Ironman says

Who killed him?

No one knows. You may pretend to know and call me an idiot for admitting that I don't know. But all that will do is prove your own lack of imagination and your willingness to believe whatever fit's your preconceived notions.

Is Seth Rich alive or dead today? Who killed him? Was anything taken from him (wallet, phone, etc.) when he was killed?

I'll add another question-was Thallium found in his body?

Dan8267 says

You may not like the NY Times, but overall, it's a largely credible source. Hell, even Fox News is far more reliable than Wikipedia.

So Wiki is not credible because of an erroneous Plato reference which has just about zero consequence to real world events, and the NY times which published bogus stories including the mobile weapons lab story is credible? Uh....OK, but check your meds.

Ironman says

There, now it's more accurate.

Piggy, you have no write to complain about low-information people as you are a no-information person.

Blurtman says

So Wiki is not credible because of an erroneous Plato reference which has just about zero consequence to real world events,

Oh honey buns, the Plato example is just a clear case that demonstrates the fundamental problem with non-peer-reviewed publications. Anyone can publish anyone.

It is not, however, what makes Wikipedia truly wicked.

Every single article on Wikipedia that in any way involves either money or people is deliberately manipulated by individuals and groups with agendas incompatible with the truth. For example, Pepsi removed information regarding the terrible health consequences of drinking Pepsi. They got caught only because the rank amateurs involved used IP addresses owned by Pepsi. They didn't cover their tracks.

More experience corporations, government agencies, hate groups, financial fraudsters, etc. will cover their tracks using anonymized IP addresses. Such organizations have teams that use many seemingly unrelated accounts to control articles that they have a financial or political interest in. First they build up the reputations of their various accounts by fixing vandalism and errors that they have themselves planted using other accounts. This makes their accounts "credible users" with many badges. Then they use multiple such accounts to censor and manipulate the articles they actually care about.

If you didn't know this is common practice, then you are ignorant of the realities of Wikipedia. This happens all the time. Companies with hundreds of millions of dollars at stake are willing to pay a million dollars a year in salaries to have an army of such users and a bank of such accounts to ensure they control the public perceptions. Governments are willing to spend even more to control the public perception of war and politics. Terrorists organizations are willing to spend their time to accomplish the same thing.

Dan8267 says

Every single article on Wikipedia that in any way involves either money or people is deliberately manipulated by individuals and groups with agendas incompatible with the truth.

That would never happen with the MSM, would it?

Russkies probably have pictures of Murray with underage kids that they honey trapped him with in Uzbekistan and forced him to say that.

Tim Aurora says

While that is correct, I would still look up for basic knowledge from Wikipedia. You can always vet it by looking at other reliable sires.

Even with your assumption, at best, Wikipedia offers no benefit. At worst, it points you in the wrong direction.

Since you cannot tell what information is deliberately misleading, even your basic information must be confirmed by another source. So all you are doing is adding an unnecessary step that gives you nothing and requires some work. Also, by quoting Wikipedia instead of your alternative source, you are subjecting your audience to potential misinformation while denying them the citation of your alternative source. Again, there is no upside and plenty of downside.

Worst still, you probably look at the footnotes on the Wikipedia pages for your alternative sources. These footnotes and external links are also maliciously manipulated. External citations that provide evidence contrary to what the malicious parties want the public to believe are censored while external links that support the parties' agendas are promoted regardless of whether or not those sources have been debunked.

Even using Wikipedia as a stepping stone to other sources contaminates your evidence chain with propaganda and deliberate and deceptive bias. It's all bad.

Tim Aurora says

Nobody is perfect but Wikipedia is mostly better than other sites.

No, it is not. It is far, far worse than most of sources even Fox New, and that says a lot.

Because Wikipedia is very popular and the uneducated masses treat it as an unquestionable authority, it is very useful to governments, corporations, and political groups for manipulating public opinion. Such organizations have the time and resources to manipulate and control articles on Wikipedia covertly and very effectively.

Also, it is a false dichotomy to call a serious problem a non-issue simply because nothing is perfect. No one has ever claimed that any source is perfect. That does not mean that any source is therefore acceptable. There are very large variations in degrees of imperfection. A source that states the Battle of Hastings took place in 1065 is wrong, but not nearly as wrong as a source that states the battle was between dinosaurs and aliens. There is also a huge difference between an honest mistake and deliberate and deceptive manipulation by nefarious organizations with hidden and malicious agendas.

Tim Aurora says

And since it is run by small donations, it is less likely to be politically motivated

This is utter bullshit. Wikipedia is a target of anyone with a political or financial agenda simply because it is popular. That has nothing to do with how Wikipedia funds itself. The people running the website and administering the database do not have to be involved at all with the deliberate misinformation entered into it by the organizations with agendas. The Wikipedia employees won't even be able to tell themselves which user accounts are being used by professional propagandists.

Blurtman says

That would never happen with the MSM, would it?

This is again a false dichotomy. Mainstream media is very limited to what kinds of lies and spinning they can do. First, they lack the anonymity of Wikipedia users. Second, every news outlet has a constant identity. Propagandists can use thousands of accounts that have been built up by grunts. They can use a dozen such accounts in a single article revision war appearing to be unrelated people all agreeing on what is right against the one or two people being censored. The main stream media simply cannot do this.

Dan8267 says

Mainstream media

But one might expect the open policy of Wikipedia to balance out all viewpoints. A corporate owner of an MSM outlet will limit the breadth of viewpoints, and so this source will have a consistent bias. As I have said, utilize multiple sources, and do your own homework.

If you believe that the election was hacked by Russians, you have been reading fake news.

Blurtman says

But one might expect the open policy of Wikipedia to balance out all viewpoints.

Whether or not you expect that is irrelevant. Empirically, Wikipedia does not work that way. All voices are not equal and Wikipedia is not a democracy.

The well-funded organizations who create a multitude of accounts, use grunts to earn badges, and then use those seemly unrelated accounts to manipulate articles will not let your voice be heard if it goes against whatever agenda they have. And they will win. Even a single employee can use dozens of badge-heavy accounts to silent your common man account. And that employee will win every single time. He will appear to be many well-respected and unrelated contributors, whereas you will appear as the sole detractor.

There is nothing democratic, fair and balanced, or transparent about Wikipedia. Multiple viewpoints are never represented. And furthermore, viewpoints are the purpose of an encyclopedia. Facts are the purpose. And facts aren't dependent on points of view.

Blurtman says

As I have said, utilize multiple sources, and do your own homework.

People who quote Wikipedia almost never use multiple source precisely because they think Wikipedia is the only source they need. But even if they did use multiple sources, including Wikipedia at best adds nothing and at worst adds deliberate misinformation.

When talking about the health effects of smoking, you should use multiple sources, but none of those sources should come from the tobacco lobby. If they do, those sources are worse than worthless. They are misleading and counterproductive. Wikipedia is a lobbyists' wet dream.