Will the Media Again Rush to Declare Clinton the Winner of Tonight’s Democratic Forum?

Why TV’s talking heads discount Bernie Sanders

BY JOEL BLEIFUSS

Sanders won the October 13 Democratic debate hands down, according to every major debate focus group. Yet that was not the conclusion of the media elites ,who declared Hillary Clinton the victor.
In his inaugural editorial for the first issue of In These Times, in November 1976, Editor & Publisher James Weinstein wrote:

Corporate capitalism, this society’s system of property, investment, resource- and labor-allocation, is a political taboo. … It is [the major parties’] job to keep corporate capitalism out of—“above”—politics, just as it was the job of the pre-Civil War Whig and Democratic Parties to keep slavery out of politics. They failed then because determined people brought the reality of slave power into the electoral arena, giving birth to the Republican Party.

So who are the “determined people” of today taking “the great issue of our time” and putting it “into the electoral arena”? In These Times readers like Bernie Sanders, who during the Democratic debate was questioned by Anderson Cooper about his views on capitalism and answered thusly:

Do I consider myself part of the casino capitalist process by which so few have so much and so many have so little? By which Wall Street’s greed and recklessness wrecked this economy? No, I don’t. I believe in a society where all people do well.

That message resonates. On October 13, Sanders won the Democratic debate hands down, according to every major debate focus group. Yet that was not the conclusion of the media elites, who declared Hillary Clinton the victor...

Samsung SDI to invest $1 Billion in EV Battery Gigafactory

In order to acquire the dominance and leadership in Chinese EV market, Samsung SDI became the first global battery manufacturer to construct an EV battery plant and initiate mass production in China, beating LG Chem who broke ground on a similar plant in China a year ago.

The Xi’an plant has initiated its operation from September. It has finalized battery supply agreements with 10 local personal and commercial vehicle companies and is already delivering the goods. Some of these companies include Yutong, the leader of China’s and also the world’s bus industry and then Foton, the leader of China’s truck industry.

The finalized Samsung SDI Xi’an Plant is a cutting-edge production line that can manufacture high-performance electric vehicle (in standard of pure EVs) batteries for an amount of approximately 40 thousand cars a year. The plant is capable of carrying out the whole production process of EV battery cells and modules. Preparing for increased market demand in the future, Samsung SDI will invest – by adding production line, etc. – 600 million USD into the Xi’an battery plant until 2020 and aim to achieve 1 billion USD in sales.

Samsung ...

Comparing Google Consumer Surveys to Existing Probability and Non-Probability Based Internet Surveys
Paul McDonald, Matt Mohebbi, Brett Slatkin Google Inc.
Abstract
This study compares the responses of a probability based Internet panel, a non-probability based Internet panel and Google Consumer Surveys against several media consumption and health benchmarks. The Consumer Surveys results were found to be more accurate than both the probability and non-probability based Internet panels in three separate measures: average absolute error (distance from the benchmark), largest absolute error, and percent of responses within 3.5 percentage points of the benchmark. These results suggest that despite differences in survey methodology, Consumer Surveys can be used in place of more traditional Internet based panels without sacrificing accuracy.
http://www.google.com/insights/consumersurveys/static/consumer_surveys_whitepaper.pdf

A Comparison of Results from Surveys by the Pew Research Center and Google Consumer Surveys
NOVEMBER 7, 2012
<snip>
Pew Research and Google Comparisons

From May to October, 2012, the Pew Research Center compared results for more than 40 questions asked in dual frame telephone surveys to those obtained using Google Consumer Surveys. Questions across a variety of subject areas were tested, including: demographic characteristics, technology use, political attitudes and behavior, domestic and foreign policy and civic engagement. Across these various types of questions, the median difference between 43 results obtained from Pew Research surveys and using Google Consumer Surveys was 3 percentage points. The mean difference was 6 points, which was a result of several sizeable differences that ranged from 10-21 points and served to increase the mean difference.

Differences between the Pew Research surveys and Google results occur for a number of reasons. Given that Google Consumer Surveys does not use a true probability sampling method, and its sampling frame is not of the general public, differences in the composition of the sample are potentially of greatest concern. A comparison of several demographic questions asked by Pew Research indicates that the Google Consumer Surveys sample appears to conform closely to the demographic composition of the overall internet population. Communication device ownership and internet use also aligns well for most, though not all, questions. In addition, there is little evidence so far that the Google Consumer Surveys sample is biased toward heavy internet users.

Some of the differences between results obtained from the two methodologies can be attributed to variations in how the questions were structured and administered. During the evaluation period, we typically tried to match the question wording and format. However, some exceptions had to be made since many of the questions were part of longstanding Pew Research trends and had to be modified to fit within the Google Consumer Surveys limits and the different mode of administration (online self-administered vs. interview-administered by telephone).

The context in which questions are asked could also explain some of the differences; questions in Pew Research surveys are asked as part of a larger survey in which earlier questions may influence those asked later in the survey. By contrast, only one or two questions are administered at a time to the same respondents in the Google Consumer Surveys method.

The Google Consumer Surveys method is a work in progress and the Pew Research Center’s evaluation began shortly after its inception and continued for six months. The testing is ongoing, and we will continue to evaluate their methodology.
<snip>
http://www.people-press.org/2012/11/07/a-comparison-of-results-from-surveys-by-the-pew-research-center-and-google-consumer-surveys/

Single-payer national health insurance, also known as “Medicare for all,” is a system in which a single public or quasi-public agency organizes health care financing, but the delivery of care remains largely in private hands. Under a single-payer system, all residents of the U.S. would be covered for all medically necessary services, including doctor, hospital, preventive, long-term care, mental health, reproductive health care, dental, vision, prescription drug and medical supply costs.

The program would be funded by the savings obtained from replacing today’s inefficient, profit-oriented, multiple insurance payers with a single streamlined, nonprofit, public payer, and by modest new taxes based on ability to pay. Premiums would disappear; 95 percent of all households would save money. Patients would no longer face financial barriers to care such as co-pays and deductibles, and would regain free choice of doctor and hospital. Doctors would regain autonomy over patient care.

The Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act, H.R. 676, based on PNHP’s JAMA-published Physicians’ Proposal, would establish an American single-payer health insurance system.

In economics, a cartel is an agreement between competing firms to control prices or exclude entry of a new competitor in a market. It is a formal organization of sellers or buyers that agree to fix selling prices, purchase prices, or reduce production using a variety of tactics.