Harvard & Stanford Reviews Document Media/Vote Bias Against Bernie

[laserhaas]

Fitting for the last day of freedom is a discussion about the main stream media bias and vote irregularities that always pounced upon Senator Bernie Sanders efforts, via the Democratic Primary, in the hopes of becoming President of the United States; because Harvard University ftound extreme media bias and Stanford found empirical evidences of anamolies bias, during the 2016 Democratic Primary, against Bernie Sanders.

Even if, arguendo, you are always for Hillary, these findings should upset you.
[br[[hr][br]

[font color=navy]Here's US Uncut Politics review of Harvards study on media and the primaries.[/font]
[br]
Media Coverage of the Primaries Was Awful, Harvard Study Confirms
https://usuncut.com/politics/harvard-study-media-primaries/

[center] [font size=5]



Harvard Study Confirms
Media Coverage of the Primaries
Was Awful
[/font][/center]


The perception of the Clinton vs. Sanders race created by the media’s earliest coverage generated an aura of inevitability for Hillary Clinton and encouraged a dismissive attitude toward Sanders despite his early mega-rallies on the West Coast and huge advantage with small-dollar donations.

The Shorenstein Center’s study should vindicate supporters of Bernie Sanders and non-Trump Republican candidates alike, as it proves the media’s inherent bias in covering the billionaire real estate developer and the former Secretary of State for the purpose of driving ad revenue and clicks rather than for the purpose of informing the public.
[br][hr][br]
[center][font size=5 color=navy]

Rodolfo Cortes Barragan, of Stanford,
did a joint Study on Election Fraud with,
Netherlands Tilburg University's - Alex Geijsel [/font]





[/center]

Their June 7, 2016 paper (Here) is titled "Are we witnessing a dishonest election" and it poses the question by "A between state comparison based on the used voting procedures of the 2016 Democratic Party Primary for the Presidency of the United States of America".

Quotes at top of the discussion paper:

“You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you
cannot fool all of the people all of the time.” ­ Abraham Lincoln

“No one has yet figured out a straightforward method of ensuring that one of the most revered democratic institutions – in this case, electing a U.S. president – can be double checked for fraud, particularly when paperless e­voting systems are used.” ­ Larry Greenemeier, Scientific American

Conclusion

Are we witnessing a dishonest election? Our first analysis showed that states wherein the voting outcomes are difficult to verify show far greater support for Secretary Clinton. Second, our examination of exit polling suggested large differences between the respondents that took the exit polls and the claimed voters in the final tally. Beyond these points, these irregular patterns of results did not exist in 2008. As such, as a whole, these data suggest that election fraud is occurring in the 2016 Democratic Party Presidential Primary election.

And the last sentence of the paragraph makes a very disturbing conclusion that:

This fraud has overwhelmingly benefited Secretary Clinton at the expense of Senator Sanders.

emphasis is mine.......
[br][hr][br]

I'm unfamiliar with the Netherlands University and the Stanford Professor; but they bright line what we've all discussed.

As for me, I'm Bern or Bust and must bridle my tongue, or be bojo'd

(fret not Laser haters, I am who I am and my bags are already packed)

As for the rest of you, let the banter wars - for the last day that they may - B E G I N
[center]
(and - end - rather swiftly).
[/center]
[br][br]

35 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Hillary won, fair and square, don't you dare say otherwise
	6 (17%)
	Bernie got a raw deal; and still has done exceptionally - as a gentleman
	28 (80%)
	These professors are loons
	1 (3%)
	The study appears to be independent - especially given The Netherlands
	0 (0%)
	Laser is a Loon
	0 (0%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[laserhaas]

1. Stanford/Tilburg paper criticized and was responded to, quickly, with facts

Seems the rudeness is worldwide, on this issue; and the professors have solid documentation.

At the bottm of the Stanford/Tilburg paper, there's a link to follow debates - extraordinary.

http://caucus99percent.com/content/election-fraud-study-authors-respond-critics

[Amaril]

2. Jury results

On Wed Jun 15, 2016, 01:20 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Harvard & Stanford Reviews Document Media/Vote Bias Against Bernie
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512188697

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

This thread both misrepresents the study and is inappropriate for du

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Jun 15, 2016, 01:27 PM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Hillary supporter here but don't see any need to hide this.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Case for hiding not made.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: How does it misrepresent the study when it quotes directly from the study? Dispute its validity as opposed to alerting to hide.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[laserhaas]

3. Aw -damn... I just lost the bet pool

Thought they would get it bojo'd in less than 20 minutes.

Thanks for posting.

[Faux pas]

4. Kickin' for the truth!

Now, how do we fix this stolen primary?

[laserhaas]

6. Pshaw! - Barring an arising Smoking Gun, regrettably, the only way to fix, is Congress or Courts

and both will never do so, soon enough, to make a difference.

Though California keeps giving U.S. some surprises;
and there are litigations - multiple.

[Hortensis]

5. The BIG issue is the strongly negative tone for

all candidates. This is very bad for our nation.

Btw, regarding the OP, since both Trump and Sanders are anti-establishment candidates who built populist movements on widespread discontent and ignorance of what is good and right about our nation, they both benefited tremendously from media's negative coverage.

[laserhaas]

7. The old adage, there's no such thing as bad publicity

There's only - Publicity!

[JCanete]

8. Wow, how about you back up the claim that Sanders built his campaign on ignorance. It's nice to

slide that in there when lumping him and Trump together, but I haven't heard such an argument, and I'd love to hear your rationale for it.

[laserhaas]

9. The only rationale dat kuud B off'rd - is

Da man is Nutz

[Hortensis]

10. Maybe go read about populism and the typical

anti-establishment, populist campaigns we have every election. Asking me to prove ignorance on the part of populist voters is kind of like asking me to prove gravity before discussing staircases.

The electorate in general is astonishingly, tremendously irresponsibly and dysfunctionally ignorant politically. It is the greatest weakness of democracy and always has been, in large part because ignorance causes fear and anxiety, causes discontent, causes vulnerability to manipulation.

Both Trump and Sanders present themselves as strong men who will fix everything, stating their ideas with tremendous conviction in very simple phrases that even the most ignorant person can understand. No accident.

(Btw, might not fit your picture of Hillary supporters, but excepting the very few mentions of his attacks on Democrats, I agree virtually entirely with the entire list of quotes Wickiquotes has compiled for Bernie Sanders. There's just too much I don't like about him.)

[JCanete]

16. That isn't true about Sanders campaign in the least.

He has never said he could fix anything alone.

He has kept his message very simple, and that has been a good thing. Clinton has talked out of every side of her mouth and managed to say nothing at all. People take that for sophistication. She's not counting on intelligent people to vote for her, she's counting on people being so baffled by what she says that they think she must be the most qualified for the job. And she gets a lot of help being represented that way.

I absolutely agree with you about our electorate, and I would be lying if I didn't think that Bernie had pulled some people without a clue to his side. But at least he's pulling them to his side with the actual realities of our system. At least he's focusing on those issues that cut to the core of our democracy. At least his message was one of galvanizing the issues of white middle class Americans together with the interests of the poor and minorities, and immigrants. His message was one of common cause...until the Clinton camp and the media did its number on it and went with the old divide and conquer.

It would be cool if maybe we had a better system of education in this country, but that's just the old guy who's preying on our ignorance that wants free college.

See, from my perspective, if you aren't in the top 1% and you are voting for Clinton, then you aren't voting in your self interest, and maybe that's a matter of being just a wee bit ignorant on her actual history and policies. Funny enough, nobody on this board of boards has done a good job of explaining why Clinton is better than Sanders on any issue under the Sun, cept that "she's so wonky..." I will accept that democrats in the top 1% are overwhelmingly pro-Clinton, and she even has plenty of republican support up there, and that they are not generally ignorant on politics, so, well, there's that. What could they see in her?

[laserhaas]

17. They see she's a Clinton and she's a she and she's a Hillary

As for her position on anything

Things - change....

[Doremus]

12. Except coverage of the issues was NOT equal - HRC got 4x more coverage

To follow your logic, since Bernie received 75% less coverage than HRC, he benefited far less from the negative slant.

I say it's a ridiculous assertion that anyone benefits from negative publicity. It is however quite disturbing that the media blatantly ignored certain candidate(s) because the public depends on information to make informed decisions. Is it any wonder how we end up with GWBs and similar plutocrats.

[laserhaas]

13. We are pawns of the media, who have no compunction, nor motivation, to be anything other than self

serving.

In other words - the media knows how to keep the donation dollars going;
which will - sooner or later - wind up in their pockets.

One could argue that they spin - to win.

Without their pushing the emotion buttons - which in turn fans the flames of campaign donations - media outlets would go bankrupt.

[Hortensis]

15. You misunderstood my point, and

I'm pretty sure statisticians would write it up very differently, probably use large databases and very complex and sophisticated computer analyses to try to measure relationships between these apples and oranges.

I did not say she didn't benefit from the volume of coverage.

I said Sanders benefited to a very large degree by its tone, regardless of who and what was being covered. The media reinforced his message that our nation is in crisis every time it reported negatively on anything that happened in our nation or the world, and it was all free, didn't cost him a dime.

Sanders did need to work hard, talk at rallies, buy ads, flood social media with articles and posts, attend debates, etc., to get out his message that he was the only one who could fix it, but that does not negate the substantial uplift the media's pervasive negativism gave his anti-establishment populist theme.

[Doremus]

18. Anyone with a populist message benefits from discontent but the message must be broadcast

to be received.

You can't say that Bernie benefited from general discontent because, with the lack of media coverage of him specifically, many people didn't even know his positions ... and still don't.

[Hortensis]

22. Gotcha. No wonder what's-his-name lost.

Poor little candidate never had a chance against the evil corporatist conspiracy to keep him down, or something like that...?

Or maybe we should recognize that every person who DID hear of him was also exposed to the discontent being spread like a virulent measles virus everywhere the media reach.

(I grabbed the measles virus for my little disease analogy because it can literally ride on motes of dust, carried long distances by the wind, and is extremely infectious. What a shame we don't have a vaccine against the intellectual laziness and dishonesty that make some people especially receptive.)

[ismnotwasm]

11. Still going over this but

Clinton receives among blacks is far higher in states without a paper trail, than the states with a paper trail.

Or

Even when adjusting for the proportion of black voters in a state, the amount that votes for Clinton is still disproportionally higher.
note from the writer, this might indicate that if tampering with the votes has occurred, it would be reasonable to assume that they are added to subgroups which are claimed to heavily favor Hillary Clinton, i.e. black and female voters (for the latter I have not found the time yet)

What is that supposed to mean?

[laserhaas]

14. Me thinks the AP thump was a "Red Herring" to cloak the rigs

If you Black Op - good enough excuse to cause concern

then the Polls purportedly having Bernie & Hillary tied - will not be a point of contention

when they block millenials from the election

[disillusioned73]

20. K&R..

[laserhaas]

21. Thanks

And I do think (given the current empirical proofs) that our nation will only beg for a Bernie Sanders

When we hit absolute ....rock bottom

[bigwillq]

23. I think Hillary won fair and square, but folks should say otherwise

if that's how they feel. I have no issue with that.

[laserhaas]

24. Its only a discussion of facts

If Hillary didnt have all the baggage..was even clise to being like Warren...We'd help her whip Bernie

But every single issue of bias an impurity arose against Bernie ..to favor her...compounded by $achs and such
.

Thank you for your candor

[eastwestdem]

25. Not much of a surprise. nt

[peace13]

26. Election fraud is real.

Read this as though you don't have a dog in the fight and see how weird it feels to see the skewed numbers. We are in deep trouble folks.

[laserhaas]

28. Exactly.....Liking results of fraud because your pick won

Is the worst reason in the world to ignore such

[chknltl]

27. KnR nt

[laserhaas]

29. Thanks

Discussion is all we ask

[chknltl]

30. I regularly just knr-nt stuff i think worthy but...

...I'll add Thom Hartmann has been saying much of the same since Bernie first threw his hat in the ring. Hartmann fans knew who Bernie was prior due to Brunch with Bernie hour on the show each Friday. We also understood some of the corporate media dynamics Bernie would face thanks to Thom.

[laserhaas]

31. Im extremely disheartened as Bernie is our only hope

For justice...in our case against Romney & Goldman Sachs

But it ain't over...till its over

[laserhaas]

32. Now #Guccifer2 supplies new info

And details where WikiLeaks gets the facts from

[laserhaas]

33. Indepth arguments and empirical math studies are found

At the Appendix link at bottom of Stanford paper

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SdmBLFW9gISaqOyyz_fATgaFupI2-n6vWx80XRGUVBo/mobilebasic

[laserhaas]

34. More and more evidence has arose - but those who benefited by such - don't care

It is a sad state of affairs.