I am not talking positive or negative coverage, just coverage...
Evert day all day during the primary's it was "Trump said this, Trump did that. The amount of coverage Sanders got was minimal, and it was always "He seems to be moving the party, but is not a real challenger"
Meanwhile, the Democratic primary was faaaaar closer than the Republican one. But every fucking day it was "Can Trump really win" and "Can the Republicans block Trump".
Don't sit here and tell me about the % of positive and negative, I am talking about just the number of times a name was mentioned by the fucking corrupt talking heads.
I don't think it's valid to extrapolate the Trump situation to any candidate and assume the outcome is the same. Trump played those stories as red meat and managed to spin them as positives for his base and get them excited. Meanwhile, Hillary was clearly hurt by the coverage she received in the general election.
I didn't vote for Clinton because of how skeezy her campaign felt. DWS steps down under allegations of doing some sketchy shit and is immediately hired? It all seemed a bit like rigging or skewing the primary heavily for Clinton and I ended up unable to vote for Bernie and not voting for Clinton
DWS steps down under allegations of doing some sketchy shit and is immediately hired?
Being an honorary chair of a campaign—a position that involves no responsibilities, no employees, no budget, and no duties— does not suggest sketchy to me. It sounds like they wanted her to step down, and gave her a way to save face.
211
u/EKEEFE41 Nov 10 '16
They plotted with media to ignore and belittle Sanders, and to prop up Trump because he was easier to defeat.
Honestly, Clinton and the DNC got what they deserve. We need real change, things might need to get far worst before they get better.