In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
Election Update: It’s Too Soon For Clinton To Run Out The Clock
Last week, Politico reported that Hillary Clinton’s campaign was set to employ a “run out the clock” strategy, declining to respond to recurring controversies even at the risk of seeming nonresponsive. In the abstract, such a strategy could make sense. Clinton has a fairly clear lead in the polls. There are only 10 weeks to go until the Nov. 8 election — and less than that until early voting, which begins in late September in some states.
But Clinton shouldn’t get too complacent. After mixed evidence before, it’s become clearer, at least according to our forecast models, that Donald Trump has regained some ground on her. Clinton’s national lead in our polls-only forecast has gone from a peak of about 8.5 percentage points two weeks ago to 6.5 percentage points as of Sunday evening — that is, a 2-point gain for Trump over two weeks. Correspondingly, Trump’s chances of winning the election have improved from a low of 11 percent to 19 percent.
Trump’s gains have been more modest in our polls-plus forecast, which discounted Clinton’s early August polls because of a potential convention bounce and which anticipated that the race would tighten. In polls-plus, which forecasts that Clinton’s margin over Trump will narrow to roughly 4 percentage points by Election Day, the clock is more of an ally to Clinton and an enemy to Trump. Still, Trump is keeping slightly ahead of the pace of improvement that polls-plus expected of him. His chances of winning are 27 percent according to polls-plus, up slightly from 25 percent a week ago and from a low of 21 percent earlier this month.
[...[
Toward the end of the 2012 campaign, we frequently emphasized the distinction between closeness and uncertainty. President Obama led Mitt Romney by just 1 or 2 percentage points nationally, according to our models, throughout much of the stretch run of that campaign — a close race. But between Obama’s consistently strong numbers in the swing states, the low number of undecided voters, and a strong alignment between polls and economic “fundamentals,” there was a narrow range of plausible outcomes for that election, with most of them resulting in a second Obama term.
This election, at least for the time being, presents something of the opposite case. It isn’t all that close — Clinton is up by around 6 percentage points as best as we can figure, a larger lead than Obama had at almost any point in 2012 or until the very end of the 2008 campaign. But it’s August, and the number of undecided voters is high, and so the outcome remains fairly uncertain. Furthermore, while the state polls are fairly good for Clinton right now, we don’t know how they’ll react if the race tightens further. We’re going on three weeks without a live-caller poll in Pennsylvania, for example.
Coincidentally or not, the Clinton campaign was more proactive last week. It pushed back quite aggressively at an Associated Press story about donations to the Clinton Foundation. And it instigated a fight with Trump over his connections with what Clinton called “the emerging racist ideology known as the alt-right.” Clinton remains in a strong overall position, but she shouldn’t be playing prevent defense yet; we’re still in the equivalent of the third quarter.
she is doing the right thing, she can't respond to her controversies because her responses will only make her seem even more robotic and insincere. She has the media on her side and there is no need for her to enter headlines right now, other than by calling trump names.
Her latest press appearances have been phoned in where she is literally reading off a script, that's how safe she is playing it. In her mind she has already won.
And I agree with you: she doesn't need to do anything when the sycophantic press is ready to "go over the top" for her cause.
It's interesting to read such a claim at a time when both Roger Ailes and Steve Bannon are advising Trump (not to mention others in the conservative media, such as Hannity). In any case, the three studies that I'm aware of about the coverage received so far by the presidential candidates before and during their respective primaries show that Trump received on average a more positive coverage than Clinton. If your statement is based on any actual study rather than your gut feeling, I'd be interested in reading it.
Study: Hillary Clinton, not Donald Trump, gets the most negative media coverage
The biggest news outlets published more negative stories about Hillary Clinton than any other presidential candidate — including Donald Trump — from January 2015 to April 2016, according to an analysis of hundreds of thousands of online stories.
Clinton has not only been hammered by the most negative coverage but the media also wrote the smallest proportion of positive stories about her, reports Crimson Hexagon, a social media software analytics company based out of Boston.
Pre-Primary News Coverage of the 2016 Presidential Race: Trump’s Rise, Sanders’ Emergence, Clinton’s Struggle
A new report from Harvard Kennedy School’s Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy analyzes news coverage of the 2016 presidential candidates in the year leading up to the primaries. This crucial period, labeled “the invisible primary” by political scientists, is when candidates try to lay the groundwork for a winning campaign—with media exposure often playing a make or break role.
The report shows that during the year 2015, major news outlets covered Donald Trump in a way that was unusual given his low initial polling numbers—a high volume of media coverage preceded Trump’s rise in the polls. Trump’s coverage was positive in tone—he received far more “good press” than “bad press.” The volume and tone of the coverage helped propel Trump to the top of Republican polls.
The Democratic race in 2015 received less than half the coverage of the Republican race. Bernie Sanders’ campaign was largely ignored in the early months but, as it began to get coverage, it was overwhelmingly positive in tone. Sanders’ coverage in 2015 was the most favorable of any of the top candidates, Republican or Democratic. For her part, Hillary Clinton had by far the most negative coverage of any candidate. In 11 of the 12 months, her “bad news” outpaced her “good news,” usually by a wide margin, contributing to the increase in her unfavorable poll ratings in 2015.
News Coverage of the 2016 Presidential Primaries: Horse Race Reporting Has Consequences
The news media’s fascination with Donald Trump’s candidacy, which began in 2015, carried into the primary election phase. Week after week, Trump got the most press attention (see Figure 1). [...]
Our earlier study found that, in 2015, Sanders received the most positive coverage of any of the presidential contenders. That pattern carried into the primaries. During the period from January 1 to June 7, positive news statements about Sanders outpaced negative ones by 54 percent to 46 percent (see Figure 2). In fact, Sanders was the only candidate during the primary period to receive a positive balance of coverage. The other candidates’ coverage tilted negative, though in varying degrees. Clinton’s coverage was 53 percent negative to 47 percent positive, which, though unfavorable on balance, was markedly better than her 2015 coverage when she received by far the most negative coverage of any candidate. During that year-long period, two-thirds (69 percent to 31 percent) of what was reported about Clinton was negative in tone.
Trump’s coverage during the primary period was almost evenly balanced, with positive statements about his candidacy (49 percent) nearly equal to negative ones (51 percent). However, the tone of his coverage varied markedly over the course of the primary season. During the period when the Republican nomination was still being contested, Trump’s coverage was positive on balance. News statements about Trump during this period were 53 percent positive to 47 percent negative—nearly as positive as Sanders’. But after Cruz and Kasich dropped from the race in early May, Trump’s coverage nosedived. Over the final five weeks of the primary season, 61 percent of news statements about Trump were negative and only 39 percent were positive—a level of negativity exceeded only by Clinton’s coverage during 2015.
Although one has to be mindful of the methodology used, I still think those results are interesting and largely in line with what my general impression has been. Trump's tanking coverage in recent weeks is, to me, largely due to his missteps (understatement of the year) since the end of the Republican primary and his trailing of Clinton in the polls. If anything, a fear of appearing as partisan has in my opinion often paralyzed some in the media into often making false equivalencies between the opposing sides to avoid accusations of not being balanced (for example between Trump's refusal to release his tax returns, while all major party presidential candidates have done so since Nixon, and Clinton's refusal to release her speech transcripts, something that has never been asked of any presidential candidate... ever?). This is not new or specific to this particular race, however.
He talked about the style of coverage, not the bulk of coverage. Also why snip out one sentence of a two sentence reply in your quote? Approval ratings and media coverage might be quantified in polls, but whether or not the media stumps for Hillary isn't found in those statistics.
The sources I quoted address the "style" of coverage, as in positive, neutral or negative, in addition to the volume of coverage received -- or what kind of metric are you referring to? Anything that can be measured, quantified? Also, I quoted the specific sentence I was replying to, so I'm not sure what the issue is.
Election Update: It’s Too Soon For Clinton To Run Out The Clock
Last week, Politico reported that Hillary Clinton’s campaign was set to employ a “run out the clock” strategy, declining to respond to recurring controversies even at the risk of seeming nonresponsive. In the abstract, such a strategy could make sense. Clinton has a fairly clear lead in the polls. There are only 10 weeks to go until the Nov. 8 election — and less than that until early voting, which begins in late September in some states.
But Clinton shouldn’t get too complacent. After mixed evidence before, it’s become clearer, at least according to our forecast models, that Donald Trump has regained some ground on her. Clinton’s national lead in our polls-only forecast has gone from a peak of about 8.5 percentage points two weeks ago to 6.5 percentage points as of Sunday evening — that is, a 2-point gain for Trump over two weeks. Correspondingly, Trump’s chances of winning the election have improved from a low of 11 percent to 19 percent.
Trump’s gains have been more modest in our polls-plus forecast, which discounted Clinton’s early August polls because of a potential convention bounce and which anticipated that the race would tighten. In polls-plus, which forecasts that Clinton’s margin over Trump will narrow to roughly 4 percentage points by Election Day, the clock is more of an ally to Clinton and an enemy to Trump. Still, Trump is keeping slightly ahead of the pace of improvement that polls-plus expected of him. His chances of winning are 27 percent according to polls-plus, up slightly from 25 percent a week ago and from a low of 21 percent earlier this month.
[...[
Toward the end of the 2012 campaign, we frequently emphasized the distinction between closeness and uncertainty. President Obama led Mitt Romney by just 1 or 2 percentage points nationally, according to our models, throughout much of the stretch run of that campaign — a close race. But between Obama’s consistently strong numbers in the swing states, the low number of undecided voters, and a strong alignment between polls and economic “fundamentals,” there was a narrow range of plausible outcomes for that election, with most of them resulting in a second Obama term.
This election, at least for the time being, presents something of the opposite case. It isn’t all that close — Clinton is up by around 6 percentage points as best as we can figure, a larger lead than Obama had at almost any point in 2012 or until the very end of the 2008 campaign. But it’s August, and the number of undecided voters is high, and so the outcome remains fairly uncertain. Furthermore, while the state polls are fairly good for Clinton right now, we don’t know how they’ll react if the race tightens further. We’re going on three weeks without a live-caller poll in Pennsylvania, for example.
Coincidentally or not, the Clinton campaign was more proactive last week. It pushed back quite aggressively at an Associated Press story about donations to the Clinton Foundation. And it instigated a fight with Trump over his connections with what Clinton called “the emerging racist ideology known as the alt-right.” Clinton remains in a strong overall position, but she shouldn’t be playing prevent defense yet; we’re still in the equivalent of the third quarter.
she is doing the right thing, she can't respond to her controversies because her responses will only make her seem even more robotic and insincere. She has the media on her side and there is no need for her to enter headlines right now, other than by calling trump names.
Her latest press appearances have been phoned in where she is literally reading off a script, that's how safe she is playing it. In her mind she has already won.
And I agree with you: she doesn't need to do anything when the sycophantic press is ready to "go over the top" for her cause.
It's interesting to read such a claim at a time when both Roger Ailes and Steve Bannon are advising Trump (not to mention others in the conservative media, such as Hannity). In any case, the three studies that I'm aware of about the coverage received so far by the presidential candidates before and during their respective primaries show that Trump received on average a more positive coverage than Clinton. If your statement is based on any actual study rather than your gut feeling, I'd be interested in reading it.
Study: Hillary Clinton, not Donald Trump, gets the most negative media coverage
The biggest news outlets published more negative stories about Hillary Clinton than any other presidential candidate — including Donald Trump — from January 2015 to April 2016, according to an analysis of hundreds of thousands of online stories.
Clinton has not only been hammered by the most negative coverage but the media also wrote the smallest proportion of positive stories about her, reports Crimson Hexagon, a social media software analytics company based out of Boston.
Pre-Primary News Coverage of the 2016 Presidential Race: Trump’s Rise, Sanders’ Emergence, Clinton’s Struggle
A new report from Harvard Kennedy School’s Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy analyzes news coverage of the 2016 presidential candidates in the year leading up to the primaries. This crucial period, labeled “the invisible primary” by political scientists, is when candidates try to lay the groundwork for a winning campaign—with media exposure often playing a make or break role.
The report shows that during the year 2015, major news outlets covered Donald Trump in a way that was unusual given his low initial polling numbers—a high volume of media coverage preceded Trump’s rise in the polls. Trump’s coverage was positive in tone—he received far more “good press” than “bad press.” The volume and tone of the coverage helped propel Trump to the top of Republican polls.
The Democratic race in 2015 received less than half the coverage of the Republican race. Bernie Sanders’ campaign was largely ignored in the early months but, as it began to get coverage, it was overwhelmingly positive in tone. Sanders’ coverage in 2015 was the most favorable of any of the top candidates, Republican or Democratic. For her part, Hillary Clinton had by far the most negative coverage of any candidate. In 11 of the 12 months, her “bad news” outpaced her “good news,” usually by a wide margin, contributing to the increase in her unfavorable poll ratings in 2015.
News Coverage of the 2016 Presidential Primaries: Horse Race Reporting Has Consequences
The news media’s fascination with Donald Trump’s candidacy, which began in 2015, carried into the primary election phase. Week after week, Trump got the most press attention (see Figure 1). [...]
Our earlier study found that, in 2015, Sanders received the most positive coverage of any of the presidential contenders. That pattern carried into the primaries. During the period from January 1 to June 7, positive news statements about Sanders outpaced negative ones by 54 percent to 46 percent (see Figure 2). In fact, Sanders was the only candidate during the primary period to receive a positive balance of coverage. The other candidates’ coverage tilted negative, though in varying degrees. Clinton’s coverage was 53 percent negative to 47 percent positive, which, though unfavorable on balance, was markedly better than her 2015 coverage when she received by far the most negative coverage of any candidate. During that year-long period, two-thirds (69 percent to 31 percent) of what was reported about Clinton was negative in tone.
Trump’s coverage during the primary period was almost evenly balanced, with positive statements about his candidacy (49 percent) nearly equal to negative ones (51 percent). However, the tone of his coverage varied markedly over the course of the primary season. During the period when the Republican nomination was still being contested, Trump’s coverage was positive on balance. News statements about Trump during this period were 53 percent positive to 47 percent negative—nearly as positive as Sanders’. But after Cruz and Kasich dropped from the race in early May, Trump’s coverage nosedived. Over the final five weeks of the primary season, 61 percent of news statements about Trump were negative and only 39 percent were positive—a level of negativity exceeded only by Clinton’s coverage during 2015.
Although one has to be mindful of the methodology used, I still think those results are interesting and largely in line with what my general impression has been. Trump's tanking coverage in recent weeks is, to me, largely due to his missteps (understatement of the year) since the end of the Republican primary and his trailing of Clinton in the polls. If anything, a fear of appearing as partisan has in my opinion often paralyzed some in the media into often making false equivalencies between the opposing sides to avoid accusations of not being balanced (for example between Trump's refusal to release his tax returns, while all major party presidential candidates have done so since Nixon, and Clinton's refusal to release her speech transcripts, something that has never been asked of any presidential candidate... ever?). This is not new or specific to this particular race, however.
He talked about the style of coverage, not the bulk of coverage. Also why snip out one sentence of a two sentence reply in your quote? Approval ratings and media coverage might be quantified in polls, but whether or not the media stumps for Hillary isn't found in those statistics.
The sources I quoted address the "style" of coverage, as in positive, neutral or negative, in addition to the volume of coverage received -- or what kind of metric are you referring to? Anything that can be measured, quantified? Also, I quoted the specific sentence I was replying to, so I'm not sure what the issue is.
Yes when I said style I did not mean volume of stories divided into positive or negative or uncertain. All nuance and softball setups, misdirections, and lessening of charges is lost if you're looking for bins to put stories in to generate statistics. It's there to read or watch with your naked eye and gather from experience over time. I'm just honestly surprised you quoted several sources like everyone was waiting for definitive proof to surface that the media's been unbiased or biased the whole other way. It's still the rose-colored glasses people like you wear, and it's shared by people that think Fox News has been fair and balanced this election. This has been one of the better elections to view the difference if you ask me.
She should honestly just say the same thing about his taxes
She should ignore this idiotic request. Women are on average healthier and live longer than men. There's also no way to confirm the accuracy of a medical history.
Election Update: It’s Too Soon For Clinton To Run Out The Clock
Last week, Politico reported that Hillary Clinton’s campaign was set to employ a “run out the clock” strategy, declining to respond to recurring controversies even at the risk of seeming nonresponsive. In the abstract, such a strategy could make sense. Clinton has a fairly clear lead in the polls. There are only 10 weeks to go until the Nov. 8 election — and less than that until early voting, which begins in late September in some states.
But Clinton shouldn’t get too complacent. After mixed evidence before, it’s become clearer, at least according to our forecast models, that Donald Trump has regained some ground on her. Clinton’s national lead in our polls-only forecast has gone from a peak of about 8.5 percentage points two weeks ago to 6.5 percentage points as of Sunday evening — that is, a 2-point gain for Trump over two weeks. Correspondingly, Trump’s chances of winning the election have improved from a low of 11 percent to 19 percent.
Trump’s gains have been more modest in our polls-plus forecast, which discounted Clinton’s early August polls because of a potential convention bounce and which anticipated that the race would tighten. In polls-plus, which forecasts that Clinton’s margin over Trump will narrow to roughly 4 percentage points by Election Day, the clock is more of an ally to Clinton and an enemy to Trump. Still, Trump is keeping slightly ahead of the pace of improvement that polls-plus expected of him. His chances of winning are 27 percent according to polls-plus, up slightly from 25 percent a week ago and from a low of 21 percent earlier this month.
[...[
Toward the end of the 2012 campaign, we frequently emphasized the distinction between closeness and uncertainty. President Obama led Mitt Romney by just 1 or 2 percentage points nationally, according to our models, throughout much of the stretch run of that campaign — a close race. But between Obama’s consistently strong numbers in the swing states, the low number of undecided voters, and a strong alignment between polls and economic “fundamentals,” there was a narrow range of plausible outcomes for that election, with most of them resulting in a second Obama term.
This election, at least for the time being, presents something of the opposite case. It isn’t all that close — Clinton is up by around 6 percentage points as best as we can figure, a larger lead than Obama had at almost any point in 2012 or until the very end of the 2008 campaign. But it’s August, and the number of undecided voters is high, and so the outcome remains fairly uncertain. Furthermore, while the state polls are fairly good for Clinton right now, we don’t know how they’ll react if the race tightens further. We’re going on three weeks without a live-caller poll in Pennsylvania, for example.
Coincidentally or not, the Clinton campaign was more proactive last week. It pushed back quite aggressively at an Associated Press story about donations to the Clinton Foundation. And it instigated a fight with Trump over his connections with what Clinton called “the emerging racist ideology known as the alt-right.” Clinton remains in a strong overall position, but she shouldn’t be playing prevent defense yet; we’re still in the equivalent of the third quarter.
she is doing the right thing, she can't respond to her controversies because her responses will only make her seem even more robotic and insincere. She has the media on her side and there is no need for her to enter headlines right now, other than by calling trump names.
Her latest press appearances have been phoned in where she is literally reading off a script, that's how safe she is playing it. In her mind she has already won.
And I agree with you: she doesn't need to do anything when the sycophantic press is ready to "go over the top" for her cause.
It's interesting to read such a claim at a time when both Roger Ailes and Steve Bannon are advising Trump (not to mention others in the conservative media, such as Hannity). In any case, the three studies that I'm aware of about the coverage received so far by the presidential candidates before and during their respective primaries show that Trump received on average a more positive coverage than Clinton. If your statement is based on any actual study rather than your gut feeling, I'd be interested in reading it.
Study: Hillary Clinton, not Donald Trump, gets the most negative media coverage
The biggest news outlets published more negative stories about Hillary Clinton than any other presidential candidate — including Donald Trump — from January 2015 to April 2016, according to an analysis of hundreds of thousands of online stories.
Clinton has not only been hammered by the most negative coverage but the media also wrote the smallest proportion of positive stories about her, reports Crimson Hexagon, a social media software analytics company based out of Boston.
Pre-Primary News Coverage of the 2016 Presidential Race: Trump’s Rise, Sanders’ Emergence, Clinton’s Struggle
A new report from Harvard Kennedy School’s Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy analyzes news coverage of the 2016 presidential candidates in the year leading up to the primaries. This crucial period, labeled “the invisible primary” by political scientists, is when candidates try to lay the groundwork for a winning campaign—with media exposure often playing a make or break role.
The report shows that during the year 2015, major news outlets covered Donald Trump in a way that was unusual given his low initial polling numbers—a high volume of media coverage preceded Trump’s rise in the polls. Trump’s coverage was positive in tone—he received far more “good press” than “bad press.” The volume and tone of the coverage helped propel Trump to the top of Republican polls.
The Democratic race in 2015 received less than half the coverage of the Republican race. Bernie Sanders’ campaign was largely ignored in the early months but, as it began to get coverage, it was overwhelmingly positive in tone. Sanders’ coverage in 2015 was the most favorable of any of the top candidates, Republican or Democratic. For her part, Hillary Clinton had by far the most negative coverage of any candidate. In 11 of the 12 months, her “bad news” outpaced her “good news,” usually by a wide margin, contributing to the increase in her unfavorable poll ratings in 2015.
News Coverage of the 2016 Presidential Primaries: Horse Race Reporting Has Consequences
The news media’s fascination with Donald Trump’s candidacy, which began in 2015, carried into the primary election phase. Week after week, Trump got the most press attention (see Figure 1). [...]
Our earlier study found that, in 2015, Sanders received the most positive coverage of any of the presidential contenders. That pattern carried into the primaries. During the period from January 1 to June 7, positive news statements about Sanders outpaced negative ones by 54 percent to 46 percent (see Figure 2). In fact, Sanders was the only candidate during the primary period to receive a positive balance of coverage. The other candidates’ coverage tilted negative, though in varying degrees. Clinton’s coverage was 53 percent negative to 47 percent positive, which, though unfavorable on balance, was markedly better than her 2015 coverage when she received by far the most negative coverage of any candidate. During that year-long period, two-thirds (69 percent to 31 percent) of what was reported about Clinton was negative in tone.
Trump’s coverage during the primary period was almost evenly balanced, with positive statements about his candidacy (49 percent) nearly equal to negative ones (51 percent). However, the tone of his coverage varied markedly over the course of the primary season. During the period when the Republican nomination was still being contested, Trump’s coverage was positive on balance. News statements about Trump during this period were 53 percent positive to 47 percent negative—nearly as positive as Sanders’. But after Cruz and Kasich dropped from the race in early May, Trump’s coverage nosedived. Over the final five weeks of the primary season, 61 percent of news statements about Trump were negative and only 39 percent were positive—a level of negativity exceeded only by Clinton’s coverage during 2015.
Although one has to be mindful of the methodology used, I still think those results are interesting and largely in line with what my general impression has been. Trump's tanking coverage in recent weeks is, to me, largely due to his missteps (understatement of the year) since the end of the Republican primary and his trailing of Clinton in the polls. If anything, a fear of appearing as partisan has in my opinion often paralyzed some in the media into often making false equivalencies between the opposing sides to avoid accusations of not being balanced (for example between Trump's refusal to release his tax returns, while all major party presidential candidates have done so since Nixon, and Clinton's refusal to release her speech transcripts, something that has never been asked of any presidential candidate... ever?). This is not new or specific to this particular race, however.
He talked about the style of coverage, not the bulk of coverage. Also why snip out one sentence of a two sentence reply in your quote? Approval ratings and media coverage might be quantified in polls, but whether or not the media stumps for Hillary isn't found in those statistics.
The sources I quoted address the "style" of coverage, as in positive, neutral or negative, in addition to the volume of coverage received -- or what kind of metric are you referring to? Anything that can be measured, quantified? Also, I quoted the specific sentence I was replying to, so I'm not sure what the issue is.
Yes when I said style I did not mean volume of stories divided into positive or negative or uncertain. All nuance and softball setups, misdirections, and lessening of charges is lost if you're looking for bins to put stories in to generate statistics. It's there to read or watch with your naked eye and gather from experience over time. I'm just honestly surprised you quoted several sources like everyone was waiting for definitive proof to surface that the media's been unbiased or biased the whole other way. It's still the rose-colored glasses people like you wear, and it's shared by people that think Fox News has been fair and balanced this election. This has been one of the better elections to view the difference if you ask me.
I don't think "it's there to read or watch with your naked eye" is a very helpful way of answering the question, since my naked eye apparently disagrees with your naked eye. You're saying I'm wearing "rose-colored glasses", and I could simply say the same about you. If you want the debate to actually move forward, at one point there's a need to look at data and analyses instead of relying on each poster's subjective view of the situation. The analyses don't even necessarily need to be quantitative in nature, but if you're going to argue that "the media stumps for Hillary", your evidence should be a little bit more substantial than "well, it does, can't you see?" if this is to be a productive discussion.
It's certainly fair to say that journalists have preferences between the candidates -- most of them vote, after all. There's a difference in saying that this affects their journalistic treatment of the candidates; while this is certainly the case for many, we are discussing differences in treatment at the systemic level and not simply a few individual examples. Personally, I therefore think that the studies I've referenced are very useful in getting a general picture of the nature of the coverage the candidates have received so far. In my opinion, the negative coverage devoted to Trump in recent weeks has been the result of his own declarations, actions, and poll numbers. If Clinton had been saying what Trump has been saying, I am absolutely sure that it would have been covered just as much, and probably even more so since she hasn't made as much of a habit of making utterly ignorant and insulting statements relating to policy, individuals and world events. Indeed, Trump being covered negatively for the nonsense that he spews would only be an unfair difference in treatment if Clinton wouldn't be covered as much if she said the same things, and history has shown that every single controversy that gets brought up about her, whether completely imagined or not, gets plenty of coverage.
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the embattled former chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), will seek to survive a serious primary challenge from a liberal rival on Tuesday.
The primary will cap a tough summer for the Florida Democrat, who decided to resign from the DNC on the eve of the Democratic National Convention, after leaked emails showed that staffers at her organization appeared to be plotting ways to undermine the presidential campaign of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).
Wasserman Schultz took a public beating from the left during the presidential primaries, and was booed at a breakfast meeting of her own state delegation at the Democratic convention.
Yet she is considered the favorite to win Tuesday's primary over law professor Tim Canova, who has sought to take advantage of her national difficulties.
Wasserman Schultz has deep relationships in her district that go back to 1992, when she first won election to the state legislature. When she was elected to the House in 2004, she became Florida’s first Jewish congresswoman.
Party strategists said loyalty to Wasserman Schultz in the predominantly Jewish district will be tough for Canova to shake.
“It’d be one thing if she wasn’t doing those things and she’d sort of lost touch. But she remains heavily engaged in the district,” said Florida-based Democratic strategist Steve Schale. “She has the kind of relationships with people that only come with being in office for that long.”
Moreover, the district doesn’t appear to be an especially fertile place for an anti-establishment challenger. Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton overwhelmingly won the primary there against Sanders, 68 percent to 31 percent.
Canova has argued that Wasserman Schultz’s troubles from her tenure as DNC chairwoman are getting tiresome for people in the district she’s represented since 2005.
“It’s this stupid drama that follows her around everywhere, and people just want representation at this point,” Canova told The Hill.
Even before the DNC hack, Wasserman Schultz was viewed as a symbol of establishment opposition to Sanders’s candidacy during the Democratic primaries.
The leaked emails served to bolster Sanders supporters’ suspicions that Wasserman Schultz sought to undermine Sanders and help Clinton.
Canova, a political newcomer, has presented his underdog campaign in the mold of Sanders, complete with an impressive fundraising haul of more than $3.5 million, with an average donation of $22, since his bid launched in January.
Despite endorsing Canova and boosting his profile earlier this summer, however, Sanders has been conspicuously absent in the race’s final days.
As recently as last month, Sanders indicated that he might campaign for Canova. But he hasn’t shown up in Florida on behalf of the political upstart, and a Sanders spokesman did not respond to a request for comment.
Canova acknowledged that he hasn’t heard from Sanders’s campaign recently.
He told the left-leaning “The Young Turks” web series on Tuesday that “it is a bit disappointing” that Sanders hasn’t stumped for him.
"We are hoping that the Sanders campaign does still come through, that Bernie comes through, and makes an appearance for us, or at the very least helps us raise some more money during such a critical period down the home stretch,” Canova said.
But in an interview with The Hill a few days later, Canova tried to downplay any influence a Sanders appearance would have on helping energize voters to go to the polls.
“At this point, maybe it’ll be a distraction,” Canova said. “We’re going to win this, no matter who comes to town.”
Wasserman Schultz, meanwhile, has recruited a number of high-profile Democrats to campaign with her in the Miami-area district, including Clinton, Vice President Biden, former Rep. Gabby Giffords (Ariz.) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.).
A spokesman for Wasserman Schultz declined to make the congresswoman available for an interview.
Recent polls have shown Wasserman Schultz well ahead of Canova. A South Florida Sun Sentinel/Florida Atlantic University poll released last week found Wasserman Schultz with a 10-point lead and higher favorability ratings among Democratic voters than Canova. An internal poll released by Canova’s campaign late last month showed him behind by 8 points.
Multiple Florida politics watchers agreed that Canova didn’t capitalize on the controversy surrounding Wasserman Schultz’s resignation from the DNC as aggressively as he could have during the sole primary debate this month.
During the debate, Wasserman Schultz condemned an email that showed DNC staffers discussing whether to go after Sanders’s religion, saying she never would have approved it.
Canova highlighted another email in the hack that showed Wasserman Schultz complaining to MSNBC about negative coverage, suggesting she wasn’t entirely in support of free speech. But later in the debate, Canova said he agreed with Wasserman Schultz that the emails weren’t an issue most important to voters.
“This was a prime opportunity to jump on the negative attention going to Wasserman Schultz after she resigned as party chair. But Canova hasn’t been effective in translating that into voter anger,” said Sean Foreman, a political science professor at Barry University.
Canova has also cast a spotlight on apparent shifts in policy positions by Wasserman Schultz on issues such as President Obama’s Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal and hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, both of which he opposes.
Wasserman Schultz voted for legislation last year to expedite the approval process for the TPP but has said she’s still evaluating the contents of the actual trade deal.
On fracking, Wasserman Schultz said during the debate that she’d be open to it if there were “significant regulations.” Her campaign later released a statement emphasizing that she opposes it.
A victory by the incumbent on Tuesday might still not be the end for Wasserman Schultz and the Democratic establishment, as the district and national party primaries have exposed internal divisions among liberals.
“I think the party’s trying to figure out who they are,” said Kathryn DePalo, a political science professor at Florida International University who lives in the district. “Even if Wasserman Schultz wins, they’re changing. She’s got a whole chunk of voters who dislike her. And I don’t think it’s just her — I think it’s the whole establishment.”
On August 29 2016 12:13 kwizach wrote: If Clinton had been saying what Trump has been saying, I am absolutely sure that it would have been covered just as much, and probably even more so since she hasn't made as much of a habit of making utterly ignorant and insulting statements relating to policy, individuals and world events. Indeed, Trump being covered negatively for the nonsense that he spews would only be an unfair difference in treatment if Clinton wouldn't be covered as much if she said the same things, and history has shown that every single controversy that gets brought up about her, whether completely imagined or not, gets plenty of coverage.
If Clinton were to make Trump-like statements and receive the same or slightly more negative coverage for them, that would be worrying and wouldn't show that the media isn't biased towards her or that the media is biased towards Trump. Getting more coverage would be a basic manifestation of the 'man bites dog' journalistic mantra, these two have been in the public eye for decades and of course that Clinton saying "Sorry losers and haters, but my I.Q. is one of the highest -and you all know it! Please don't feel so stupid or insecure,it's not your fault" would be mucher bigger news than Trump saying it.
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the embattled former chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), will seek to survive a serious primary challenge from a liberal rival on Tuesday.
The primary will cap a tough summer for the Florida Democrat, who decided to resign from the DNC on the eve of the Democratic National Convention, after leaked emails showed that staffers at her organization appeared to be plotting ways to undermine the presidential campaign of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).
Wasserman Schultz took a public beating from the left during the presidential primaries, and was booed at a breakfast meeting of her own state delegation at the Democratic convention.
Yet she is considered the favorite to win Tuesday's primary over law professor Tim Canova, who has sought to take advantage of her national difficulties.
Wasserman Schultz has deep relationships in her district that go back to 1992, when she first won election to the state legislature. When she was elected to the House in 2004, she became Florida’s first Jewish congresswoman.
Party strategists said loyalty to Wasserman Schultz in the predominantly Jewish district will be tough for Canova to shake.
“It’d be one thing if she wasn’t doing those things and she’d sort of lost touch. But she remains heavily engaged in the district,” said Florida-based Democratic strategist Steve Schale. “She has the kind of relationships with people that only come with being in office for that long.”
Moreover, the district doesn’t appear to be an especially fertile place for an anti-establishment challenger. Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton overwhelmingly won the primary there against Sanders, 68 percent to 31 percent.
Canova has argued that Wasserman Schultz’s troubles from her tenure as DNC chairwoman are getting tiresome for people in the district she’s represented since 2005.
“It’s this stupid drama that follows her around everywhere, and people just want representation at this point,” Canova told The Hill.
Even before the DNC hack, Wasserman Schultz was viewed as a symbol of establishment opposition to Sanders’s candidacy during the Democratic primaries.
The leaked emails served to bolster Sanders supporters’ suspicions that Wasserman Schultz sought to undermine Sanders and help Clinton.
Canova, a political newcomer, has presented his underdog campaign in the mold of Sanders, complete with an impressive fundraising haul of more than $3.5 million, with an average donation of $22, since his bid launched in January.
Despite endorsing Canova and boosting his profile earlier this summer, however, Sanders has been conspicuously absent in the race’s final days.
As recently as last month, Sanders indicated that he might campaign for Canova. But he hasn’t shown up in Florida on behalf of the political upstart, and a Sanders spokesman did not respond to a request for comment.
Canova acknowledged that he hasn’t heard from Sanders’s campaign recently.
He told the left-leaning “The Young Turks” web series on Tuesday that “it is a bit disappointing” that Sanders hasn’t stumped for him.
"We are hoping that the Sanders campaign does still come through, that Bernie comes through, and makes an appearance for us, or at the very least helps us raise some more money during such a critical period down the home stretch,” Canova said.
But in an interview with The Hill a few days later, Canova tried to downplay any influence a Sanders appearance would have on helping energize voters to go to the polls.
“At this point, maybe it’ll be a distraction,” Canova said. “We’re going to win this, no matter who comes to town.”
Wasserman Schultz, meanwhile, has recruited a number of high-profile Democrats to campaign with her in the Miami-area district, including Clinton, Vice President Biden, former Rep. Gabby Giffords (Ariz.) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.).
A spokesman for Wasserman Schultz declined to make the congresswoman available for an interview.
Recent polls have shown Wasserman Schultz well ahead of Canova. A South Florida Sun Sentinel/Florida Atlantic University poll released last week found Wasserman Schultz with a 10-point lead and higher favorability ratings among Democratic voters than Canova. An internal poll released by Canova’s campaign late last month showed him behind by 8 points.
Multiple Florida politics watchers agreed that Canova didn’t capitalize on the controversy surrounding Wasserman Schultz’s resignation from the DNC as aggressively as he could have during the sole primary debate this month.
During the debate, Wasserman Schultz condemned an email that showed DNC staffers discussing whether to go after Sanders’s religion, saying she never would have approved it.
Canova highlighted another email in the hack that showed Wasserman Schultz complaining to MSNBC about negative coverage, suggesting she wasn’t entirely in support of free speech. But later in the debate, Canova said he agreed with Wasserman Schultz that the emails weren’t an issue most important to voters.
“This was a prime opportunity to jump on the negative attention going to Wasserman Schultz after she resigned as party chair. But Canova hasn’t been effective in translating that into voter anger,” said Sean Foreman, a political science professor at Barry University.
Canova has also cast a spotlight on apparent shifts in policy positions by Wasserman Schultz on issues such as President Obama’s Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal and hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, both of which he opposes.
Wasserman Schultz voted for legislation last year to expedite the approval process for the TPP but has said she’s still evaluating the contents of the actual trade deal.
On fracking, Wasserman Schultz said during the debate that she’d be open to it if there were “significant regulations.” Her campaign later released a statement emphasizing that she opposes it.
A victory by the incumbent on Tuesday might still not be the end for Wasserman Schultz and the Democratic establishment, as the district and national party primaries have exposed internal divisions among liberals.
“I think the party’s trying to figure out who they are,” said Kathryn DePalo, a political science professor at Florida International University who lives in the district. “Even if Wasserman Schultz wins, they’re changing. She’s got a whole chunk of voters who dislike her. And I don’t think it’s just her — I think it’s the whole establishment.”
Short version: DWS made a lot of enemies recently, but her home district likes her so she's pretty likely to survive.
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the embattled former chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), will seek to survive a serious primary challenge from a liberal rival on Tuesday.
...
Recent polls have shown Wasserman Schultz well ahead of Canova. A South Florida Sun Sentinel/Florida Atlantic University poll released last week found Wasserman Schultz with a 10-point lead and higher favorability ratings among Democratic voters than Canova. An internal poll released by Canova’s campaign late last month showed him behind by 8 points.
Election Update: It’s Too Soon For Clinton To Run Out The Clock
Last week, Politico reported that Hillary Clinton’s campaign was set to employ a “run out the clock” strategy, declining to respond to recurring controversies even at the risk of seeming nonresponsive. In the abstract, such a strategy could make sense. Clinton has a fairly clear lead in the polls. There are only 10 weeks to go until the Nov. 8 election — and less than that until early voting, which begins in late September in some states.
But Clinton shouldn’t get too complacent. After mixed evidence before, it’s become clearer, at least according to our forecast models, that Donald Trump has regained some ground on her. Clinton’s national lead in our polls-only forecast has gone from a peak of about 8.5 percentage points two weeks ago to 6.5 percentage points as of Sunday evening — that is, a 2-point gain for Trump over two weeks. Correspondingly, Trump’s chances of winning the election have improved from a low of 11 percent to 19 percent.
Trump’s gains have been more modest in our polls-plus forecast, which discounted Clinton’s early August polls because of a potential convention bounce and which anticipated that the race would tighten. In polls-plus, which forecasts that Clinton’s margin over Trump will narrow to roughly 4 percentage points by Election Day, the clock is more of an ally to Clinton and an enemy to Trump. Still, Trump is keeping slightly ahead of the pace of improvement that polls-plus expected of him. His chances of winning are 27 percent according to polls-plus, up slightly from 25 percent a week ago and from a low of 21 percent earlier this month.
[...[
Toward the end of the 2012 campaign, we frequently emphasized the distinction between closeness and uncertainty. President Obama led Mitt Romney by just 1 or 2 percentage points nationally, according to our models, throughout much of the stretch run of that campaign — a close race. But between Obama’s consistently strong numbers in the swing states, the low number of undecided voters, and a strong alignment between polls and economic “fundamentals,” there was a narrow range of plausible outcomes for that election, with most of them resulting in a second Obama term.
This election, at least for the time being, presents something of the opposite case. It isn’t all that close — Clinton is up by around 6 percentage points as best as we can figure, a larger lead than Obama had at almost any point in 2012 or until the very end of the 2008 campaign. But it’s August, and the number of undecided voters is high, and so the outcome remains fairly uncertain. Furthermore, while the state polls are fairly good for Clinton right now, we don’t know how they’ll react if the race tightens further. We’re going on three weeks without a live-caller poll in Pennsylvania, for example.
Coincidentally or not, the Clinton campaign was more proactive last week. It pushed back quite aggressively at an Associated Press story about donations to the Clinton Foundation. And it instigated a fight with Trump over his connections with what Clinton called “the emerging racist ideology known as the alt-right.” Clinton remains in a strong overall position, but she shouldn’t be playing prevent defense yet; we’re still in the equivalent of the third quarter.
she is doing the right thing, she can't respond to her controversies because her responses will only make her seem even more robotic and insincere. She has the media on her side and there is no need for her to enter headlines right now, other than by calling trump names.
Her latest press appearances have been phoned in where she is literally reading off a script, that's how safe she is playing it. In her mind she has already won.
And I agree with you: she doesn't need to do anything when the sycophantic press is ready to "go over the top" for her cause.
It's interesting to read such a claim at a time when both Roger Ailes and Steve Bannon are advising Trump (not to mention others in the conservative media, such as Hannity). In any case, the three studies that I'm aware of about the coverage received so far by the presidential candidates before and during their respective primaries show that Trump received on average a more positive coverage than Clinton. If your statement is based on any actual study rather than your gut feeling, I'd be interested in reading it.
Study: Hillary Clinton, not Donald Trump, gets the most negative media coverage
The biggest news outlets published more negative stories about Hillary Clinton than any other presidential candidate — including Donald Trump — from January 2015 to April 2016, according to an analysis of hundreds of thousands of online stories.
Clinton has not only been hammered by the most negative coverage but the media also wrote the smallest proportion of positive stories about her, reports Crimson Hexagon, a social media software analytics company based out of Boston.
Pre-Primary News Coverage of the 2016 Presidential Race: Trump’s Rise, Sanders’ Emergence, Clinton’s Struggle
A new report from Harvard Kennedy School’s Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy analyzes news coverage of the 2016 presidential candidates in the year leading up to the primaries. This crucial period, labeled “the invisible primary” by political scientists, is when candidates try to lay the groundwork for a winning campaign—with media exposure often playing a make or break role.
The report shows that during the year 2015, major news outlets covered Donald Trump in a way that was unusual given his low initial polling numbers—a high volume of media coverage preceded Trump’s rise in the polls. Trump’s coverage was positive in tone—he received far more “good press” than “bad press.” The volume and tone of the coverage helped propel Trump to the top of Republican polls.
The Democratic race in 2015 received less than half the coverage of the Republican race. Bernie Sanders’ campaign was largely ignored in the early months but, as it began to get coverage, it was overwhelmingly positive in tone. Sanders’ coverage in 2015 was the most favorable of any of the top candidates, Republican or Democratic. For her part, Hillary Clinton had by far the most negative coverage of any candidate. In 11 of the 12 months, her “bad news” outpaced her “good news,” usually by a wide margin, contributing to the increase in her unfavorable poll ratings in 2015.
News Coverage of the 2016 Presidential Primaries: Horse Race Reporting Has Consequences
The news media’s fascination with Donald Trump’s candidacy, which began in 2015, carried into the primary election phase. Week after week, Trump got the most press attention (see Figure 1). [...]
Our earlier study found that, in 2015, Sanders received the most positive coverage of any of the presidential contenders. That pattern carried into the primaries. During the period from January 1 to June 7, positive news statements about Sanders outpaced negative ones by 54 percent to 46 percent (see Figure 2). In fact, Sanders was the only candidate during the primary period to receive a positive balance of coverage. The other candidates’ coverage tilted negative, though in varying degrees. Clinton’s coverage was 53 percent negative to 47 percent positive, which, though unfavorable on balance, was markedly better than her 2015 coverage when she received by far the most negative coverage of any candidate. During that year-long period, two-thirds (69 percent to 31 percent) of what was reported about Clinton was negative in tone.
Trump’s coverage during the primary period was almost evenly balanced, with positive statements about his candidacy (49 percent) nearly equal to negative ones (51 percent). However, the tone of his coverage varied markedly over the course of the primary season. During the period when the Republican nomination was still being contested, Trump’s coverage was positive on balance. News statements about Trump during this period were 53 percent positive to 47 percent negative—nearly as positive as Sanders’. But after Cruz and Kasich dropped from the race in early May, Trump’s coverage nosedived. Over the final five weeks of the primary season, 61 percent of news statements about Trump were negative and only 39 percent were positive—a level of negativity exceeded only by Clinton’s coverage during 2015.
Although one has to be mindful of the methodology used, I still think those results are interesting and largely in line with what my general impression has been. Trump's tanking coverage in recent weeks is, to me, largely due to his missteps (understatement of the year) since the end of the Republican primary and his trailing of Clinton in the polls. If anything, a fear of appearing as partisan has in my opinion often paralyzed some in the media into often making false equivalencies between the opposing sides to avoid accusations of not being balanced (for example between Trump's refusal to release his tax returns, while all major party presidential candidates have done so since Nixon, and Clinton's refusal to release her speech transcripts, something that has never been asked of any presidential candidate... ever?). This is not new or specific to this particular race, however.
He talked about the style of coverage, not the bulk of coverage. Also why snip out one sentence of a two sentence reply in your quote? Approval ratings and media coverage might be quantified in polls, but whether or not the media stumps for Hillary isn't found in those statistics.
The sources I quoted address the "style" of coverage, as in positive, neutral or negative, in addition to the volume of coverage received -- or what kind of metric are you referring to? Anything that can be measured, quantified? Also, I quoted the specific sentence I was replying to, so I'm not sure what the issue is.
Yes when I said style I did not mean volume of stories divided into positive or negative or uncertain. All nuance and softball setups, misdirections, and lessening of charges is lost if you're looking for bins to put stories in to generate statistics. It's there to read or watch with your naked eye and gather from experience over time. I'm just honestly surprised you quoted several sources like everyone was waiting for definitive proof to surface that the media's been unbiased or biased the whole other way. It's still the rose-colored glasses people like you wear, and it's shared by people that think Fox News has been fair and balanced this election. This has been one of the better elections to view the difference if you ask me.
I don't think "it's there to read or watch with your naked eye" is a very helpful way of answering the question, since my naked eye apparently disagrees with your naked eye. You're saying I'm wearing "rose-colored glasses", and I could simply say the same about you. If you want the debate to actually move forward, at one point there's a need to look at data and analyses instead of relying on each poster's subjective view of the situation. The analyses don't even necessarily need to be quantitative in nature, but if you're going to argue that "the media stumps for Hillary", your evidence should be a little bit more substantial than "well, it does, can't you see?" if this is to be a productive discussion.
It's certainly fair to say that journalists have preferences between the candidates -- most of them vote, after all. There's a difference in saying that this affects their journalistic treatment of the candidates; while this is certainly the case for many, we are discussing differences in treatment at the systemic level and not simply a few individual examples. Personally, I therefore think that the studies I've referenced are very useful in getting a general picture of the nature of the coverage the candidates have received so far. In my opinion, the negative coverage devoted to Trump in recent weeks has been the result of his own declarations, actions, and poll numbers. If Clinton had been saying what Trump has been saying, I am absolutely sure that it would have been covered just as much, and probably even more so since she hasn't made as much of a habit of making utterly ignorant and insulting statements relating to policy, individuals and world events. Indeed, Trump being covered negatively for the nonsense that he spews would only be an unfair difference in treatment if Clinton wouldn't be covered as much if she said the same things, and history has shown that every single controversy that gets brought up about her, whether completely imagined or not, gets plenty of coverage.
It's the stuff that came before it that answers your question. Reread and answer to that avenue if you wish. It points to the very inability to move that debate, when two people can look at the same media coverage and come to opposite conclusions. It's been happening with Trump and Hillary for the entire campaign so if you weren't convinced before, you won't be convinced now. I brought up just before and I bring it up again now: no productive discussion can be had on that topic.
And like you heard before and again, your citations would be useful if we were arguing wholesale squelching of negative news stories since even your Post & Times have to mention them in passing for decorum. I'm sorry if I gave the impression with my response that I considered a wide view at coverage from statistical and analytical viewpoints to be at all useful. I might peruse some Harvard study on foreign policy or tax policy because that could be interesting, but not this. I'm very cynical on some subjects for the ability of posters to ever change their mind. Liberal media bias and steady Team Hillary push in the major outlets is definitely one of them. I merely remarked since you're spitting out sources on story volume and some funny stuff from Bernie days when the man clearly wasn't doing long dialectic arguing for a sycophantic press.
Election Update: It’s Too Soon For Clinton To Run Out The Clock
Last week, Politico reported that Hillary Clinton’s campaign was set to employ a “run out the clock” strategy, declining to respond to recurring controversies even at the risk of seeming nonresponsive. In the abstract, such a strategy could make sense. Clinton has a fairly clear lead in the polls. There are only 10 weeks to go until the Nov. 8 election — and less than that until early voting, which begins in late September in some states.
But Clinton shouldn’t get too complacent. After mixed evidence before, it’s become clearer, at least according to our forecast models, that Donald Trump has regained some ground on her. Clinton’s national lead in our polls-only forecast has gone from a peak of about 8.5 percentage points two weeks ago to 6.5 percentage points as of Sunday evening — that is, a 2-point gain for Trump over two weeks. Correspondingly, Trump’s chances of winning the election have improved from a low of 11 percent to 19 percent.
Trump’s gains have been more modest in our polls-plus forecast, which discounted Clinton’s early August polls because of a potential convention bounce and which anticipated that the race would tighten. In polls-plus, which forecasts that Clinton’s margin over Trump will narrow to roughly 4 percentage points by Election Day, the clock is more of an ally to Clinton and an enemy to Trump. Still, Trump is keeping slightly ahead of the pace of improvement that polls-plus expected of him. His chances of winning are 27 percent according to polls-plus, up slightly from 25 percent a week ago and from a low of 21 percent earlier this month.
[...[
Toward the end of the 2012 campaign, we frequently emphasized the distinction between closeness and uncertainty. President Obama led Mitt Romney by just 1 or 2 percentage points nationally, according to our models, throughout much of the stretch run of that campaign — a close race. But between Obama’s consistently strong numbers in the swing states, the low number of undecided voters, and a strong alignment between polls and economic “fundamentals,” there was a narrow range of plausible outcomes for that election, with most of them resulting in a second Obama term.
This election, at least for the time being, presents something of the opposite case. It isn’t all that close — Clinton is up by around 6 percentage points as best as we can figure, a larger lead than Obama had at almost any point in 2012 or until the very end of the 2008 campaign. But it’s August, and the number of undecided voters is high, and so the outcome remains fairly uncertain. Furthermore, while the state polls are fairly good for Clinton right now, we don’t know how they’ll react if the race tightens further. We’re going on three weeks without a live-caller poll in Pennsylvania, for example.
Coincidentally or not, the Clinton campaign was more proactive last week. It pushed back quite aggressively at an Associated Press story about donations to the Clinton Foundation. And it instigated a fight with Trump over his connections with what Clinton called “the emerging racist ideology known as the alt-right.” Clinton remains in a strong overall position, but she shouldn’t be playing prevent defense yet; we’re still in the equivalent of the third quarter.
she is doing the right thing, she can't respond to her controversies because her responses will only make her seem even more robotic and insincere. She has the media on her side and there is no need for her to enter headlines right now, other than by calling trump names.
Her latest press appearances have been phoned in where she is literally reading off a script, that's how safe she is playing it. In her mind she has already won.
And I agree with you: she doesn't need to do anything when the sycophantic press is ready to "go over the top" for her cause.
It's interesting to read such a claim at a time when both Roger Ailes and Steve Bannon are advising Trump (not to mention others in the conservative media, such as Hannity). In any case, the three studies that I'm aware of about the coverage received so far by the presidential candidates before and during their respective primaries show that Trump received on average a more positive coverage than Clinton. If your statement is based on any actual study rather than your gut feeling, I'd be interested in reading it.
Study: Hillary Clinton, not Donald Trump, gets the most negative media coverage
The biggest news outlets published more negative stories about Hillary Clinton than any other presidential candidate — including Donald Trump — from January 2015 to April 2016, according to an analysis of hundreds of thousands of online stories.
Clinton has not only been hammered by the most negative coverage but the media also wrote the smallest proportion of positive stories about her, reports Crimson Hexagon, a social media software analytics company based out of Boston.
Pre-Primary News Coverage of the 2016 Presidential Race: Trump’s Rise, Sanders’ Emergence, Clinton’s Struggle
A new report from Harvard Kennedy School’s Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy analyzes news coverage of the 2016 presidential candidates in the year leading up to the primaries. This crucial period, labeled “the invisible primary” by political scientists, is when candidates try to lay the groundwork for a winning campaign—with media exposure often playing a make or break role.
The report shows that during the year 2015, major news outlets covered Donald Trump in a way that was unusual given his low initial polling numbers—a high volume of media coverage preceded Trump’s rise in the polls. Trump’s coverage was positive in tone—he received far more “good press” than “bad press.” The volume and tone of the coverage helped propel Trump to the top of Republican polls.
The Democratic race in 2015 received less than half the coverage of the Republican race. Bernie Sanders’ campaign was largely ignored in the early months but, as it began to get coverage, it was overwhelmingly positive in tone. Sanders’ coverage in 2015 was the most favorable of any of the top candidates, Republican or Democratic. For her part, Hillary Clinton had by far the most negative coverage of any candidate. In 11 of the 12 months, her “bad news” outpaced her “good news,” usually by a wide margin, contributing to the increase in her unfavorable poll ratings in 2015.
News Coverage of the 2016 Presidential Primaries: Horse Race Reporting Has Consequences
The news media’s fascination with Donald Trump’s candidacy, which began in 2015, carried into the primary election phase. Week after week, Trump got the most press attention (see Figure 1). [...]
Our earlier study found that, in 2015, Sanders received the most positive coverage of any of the presidential contenders. That pattern carried into the primaries. During the period from January 1 to June 7, positive news statements about Sanders outpaced negative ones by 54 percent to 46 percent (see Figure 2). In fact, Sanders was the only candidate during the primary period to receive a positive balance of coverage. The other candidates’ coverage tilted negative, though in varying degrees. Clinton’s coverage was 53 percent negative to 47 percent positive, which, though unfavorable on balance, was markedly better than her 2015 coverage when she received by far the most negative coverage of any candidate. During that year-long period, two-thirds (69 percent to 31 percent) of what was reported about Clinton was negative in tone.
Trump’s coverage during the primary period was almost evenly balanced, with positive statements about his candidacy (49 percent) nearly equal to negative ones (51 percent). However, the tone of his coverage varied markedly over the course of the primary season. During the period when the Republican nomination was still being contested, Trump’s coverage was positive on balance. News statements about Trump during this period were 53 percent positive to 47 percent negative—nearly as positive as Sanders’. But after Cruz and Kasich dropped from the race in early May, Trump’s coverage nosedived. Over the final five weeks of the primary season, 61 percent of news statements about Trump were negative and only 39 percent were positive—a level of negativity exceeded only by Clinton’s coverage during 2015.
Although one has to be mindful of the methodology used, I still think those results are interesting and largely in line with what my general impression has been. Trump's tanking coverage in recent weeks is, to me, largely due to his missteps (understatement of the year) since the end of the Republican primary and his trailing of Clinton in the polls. If anything, a fear of appearing as partisan has in my opinion often paralyzed some in the media into often making false equivalencies between the opposing sides to avoid accusations of not being balanced (for example between Trump's refusal to release his tax returns, while all major party presidential candidates have done so since Nixon, and Clinton's refusal to release her speech transcripts, something that has never been asked of any presidential candidate... ever?). This is not new or specific to this particular race, however.
He talked about the style of coverage, not the bulk of coverage. Also why snip out one sentence of a two sentence reply in your quote? Approval ratings and media coverage might be quantified in polls, but whether or not the media stumps for Hillary isn't found in those statistics.
The sources I quoted address the "style" of coverage, as in positive, neutral or negative, in addition to the volume of coverage received -- or what kind of metric are you referring to? Anything that can be measured, quantified? Also, I quoted the specific sentence I was replying to, so I'm not sure what the issue is.
Yes when I said style I did not mean volume of stories divided into positive or negative or uncertain. All nuance and softball setups, misdirections, and lessening of charges is lost if you're looking for bins to put stories in to generate statistics. It's there to read or watch with your naked eye and gather from experience over time. I'm just honestly surprised you quoted several sources like everyone was waiting for definitive proof to surface that the media's been unbiased or biased the whole other way. It's still the rose-colored glasses people like you wear, and it's shared by people that think Fox News has been fair and balanced this election. This has been one of the better elections to view the difference if you ask me.
I don't think "it's there to read or watch with your naked eye" is a very helpful way of answering the question, since my naked eye apparently disagrees with your naked eye. You're saying I'm wearing "rose-colored glasses", and I could simply say the same about you. If you want the debate to actually move forward, at one point there's a need to look at data and analyses instead of relying on each poster's subjective view of the situation. The analyses don't even necessarily need to be quantitative in nature, but if you're going to argue that "the media stumps for Hillary", your evidence should be a little bit more substantial than "well, it does, can't you see?" if this is to be a productive discussion.
It's certainly fair to say that journalists have preferences between the candidates -- most of them vote, after all. There's a difference in saying that this affects their journalistic treatment of the candidates; while this is certainly the case for many, we are discussing differences in treatment at the systemic level and not simply a few individual examples. Personally, I therefore think that the studies I've referenced are very useful in getting a general picture of the nature of the coverage the candidates have received so far. In my opinion, the negative coverage devoted to Trump in recent weeks has been the result of his own declarations, actions, and poll numbers. If Clinton had been saying what Trump has been saying, I am absolutely sure that it would have been covered just as much, and probably even more so since she hasn't made as much of a habit of making utterly ignorant and insulting statements relating to policy, individuals and world events. Indeed, Trump being covered negatively for the nonsense that he spews would only be an unfair difference in treatment if Clinton wouldn't be covered as much if she said the same things, and history has shown that every single controversy that gets brought up about her, whether completely imagined or not, gets plenty of coverage.
It's the stuff that came before it that answers your question. Reread and answer to that avenue if you wish. It points to the very inability to move that debate, when two people can look at the same media coverage and come to opposite conclusions. It's been happening with Trump and Hillary for the entire campaign so if you weren't convinced before, you won't be convinced now. I brought up just before and I bring it up again now: no productive discussion can be had on that topic.
And like you heard before and again, your citations would be useful if we were arguing wholesale squelching of negative news stories since even your Post & Times have to mention them in passing for decorum. I'm sorry if I gave the impression with my response that I considered a wide view at coverage from statistical and analytical viewpoints to be at all useful. I might peruse some Harvard study on foreign policy or tax policy because that could be interesting, but not this. I'm very cynical on some subjects for the ability of posters to ever change their mind. Liberal media bias and steady Team Hillary push in the major outlets is definitely one of them. I merely remarked since you're spitting out sources on story volume and some funny stuff from Bernie days when the man clearly wasn't doing long dialectic arguing for a sycophantic press.
If you think no productive discussion can be had on that topic, the solution seems pretty simple: don't participate in a discussion on that topic. As I said, your argument seems to be "the media stumps for Clinton because clearly it does" -- you're not saying much else. That's great, but I happen to disagree -- I find your use of "the media" as if it was a monolith simplistic and unhelpful, and your assertion that it "stumps for Clinton" on a systemic level is so far unsubstantiated. The sources I've referenced, meanwhile, do provide some basis for discussion, especially given the evolution in coverage tone they point to for some candidates. The amount of negative coverage that Clinton has received since before the Democratic primary certainly seems to indicate that there is more to this issue than the idea that the media is "stumping" for her. As I wrote, "in my opinion, the negative coverage devoted to Trump in recent weeks has been the result of his own declarations, actions, and poll numbers" -- of course, we can add his campaign issues to that list. If there are two candidates in a race and one of them comes with a stream of gaffes, insults and ignorant statements, reporting on these is not unfair or revelatory of media bias. Not reporting on similar incidents from the second candidate would be, and so far there's nothing indicating that the media isn't paying attention to, and reporting on, anything controversial coming from the Clinton camp.
she is doing the right thing, she can't respond to her controversies because her responses will only make her seem even more robotic and insincere. She has the media on her side and there is no need for her to enter headlines right now, other than by calling trump names.
Her latest press appearances have been phoned in where she is literally reading off a script, that's how safe she is playing it. In her mind she has already won.
And I agree with you: she doesn't need to do anything when the sycophantic press is ready to "go over the top" for her cause.
It's interesting to read such a claim at a time when both Roger Ailes and Steve Bannon are advising Trump (not to mention others in the conservative media, such as Hannity). In any case, the three studies that I'm aware of about the coverage received so far by the presidential candidates before and during their respective primaries show that Trump received on average a more positive coverage than Clinton. If your statement is based on any actual study rather than your gut feeling, I'd be interested in reading it.
Study: Hillary Clinton, not Donald Trump, gets the most negative media coverage
The biggest news outlets published more negative stories about Hillary Clinton than any other presidential candidate — including Donald Trump — from January 2015 to April 2016, according to an analysis of hundreds of thousands of online stories.
Clinton has not only been hammered by the most negative coverage but the media also wrote the smallest proportion of positive stories about her, reports Crimson Hexagon, a social media software analytics company based out of Boston.
Pre-Primary News Coverage of the 2016 Presidential Race: Trump’s Rise, Sanders’ Emergence, Clinton’s Struggle
A new report from Harvard Kennedy School’s Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy analyzes news coverage of the 2016 presidential candidates in the year leading up to the primaries. This crucial period, labeled “the invisible primary” by political scientists, is when candidates try to lay the groundwork for a winning campaign—with media exposure often playing a make or break role.
The report shows that during the year 2015, major news outlets covered Donald Trump in a way that was unusual given his low initial polling numbers—a high volume of media coverage preceded Trump’s rise in the polls. Trump’s coverage was positive in tone—he received far more “good press” than “bad press.” The volume and tone of the coverage helped propel Trump to the top of Republican polls.
The Democratic race in 2015 received less than half the coverage of the Republican race. Bernie Sanders’ campaign was largely ignored in the early months but, as it began to get coverage, it was overwhelmingly positive in tone. Sanders’ coverage in 2015 was the most favorable of any of the top candidates, Republican or Democratic. For her part, Hillary Clinton had by far the most negative coverage of any candidate. In 11 of the 12 months, her “bad news” outpaced her “good news,” usually by a wide margin, contributing to the increase in her unfavorable poll ratings in 2015.
News Coverage of the 2016 Presidential Primaries: Horse Race Reporting Has Consequences
The news media’s fascination with Donald Trump’s candidacy, which began in 2015, carried into the primary election phase. Week after week, Trump got the most press attention (see Figure 1). [...]
Our earlier study found that, in 2015, Sanders received the most positive coverage of any of the presidential contenders. That pattern carried into the primaries. During the period from January 1 to June 7, positive news statements about Sanders outpaced negative ones by 54 percent to 46 percent (see Figure 2). In fact, Sanders was the only candidate during the primary period to receive a positive balance of coverage. The other candidates’ coverage tilted negative, though in varying degrees. Clinton’s coverage was 53 percent negative to 47 percent positive, which, though unfavorable on balance, was markedly better than her 2015 coverage when she received by far the most negative coverage of any candidate. During that year-long period, two-thirds (69 percent to 31 percent) of what was reported about Clinton was negative in tone.
Trump’s coverage during the primary period was almost evenly balanced, with positive statements about his candidacy (49 percent) nearly equal to negative ones (51 percent). However, the tone of his coverage varied markedly over the course of the primary season. During the period when the Republican nomination was still being contested, Trump’s coverage was positive on balance. News statements about Trump during this period were 53 percent positive to 47 percent negative—nearly as positive as Sanders’. But after Cruz and Kasich dropped from the race in early May, Trump’s coverage nosedived. Over the final five weeks of the primary season, 61 percent of news statements about Trump were negative and only 39 percent were positive—a level of negativity exceeded only by Clinton’s coverage during 2015.
Although one has to be mindful of the methodology used, I still think those results are interesting and largely in line with what my general impression has been. Trump's tanking coverage in recent weeks is, to me, largely due to his missteps (understatement of the year) since the end of the Republican primary and his trailing of Clinton in the polls. If anything, a fear of appearing as partisan has in my opinion often paralyzed some in the media into often making false equivalencies between the opposing sides to avoid accusations of not being balanced (for example between Trump's refusal to release his tax returns, while all major party presidential candidates have done so since Nixon, and Clinton's refusal to release her speech transcripts, something that has never been asked of any presidential candidate... ever?). This is not new or specific to this particular race, however.
He talked about the style of coverage, not the bulk of coverage. Also why snip out one sentence of a two sentence reply in your quote? Approval ratings and media coverage might be quantified in polls, but whether or not the media stumps for Hillary isn't found in those statistics.
The sources I quoted address the "style" of coverage, as in positive, neutral or negative, in addition to the volume of coverage received -- or what kind of metric are you referring to? Anything that can be measured, quantified? Also, I quoted the specific sentence I was replying to, so I'm not sure what the issue is.
Yes when I said style I did not mean volume of stories divided into positive or negative or uncertain. All nuance and softball setups, misdirections, and lessening of charges is lost if you're looking for bins to put stories in to generate statistics. It's there to read or watch with your naked eye and gather from experience over time. I'm just honestly surprised you quoted several sources like everyone was waiting for definitive proof to surface that the media's been unbiased or biased the whole other way. It's still the rose-colored glasses people like you wear, and it's shared by people that think Fox News has been fair and balanced this election. This has been one of the better elections to view the difference if you ask me.
I don't think "it's there to read or watch with your naked eye" is a very helpful way of answering the question, since my naked eye apparently disagrees with your naked eye. You're saying I'm wearing "rose-colored glasses", and I could simply say the same about you. If you want the debate to actually move forward, at one point there's a need to look at data and analyses instead of relying on each poster's subjective view of the situation. The analyses don't even necessarily need to be quantitative in nature, but if you're going to argue that "the media stumps for Hillary", your evidence should be a little bit more substantial than "well, it does, can't you see?" if this is to be a productive discussion.
It's certainly fair to say that journalists have preferences between the candidates -- most of them vote, after all. There's a difference in saying that this affects their journalistic treatment of the candidates; while this is certainly the case for many, we are discussing differences in treatment at the systemic level and not simply a few individual examples. Personally, I therefore think that the studies I've referenced are very useful in getting a general picture of the nature of the coverage the candidates have received so far. In my opinion, the negative coverage devoted to Trump in recent weeks has been the result of his own declarations, actions, and poll numbers. If Clinton had been saying what Trump has been saying, I am absolutely sure that it would have been covered just as much, and probably even more so since she hasn't made as much of a habit of making utterly ignorant and insulting statements relating to policy, individuals and world events. Indeed, Trump being covered negatively for the nonsense that he spews would only be an unfair difference in treatment if Clinton wouldn't be covered as much if she said the same things, and history has shown that every single controversy that gets brought up about her, whether completely imagined or not, gets plenty of coverage.
It's the stuff that came before it that answers your question. Reread and answer to that avenue if you wish. It points to the very inability to move that debate, when two people can look at the same media coverage and come to opposite conclusions. It's been happening with Trump and Hillary for the entire campaign so if you weren't convinced before, you won't be convinced now. I brought up just before and I bring it up again now: no productive discussion can be had on that topic.
And like you heard before and again, your citations would be useful if we were arguing wholesale squelching of negative news stories since even your Post & Times have to mention them in passing for decorum. I'm sorry if I gave the impression with my response that I considered a wide view at coverage from statistical and analytical viewpoints to be at all useful. I might peruse some Harvard study on foreign policy or tax policy because that could be interesting, but not this. I'm very cynical on some subjects for the ability of posters to ever change their mind. Liberal media bias and steady Team Hillary push in the major outlets is definitely one of them. I merely remarked since you're spitting out sources on story volume and some funny stuff from Bernie days when the man clearly wasn't doing long dialectic arguing for a sycophantic press.
If you think no productive discussion can be had on that topic, the solution seems pretty simple: don't participate in a discussion on that topic. As I said, your argument seems to be "the media stumps for Clinton because clearly it does" -- you're not saying much else. That's great, but I happen to disagree -- I find your use of "the media" as if it was a monolith simplistic and unhelpful, and your assertion that it "stumps for Clinton" on a systemic level is so far unsubstantiated. The sources I've referenced, meanwhile, do provide some basis for discussion, especially given the evolution in coverage tone they point to for some candidates. The amount of negative coverage that Clinton has received since before the Democratic primary certainly seems to indicate that there is more to this issue than the idea that the media is "stumping" for her. As I wrote, "in my opinion, the negative coverage devoted to Trump in recent weeks has been the result of his own declarations, actions, and poll numbers" -- of course, we can add his campaign issues to that list. If there are two candidates in a race and one of them comes with a stream of gaffes, insults and ignorant statements, reporting on these is not unfair or revelatory of media bias. Not reporting on similar incidents from the second candidate would be, and so far there's nothing indicating that the media isn't paying attention to, and reporting on, anything controversial coming from the Clinton camp.
Whatever, man. You clearly are very passionate about the subject and I should've seen that with the flurry to sources to challenge two lines (one line?) containing a little jab. I sincerely hope you find someone here or elsewhere that will take it that far with you.
On August 29 2016 16:34 hunts wrote: I'm confused how people accuse the media of being anti trump when literally all they do is report the exact things he says.
I think it's the way they're often laughing/snickering when they report on him that gets people, but also the "oh boy here we go again" kind of attitude that we're getting from the media whenever they report on something about Trump.
On August 29 2016 16:34 hunts wrote: I'm confused how people accuse the media of being anti trump when literally all they do is report the exact things he says.
While I don't really hold an opinion either way, a lot of the reasoning behind media bias isn't overtly expressed opinions or spin, but rather what the media chooses to report or not report. You can be reporting individual events objectively, but when you report a lot more on the crazy things one candidate is saying and not on the other, it's reasonable to suspect bias.
Whether the intense scrutiny of Trump by the media is because he's actually saying/doing more crazy things or because of biased reporting is part of the debate in question. It's honestly most likely that both are true. Trump is being more intensely scrutinized by the media both because he's saying crazy shit *and* because of biased reporting.
EPT
