Are You Sick Of the MSM Picking our Nominee For US

[illinoisprogressive]

I never paid much attention to primaries before this year so, I don't know if this is normal or what. But, I find this to be interfering in our decision. I have not noticed them doing it so much with the republicans but, mostly with us.
The MSM has declared Hillary to be our nominee. I don't find this right. It is our election and our decision of who we want for our Nominee and no one is the favorite right now. We personally have our own favorites picked out but, for the MSM to basically declare someone as our pick, and a year out, I find irritating.
How do you feel and is this normal for primaries????

[OrangeCountyDemocrat]

1. The MSM Are SCUM!!

I don't give 2 Shits what the Right Wing, Brain Dead, Media scumbags have to say. Especially about something which is 13+ Months away.

Besides, until Al Gore enters the race, all this pre-season crap is meaningless.

[illinoisprogressive]

3. that is just it. what if Gore or Clark get in? They are not allowed by the msm???

[The Count]

25. In 2003 they only polled Clark against W once. he beat him - so they never did

that again....No, they don't want someone really different from their little club. Someone who mat threaten the status quo.

[JackRiddler]

58. Well, Gore will have a secret reserve weapon...

Hollywood cachet as the only Oscar winner in the bunch.

[KansDem]

55. Plus, I'm getting sick and tire of MSM "journalists" heading up the debates...

"Oooh-oooh, they're soooo knowledgeable and omniscient, only they can ask the candidates the real, hard-hitting questions!" Bullshit! Let the professors of the local college or university ask the questions! Let them be instructors from political science, economics, sociology, philosophy, and more...

I just don't think the current crop of "professional journalists" know shit from a hole in the ground (yeah, I know I'm mixing metaphors here...)

[Alamom]

2. Which network or news outlet have you seen declare HRC as "THE" nominee?

I haven't seen it......


edgr

[illinoisprogressive]

9. MSNBC keeps saying she is unbeatable and the democratic nominiee and

matchups against the top two in the repub party. They don't allow for new entries like a possible gore or clark.

Or that she is polling bad in state individual, ect. they say when she is in the general ... blah, blah.
Tweety said she cannot be beaten now. I don't know if it's normal but, I find it wrong to imply this when not everyone has even entered yet. Maybe it's normal every cycle but, I find it alarming to say things like this about anyone.

[WI_DEM]

11. but who specifically says she's "unbeatable", I've not heard that.

[FrenchieCat]

30. Blitzer on CNN said that "she'll most likely be the nominee"....as though

it was a done deal.

This was today.....in the situation propaganda room.

Maybe Blitzer is doing that so that we can get mad at Hillary and support one of the other two candidates that they have chosen as our other options so we don't feel so limited and powerless.

Even the photos or/and footage they choose to use when they report on various candidates are chosen with a particular motive behind them. They talked about Kucinich today, but used footage that made his head look bigger than I remembered Kucinich head size to be. This may seem like that would be unbelievable, but unfortunately, this "election" race is for running the most powerful country in the world....so no small potatoes at stake here!

Some might be quick at discounting what I have just said; the fact that they carefully select at some point the standard "candidate footage" that they will use time and time again when dealing with a particular candidate, e.g., the favorites candidates will be shown in large crowds, smiling an beaming...while others will be shown lone at a microphone, etc....

Very subliminally executed...

But don't believe me....just watch and listen carefully, and the deliberateness of an awful lot of what I am talking about will become obvious to the questioning eyes. Just don't deny what you are seeing when it becomes evident; they rely on it.

[NotGivingUp]

4. i'm very sick of it. but it is useful for one thing...makes it obvious who NOT to pick. n/t

[PADemD]

5. I'm sick and tired of "the" candidate being chosen before my

state (PA) even has a primary.

[Jeanette in FL]

31. Me too

Florida has a later primary and the candidate was already chosen. I still voted for Dennis Kucinich because he is who I wanted.

But the media had already called it for Kerry weeks before my primary.

[WI_DEM]

6. I've heard them say she's "the front runner" according to polls

but then again in the fall of '03, Howard Dean was the front runner according to the polls, and John Kerry was our nominee. Don't worry voters will have their say.

[NV Whino]

7. I agree with you

We had Kerry shoved down our throats last time. Now we get Hillary. They gave Kucinic almost no coverage at all, found ways to diminish Dean and Edwards and totally ignored all the rest. Pisses me off.

Part of the problem was that the Dems had nine candidates. The Repugs had only one.

[Auggie]

8. I've been feeling MSM purposely selects a "star" to promote because it

means better ratings. It's not about issues, but personality, and the general public eats it up.

[illinoisprogressive]

10. They create resentment for some candidates and ignore others who are viable

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

38. Not just a "star". A ROCK STAR!!!

The crappiest description of a presidential candidate in history. I'm pretty sure. MKJ

[redqueen]

12. Corporate-approved candidates are of course shoved down our throats.

Fight it!

Pick a candidate you believe in and get out there and spread the word! :)

[WHAT]

22. Corporate Media; the new self-styled House of Lords...

(where did they get that idea from?) Difference being they are controlling information in order to control resources. They are a miniscule clot in the scheme of things...booming echoes amplified from twitterings.

[dysfunctional press]

13. not to mention- the voters of iowa and new hampshire.

too much importance is placed on the results of the caucus and primary of these two relatively small and rural states.

to be fair, there should be at the very least- a rotating primary schedule that allows every state their turn at going first/earlier in the process. for MANY of us, by the time the campaigns roll in, the candidacy has already been locked up, and our voice has no say in the matter.

[Debi]

19. ONLY by the MSM

When a candidate wins in Iowa or New Hampshire then that's all they've won.

If people would quit watching the MSM and deciding who to vote for based on that then the 'jumping on board' wouldn't occur. It's not Iowa and New Hampshire that get too much importance, it's those that give Iowa and New Hampshire so much importance. And besides, do you think the results would be different if Minnesota and Wisconsin went first and second? or Rhone Island and West Virginia? It doesn't matter who goes first the MSM is going to be screaming the results out 24/7, it's up to the voters to ignore the BS and vote for whom they believe in. Not who they're told to vote for.

[dysfunctional press]

41. regardless of the msm coverage-

the "herd" generally thins considerably after the first week or two of the primaries- and the later states have no real choice or say in the process.

[Debi]

48. So if different states go first more candidates will stay in the race longer?

That really doesn't make any sense. Blame the herd mentality on the herd, not on the voters of Iowa and New Hampshire.

[dysfunctional press]

49. no- that's not the point...

the point is that each state would have a chance to go first in the process, rather than letting it always be the voters of iowa and new hampshire that have an inordinate amount of power to deny otherwise viable candidates.

btw- i'm not "blaming" the voters of iowa and new hampshire- i'm just saying that the process is flawed, especially since those two states in no way represent the vast majority of americans.

[Debi]

51. So, having a California, New York, Texas or Florida go first would

allow the smaller-funded candidates continue on in the process?

Tarmac-to-tarmac campaigns along w/TV and radio ads. Voters never once meeting the candidates to ask them a single question b/c the candidates are too busy attempting to raise the $$ it costs to campaign in states where there are more people in one city than in Iowa and New Hampshire combined. But I guess having the candidate with the most money win is better than allowing two smaller states go first again and again.

[dysfunctional press]

52. again, you just don't seem to get the point...

it's a matter of fairness to all states- while iowa and new hampshire voters always have a wide primary field to choose from, the voters in states that are later in the process are lucky if they get to choose between 2 or 3 candidates.

one idea i've seen discussed would be to divide the country into 5 10-state regions, and each state in a particular region would have their primary/caucus on the same day. and each election cycle, the region that went first would be rotated. while still not an ideal solution, it would definitely be an overall fairer system than the one in place now.

[Debi]

59. Once again I don't see how a lesser-funded candidate could even

get into the race under your scenario. Running a campaign in ten states at once? How could a candidate that wasn't independently wealthy ever even consider running? And really, let's look at your scenario - the West Coast for instance:

ten states:

Arizona (over five million people)
Nevada (over two million people)
Utah (over two million people)
New Mexico (over one million people)
California (over thirty-six million people)
Oregon (over three million people)
Washington (over six million people)
Idaho (over one million people)
Colorado (over four million people)
Wyoming (over five hundred thousand people)

(or Montana) (over nine hundred thousand people)

http://www.infoplease.com/states.html#pop

If a wealthy candidate were to ignore nine states (approx 24,500,000 people) and just campaign in California they would still be campaigning in front of 12,000,000 more people. Just put up the TV ads and hit the bigger cities and there you have it. The candidate wins the primary for that region never setting foot in nine of the states. Of course, the candidates without deep pockets would probably try to get some footing in smaller states, say New Mexico or Montana or Wyoming. But it wouldn't matter, because California votes for the wealthy campaign would wipe them out.

That's why the smaller states go first, to give the lesser known - lesser funded candidate a chance. Your plan would give the five largest states in the set geographic region all the power. No winnowing of the field. No dropping out after campaigning. No candidate without a very deep war chest would even get to start. The race would be over before it even began.

[dysfunctional press]

61. even a lesser-funded candidate should be prepared to run a 50-state campaign.

personally, i think that elections should be publicly funded, and the campaign/primary season shortened considerably.

and btw that's NOT "why" the smaller states go first.

and regardless- the point is still that it's not fair to voters in the states whose primaries are later in the process to always have two rural states that don't truly represent the social make-up of the country whittling down the field of potential candidates. every state should have a chance of being in the first week of the primaries.

it's about equability.

i don't understand why that's so difficult for you to understand.

[Debi]

62. Please enlighten me, why do smaller, more affordable, easier to organize

states go first if not to provide a more even venue in which to run for every candidate?

I agree on your thoughts about public funding for campaigns and a shortened campaign season. Then all candidates who desire to run for office could.

Maybe we could agree to disagree on the calendar and leave this thread in agreement on the funding issue?

[Balbus]

14. Which nominee has the MSM picked?

So there's not going to be any primaries now? You'd think there'd be a bigger outrage because of that. Or...

Are you just too stupid to make a decision for yourself and you're letting the MSM pick the nominee for you? If you don't like Hillary, don't vote for her. There's nothing the MSM can do to make you vote for a person you don't want to - nothing! So stop bitching and moaning because the candidate you happen to prefer is not getting any face time - if they were noteworthy at all, they would be. But you can still vote for them come primary time, noteworthy or not.

[FrenchieCat]

36. You are incorrect, and

being naive, based on what you say...."There's nothing the MSM can do to make you vote for a person you don't want to - nothing!"

They may be nothing that the media says to stop us, but there is plenty the media will and have said that will compel numerous voters to vote exactly how the media determines. The power is in the numbers, if you didn't know. Doesn't much matter what even 100,000 believe, when the media is influencing 10,000,000! Do the math, and understand....it's not your vote they will control, it is the vote of those who are much less informed, who do not the time or the inclination to do much but trust their media sources.

That's why we had a Osama Tape "breaking Story" on October 31, 2004.... a week before the election. It didn't change your mind....but it didn't need to.....cause it changed the mind of just enough for it to count.

[Balbus]

47. Paranoid much?

The MSM's job is to make money. Period. They put on the screen what will make them money. Period. And at this time, Hillary's face is what is making them money. It has nothing to do with "making" someone vote a particular way. The find the best story that will attract the most viewers which will give their advertisers more viewing over the tv screens which means the network can charge more money for the advertising space and make it's investors happy. Money. They can give two-shits who you vote for in the primaries.

[Just-plain-Kathy]

15. the OP is right...It seems like the MSM has already declared her president.

That's because she's a DLC corporate democrat.

Sure, Rupert Murdoch would rather have a republican in the White House, but he’ll help out his pal Hillary. (Didn’t he hold a fund raiser for her?)

Howard Fineman of Newsweek has been making the rounds reporting how Hillary went to her funders and told them to ONLY give to HER.

Could you imagine if she's doing this to ALL her corporate connections??? ...We wouldn't even need a primary.

No wonder Kerry dropped out.

More so than ever we have to have a grass root campaign where WE pick the canidate!

[Tatiana]

16. I would like to see someone do a long, sit-down interview with Gore.

Or Obama.

Or Clark.

Or Edwards.

Can you imagine a debate between nine different candidates?

[Debi]

17. It's not the MSM - It's the people who only get their information from the MSM

If voters research the candidates, go see the candidates (when they can) or at the very least watch C-SPAN's Road to the Whitehouse which shows unscripted campaign events (and of all the candidates, not just a chosen few) then we'd see a more open field for a longer period of time.

It's when people turn on MSNBC/CNN/FOX or the Big Three and see that Hillary won the Iowa Caucuses or Edwards won in New Hampshire and then jump on the band wagon rather than stick to their candidate of choice where the MSM ends up being in control.

Don't let the MSM dictate your choice and they will quit dictating your choice.

[Auggie]

18. Excellent point. And if only they would READ too.

[Lord Byron]

20. Vote your heart in the primary

Vote your brain in the general.

[cadmium]

21. Ask Paul Hackett how this goes?

Once Schumer called the contributers he was out.

[Bjorn Against]

23. They picked Hillary for us eight years ago

I totally agree with what you are saying it sickens me the way that they treat the primaries. I just read an article the other day about who different Hollywood celebrities were endorsing and they said that many celebrities have not decided "which of the three front runners" they were going to endorse as if there were only three candidates and no celebrity would dare step away from those three. I see that kind of crap all the time and pisses me off, I can figure out who the best candidate is without the media trying to tell me who is the most "realistic".

[tom_paine]

24. Yes. They have gone from a passive to an active role

Examples too numerous to cite, and of course the Soviet-like abomination of Fox "News".

Our media is hideously broken. Given how important a strong, healthy, vibrant media is to our continued freedom, it is quite amazing things aren't worse than they are.

But, yes, I am SICK TO DEATH of the fatuous and flatulent MSM Media Whores and their flogging the frontrunner...any frontrunner TWO YEARS before the election.

[davidwparker]

26. I started paying attention when I saw what they did to Dean in 2004. I

used to watch CNN all the time because I thought they were balanced. WRONG.

It is irritating. I've stopped watching mainstream media for anything other than picking up headlines like CNN Headline News.

[Cha]

27. I am Tired of the corporatemediawhores

period.

Let's get 1/2 Million Strong and protest their collect ass.

Without our corporatemedia there would be no bush and all the fucked up world that entailed, entails, and will be entailing for a looooooooooong time.

[Luckyduck]

28. We must FIGHT BACK!

The Corporate media claims it is all about money? Why, because those candidates can advertise? But then the media gives them all the free advertising they could want.

We must show them the POWER OF THE INTERNET!

[Bucky]

29. I do not like them shoving Clinton or Obama down our throats

Either will be an acceptable nominee to me (tho I might wince a little in the former case), but it really pisses me off that for the past three months I've heard nothing but how "inevitable" the show down is between these two.

[DemCam]

60. Like they shoved Dean down our throats last time?

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mikelgb]

33. Let ME pick!

please

[mzmolly]

34. Yep

I sure am. And, I feel it's a bit abnormal because the MSM is more ratings driven than it used to be.

[Individualist]

35. Yes and also tired of DLC picking our nominee for US

[AndyTiedye]

37. That is Because The MSM Wants to Make Sure We Lose

[Raine]

39. Sick to death of it

and getting really mad about it too! :grr:

[leeroysphitz]

40. But it's so much easier that way. Now let's all go to the mall

and pick out a new big screen TV.

[cascadiance]

42. I really hope that Gore's really plotting intelligently when to enter the race!

Not too early so he doesn't get the DLC and their mainstream media whores lined up and able to plot and carry out an outing of him like they did to Dean, and not too late so that he can still get a groundswell of support/publicity to win! I'd like to think my heart is right that he's biding his time now to pick the right time to enter and being intentionally cagey about it so as to not allow the DLC to plan their strategy against him that much.

Part of me almost WANTS a brokered convention with him winning that. If he's waiting until the last minute, it's up to us to make sure that the split between Hillary, Obama, and others is very heavy and not "decided" so that we can get Gore in to "rescue" us at the last minute!

[shadowknows69]

43. Completely

I'm already having nightmares of myself pulling the lever for Hilary in the primes, not wanting to but not being able to stop my own arm.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

44. sk69...

:pals:

It's exhausting to sift for facts through the corporate media's spoon fed pablum. MKJ

[Imagevision]

45. This is the same MSM that ignored the Ohio election fraud festivities...

msm should keep Hillary and McCain contest to themselves, like Edwards or Obama will be controlled and eliminated, come to think of it? - they have alreadt begun...

[Edweird]

46. But... I thought the msm were

The Librul Media :sarcasm:

[mnhtnbb]

50. It's just like advertising for them. They want Hillary, so they're

going to yack about Hillary. They want us to buy Hillary. I'm not buying, and I don't listen to MSM at all anymore. I get my news on-line.
I don't even watch The News Hour--and I did every night for years and years.

The polls are BS. The pollsters don't have access to cell phone numbers.
They don't have access to unlisted numbers. Stop worrying about the MSM and who they are pushing and get to work to support the candidate of your choice.

[bdamomma]

53. are they using the upcoming elections as a distraction to escalating

the war to Iran and Syria, apparently Negroponte is saber rattling. These thugs are a threat to all of us, can't we stop this??

[Luckyduck]

54. absolutely

I just wish I knew how to stop it- there must be something we can do!

[bdamomma]

57. I just sent another e-mail to my Senator and sent one to my Rep

in RI.

[SmokingJacket]

56. They'll veer like a herd of stampeding bison when a Dark Horse

shows up. It always happens!