https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=Career&cid=n00000019
Time Warner $501,831
I’m not surprised who won the online polls and who impressed the establishment old media. However it would be a mistake to think that somehow Time Warner bosses pulled strings to get Clinton the lead mention in their newspapers. This isn’t Fox News, there’s no direct line from the TW CEO’s office to the newsroom manager at CNN telling them to make one of their reporters write that Clinton won. I feel that the truth is probably that old establishment types populate the newsrooms of the big media corporations moreso than the demographic Sanders resonates with, and that because of that, Clinton’s message impressed them more than Sanders’ message. There’s no conspiracy to push Clinton, they just simply like her more
I note that that figure is from 1996-2016 and the website lists her as “Senator Hillary C.inton”; do you have any more recent data to show that Time Warner has been contributing to her 2016 presidential campaign?
Also, it looks like 476,831 of that came from individuals associated with Time Warner or their families. I don’t think that can reasonably be construed as a donation from Time Warner.
[QUOTE=OpenSecrets]
This table lists the top donors to this candidate in 1999-2016. The organizations themselves did not donate, rather the money came from the organizations’ PACs, their individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals’ immediate families.
[/QUOTE]
Emphasis in original.
Yes and no: https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/contrib.php?id=N00000019&cycle=2016&type=f. Yes, because you can see there that “Time Warner” donated $87k to her presidential campaign. No, because there isn’t enough data there to determine how much is from PACs associated with Time Warner vs. execs vs. regular employees vs. employees’ families.
(Bolding, mine.
That could be said about any Senator elected in that election with a (D) after his or her name, like Sen Franken.
No, if we progressives could purge Congress of people who most impede progress, we’d start with the worst of adaher’s party. There is no ideological purity movement of significance in the Democratic Party, the Sanders camp notwithstanding, certainly not like the one you see tearing the Republicans apart.
Speaking of which, adaher, what are the most noteworthy “accomplishments” *you *point to as part of *their *heritage, by comparison?
And there is no proof that people at the helm in Time Warner did not contribute on behalf of their organisation.
https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/contrib.php?id=N00000019&cycle=2016&type=f
Or could it be that the LSM didn’t report about online polls because online polls are bullshit?
Just sayin’.
Sure. So, to summarize, here’s what we know:
-
Time Warner donated $25k to Clinton’s Senate campaigns starting in 2002 through its PAC
-
Time Warner employees have also made contributions to Clinton’s campaign
-
CNN is owned by Time Warner
-
CNN (along with pretty much every other mainstream organization) declared Clinton the winner of the first Democratic debate
-
Online, non-scientific polls and focus groups of unknown methodology declared Sanders the winner
Are you actually trying to put together some sort of conspiracy theory out of all that?
I don’t think you need help from me to organise some conspiracy theory.
Isn’t there a conflict of interest if the news organisations parent company you’re having a platform on is also the one in which has regularly made payments for you to be in the senate and for the presidential leadership campaign?
They did focus groups as well, and he still won, by a large margin. Even if it is bullshit, you’d think that if Hillary was doing quite well, there’d be some evening out of the poll numbers.
Sorry, man. No meat on that bone.
Perhaps. But not automatically. Responsible media organizations tend to separate actual content concerns (straight news, opinion, etc) from business concerns.
Who is “they”, and how were these focus groups assembled? A gathering of the State U. Feel the Bern club can qualify as one, for instance.
Bullshit is bullshit even if it tells you what you want to hear. Responsible journalists know that and don’t report it.
Polls take a few days to assemble. Check again over the weekend.
There’s a reason OpenSecrets reports it that way, and it’s the same reason there’s a requirement to report employers of contributors over a certain amount. There’s a link on the page. Surely you see how fishy it would look if we discount the CEO’s contributions to the various campaigns as not really being from Time Warner.
Oh, don’t get me wrong, I understand that. But there’s no real breakdown there - oh hell, I already said this:
[QUOTE=me]
there isn’t enough data there to determine how much is from PACs associated with Time Warner vs. execs vs. regular employees vs. employees’ families.
[/QUOTE]
(Bolding added.) I absolutely think it’s reasonable to count executive contributions as being from Time Warner. I don’t think it’s reasonable to count Joe Schmo’s contribution, just because he works there. And given the data as-is, they’re rolled together.
(post shortened)
It’s difficult to believe that “most” Americans would disagree or that those are the real issues that “most” people care about. Both GOP debates outdrew the DNC debate. “More” Americans seem to be “more” interested in what the GOP candidates had to say.
*More than 15 million people tuned in to CNN to watch the Democratic presidential candidates’ debate on Tuesday night, according to Nielsen ratings data provided by the network.
The audience for the debate was nearly two-thirds the size of the two earlier Republican presidential debates,
…The viewership for the Republican debates was slightly less than 24 million on Fox News in August and nearly 23 million on CNN last month*.
Can you think of any other reason that would be? Some sort of trump card the GOP debate organizers might have held?
You can always sell tickets to a circus.
I’ll wait then.
But bear this in mind, in March, Hillary had a lead of around 60%, Sanders had something around 0.5%. Now flash forward 8 months later, her point lead has dropped to the mid 40’s and sanders is hovering around the mid 20’s mark.
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-national-democratic-primary
The clown car is also popular at the circus.