This is not about candidates specifically, but I had no idea where to put this.
Rural counties around the country have depopulated to the point where quite a few states are set to lose a House seat…this will categorically affect areas that have been voting Republican rather than Democratic. In fact, in my state (Illinois), they’ll probably eliminate one (red, rural) district downstate in response.
If cities are so awful, than why do so many people move there? /rhetorical
(Great news. I found a place for it. 
)
Edit: And some related good news:
In the one sense it’s tragic: more people left behind. In another sense, they’ve been voting for GOP grifters for so long that they’re responsible in part for the misfortune that has anyone who wants a future or anyone who’s “unacceptably” different leaving as quickly as possible.
Of course, the GOP isn’t going to allow the loss of a reliable district for them without a dirty, cheating fight.
And in the intervening time after posting that, I read a (Red State? some drivel like that…oppo research) piece about how liberals are going to cry because the Republicans are going to pick up 6 more Electoral College votes after the census because NY, CA, and IL will all drop one (no understanding that it will be R districts dropped) and the states that increased the most were ones that voted for Trump in 2016 (again, not understanding that WHERE the population increase is located matters, and no sense that quite a few of the people who either laughed or held their nose to vote for Trump in 2016 are not necessarily going to do it again this year).
I’m okay with the 18th district going bye bye:
Basically, NY/CA/IL will drop three electoral votes from their combined total of eleventy billion, and the states that will get an extra electoral vote will be tipped Democratic by the insurgence of Democratic voters into their state.
Yeah, I’m all for an exodus of liberals into states that need them. I’m more supporting of liberals not leaving their (red) home states to begin with, but red states don’t really have the jobs.
I represent that concept!
Yup, which is why I can only do it because I mostly work from a home office when I’m not at meetings.
Virginia is the poster child for that concept. NC may be as well. We shall see how things play out. The events of last week will take a while to sort out, though.
But the term, “enhanced removal-from-office techniques” isn’t in the dictionary.
It’s a good thing that CNBC didn’t have any stock pictures at hand for Keegan Michael Key.
Also, did they leave out Sanders or is he just off to the left of Biden there?
Here’s a pretty good summary from summer 2019:
Apparently the “Squawkbox” story also had Trump, Sanders, and Buttigieg.
To me this looks like just another example of a sloppy or incompetent intern, but whenever I suggest such things here I’m derided for underestimating the evil genius of the major networks, who are cleverly manipulating the election by nefariously making small errors in 0.1% of the news images they present.
Quit whinging. I check cnn.com frequently. They go out of their way to ignore and delete Sanders. It’s glaringly obvious.
ETA: It doesn’t have to be evil genius. Hanlon’s Razor would suggest basic incompetence allowing personal bias to show through in coverage that is supposed to be unbiased.
Yes. Other corporate media too.
Sanders has been treated as a second-class candidate since his first presidential run in 2015. Margaret Sullivan, then the New York Times ’ public editor, admitted that the Times had been “regrettably dismissive, even mocking” of Sanders’ White House bid during the primary season, and pointed out how Trump, by contrast, received wall-to-wall coverage. As The Intercept has pointed out, Clinton got twice as much coverage on TV networks during the primaries as Sanders. A 2016 study from Harvard’s Shorenstein Center found that Clinton garnered triple the amount of overall news coverage that Sanders did.
This dynamic has re-emerged in 2019. Throughout this race, even after Sanders has shown himself to be a serious contender, the media has either given Sanders less coverage than he deserves given his polling numbers, or dealt him disproportionate criticism. In These Times conducted an analysis of presidential race coverage on MSNBC in August and September, and found that in its coverage of Biden, Warren, and Sanders, it was Sanders who received the least coverage and the most negative coverage. (During this time period, Biden was an unsteady frontrunner and Sanders and Warren were neck and neck in national polls until the last two weeks of September, but Sanders was continually shunned during electability-centered discussions.) Katie Halper reported in June for Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting that MSNBC frequently and inexplicably ranks Sanders lower than he actually stands in infographics or makes basic polling reporting errors which are “always to his detriment, and never with any official correction.”
For the the 2 years we lived in Arlington,TX, the school I went to had no walls and it absolutely sucked (stop yelling at your kid, Mrs. Spencer, FFS).
I feel like if you add up number of times Sanders has been ignored in headlines and polls, you’d need to believe in a mass of sloppy interns roughly the size of the moon and we could disprove your thesis by watching the tides.
Yep, now I remember you had done spent time there, and that there was at least one other elementary school there with no walls (besides the one where I went).
And again, just want to emphasize that I’m not bitter…
If it had been longer than two years, I’d be just as not bitter. 
People said that in 2015-6 as well, and it turned out to not be true. The Shorenstein Center report cited above actually says that Sanders coverage was initially low when he was still polling low, but when he started to rise the coverage rose and in 2015 he had the most positive coverage of any candidate. Here are some images from that report (left is Bernie, right is Hillary):
(See also 538 in 2015.) I’m sure the data from 2019-20 will be eventually be analyzed the same way.
The problem is that every erroneous image gets retweeted a million times, and then the Baader–Meinhof effect and selection bias set in.
What I find ironic is that people get all enraged by the alleged mainstream media bias, but for “objective” confirmation turn to sources like the infinitely-retweeted article by Katie Halper (who to her credit makes it explicitly clear in her tweets that she is in the tank for Sanders).
There is no doubt that some media injects strong intentional editorial bias into its coverage, that the mainstream media has a structural centrist bias, and that editorial offices generally favor whatever will attract eyeballs, but the least Alex-Jonesian explanation for things like the infamous Sanders poll screenshot is lazy journalism and inept interns, not malicious intent.
It seems to me that if anyone has a complaint about media bias it is the current frontrunner (Biden), as he gets more news mentions than Sanders and Warren combined but that coverage is relentlessly negative, rehashing every gaffe and more recently mentioning his son whenever possible. Sometimes more coverage isn’t better.
