Archive for Hillary Next POTUS

The Media’s Coverage of Hillary Clinton Is Downright Irresponsible. Hillary Beats All Opposition Democrats And Republicans!

Posted in 2016 Presidency, Hillary Clinton, Media Bias For GOP, Politics with tags , , , , , , , , , , , on September 7, 2015 by sheriffali

All of the Media; 1,500 Television Stations; 9,000 Radio Stations; 1,500 News Papers; 1,100 Magazines; 2,400 Publishers Are All Owned By Six [6] Corporations That Are Acting As Proxies For the Republican Party In An Attempt To Dislodge Hillary Clinton’s Campaign. They Are Manufacturing False Information Because Big Business Want A Republican In The White House That Will Again Fill Their Pockets While America And Americans Crash And Burn As Was The Case Under George W Bush, Dick Cheney And The Republican Controlled Congress.

Read The Real Facts, Hillary Clinton Is Stronger Than Ever!

 

 

Casual observers of recent media coverage would reasonably conclude that the Hillary Clinton campaign is in serious trouble. Headlines across news sources allege her falling poll numbers and once secure spot of the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination. But a closer inspection of the most recent poll by Quinnipiac University that has spawned the headlines “Hillary slips, Trump rises in national poll” and “Hillary Clinton Hits Lows on Favorability, Trustworthiness in new poll,” among hundreds of others, reveals a very different story–Hillary Clinton’s position is strong and her opponents are the ones who are in trouble.

 

Here is what the poll really shows about Clinton:

 

 

  1. She wins the Democratic nomination handily: Clinton beats Sanders by a whopping 23 points (45 percent vs. 22 percent) and Biden by 27 points. For all the talk of Sanders’ surge and Biden’s popularity, Democratic voters overwhelmingly favor Clinton as their nominee.
  2. She beats the Republicans: Clinton tops Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, and Donald Trump in head-to-head match-ups. Curiously, this result didn’t even make it into Quinnipiac’s press release narrative.

 

  1. She wins demographic groups that are key to success in 2016: Journalists have made much of Biden’s lead among Republican contenders, but a closer look at the data reveals that among key demographic groups that historically have decided elections, Clinton does better. This is especially true compared to Sanders, whose limited appealto college-educated white men has been well-documented. For example, against Bush, Clinton claims 92 percent of the vote among African Americans, and 55 percent among Latinos. Biden only gets 84 percent of the African American vote, Sanders gets 79 percent. Less than half (49 percent) of Latinos prefer Sanders over Bush, a margin that would seriously hurt the Democrats’ chance of winning the White House. Clinton also outperforms among younger voters compared to Biden and Sanders.

 

  1. Everyone’s favorability ratings are suffering: Clinton isn’t the only one with net negative favorability scores–voters also have negative impressions of both Bush and Trump. Clinton is also more liked among members of her Party (76 percent of Democrats give her a positive rating) than Bush and Trump among Republicans (59 percent favorable).

    5. She is seen as a stronger leader than both Sanders and Biden: Lost in the buzz about her trustworthiness scores is an arguably even more important score–leadership qualities. A majority of voters (57 percent) say Clinton has strong leadership qualities compared to 35 percent who say the same about Sanders and 46 percent about Biden. The Clinton campaign still has time to improve Clinton’s image when it comes to perceptions of honesty, but leadership qualities and experience are different–either you have them or you don’t. Biden and Sanders aren’t going to be able to fake the impressive resume and qualifications that Clinton has. This may be why that although the media has emphasized the negative words voters associate with Clinton, words like “experience” and “strong” top the list too.

 

I’m not the first to notice the media’s biased, even sometimes downright inaccurate coverage of Hillary Clinton. Journalists seem almost gleeful in their framing of Clinton’s “fall.” And I would be remiss not to mention how the idea of women like Hillary Clinton, who unabashedly seek power, make people uncomfortable, and sometimes angry.

 

 

The media’s power to set the agenda and frame issues is a powerful one, because it influences the public’s attitudes and political choices. Journalists have a choice in what they cover and how they cover it, and in this instance, many chose to focus on Clinton’s vulnerability. But as now should be clear, that’s not the whole story, and effectively this kind of journalism disservices the public. We rely on the news media for political information, and while in any process conducted by human beings, some level of bias is inevitable, the coverage of Clinton is more than just biased, it’s downright irresponsible.

 

 

Twitter @sheriffali

 

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brittany-l-stalsburg-phd/hillary-clintons-poll-num_b_8066832.html

 WHITE HOUSE - 2016 MEDIA PROXIES FOR GOP 2 WHITE HOUSE - 2016 MEDIA PROXIES FOR GOP

 

 

Hillary Clinton Hits Jeb Bush First, And Hard, In Speech On Race. By The Time Jeb Bush Got To The Lectern Declaring “I Believe In The Right To Rise In This Country,” The Scent Of Political Gun-Powder Was Still In The Air!

Posted in 2016, Politics with tags , , , , , , , , , , , on July 31, 2015 by sheriffali

[NYT] FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. — Jeb Bush and his aides had envisioned a big, inclusive, high-minded speech about race on Friday in his home state of Florida, a chance to bring his message of colorblind opportunity to a prestigious group of African-American leaders.

 

In a rare gesture of bipartisanship, Mr. Bush even planned to warmly quote President Obama, usually the subject of his derision.

 

Then Hillary Rodham Clinton stomped all over those plans.

 

In a biting pre-emptive attack delivered as Mr. Bush, the former Florida governor, waited backstage here at the annual convention of the National Urban League, Mrs. Clinton portrayed him as a hypocrite who had set back the cause of black Americans.

 

Mrs. Clinton, a Democratic candidate for president, latched onto Mr. Bush’s campaign slogan and the name of his “super PAC” — “Right to Rise,” his shorthand for a conservative agenda of self-reliance and hope — and turned it into a verbal spear.

 

“People can’t rise if they can’t afford health care,” Mrs. Clinton said to applause from convention goers, a dig at Mr. Bush’s opposition to the Affordable Care Act.

 

“They can’t rise if the minimum wage is too low to live on,” she said, a jab at his opposition to raising the federal minimum wage.

 

“They can’t rise if their governor makes it harder for them to get a college education,” she said, a critique of Mr. Bush’s decision as governor to eliminate affirmative action in college admissions.

 

When Mr. Bush reached the lectern, declaring, “I believe in the right to rise in this country,” the scent of political gunpowder was still in the air.

 

It was an unexpected moment of Campaign Theater that seemed to presage Mrs. Clinton’s general-election strategy should she prevail in her party’s primary contest: an elbows-out, cutting approach to her Republican rival. And it was all the more striking because the Bush and Clinton families make a point of highlighting their friendly ties: Former Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush appear on this week’s cover of Time magazine.

 

Twitter @sheriffali

http://nyti.ms/1KELO93

CLINTON CAMPAIGN - URBAN LEAGE FLORIDA - 1 CLINTON CAMPAIGN - NEXT POTUS

The New York Times Got Caught Red Handed Over Their Sinister Article About Hillary Clinton Criminal Investigation Have Tried To Weasel Their Way Out of Their Egregiousness.

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on July 28, 2015 by sheriffali

A Clinton Story Fraught With Inaccuracies: How It Happened and What Next! New York Times For Which I am a Paid Subscriber, I Have Witnessed Over The Past Months, Seems Self Evident Has Become Fox News In Print!

 

 

The New York Times after indulging in nothing short of sinister motives, much later, The Times backed off the startling characterization of a “criminal inquiry,” instead calling it something far tamer sounding: it was a “security” referral.

 

 

[Public Editor’s Journal Margaret Sullivan] The story certainly seemed like a blockbuster: A criminal investigation of Hillary Rodham Clinton by the Justice Department was being sought by two federal inspectors general over her email practices while secretary of state.

 

It’s hard to imagine a much more significant political story at this moment, given that she is the leading candidate for the Democratic nomination for president.

 

The story – a Times exclusive — appeared high on the home page and the mobile app late Thursday and on Friday and then was displayed with a three-column headline on the front page in Friday’s paper. The online headline read “Criminal Inquiry Sought in Hillary Clinton’s Use of Email,” very similar to the one in print.

 

But aspects of it began to unravel soon after it first went online. The first major change was this: It wasn’t really Mrs. Clinton directly who was the focus of the request for an investigation. It was more general: whether government information was handled improperly in connection with her use of a personal email account.

 

Much later, The Times backed off the startling characterization of a “criminal inquiry,” instead calling it something far tamer sounding: it was a “security” referral.

 

From Thursday night to Sunday morning – when a final correction appeared in print – the inaccuracies and changes in the story were handled as they came along, with little explanation to readers, other than routine corrections. The first change I mentioned above was written into the story for hours without a correction or any notice of the change, which was substantive.

 

And the evolving story, which began to include a new development, simply replaced the older version. That development was that several instances of classified information had been found in Mrs. Clinton’s personal email – although, in fairness, it’s doubtful whether the information was marked as classified when she sent or received those emails. Eventually, a number of corrections were appended to the online story, before appearing in print in the usual way – in small notices on Page A2.

 

But you can’t put stories like this back in the bottle – they ripple through the entire news system.

 

So it was, to put it mildly, a mess. As a result, I’ve been spending the last couple of days asking how this could happen and how something similar can be prevented in the future. I’ve spoken to the executive editor, Dean Baquet; to a top-ranking editor directly involved with the story, Matt Purdy; and to the two reporters, Matt Apuzzo and Michael S. Schmidt.

 

Meanwhile, I heard from readers, like Maria Cranor who wanted clarification and explanation on The Times’s “recent, and mystifying, coverage of the HRC emails. It appears that your reporters relied on leaks from the Gowdy committee to suggest that Clinton was involved in some kind of criminal malfeasance around the emails. The subsequent walk backs have not been effective, or encouraging. Please help us retain our wavering confidence in the Times’ political coverage!” (Her reference is to the Republican congressman, Trey Gowdy.)

 

Another reader, Paul Kingsley, demanded a refund for his Friday paper. “We all deserve one,” he wrote to me. And, complaining about the lack of transparency and the errors, he added:

 

1) Please repost the original reporting;


2) Provide an explanation as to how it made it to press and what was wrong.


3) What are you going to do to prevent such inaccurate bias in the future?


4) Are you going to minimize using unnamed sources?

 

Twitter @sheriffali

 

 

 Open The Link Read The Full Article, You Would Be Amazed How Low Journalism Has Stooped!

 

http://nyti.ms/1JKJgk0

CLINTON CAMPAIGN - NEW YORK TIMES JULY 28 15 CLINTON CAMPAIGN - AMERICA'S NEXT POTUS CLINTON CAMPAIGN - THE ONLY 2016 CHOICE CLINTON CAMPAIGN - NEW YORK TIMES JULY 28 15