ChrisWeigant.com

Please support ChrisWeigant.com this
holiday season!

Bernie Don't Get No Respect From Media

[ Posted Wednesday, September 30th, 2015 – 16:58 UTC ]

Bernie Sanders, as far as the media is concerned, is the Rodney Dangerfield of presidential candidates -- "he don't get no respect." Of the 23 candidates running for president in the two major parties, precisely four of them have ever shown even 20 percent support (in their polling averages from their base voters). Actually, to be completely accurate, five people have hit the 20 percent support level since the race began this year, but Joe Biden is not actually a candidate yet. The other four are Donald Trump, Ben Carson, Hillary Clinton, and Bernie Sanders.

Andrew Tyndall, who monitors broadcast news from ABC, NBC, and CBS, has some numbers which starkly show Bernie's Rodney Dangerfield problem. Tyndall tracked the total time the three networks have devoted to the presidential race this year: 504 minutes. This is more than their coverage (to this point on the calendar) in 2011 (277 minutes) and 2007 (462 minutes), so it's not like they're shying away from covering the race or anything. Out of that total, 338 minutes this year has been aired about the Republican race, while only 128 minutes was centered on the Democratic race. Granted, the Republicans have more candidates, which might explain some of the lopsided nature of those numbers.

Even so, the numbers get even more jaw-droppingly uneven when you look at individual candidates. Donald Trump (of course) leads the pack in coverage of his campaign, clocking in at an impressive 145 minutes. Hillary Clinton has gotten 82 minutes of campaign coverage, and an additional 83 minutes devoted to the email scandal. Jeb Bush, who is currently polling in fifth place in the Republican race with less than 10 percent in the polls, has received 43 minutes of coverage. The Bernie Sanders campaign has received a grand total of eight minutes of coverage -- one-fifth of Bush's time, or one-tenth of Clinton's time (one-twentieth, if you count the scandal coverage). Bernie got roughly the same amount of time as Chris Christie (polling below four percent, far back in the Republican pack). Bernie got the same amount of time that Mitt Romney got, when he was teasing a bid earlier this year.

That is pathetic. Bernie Sanders is one of the four frontrunners for the entire presidential race, and has been closing the polling gap with Hillary Clinton on the Democratic side. One recent poll put Bernie only seven points behind Clinton nationally among Democrats, but you probably didn't hear that on the evening news. Bernie now leads Hillary in the polling in both of the first states to vote, Iowa and New Hampshire. But of the total time the networks have devoted to the race, they've only used a little over 1.5 percent of it to cover Bernie's campaign. Rodney Dangerfield would have had a few choice things to say about this lack of respect, one imagines.

Bernie Sanders routinely draws crowds that dwarf other candidates' rallies. He just made some news today because his campaign has now received one million individual donations -- a number far superior to anything any other candidate can claim. In fact, it is even superior to the champion online fundraiser of all time, Barack Obama. Obama didn't hit 1,000,000 online donations until February of 2008, or October of 2011 during his re-election campaign. No other candidate in the 2016 race -- Democratic or Republican -- is even close to this number. And yet the near-blackout on the evening news continues.

I don't know what Bernie Sanders's chance of success in the nomination race will be. But I do know it'd be a lot better if the news actually informed the American public about how successful his campaign is doing. This whole disgraceful lack of respect really puts the lie to those on the right who complain about "the liberal media," in fact. The most liberal candidate in the race is being covered at the same rate as Chris Christie, after all. Doesn't sound like any sort of liberal cabal to me. It sounds instead like proof of what some on the left insist, that the media does indeed have a bias -- but a corporate bias.

Because of this obvious anti-Bernie bias, I'll go so far as to make a bold prediction. The first Democratic debate is going to happen in a few weeks. This will be the first time many Democratic voters will be exposed to Bernie's unfiltered message. My prediction is that the post-debate polling will show a big bump for Bernie's support, after weighing Bernie's solutions to the nation's problems next to Hillary's.

I still don't know what Bernie's chances for success truly are. Joe Biden's announcement (either way) will shake up the Democratic race, and this announcement is probably going to happen before the debates do. If Bernie does well in the first debate, though, and if his numbers do get a healthy bump, then the broadcast news is going to have to start talking about Sanders. At that point, the lack of coverage will become painfully obvious to all if it continues. At first (no doubt) this coverage will likely be mocking and dismissive, with plenty of jokes thrown in. But sooner or later the media is going to have to cope with the fact that Bernie Sanders's campaign is no laughing matter to those who have gotten on board the "Feel The Bern" train. Sooner or later they're going to have to address the real reason he's seen such a monstrous outpouring of support so far -- his issues and his agenda. Sooner or later, they're going to have to show Bernie a little more respect. With over a quarter of Democratic voters already supporting him and with over a million donations, Bernie Sanders has already earned this respect. A lot more respect than eight minutes out of 504, that's for sure.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Cross-posted at The Huffington Post

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

41 Comments on “Bernie Don't Get No Respect From Media”

  1. [1] 
    dsws wrote:

    The bias is in favor of "news" as they understand it. We don't know who will be the Republican nominee, and it perfectly well could be one of the long-shot candidates. But "we" do "know" who will be the Democratic nominee, so the long-shot candidates aren't "news". They also favor candidates they perceive as running to win (or to be spoilers) over candidates they perceive as running to make an ideological statement.

  2. [2] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey CW

    Better than Obama is news.
    There's no denying it.

    Nearly matching Hillary in fundraising is likewise newsworthy. $24 million in the last three months with $25 million in cash on hand says a lot (he raised 15 in the first two months of his campaign). That means he has only spent $14 million to surpass Mrs Inevitable in New Hampshire and Iowa, and narrow the gap significantly in national polls.

    Another interesting tidbit is that that 8 out of 504 minutes of coverage was mostly what can only be called unprofessional... socialist bogeyman nonsense and jokes about his hair and whatnot.

    Perhaps you could put in a request to Andrew Tyndall to analyze those eight minutes to see how often Bernie's policies were actually discussed... it shouldn't require much of a time commitment.

    In any case, you are completely right in calling out the corporate media... their bias is plain to see.

    I've said it before, but Hillary and her supporters are making the exact same mistakes that caused her to lose to Obama... and they are being just as nasty and offensive this time around too... not all of them of course, but too many of them for sure.

    A

  3. [3] 
    Michale wrote:

    Better than Obama is news.

    You have been hanging around JFC too much.. :D

    . socialist bogeyman nonsense and jokes about his hair and whatnot.

    Ya'all don't seem to mind hair jokes when it's directed at a guy with a '-R' after his name.. How come?? :D

    Michale

  4. [4] 
    Michale wrote:

    I gotta go with dsws on this, CW...

    The Leftist Media DOES slant towards liberal, there is no denying this..

    The fact that the Leftist MSM won't cover Bernie is because they know he doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of winning the General Election..

    The funny thing is, with the scandal drip, drip, drip of the Hillary Clinton campaign, it's almost a sure bet that HILLARY doesn't stand a chance to win either..

    You see the latest batch of emails?? Holy moly, there is some red meat in there for Republcans to use against Hillary...

    And the monthly drip drip drip is going to continue for another YEAR!!!

    The Democrat Party is sunk for this POTUS election....

    Michale

  5. [5] 
    Michale wrote:

    And speaking of Biden's entry into the race..

    Hillary Clinton Camp Is Making Moves to Check Joe Biden
    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/01/us/politics/hillary-clinton-camp-begins-to-fear-run-by-joe-biden.html?src=twr&_r=1

    While the Hillary Camp may not Fear The Bern, they definitely Fear The Biden... :D

    Michale

  6. [6] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Democrat Party is sunk for this POTUS election....

    Let me amend that prediction..

    The ONLY way that the Democrat Party could possibly prevail in the upcoming General is with the Biden-Warren ticket...

    That would excite the base so much that a victory would be a real possibility...

    Michale

  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    The ONLY way that the Democrat Party could possibly prevail in the upcoming General is with the Biden-Warren ticket...

    Put another way...

    It has been said that Hillary running a 2008 campaign all over again.. Making the same mistakes all over again..

    But, the conventional wisdom goes, it won't matter because Sanders is no Obama and neither is Biden...

    BUT....

    But a Biden-Warren ticket IS an "Obama" and would likely decimate Hillary's weak-charactered and weak-kneed campaign...

    And just might be able to carry over that excitement into the General...

    A Biden/Warren ticket is the only thing that keeps me up at night...

    Insofar as ANYTHING from politics keeps me up at night.. :D

    Michale

  8. [8] 
    TheStig wrote:

    "It sounds instead like proof of what some on the left insist, that the media does indeed have a bias -- but a corporate bias."

    How corporate might this be be?

    ABC - parent company = Walt Disney Co.

    Company symbol is a mouse, which looks like an octopus, or Queen Victoria's family tree

    https://inherentlyfreakish.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/marvel-arch-black2.png

    Total asset valuation (2014)= 84 billion US$

    NBC is owned by Comcast, GE, Vivendi, Combined assets = (2014) 855 billion US$

    CBS is owned by National Amusements which is owned by Credit Lyonnaise which is in turn owned by Credit Agricole. Total Assents = (2014)1.5 TRILLION Euros.

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    Impressive research..

    "But what does it all MEAN, Basil??"
    -Austin Powers

    :D

    Michale

  10. [10] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    The questions you should be asking is what will Bernie could accomplish if he is elected president in 2016 and what will happen if he is not elected president in 2016. But it seems that all the Bern-alists and the commenters want to talk about is can he get elected.
    Whether or not he is elected president the Congress will still be controlled by legislators beholden to the Big Money contributors. But there is a way to remove some of the Big Money legislators in the 2016 elections and make the Big Money legislators that survive the 2016 elections fear their re-election in 2018, 2020, etc. if they continue to take the Big Money contributions.
    This campaign financing approach can be implemented under current election law so there is no need to wait until after the 2016 elections for campaign finance reform legislation or a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United. All it requires is minimal citizen participation so citizens do not have to become political zealots to participate.
    This is what Bernie needs to have a chance to win in both the primaries and general election. He can get the zealots, but he needs a way to get the non-zealots involved. Because most citizens can learn about this idea in less than an hour and register to participate in a few minutes it is not the major commitment to zealotry that most citizens are not willing to make.
    The basic idea is that citizens can register at http://www.voucherevendetta.org that in the 2016 elections they will only vote for candidates that finance their campaigns only with contributions from individuals in the aggregate amount of 200 dollars or less per election (200-primary, 200-general). Visit the website to find out more about how this will destroy the gerrymandered districts that protect incumbents, increase voter participation in the primaries and off-year elections and change the narrative of elections from the current narrative that a candidate has to take the Big Money contributions in order to win an election to a narrative that a candidate can't win if they DO take the Big Money contributions.
    Bern-alists and other Bernie supporters should encourage Sen. Sanders to make this campaign financing commitment for his campaign (he already gets the majority of his money from small contributions). If Sen. Sanders made this commitment while calling on congressional and senatorial candidates as well as citizens to also make this commitment it would make his campaign more about changing the whole system NOW instead of trying to get the Big Money legislators to pass meaningful campaign finance reform legislation at some indeterminate time after the 2016 elections.
    And because this campaign financing approach is based on the free-market principle of supply and demand it would help Sen. Sanders with citizens concerned about him being a socialist because it would demonstrate that he can accept a free-market idea when it is appropriate.
    And wouldn't it be fun to watch Bernie's conservative critics and competitors trying to denigrate Bernie for supporting their free-market principles ?
    Berna-lists and Bernie supporters should register to participate in Voucher Vendetta and encourage others to also participate. It will do more to help Bernie's chances than writing another article about whether or not he can win or posting comments trading jabs with Hillary supporters.

  11. [11] 
    TheStig wrote:

    M-9

    I assume Basil is me.

    It means your friendly broadcast news is a tiny little appendage answering to a much bigger corporate fish. Would you really expect a high degree of objectivity towards Sanders, the least corporate friendly of the declared candidates? Would the news fin perhaps feel infotainment is safer than real journalism and early "retirement."

    Breaking out of the fish metaphor, Caesar's wife may not actually be a whore, but she does appear a bit slutty and certainly not beyond reproach.

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    It means your friendly broadcast news is a tiny little appendage answering to a much bigger corporate fish. Would you really expect a high degree of objectivity towards Sanders, the least corporate friendly of the declared candidates? Would the news fin perhaps feel infotainment is safer than real journalism and early "retirement."

    People always see conspiracy theories and cherry pick the facts to suit their agenda..

    Corporations look out for their own interests first.. In and of itself, that is not really the fall of civilization...

    Is there a certain amount of corporate influence in the news media?

    Of course..

    Is it a harbinger of a Corporate take over of civilization as we know it??

    Doubtful...

    My point is that the complaints about the news media usually spring from the well of the complainant's ideology and, as such, the complaints themselves are as suspect as the news they are complaining about..

    Michale

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's ironic that this discussion comes to light, considering the Dan Rather fairy tale TRUTH has just been released...

    Basically the movie has Dan Rather and other BDS suffers saying, "Everything was true!! It was just the facts and the evidence that were forged and manufactured.."

    Ya'all don't seem to mind when Corporate interests manipulate the media as long as the manipulation serves an agreed-with agenda...

    That's my point...

    Michale

  14. [14] 
    TheStig wrote:

    "My point is that the complaints about the news media usually spring from the well of the complainant's ideology and, as such, the complaints themselves are as suspect as the news they are complaining about.."

    Increased lack of trust applies across the ideological spectrum.

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/171740/americans-confidence-news-media-remains-low.aspx

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    Increased lack of trust applies across the ideological spectrum.

    I completely agree....

    Which is why I said "My point is that the complaints about the news media usually spring from the well of the complainant's ideology and, as such, the complaints themselves are as suspect as the news they are complaining about.."

    Having said that, in the here and now, the Left ward slant of the news media is well documented...

    Comment #12 illustrates but one example...

    The media coverage of Benghazi is another example...

    The media coverage of Abu Ghraib is another example....

    I could go on and on and on (and often do!! :D), but ideological enslavement prevents anyone here from conceding the point...

    Michale

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    The media coverage of Benghazi is another example...

    Of course, that should read "The LACK OF media coverage of Benghazi is another example..."

    I mean, let's face reality..

    If Benghazi had happened under a GOP POTUS, the media would have gone positively ape-sheet...

    One only has to look at the coverage of Abu Ghraib, which BARELY rose to the level of college hazing, to know that to be a fact...

    Michale

  17. [17] 
    TheStig wrote:

    M-12

    The movie Truth is a drama, not a documentary. It's based on a memoir, not a history...and the movie is not even out yet! Using this to evaluate the state of TV news is like try to evaluate the US III Army in WWII from, say, the movie drama Patton...if this were Jan. 1970 with Patton about to released in a couple of months.

    "Ya'all don't seem to mind when Corporate interests manipulate the media as long as the manipulation serves an agreed-with agenda..."

    Stop telling us'all what we seem to think. It's better if we tell you, and vice versa. Helps to avoid collateral damage.

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    The movie Truth is a drama, not a documentary. It's based on a memoir, not a history...and the movie is not even out yet! Using this to evaluate the state of TV news is like try to evaluate the US III Army in WWII from, say, the movie drama Patton...if this were Jan. 1970 with Patton about to released in a couple of months.

    I disagree..

    There are those in the Left who STILL believe that TRUTH is actually the way things happened...

    Dan Rather himself is quoted as saying things to that effect..

    The incident that TRUTH is based on is a perfect example of what I am talking about...

    Stop telling us'all what we seem to think. It's better if we tell you, and vice versa. Helps to avoid collateral damage.

    I can only go by what I see posted here...

    If I am wrong, feel free to correct me.. But bring facts... For example, it's a FACT that the Left Wing went positively ape-sheet over Abu Ghraib...

    If you have any facts that contradict this assessment..

    "I am all ears"
    -Ross Perot

    Until I see facts to the contrary, I gotz to calls em as I sees em.. :D

    Michale

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    To all my fellow Weigantians..

    Allow me to introduce Carter Jacob Worley...

    http://sjfm.us/temp/cjw1.jpg

    CJ..... All my fellow Weigantians...

    :D

    Michale

  20. [20] 
    altohone wrote:

    Micha

    Obama set the record for reaching a million donations the earliest... and Bernie just broke that record.

    It's news even if you choose to pretend otherwise.

    May be worth pointing out that none of the Repub clown car candidates is anywhere close to reaching that mark.

    As for dsws's comment, you may want to read it again.
    He was guessing what the media is thinking... their potential "reasoning".

    Their "reasoning" may be just as faulty as yours typically is.
    It may also be different than what he was guessing.
    It is well within the realm of the possible that the corporate owned media is being influenced to harm a candidate they do not wish to see elected.

    Your dismissal of Bernie's chances does bring up memories of 2007... memories of people who were famously wrong about Obama.

    BTW, have you noticed which candidate is leading the pack in the polls for the Republican primary in Vermont?

    A

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    Biga,

    Obama set the record for reaching a million donations the earliest... and Bernie just broke that record.

    And that's a GOOD thing???

    I thought ya'all eschewed money in campaigns??

    Now you want to applaud it??

    May be worth pointing out that none of the Repub clown car candidates is anywhere close to reaching that mark.

    That's because the GOP Frontrunner doesn't have to beg for other people's money and therefore, won't be beholden to special interests and lobbyists.

    Another thing I thought ya'all were on the side of... :D

    But, the all important '-X' rears it's ugly head once again...

    Your dismissal of Bernie's chances does bring up memories of 2007... memories of people who were famously wrong about Obama.

    So, do you want to state for the record, that you think Bernie will win the General??

    Go ahead... I double dog dare ya.. :D

    Michale

  22. [22] 
    TheStig wrote:

    M - 18

    A fine looking little fellow,, with a name and initials well suited to any career he may be destined to follow: supreme court justice, general, lawyer, diplomat, ball player, explorer, etc. Fine head of hair for one so young! I'm assuming the distinguished gentleman holding him is yerself: if so, my mental picture of you was spot on! Best wishes to all!

    The Stig

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'm assuming the distinguished gentleman holding him is yerself: if so, my mental picture of you was spot on!

    Thanks... I think... :D heh

    Best wishes to all!

    Thank ya....

    Michale

  24. [24] 
    altohone wrote:

    Micha

    Yes. Lots of small donations is a good thing.
    And it's news.
    And the Repubs who are trying desperately can't come close.
    And I know you can't admit it and have to change the subject... very few people think less of you for such things.

    BTW...
    Did the Trumpon commit to a strictly self-funded campaign?
    Is he returning the "entrance fees" he collected for his "not a fundraiser" lest he be a typical corrupted Republican?
    He's selling his campaign stuff at cost too right?
    Has your frontrunner bounced back from his ratings... er, um... polling slump yet?

    And who is the Repub frontrunner in Vermont again?
    I must have missed your response somehow.

    I'm still a Jill Stein guy, but it's looking like that limb Bernie's on is pretty sturdy, and growing thicker.

    I'll climb out there with him, but are you really only offering a couple of mangy mutts?
    Don't you usually offer some imaginary currency to prove your manhood?

    A

  25. [25] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Don Harris [10] -

    Welcome to the site! Your first post was held for moderation, but from now on you should be able to post comments instantly. Just don't post more than one link per comment, as multi-link comments are automatically held for moderation.

    Again, welcome to the site.

    -CW

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    Biga,

    Yes. Lots of small donations is a good thing.
    And it's news.

    If you say so... :D

    And the Repubs who are trying desperately can't come close.

    Again, whatever you have to think to sleep at night. :D

    And who is the Repub frontrunner in Vermont again?
    I must have missed your response somehow.

    Yea, and that means sooo much this early, right?? :D

    Has your frontrunner bounced back from his ratings... er, um... polling slump yet?

    I have no frontrunner.. Technically speaking, Hillary is as much "my" frontrunner as Trump is..

    I'll climb out there with him, but are you really only offering a couple of mangy mutts?

    If you honestly believe that Bernie has a snowballs chance in hell of winning the General, you are more deluded than I thought.. And I think you are pretty deluded.. :D

    Don't you usually offer some imaginary currency to prove your manhood?

    While I thank you for the sudden interest in my manhood, sorry.. I don't ride that bike.. :D

    Michale

  27. [27] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Relying on the corporate media for responsible coverage of anything worthwhile is like relying on a used car dealer to be honest.

    Corporate media is only interested in selling more media and focuses most of their attention on personalities rather than any kind of qualifications.

    Fortunately, corporate media is losing its influence.

    -David

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    David!!!

    Nice ta see ya around!! :D

    Relying on the corporate media for responsible coverage of anything worthwhile is like relying on a used car dealer to be honest.

    Troo... But, like used car salesmen, there ARE honest brokers out there..

    Corporate media is only interested in selling more media and focuses most of their attention on personalities rather than any kind of qualifications.

    Again, troo...

    My beef is the accountability factor based on political ideology..

    For example, Right Wingers rail against all of the MSM but gives FoxNews a pass...

    Left Wingers rail against FoxNews, but gives the rest of the MSM a pass...

    It's the MONEY IN CAMPAIGNS issue all over again...

    Fortunately, corporate media is losing its influence.

    In what way??

    Good ta see ya again! :D

    Michale

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:
  30. [30] 
    altohone wrote:

    Micha

    Small donors representing the voices of the many is an improvement on large donations from the rich few. It is more in line with the concept of representative democracy.
    Feel free to try to defend why it's not.
    But I'm guessing you'll just deflect again since honest conversations are not your thing.

    I'd love to hear your plan for eliminating the role of big money in our elections and government... outside of your praise for wealthy, self-funding candidates of course. Or do you think our current system is great?

    Your belief that Repub candidates wouldn't love to have broken Obama's record is just more dishonesty.
    Not only would they be trumpeting the feat, but the media would be announcing it as a significant accomplishment.
    But, since Bernie Sanders is the guy to have done it, you deflect from honest conversation once again.

    Your constant praise and defense of the Trumpon doesn't square with your feigned stance of having no horse in the race, but since you really just followed your typical tactic to avoid answering any questions you don't like... I'll rephrase-

    How is the GOP frontrunner doing?
    Has he recovered from his slump?
    Did he commit to refusing all campaign donations and self-funding his campaign?
    Is he returning the "entrance fees" from his "not a fundraiser"?
    Is he selling his campaign trinkets at cost?

    So, "polls this early are meaningless" is your only comment about Bernie Sanders leading the pack in the Republican primary in Vermont?
    You see no significance in it whatsoever?
    You don't think it says quite a lot about the GOP candidates being unappealing to their own party's voters?
    So much so, that Vermont Repubs prefer a democratic socialist running for the Democratic nomination?

    I certainly do believe Bernie has a good chance of becoming our next president.
    But you ducked the implied challenge.
    How about putting something where your mouth is?
    I mean besides your swollen foot.

    I've got some non-financial ideas if you are bold enough to stand by your dare... but I'm open to your offers as well... and, again, other than fictional currency. Or was your wanna-be tough guy dare all you are capable of mustering?

    A

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    You see no significance in it whatsoever?

    It's as significant as Trump leading the pack...

    I certainly do believe Bernie has a good chance of becoming our next president.
    But you ducked the implied challenge.
    How about putting something where your mouth is?
    I mean besides your swollen foot.

    Are we talking about my manhood again?? :D

    Tell ya what.. Why don't we do a T-SHIRT wager...

    If you win.. If Bernie is the Democrat POTUS Candidate, I will wear ON CAMERA FOR ALL TO SEE a T-shirt of your choice...

    If I win and Bernie is NOT the Democrat POTUS Candidate, you will wear ON CAMERA FOR ALL TO SEE a T-Shirt of MY choice...

    So, let's see whose manhood is bigger.. :D

    "Your stakes are high..."
    "Not for TRUE gamesters..."

    -STAR TREK, The Gamesters Of Triskelion

    :D

    Or was your wanna-be tough guy dare all you are capable of mustering?

    You tell me, son... :D

    Michale

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    Biga???

    :D

    Michale

  33. [33] 
    altohone wrote:

    Micha

    My, my. Aren't we impatient. There's quite a bit of campaign time yet.
    And not everybody has a life free of obligations and other interests.

    Trump as the current designated driver of the GOP clown car is indeed insignificant.
    But Bernie leading the pack in the GOP primary polls in Vermont is significant.
    It shows he has considerable cross-party support and respect from the people who know him best.
    I've also never heard of a candidate leading in the polls in the primary from the opposing party.
    Maybe it's happened before? Anyone know? CW?

    As for your manhood, either your reading comprehension skills are getting even worse, or your fantasies are getting better... but I'd prefer you leave me out of those.

    Like I said, I am willing to consider your ideas for the Bernie campaign challenge.
    At least you didn't duck the issue... like the other 8 you simply ignored in my last comment Mr honest conversation. That doesn't exactly bode well for trusting you will honor the wager... not too late though... you seem to have the time... how about stepping up?
    A simple confidence boosting measure.
    And it would be a good habit generally.
    (it also wouldn't hurt if you gave me that apology you promised me but weaseled out of way back when)

    The t-shirt idea is interesting.
    But it's brief and relatively painless for you... and I value my privacy so I'd cover my face (not really fair to you). In the remote possibility I lost, I'd also require a third party intermediary because there's no chance I'd share my name and address with you.

    For you, I was thinking more along the lines of picking two of the following four options-

    - for a full year, you agree to only making one comment per column here... unless you are directly addressed in another comment, in which case you'd be allowed one reply. Self explanatory.
    - for a full year, you give us a four day weekend every month from any comments... I wouldn't wish a spider bite (or whatever it was) on anyone, but sheesh was it nice here while you were gone
    - for a full year, you agree to stop all the troll tactics you employ here regularly... if you don't know what that means or are unaware that you are doing it, we can hash out the specifics... but I've pointed out some of them before
    - for a full year, you agree to using a quote only once. The boring and unimaginative repetition is getting really old. There are so many other movies... and books and websites dedicated to quotes to choose from. (even if you don't choose this option, you really should consider it)

    It may also be worth noting that your anti-Hillary efforts would be helping me win, so you may want to factor that into the equation.

    So?

    A

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    Biga,

    Still trying to censor speech you don't approve of, eh Biga?? :D

    Sorry, son.. Even though it's an easy win for me as there is absolutely NO CHANCE that Bernie will be our next President, I make no deals of that nature..

    It's rather ironic.. I have tried to make such deals like that in the past, but was talked out of them by the majority of my fellow Weigantians..

    So, I don't think such a deal as you propose would be in the best interests of Weigantia..

    At least you didn't duck the issue... like the other 8 you simply ignored in my last comment Mr honest conversation. That doesn't exactly bode well for trusting you will honor the wager...

    You really are new around here, ain'tcha.. :D

    More likely than not, that's just an excuse on your part.. :D

    It's OK.. I understand.. Parading around in an I LOVE MICHALE t-shirt would have to be a blow to yer fragile ego.. :D

    Michale

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    I wouldn't wish a spider bite (or whatever it was) on anyone, but sheesh was it nice here while you were gone

    Yea... It's just so frakin' ANNOYING when people interrupt the echo chamber you love so much, eh?? :D

    You really want to curtail my comments here in Weigantia??

    It's really quite simple..

    Start actually WINNING debates... Forgo the personal attacks (which just INCREASES my comment numbers) and actually start racking up some wins with facts...

    It's a forgone conclusion that I don't hang around if I am always getting beat...

    Which explains my longevity around here.. :D

    Michale

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    - for a full year, you agree to only making one comment per column here... unless you are directly addressed in another comment, in which case you'd be allowed one reply. Self explanatory.
    - for a full year, you give us a four day weekend every month from any comments... I wouldn't wish a spider bite (or whatever it was) on anyone, but sheesh was it nice here while you were gone
    - for a full year, you agree to stop all the troll tactics you employ here regularly... if you don't know what that means or are unaware that you are doing it, we can hash out the specifics... but I've pointed out some of them before
    - for a full year, you agree to using a quote only once. The boring and unimaginative repetition is getting really old. There are so many other movies... and books and websites dedicated to quotes to choose from. (even if you don't choose this option, you really should consider it)

    "I make no deals for command of this ship!"
    -Captain James T Kirk, STAR TREK, Let That Be Your Last Battlefield

    :D

    Michale

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ya know, Biga...

    If you spent a FRACTION of the time actually addressing my points that you put into trying to silence me, you would probably be a lot happier...

    I'm just sayin'... :D

    Michale

  38. [38] 
    altohone wrote:

    Micha

    You always jump to false conclusions and lie about how you got there.

    One comment could have been as long as you wanted... in no way would it "censor" or "silence" you... just force you to think and organize your responses.
    You may notice you used four comments to respond to one of mine, and yet you still ducked the issues you were afraid to address.

    Likewise, giving us a four day weekend every month would not have prevented you from commenting to your hearts content on any columns you missed once the weekend had passed.

    Go ahead and pretend you were making a point, but it was just as weak as your normal chickensheet lying, distracting, deflecting, denying, and ignoring.

    Your delusions about "winning" when you are actually resorting to trollery is just more dishonesty. You can't win an argument fairly, so you cheat... and it's obvious to all.

    The stakes were higher than you could bear, even with your false confidence at winning.

    I accepted your t-shit offer, and you ran from mine like a scared little boy.
    I gave you simple options to choose from, and you wimped out...

    ... without even a watered down counter-offer.

    Triskelion would have been your doom.
    You are no true gamester.
    Just a pathetic little man.

    There's no denying the truth.

    altohone

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    One comment could have been as long as you wanted... in no way would it "censor" or "silence" you... just force you to think and organize your responses.

    Who the hell do you think you are to "force" me to do a damn thing!??

    You are no true gamester.
    Just a pathetic little man.

    Thank you for your concession of the superiority of my argument..

    Your concession is appreciated, albeit irrelevant.. :D

    Michale

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    You make a lot of bold proclamations, Biga..

    But when all is said and done, you are simply rendering your opinion...

    The opinion of a JEEP that has been here mere weeks..

    As such, it means very little to me.... :D

    But hay.. At least you keep me amused.. :D

    Michale

  41. [41] 
    altohone wrote:

    Micha

    Interesting attempt at saving face after backing down from the challenge.

    A failed attempt that is.

    Truly pathetic.

    And you clearly have no idea what makes me happy.

    altohone

Comments for this article are closed.