U.S. Presidential debate

[Jester]

http://www.vox.com/2016/7/27/12241420/ho...on-history

The Vox article describes the race that happened, a race that was closer than people predicted. But the "almost lost" spin they give it is undermined by the events they describe. As the race unfolded, the situation the polling had always described became clear: Sanders was buoyed by a series of caucus states and small Northern states. Once the big states, southern states, and especially the states with large minority populations started voting, Sanders fell further behind and stayed there. Which, given how the primaries are staggered, more or less means Sanders was losing at all points. Clinton began 30% ahead, and she ended it 12% ahead. If the presidential race was that lopsided, it would be a landslide.

Here's Nate Silver's take. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/was-...landslide/ Note how he manages to take Sanders' impressive performance seriously, but without undermining the clear outcome: "My view is that the race wasn’t really all that close and that Sanders never really had that much of a chance at winning. From a purely horse-race standpoint, in fact, the media probably exaggerated the competitiveness of the race."

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/busines...ournalists

The Clinton campaign courted journalists in their bid for the presidency? The press cozies up to frontrunners in exchange for access? You don't say!

-Jester