As a Democrat, I feel this election is rigged.

[skoods]

Yeahhhh I don't think you're a Democrat.

[136or142]

I don't think the issue is the poor treatment of Trump so much as it is the bend over backwards approach with Clinton. Trump sucks, and that will show through. Of course, they feel a need to push out stupid things that are not a real issue as well. However, there is zero accountability with Clinton, just like there was zero accountability of either Clinton or Trump, during the primaries.

Which media outlets have a 'bend over backwards approach with Clinton'?

Which ones don't?

None that I know of.  Now, answer the question this time.

I did, just not in the way you wanted me to answer it. I also don't take marching orders.

I'm glad you admitted that you believe they all favor Clinton, although I'm not quite sure Drudge does... they seem to favor Trump.

I never said anything of the sort.  Translation of your non-answer: "I can't answer because I'm just making stuff up."

Trump supporters aren't only brain dead, their heads are filled with anti brain matter.

[Anna Komnene]

I can't stand these "rigged" rants from the right and the left.  Anyone who says people only vote one way because of the media have a pretty low opinion of human beings and their ability to make judgments for themselves.  I mean, pretty much the hallmark of of democracy is that the combined will of a majority or plurality of people is the best way to decide who gets to govern.  That means accepting the results after it's over.  If there's something wrong with the institutions, we can advocate for changes, but that comes later.

That's not to say that there are situations with very valid concerns about elections being rigged, but these are more to do with election law.  Things like Jim Crowe, disenfranchisement, and laws that make it more difficult for people to vote.  Or countries like Iran where there were very valid concerns about ballots being tampered with, enough so that people were willing to take to the streets to protest despite the dangers of doing that in a theocratic, authoritarian society.  These are all extremely serious issues, and this whole idea from Trump or the left or whoever that the US has a similar problem because of "muh biased media" or extremely vague conspiracy theories about smoke-filled ballot counting rooms have no idea what it means for an election to be rigged.

[Meclazine for Israel]

American politics starts with the individual.

The individual does have the right to vote like many other countries.

But unlike most other countries, the USA has divided itself right down the middle with an extremely public display of their voting preference.

I never tell anyone who I vote for in Australia as it is none of their business, and a two party state encourages only divisive and inevitably, non-friendly arguments.

So individuals in the USA display public affection for their candidate. That then leads to the desire to influence others, all the way from individuals up to media corporations (CNN and FOX).

So it's not that the US election is rigged.

It's everyone's false narrative which sounds rigged.

People are starting with

"I am Democrat" or "I am Republican".

Then no matter what information they are fed, they are either accepting or declining of that information based on whether it supports their narrative or not.

People in this election are pretty much decided and it's not going to change in the next two weeks.

Think about it if you are a Democrat. You are not going to change based on new evidence against Hillary with her 33,000 emails. It wouldn't matter.

It's interesting that you have identified the "rigged" nature of this election, but it's more the false sounding arguments which are independent of fact which is making it looked "rigged".

[DrScholl]

You need professional help. Seek it now.

[Hermit For Peace]

Frankly, if it's rigged in favor of Hillary then I'm all for it. (But I seriously doubt anything has been rigged in her favor.)

The "system" has been rigged against females getting ahead for a long time. Little by little we've been chipping away at that mindset until at last, a female is about to be President.

It's kind of like affirmative action. I'm for that as well to help give people who the deck has been stacked against, a chance to move forward in life.

[Erich Maria Remarque]

The election isnt rigged, local incidents happen in every country, Elections in the western world are supervised by many independent experts.
American press channels however are one of the most biased media channels in the western world, regardless of their bias against Trump.
I used to think the BBC, DW, TV 5 Monde were unbalanced but they are AAA rating compared to Fox, CNN and MSNBC.

Media, especially, in USA is an important part of the election. So if it is biased, the election is rigged. Period.

American media doesn't even try to be balanced and impartial. And they are proud to be a propaganda medium for R or D etc.

[hopper]

I used to think the BBC, DW, TV 5 Monde were unbalanced but they are AAA rating compared to Fox, CNN and MSNBC.

I stopped watching FOX a long time ago. CNN used to be right down the middle but clearly they are pro-Hillary or they dislike Trump except for that girl Kaliegh(I think her name is) and Jeffrey Lord. Van Jones I agree with him sometimes.

[catographer]

The Democratic primaries were not stacked or unfair against Sanders. Nobody ever did anything to give her an unfair advantage, not by voter fraud or election rigging or any other method.

He was an insurgent, and I'll admit that insurgents face strong opposition from the establishment. That's why Clinton got the overwhelming, near-unanimous support of Democratic politicians and big-wigs, whose support she earned fair and square. They didn't tip the scales, but their endorsements helped just like any endorsement Obama got in the 2008 primaries helped him against Clinton at that time.

A first-past-the-post system for the Democratic primaries would imply that the winner of a state would win 100% of their delegates instead of a proportional share. This is similar to Republican primary rules, and 538's Nate Silver found that under these rules Clinton would've won by an even larger margin than Sanders. She won more states than him, and she won the largest states too. You can call SuperPACs unfair, but having more money on your side being spent to help you is totally fair; Clinton earned the support. It's Sanders fault for not winning the support of more big donors.

She got more votes than Sanders, won more states, won more delegates, and won more pledged delegates too. The media wasn't anti-Sanders either; heck, they probably helped him by giving him a platform to rise out of nowhere and to air for the public all the email scandals against Clinton.

When Clinton defeats her opponents, it's not because of dirty tricks or foul play or media bias. It's because she earned it. She earned it against Rick Lazio, Barack Obama (she got more votes than him), Bernie Sanders, and soon Donald Trump. Don't underestimate her as a candidate.

[catographer]

I think people are using the term "rigged" incorrectly here. Rigged means that the results were tampered with illegally to get a desired outcome. Having a partisan or partial media isn't rigged, it's just biased and unfair.

Even then, I'd argue the media has been (for the most part) rightfully harsher on Trump than Clinton. He's an abnormal candidate who does and says things that nearly all previous party nominees didn't do. The media picks up on abnormalities, especially when it comes to a presidential candidate, and if they're doing something that goes against tradition then the media makes a big deal out of it.

The media has been harsh on the Clintons for nearly three decades, so to say that they've given Hillary or Bill a pass would be factually inaccurate. They've covered her like a normal candidate though, and I think they've portrayed her normality in a favorable way as compared to Trump's abnormality.

I read a Politico article that put this nicely. When a candidate says impolite and shocking things, the media takes them literally instead of seriously. The media is taking Trump literally but not seriously, while his supporters take him seriously but not literally. That I think explains the disconnect in how Trump is perceived by his base and how he's perceived by the media, political, and intellectual elites (as well as liberals, moderates, and people who he has turned off).