FiveThirtyEight: Media attacks won't hurt Hillary among Dems

[IceSpear]

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/hillary-clinton-media-bias-email/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Good to see Democrats won't be buying the right-wing media's anti-Hillary smears!

[Xing]

If anything, excessive attacks on Hillary could help her among Democrats.

[chrisras]

She explicitly arranged a domain name, pointed to dnmx records to a server in her house so that she could evade state department oversight...In other words she removed herself from government authority.  Good luck to Democrats that defend that.

[RedPrometheus]

She explicitly arranged a domain name, pointed to dnmx records to a server in her house so that she could evade state department oversight...In other words she removed herself from government authority.  Good luck to Democrats that defend that.

I think in the end very few people will truly care about that.

[JRP1994]

She explicitly arranged a domain name, pointed to dnmx records to a server in her house so that she could evade state department oversight...In other words she removed herself from government authority.  Good luck to Democrats that defend that.

I think in the end very few people will truly care about that.

But that's not the issue; evading government oversight as a public official is a grave transgression, regardless of whether or not she actually compromised national security. The fact that she took the risk of doing so demonstrates a serious lack of good judgement.

[Beet]

She explicitly arranged a domain name, pointed to dnmx records to a server in her house so that she could evade state department oversight...In other words she removed herself from government authority.  Good luck to Democrats that defend that.

I think in the end very few people will truly care about that.

But that's not the issue; evading government oversight as a public official is a grave transgression, regardless of whether or not she actually compromised national security. The fact that she took the risk of doing so demonstrates a serious lack of good judgement.

Her email account was not a secret and she is turning over all government related emails to the State Department and the Benghazi committee, where they will be subject to FOIA requests. Also, most of her emails went to .gov email accounts, so they are already in the possession of the government. There is no evidence that she has risked compromising national security because there is no indication classified information was ever on her private email, and even if it was, it would probably be because of the government's tendency to overclassify unimportant information. Besides, as the top official in the State Department, it's technically under her authority to decide what's classified and what isn't.

[Xing]

Percentage of Atlasians who apparently care: 40%
Percentage of Americans who will care: .004%

[136or142]

She explicitly arranged a domain name, pointed to dnmx records to a server in her house so that she could evade state department oversight...In other words she removed herself from government authority.  Good luck to Democrats that defend that.

Scott Walker as Milwaukee County Executive used a personal email account to hide his records as did Jeb Bush as governor of Florida.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/hillary-clinton-media-bias-email/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Good to see Democrats won't be buying the right-wing media's anti-Hillary smears!

Most Republicans seem to constantly fall for the the "I didn't do anything wrong, the liberal media is just out to get me" non-sense, so it shouldn't be any surprise that most Democrats seem to fall for the equally absurd "I didn't do anything wrong, the conservative media is just out to get me" version.  When politicians in either party face criticism, negative news stories, or become embroiled in scandals, one of the easiest and most reliable responses is to claim or imply that it is just part of a smear campaign by the right/left-wing media.  

In reality, the media doesn't have an ideology, for example I doubt most of the commentary by the talking heads at Fox (or MSNBC for that matter) is informed by any sort of genuine ideological conviction.  Certainly nothing beyond the generic "I'd prefer for this party to win, I guess" that most voters probably have.  There are occasionally instances where the media is clearly in the tank for a certain candidate (Cory Gardner in 2014, Obama during the pre-New Hampshire part of the 2008 primaries), but such instances are few and far between.  The media isn't treating this non-story about the e-mails like a big deal because they're part of a right-wing conspiracy to bring down Hillary Clinton.  They're doing it because it is in their interest to do everything they can to create the perception that the Democratic nomination race isn't a forgone conclusion (so more people will watch their coverage of it) and because it is clear by now that their is a significant audience for stories about the Clintons that reinforce certain perceptions most Americans have of them.

At the end of the day, the media only cares about making money.  If saying stupid sh!t for attention, race-baiting, affirming the worldview of a particular party's base or certain demographic groups, sensationalized "reporting", fear-mongering, misinforming viewers, treating non-stories as Big News, etc boosts ratings and thus leads to more advertising dollars, that's what they'll do.  If such things didn't work or stopped working, they'd try something else.  

Even the media's corporatism likely stems more from the financial incentive to promote the economic interests of the companies that own ABC, NBC, MSNBC, FOX, CNN, CNBC, CBS, etc than from any sort of genuine ideological commitment to a pro-big business ideological agenda.  This probably contributes to the lack of investigative reporting a little bit, but that can probably be primarily attributed to a combination of laziness and most importantly the unfortunate fact that investigative reporting usually doesn't produce stories that attract as many viewers as CNN babbling about a missing Malaysian airplane (whose direct impact on the viewer or someone they know well can be fully explained in no more than two concise and simple sentences).  Actually, that's probably a good test for how damaging a scandal will be (how many concise sentences would it take to convey it's significance and impact to someone who doesn't follow politics at all).

Side note: This is also why affairs are such dangerous scandals compared to something like campaign finance violations.  They are easy to sensationalize and they can be easily described: "Senator ___ cheated on his wife.  If he broke his marriage vows, how can we believe anything else he says?"  With campaign finance violations you have to explain why these laws even matter, how the amount of money someone gave to Senator ___ exceeded the legal limit and that they tried to get around the law by...zzzzzzzzzzz.

At the end of the day, the media only cares about making money.  If saying stupid sh!t for attention, race-baiting, affirming the worldview of a particular party's base or certain demographic groups, sensationalized "reporting", fear-mongering, misinforming viewers, treating non-stories as Big News, etc boosts ratings and thus leads to more advertising dollars, that's what they'll do.  If such things didn't work or stopped working, they'd try something else.  But again, even the "news" networks whose business model involves blatantly supporting one party over the other, they don't necessarily do do so in a way that benefits the said party.

Take Fox News, they don't always act in a way that benefits the Republicans politically and have hurt the party quite a bit.  Often when the Republican Party is trying to avoid jumping off a cliff, Fox works to rile up its viewers to the point that it turns a fringe position into the mainstream one within the party (even as folks like Boehner know better).  As a result, what could've been a Ted Cruz or a Steve King embarrassing himself again turns into the whole party stampeding off the cliff like swarm of lemmings.  What Fox does do very well, however, is stoke the resentments, play to the fears, exploit and encourage the prejudices, and yes, even speak to the concerns* of certain demographics (especially white men who are either 60+, evangelicals, or members of the working class) that feel like no one is fighting for them and/or that the country has changed so much they barely recognize it anymore...and that they were left behind when it did so.  Frank Luntz once observed that "We don't watch news to inform us anymore, we watch news to affirm us."  

*This is a distinctly different thing than advocating for a group's actual interests, which Fox has never done.

That's exactly what Fox News does, it makes money by affirming the worldview of certain groups and giving them a sense of validation about their fears and prejudices.  It happens that in Fox's case their audience means part of their brand will be promoting a right-wing worldview, but I'd bet a lot the more extreme, hysterical, and/or bigoted comments and personas of people like Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, Mike Huckabee, etc are just schtick.  A lot of that stuff is likely just an act, these guys are entertainers in a perverse sort of way.  It’s like Beck, Huckabee, etc are screenwriters and their TV personas are the characters they’ve written for themselves.

Everyone has there own little niche at Fox (and MSNBC, for that matter).  O'Reilly is the chief race-baitor, Beck used to be Fox's "the government is out to get you" guy, Huckabee is the lead cultural warrior, Hannity does the most blatant pandering to generational animosities of older viewers, etc (although the niches all inevitably overlap at times).  

MSNBC does that same thing, but for different demographic groups such as college-educated white liberals in suburbia.  They’re just as shameless as Fox though and just as insincere in their commitment to their so-called ideology.  Also like Fox, they don't truly help the party they are associated with.  Watching the likes of Chris Matthews or Ed Schultz is like having every negative stereotype about liberals reinforced.  MSNBC's talking heads generally have a smug elitist persona and preach tolerance while promoting bigotry against minorities that don't vote how they want them to ((*cough* Lawrence O'Donnell *cough*).

They also play to their audience's class and cultural prejudices against religious and rural Americans by constantly looking down their noses at the rural poor and paternalistically acting like white southerners and the white working class are all a bunch of dumb, racist hicks who need a good educated liberal to come and tell them about what their interests are.  The liberal version of the "here in the Real America" schtick is constantly bellowed by MSNBC: "If only the dumb rednecks would listen when we tell them what's best for them, everything would be perfect in America."  

And what does this sort of non-sense do?  Well, for MSNBC's target audience, it affirms their worldview and gives them a false feeling of validation about their prejudices.  But it also ensures that anyone who watches MSNBC and isn't part of its target audience will likely come away with the impression that liberals are everything the Republicans accuse them of being: smug, arrogant, and hypocritical elitists who think they know whats best for everyone else.  MSNBC doesn't care if this hurts the Democratic brand with independents or reduces the chances of rural Americans voting Democratic again.  They only care that there is money to be made promoting their warped and distorted pseudo-reality.

TL;DR: The media isn’t babbling about the e-mails because they are part of some vast right-wing conspiracy to bring down Hillary Clinton.  They’re doing it because, for whatever reason, there is an appetite for anything remotely dramatic (or pseudo-dramatic, in this case) involving the Clintons.  Thus, it is in the media’s interest to peddle this sort of non-story and treat it as if it were a big deal.  The idea that the media has a commitment to anything for reasons other than its own direct financial self-interest is laughable.  



[Beet]

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/hillary-clinton-media-bias-email/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Good to see Democrats won't be buying the right-wing media's anti-Hillary smears!

Most Republicans seem to constantly fall for the the "I didn't do anything wrong, the liberal media is just out to get me" non-sense, so it shouldn't be any surprise that most Democrats seem to fall for the equally absurd "I didn't do anything wrong, the conservative media is just out to get me" version.  When politicians in either party face criticism, negative news stories, or become embroiled in scandals, one of the easiest and most reliable responses is to claim or imply that it is just part of a smear campaign by the right/left-wing media.  

In reality, the media doesn't have an ideology, for example I doubt most of the commentary by the talking heads at Fox (or MSNBC for that matter) is informed by any sort of genuine ideological conviction.  Certainly nothing beyond the generic "I'd prefer for this party to win, I guess" that most voters probably have.

The media doesn't have an ideology (unless you mean capitalism), but it does have a certain character. And conservatives aren't entirely wrong when they say that outlets traditionally labelled the "mainstream media", such as the New York Times and the Washington Post, and to a lesser extent network news (more years ago in the days of Cronkite, etc. than today) is much more culturally/politically alien to their POV than it is to the American center-left. Sometimes, that is more in evidence than others.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'd say Obama during his whole 2008 campaign (and to a lesser extent, 2012 as well).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, the poll has shown that there is a significant audience that thought the media was too hard on Clinton vs. Obama in 2008, but that didn't affect the "media". There was a significant audience opposed to Bush starting a war in Iraq in 2003, but that didn't prevent the media, including "liberal" media outlets, from cheerleading for that war to start, and so on...

Hillary's comment about the vast right-wing conspiracy has nothing to do with this. She was referring to a network of mostly alternative media sources, such as talk radio, the National Review, etc. Emailgate was broken by the New York Times and is fueled by "mainstream sources." They, too, have an adversarial relationship with Hillary, which they, themselves, are the first, to admit. Confusing this latter adverserial relationship with Hillary's 1998 comment is to completely misunderstand the 1998 comment.

[Beet]

At the end of the day, the media only cares about making money.  If saying stupid sh!t for attention, race-baiting, affirming the worldview of a particular party's base or certain demographic groups, sensationalized "reporting", fear-mongering, misinforming viewers, treating non-stories as Big News, etc boosts ratings and thus leads to more advertising dollars, that's what they'll do.  If such things didn't work or stopped working, they'd try something else.

Even the media's corporatism likely stems more from the financial incentive to promote the economic interests of the companies that own ABC, NBC, MSNBC, FOX, CNN, CNBC, CBS, etc than from any sort of genuine ideological commitment to a pro-big business ideological agenda.  This probably contributes to the lack of investigative reporting a little bit, but that can probably be primarily attributed to a combination of laziness and most importantly the unfortunate fact that investigative reporting usually doesn't produce stories that attract as many viewers as CNN babbling about a missing Malaysian airplane (whose direct impact on the viewer or someone they know well can be fully explained in no more than two concise and simple sentences).  Actually, that's probably a good test for how damaging a scandal will be (how many concise sentences would it take to convey it's significance and impact to someone who doesn't follow politics at all).

A lot of this is true (and I've said it before as well), but to totally reduce the media to an economic actor while denying its separate sociological character, as well as the sociological nature of the very determinants of the "eyeballs" the media are so desperate for, is to make the same mistake as the neoclassical economists who think they can model an entire economy through homo economus or the rational man maximizing his utility.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The analysis of Fox News and MSNBC is good, but just because news outlets aren't arms of party committees, and just because financial incentive plays a huge part in their behavior, it doesn't mean that everything about the news media can be understood by financial behavior. The people who work in news media are human, too, and they have their own attitudes, biases, prejudices, characteristics, etc. that are no better or worse than anyone. They also construct social memes ("conventional wisdom") that take on lives of their own, independent of financial incentive. Some politicians they happen to latch onto in a more or less adulatory manner (Obama, Bill Clinton when he turns on his "charm", John McCain circa 2000), while others they tend to have a more troublesome relationship with (Al Gore "the exaggerator", Hillary Clinton).

[IceSpear]

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/hillary-clinton-media-bias-email/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Good to see Democrats won't be buying the right-wing media's anti-Hillary smears!

Most Republicans seem to constantly fall for the the "I didn't do anything wrong, the liberal media is just out to get me" non-sense, so it shouldn't be any surprise that most Democrats seem to fall for the equally absurd "I didn't do anything wrong, the conservative media is just out to get me" version.  When politicians in either party face criticism, negative news stories, or become embroiled in scandals, one of the easiest and most reliable responses is to claim or imply that it is just part of a smear campaign by the right/left-wing media.  

In reality, the media doesn't have an ideology, for example I doubt most of the commentary by the talking heads at Fox (or MSNBC for that matter) is informed by any sort of genuine ideological conviction.  Certainly nothing beyond the generic "I'd prefer for this party to win, I guess" that most voters probably have.

The media doesn't have an ideology (unless you mean capitalism), but it does have a certain character. And conservatives aren't entirely wrong when they say that outlets traditionally labelled the "mainstream media", such as the New York Times and the Washington Post, and to a lesser extent network news (more years ago in the days of Cronkite, etc. than today) is much more culturally/politically alien to their POV than it is to the American center-left. Sometimes, that is more in evidence than others.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'd say Obama during his whole 2008 campaign (and to a lesser extent, 2012 as well).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, the poll has shown that there is a significant audience that thought the media was too hard on Clinton vs. Obama in 2008, but that didn't affect the "media". There was a significant audience opposed to Bush starting a war in Iraq in 2003, but that didn't prevent the media, including "liberal" media outlets, from cheerleading for that war to start, and so on...

Hillary's comment about the vast right-wing conspiracy has nothing to do with this. She was referring to a network of mostly alternative media sources, such as talk radio, the National Review, etc. Emailgate was broken by the New York Times and is fueled by "mainstream sources." They, too, have an adversarial relationship with Hillary, which they, themselves, are the first, to admit. Confusing this latter adverserial relationship with Hillary's 1998 comment is to completely misunderstand the 1998 comment.

The media was pretty clearly with Obama for the entire 2008 campaign. It was more balanced in 2012. They gave Romney a lot of passes (for example, letting him get away with not releasing his tax returns is a big one). I doubt it's a coincidence that big business also switched from heavily backing Obama in 2008 to heavily backing Romney in 2012. I'd be willing to wager that's not a random correlation.

The pundits and the old white men that run the media have made it very clear that starting witch hunts against Hillary is still their favorite pasttime even two decades later. What the reason for that is probably varies. Some of them (particularly FOX) are just RNC shills. Others from the left (such as MSNBC) deeply dislike Hillary due to hurt feelings from 2007-2008 and don't want her to win. Others will want a competitive Democratic primary for ratings, so they'll try to drag her down. Some might just be jumping on the bandwagon since "everyone else is doing it". Maybe some are "persuaded" by their big business ties. Maybe some of them have mommy issues. Regardless, the reasons are immaterial to Hillary's campaign. Since they've clearly picked their side and lost any semblance of objectivity, they can't be trusted to moderate a fair and impartial presidential debate. It won't really matter in the primary since her opponents will be fairly irrelevant, but it could be problematic for the general election. I wonder how her team is planning to deal with that, and with a strategy for the media in general. If they're not thinking about that, they need to start yesterday. The media will be the biggest obstacle she'll need to overcome in order to win, particularly if the Republican nominee ends up being media darling Jeb Bush.

[Beet]

Yes, and while no one would say an adversarial media relationship is a good thing for any politician, I think people who dislike Clinton and think of her as "just another Bush or a Clinton, a boring person getting by on her name and lack of male genitals" tend to underestimate how much it is part of her appeal as well. And not just the media, but all of her numerous enemies... it's what makes her a fighter, which is, to many of her supporters, her best quality. Ever since the American people were introduced to this woman by the name of Hillary Rodham Clinton, "no Tammy Wynette standing by her man", who muscled into an administration she was not elected to, and tried to manage a more ambitious health care overhaul than Obamacare (one with cost reforms as well as universal coverage) she has been a fighter.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Yes, and while no one would say an adversarial media relationship is a good thing for any politician, I think people who dislike Clinton and think of her as "just another Bush or a Clinton, a boring person getting by on her name and lack of male genitals" tend to underestimate how much it is part of her appeal as well. And not just the media, but all of her numerous enemies... it's what makes her a fighter, which is, to many of her supporters, her best quality. Ever since the American people were introduced to this woman by the name of Hillary Rodham Clinton, "no Tammy Wynette standing by her man", who muscled into an administration she was not elected to, and tried to manage a more ambitious health care overhaul than Obamacare (one with cost reforms as well as universal coverage) she has been a fighter.

Eleanor Roosevelt was a much better First Lady. There was some serious talk of Truman / Roosevelt 1948.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.trumanlibrary.org/eleanor/1948.html

[Beet]

Eleanor Roosevelt was a much better First Lady. There was some serious talk of Truman / Roosevelt 1948.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.trumanlibrary.org/eleanor/1948.html

Of course Eleanor was a wonderful lady, but she's also rather dead (without having been elected to anything), and thus safe to heap praise upon. If Hillary were to announce a renunciation of office now (as she should), I'm sure her favor-abilities would rise with time as well. But for women, praise with a tinge of condescension has always been easier actually reaching for the chalice of power. The only difference is that now there is a more realistic chance than in Eleanor's time.

[136or142]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There was also talk of Eleanor Roosevelt running for President in 1952.  You can find her response to that somewhere on youtube.

[Oak Hills]

Though there have been a lot of good points about the media brought up in this thread, I think a major, and probably the most important one, at least when discussing outlets such as The New York Times, is that reporters are always hoping to make a name for themselves by bringing a major public figure down, regardless of who it is.  And I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing.  It makes it much more likely that the winner will be someone who can handle the presidency, and that politicians won't be able to get away with unethical behavior.  I agree, however, that Hillary is one of the media's favorite punching-bags, and that they often go too far with it.  Still, I'm not upset that the Times published that story.  It's good to have everything that could possibly be important become public.  Even if it has the side-effect of creating controversies over trivial things.  That's why I blame outlets like CNN, Politico, and their ilk a lot more for these types of things.  They harp on all sorts of non-issues, instead of actually doing their own original reporting.

[GLPman]

In other news, the sky is blue.

[HAnnA MArin County]

I agree with what X said. The media, particularly MSNBC, is more concerned about cracking Hillary's alleged "inevitably" than they are about reporting the issues. As X said, the media is a business and a business wants to make money; for the media, they want ratings, and that can only be done (particularly at MSNBC) if there is another contested Democratic primary. They already know there's going to be a contested Republican primary, as there was in 2012, but most Republicans don't want MSNBC so it's not going to matter to them. I wouldn't be surprised if they are cavorting with the MoveOn/Daily Kos crowd that's trying to get Warren/Sanders into the race all because they have hated Hillary from Day 1 all because of one vote she made over a decade ago.

IceSpear is correct about the media being pro-Obama for most of the primary. They were actually pretty fair up until the Iowa caucuses and from then on out, they did all they could to get her out of the race and him in office. It was a very sad day to have discovered that she got more favorable treatment from Fox News than at MSNBC.

[Beet]

Anyway, it doesn't matter. Hillary won't win. I've just returned from the Washington Post comments section, and I could not find a single positive original comment about Hillary. I scrolled down until Internet Explorer stopped responding. Hundreds of comments. Not 90-10, not 95-5, not even 99-1 (as one comment suggested), but literally 100% to 0%. She'd be crazy to run. She'll be buried in the hate. Mark my words.

[Panda Express]

Anyway, it doesn't matter. Hillary won't win. I've just returned from the Washington Post comments section, and I could not find a single positive original comment about Hillary. I scrolled down until Internet Explorer stopped responding. Hundreds of comments. Not 90-10, not 95-5, not even 99-1 (as one comment suggested), but literally 100% to 0%. She'd be crazy to run. She'll be buried in the hate. Mark my words.

Hold on

Wait a minute

Back up

You use Internet Explorer?

[Beet]

Anyway, it doesn't matter. Hillary won't win. I've just returned from the Washington Post comments section, and I could not find a single positive original comment about Hillary. I scrolled down until Internet Explorer stopped responding. Hundreds of comments. Not 90-10, not 95-5, not even 99-1 (as one comment suggested), but literally 100% to 0%. She'd be crazy to run. She'll be buried in the hate. Mark my words.

Hold on

Wait a minute

Back up

You use Internet Explorer?

Yes, in Windows 8, IE offers better integration with the OS than other browsers.

In any case, I checked out the Huffington Post comments on a hunch, and reviewing a random Hillary story does find more negative comments, but also a significant number of positive comments. So perhaps all is not lost after all. I wonder what the difference is between the Washington vs. Huffington posts? The former is older, and has anonymous comments. The latter is newer, and has Facebook comments.

One last thought: This is a case that would really show the power of Big Data. Using sentiment analysis with knowledge of the demographics of visitors to various websites, a large tech firm could probably ascertain a political candidate's support among various demographics! That information would be quite valuable. Now I'm going to finish off this beer and head to bed.

[Simfan34]

Anyway, it doesn't matter. Hillary won't win. I've just returned from the Washington Post comments section, and I could not find a single positive original comment about Hillary. I scrolled down until Internet Explorer stopped responding. Hundreds of comments. Not 90-10, not 95-5, not even 99-1 (as one comment suggested), but literally 100% to 0%. She'd be crazy to run. She'll be buried in the hate. Mark my words.

Solid analysis of an unimpeachable data set.

[Stranger in a strange land]

Anyway, it doesn't matter. Hillary won't win. I've just returned from the Washington Post comments section, and I could not find a single positive original comment about Hillary. I scrolled down until Internet Explorer stopped responding. Hundreds of comments. Not 90-10, not 95-5, not even 99-1 (as one comment suggested), but literally 100% to 0%. She'd be crazy to run. She'll be buried in the hate. Mark my words.

This is case in point why Republicans can get whatever they want when they have congress and the presidency, and can block everything even when they have neither. Democrats act like losers, even when we're winning. Republicans act like winners, even when they're losing.

[IceSpear]

Anyway, it doesn't matter. Hillary won't win. I've just returned from the Washington Post comments section, and I could not find a single positive original comment about Hillary. I scrolled down until Internet Explorer stopped responding. Hundreds of comments. Not 90-10, not 95-5, not even 99-1 (as one comment suggested), but literally 100% to 0%. She'd be crazy to run. She'll be buried in the hate. Mark my words.

Well, there are a few points here. Right wingers flock to news articles about Hillary like flies on sh**t. Usually they get linked from places like Drudge and Breitbart. That alone probably comprises a very large amount of the commentary about Hillary even on "left leaning" sites like WaPo. For example, if you happen to stumble upon a top article on WaPo about Obama that happened to have been linked by Drudge, the comments will be overwhelmingly negative despite the WaPo commenters tending to be fairly positive toward Obama in general.

Secondly, the Democrats least likely to like Hillary (white men that are very left wing) are also the most likely demographic to bitch about her on the internet. How many women do you think comment on WaPo? On the Atlas, we have like what, 2 women? Hillary's core supporters aren't the type of people to bloviate about how great she is on internet comment sections (though I am an exception to this ).