Biden: From No Campaign to Faux Campaign

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

On 9/19/2020 at 10:48 AM, laylalex said:

There's been reporting on this in Media Matters (will not provide link because it will be slammed as trash, I'm sure). "Unemployed" encompasses not only the truly unemployed, but also retirees, students and those (like me) who do not work but have other sources of income. The Republican version of ActBlue, WinRed, asks if you're retired.  

 

I've given a lot this cycle to many candidates; sometimes it's through ActBlue and sometimes I write a check when a bundler reaches out. When I do use ActBlue, I have to put down I'm unemployed. Retirees are often large donors too.

 

A data analyst went through the FEC reports from the two organizations and came up with findings that are very different from the reporting on this. It's worth a peek even though, yes, it's on a blog by some rando. But he does provide his code on Github and links for the FEC filings for those interested. 

 

Post here: https://www.waldrn.com/fox-news-shameless-lie-about-democratic-donors/

 

Code here: https://github.com/dawaldron/actblue-winred-comparison/

Well of course because it's Media Matters.... Why do you have to put down you are unemployed?

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

On 9/19/2020 at 10:48 AM, laylalex said:

There's been reporting on this in Media Matters (will not provide link because it will be slammed as trash, I'm sure). 

That's gotta be the second lamest excuse I've seen you use, ever.  

[laylalex 7,293]

3 hours ago, Cyberfx1024 said:

Well of course because it's Media Matters.... Why do you have to put down you are unemployed?

Because it is an FEC requirement to state whether you are employed or not, and if you are, your employer. Campaigns or PACs have to report back this information back to the FEC if you donate more than $200 in aggregate in a calendar year. So even if you give $1, you might give $199 on your next donation, triggering the reporting requirement. The rule is in place, I understand, to track where employers may be pressuring employees to donate in a particular way. https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/keeping-records/recording-receipts/

[laylalex 7,293]

2 hours ago, Voice of Reason said:

That's gotta be the second lamest excuse I've seen you use, ever.  

Here you go. Personally I think the language is too weaselly -- I think the other links I provided get to the same point in a more data driven way. https://www.mediamatters.org/voter-fraud-and-suppression/fox-news-hypes-another-phony-attack-fundraising-and-payment-processor

[Dashinka 24,629]

10 hours ago, CanAm1980 said:

What is your source of data.

 

https://bongino.com/trump-campaign-outpaces-biden-in-fundraising-from-small-donors

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

12 hours ago, laylalex said:

Here you go. Personally I think the language is too weaselly -- I think the other links I provided get to the same point in a more data driven way. https://www.mediamatters.org/voter-fraud-and-suppression/fox-news-hypes-another-phony-attack-fundraising-and-payment-processor

Thank you, I'll try to get thru it.  Hadn't even heard of media matters until you mentioned being slammed for using them.  Now I see the basis of your fears.

 

Quote

Funded by / Ownership

Media Matters is a 501(c)(3), nonprofit organization that is funded through donations and sponsors. According to Sourcewatch they are funded by wealthy liberals and according to the right-leaning Influence Watch, “Media Matters was founded with $2 million in funding from wealthy progressives funneled through the Tides Foundation with additional funding from MoveOn.org and the New Democrat Network. The left-of-center donor group known as Democracy Alliance endorsed the group in 2004, resulting in a flood of donations. In 2010, George Soros gave the group $1 million. MMA has also received substantial funding from labor unions, most notably the National Education Association (NEA).” Finally, they are affiliated with the American Bridge 21st Century Super PAC.

Analysis / Bias

In review, Media Matters frequently uses emotionally loaded words that favor the left and denigrate the right such as this: Fox News bashes Bernie Sanders and misleads viewers about his policies after his Fox town hall. This report is properly sourced to credible media outlets and direct quotes. Here is another example of an emotionally charged headline designed to favor the left: The insane, toxic Trump adulation of Jeanine Pirro. Although biased in wording, this story is again properly sourced to OpenSecrets, the New York Times and the FEC. In general, Media Matters’s sole purpose is to paint the right negatively, while positively reporting on the left. Typically, they use proper sources and usually keep information in context, though opinions are clearly left-biased.

Soros is a proud donor, I see.

[laylalex 7,293]

3 hours ago, Voice of Reason said:

Thank you, I'll try to get thru it.  Hadn't even heard of media matters until you mentioned being slammed for using them.  Now I see the basis of your fears.

 

Soros is a proud donor, I see.

That's why I pointed to the data instead, and that data analyst's take. I pointed to them preemptively.

 

Media Matters DOES use loaded words, just like Dan Bongino does, and his blog was just presented here without comment, even though the same source you cite to for Media Matters (which I do not dispute) classifies Bongino as "Extreme Right." https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/bongino-com/

 

There are other sources that are more reliably neutral/MOR than that blog that come to the same conclusion as Bongino, however, and I agree with Dashinka that Trump appears to have more small value donors. Biden info: https://www.opensecrets.org/2020-presidential-race/joe-biden/candidate?id=N00001669 Trump info: https://www.opensecrets.org/2020-presidential-race/donald-trump/candidate?id=N00023864

 

Opensecrets.org is pretty data-driven and reliable. Full disclosure: I have a former classmate who used to work there and I have donated to the Center for Responsive Politics.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

42 minutes ago, laylalex said:

That's why I pointed to the data instead, and that data analyst's take. I pointed to them preemptively.

 

Media Matters DOES use loaded words, just like Dan Bongino does, and his blog was just presented here without comment, even though the same source you cite to for Media Matters (which I do not dispute) classifies Bongino as "Extreme Right." https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/bongino-com/

 

There are other sources that are more reliably neutral/MOR than that blog that come to the same conclusion as Bongino, however, and I agree with Dashinka that Trump appears to have more small value donors. Biden info: https://www.opensecrets.org/2020-presidential-race/joe-biden/candidate?id=N00001669 Trump info: https://www.opensecrets.org/2020-presidential-race/donald-trump/candidate?id=N00023864

 

Opensecrets.org is pretty data-driven and reliable. Full disclosure: I have a former classmate who used to work there and I have donated to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Meh, I am just tired of having to fact check every damn thing I read nowadays, no fault of yours.  It’s almost to the point where I discount MANY things unless I see a legit video of a person saying the words themselves. It’s ridiculous that things have gotten this way.  To the credit of media matters, while they lean way left, their factual rating seems high.  Good on them.

 

 

[laylalex 7,293]

15 minutes ago, Voice of Reason said:

Meh, I am just tired of having to fact check every damn thing I read nowadays, no fault of yours.  It’s almost to the point where I discount MANY things unless I see a legit video of a person saying the words themselves. It’s ridiculous that things have gotten this way.  To the credit of media matters, while they lean way left, their factual rating seems high.  Good on them.

 

 

It is boring work, and it sucks that we've been stuck in this situation. I think the only upside is that it does train us to be more active and clued up consumers of all kinds of media though, and not to assume that what we're being told is true. 

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,376]

18 minutes ago, Voice of Reason said:

Meh, I am just tired of having to fact check every damn thing I read nowadays, no fault of yours.  It’s almost to the point where I discount MANY things unless I see a legit video of a person saying the words themselves. It’s ridiculous that things have gotten this way.  To the credit of media matters, while they lean way left, their factual rating seems high.  Good on them.

 

 

and a lot of the fact checks are opinion

 

CNN Fact checking Trump.. While his statement is true, we must add context . followed by 6 paragraphs of slamming his statement

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

1 minute ago, laylalex said:

It is boring work, and it sucks that we've been stuck in this situation. I think the only upside is that it does train us to be more active and clued up consumers of all kinds of media though, and not to assume that what we're being told is true. 

Actually, it only makes me want to tell people to shut up, turn off the internet, and move to a remote location where none of the BS matters.  When I look something up, I want facts/truth, not some twisted opinions. 

Thankfully, youtube How-To videos haven’t been ruined by the news and social media (yet).

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

1 minute ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

and a lot of the fact checks are opinion

 

CNN Fact checking Trump.. While his statement is true, we must add context . followed by 6 paragraphs of slamming his statement

Yep.  Like the recent BS of trying to get Joe Rogan kicked off social media because he said activists were starting “forest fires” as opposed to “wildfires”.  Unbelievable cancel culture in action.

[laylalex 7,293]

2 minutes ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

and a lot of the fact checks are opinion

 

CNN Fact checking Trump.. While his statement is true, we must add context . followed by 6 paragraphs of slamming his statement

The less editorializing, the better, imo. 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

3 hours ago, laylalex said:

That's why I pointed to the data instead, and that data analyst's take. I pointed to them preemptively.

 

Media Matters DOES use loaded words, just like Dan Bongino does, and his blog was just presented here without comment, even though the same source you cite to for Media Matters (which I do not dispute) classifies Bongino as "Extreme Right." https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/bongino-com/

 

There are other sources that are more reliably neutral/MOR than that blog that come to the same conclusion as Bongino, however, and I agree with Dashinka that Trump appears to have more small value donors. Biden info: https://www.opensecrets.org/2020-presidential-race/joe-biden/candidate?id=N00001669 Trump info: https://www.opensecrets.org/2020-presidential-race/donald-trump/candidate?id=N00023864

 

Opensecrets.org is pretty data-driven and reliable. Full disclosure: I have a former classmate who used to work there and I have donated to the Center for Responsive Politics.

You mean the same Dan Bongino that is typically 1-4 weeks ahead of most news sources, and 97% accurate?  Just want to make sure we are talking about the same guy.

[laylalex 7,293]

48 minutes ago, Voice of Reason said:

You mean the same Dan Bongino that is typically 1-4 weeks ahead of most news sources, and 97% accurate?  Just want to make sure we are talking about the same guy.

Where are you getting those statistics from? Which claims in particular?