OK, while I'm fascinated with the fact that he hadn't thrown his hat in the ring, I realize this is the NYT. I'm off to search for a second source on this.
It might be a better use of your time looking for evidence he ever entered the race in the first place.
You could start with the DNC records concerning that election. It's an official process to enter as a candidate in a political party. And they keep records of that.
Well, perhaps I could find some random person on Twitter who just says it and post that for you.
That seems to work well enough as evidence here.
Do you think the Kennedy family, one of the most prestigious and powerful families in the US wouldn't have made it known that this NYT article was lying about JFK Jr not running for Senate if he had been?
You seem upset that a researcher on a research board would be inclined to research a topic you posted evidence for from a known source of disinformation.
I'm not upset about that at all. But considering this is supposed to be a research board, perhaps we should have a higher standard of evidence than randos on Twitter just claiming something and it being taken as the truth?
Why is it that people are so ready to believe something just because a Twitter post is linked here? This is not the first time I've seen this happen. Or even the 50th.
My point was that what people deem as acceptable sources varies wildly here. Anonymous, badly pieced together video found on Twitter is enough to convince someone, while a DSCC official making a statement in a top newspaper is met with doubt.
And yes, I know it's the NYT, and most people here think they're liars....until the NYT says something they like, and only then are they deemed credible. But only for that one article.
OK, while I'm fascinated with the fact that he hadn't thrown his hat in the ring, I realize this is the NYT. I'm off to search for a second source on this.
It might be a better use of your time looking for evidence he ever entered the race in the first place.
You could start with the DNC records concerning that election. It's an official process to enter as a candidate in a political party. And they keep records of that.
Much, much simpler is Google news lets you do searches for specific times. Super helpful for research.
So you can search for news articles from back then with out getting flooded with search results from now
Here's what That Senate race looked like
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/campaigns/keyraces2000/stories/lowey030299.htm
https://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/05/25/lowey.hillary/
A Democrat Exits for the Undeclared Clinton
This is a great tip! Thanks so much for sharing it.
Well, perhaps I could find some random person on Twitter who just says it and post that for you.
That seems to work well enough as evidence here.
Do you think the Kennedy family, one of the most prestigious and powerful families in the US wouldn't have made it known that this NYT article was lying about JFK Jr not running for Senate if he had been?
You seem upset that a researcher on a research board would be inclined to research a topic you posted evidence for from a known source of disinformation.
Calm down, fren. The truth will out.
I'm not upset about that at all. But considering this is supposed to be a research board, perhaps we should have a higher standard of evidence than randos on Twitter just claiming something and it being taken as the truth?
Why is it that people are so ready to believe something just because a Twitter post is linked here? This is not the first time I've seen this happen. Or even the 50th.
My point was that what people deem as acceptable sources varies wildly here. Anonymous, badly pieced together video found on Twitter is enough to convince someone, while a DSCC official making a statement in a top newspaper is met with doubt.
And yes, I know it's the NYT, and most people here think they're liars....until the NYT says something they like, and only then are they deemed credible. But only for that one article.
It's ridiculous.
Become a mod. Raise the bar.