Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
85 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
You may have beaten us back with an assist from the corporate media, but ..., (Original Post) mmonk Jun 2016 OP
An assist, that's putting it mildly. chapdrum Jun 2016 #1
^ BlancheSplanchnik Jun 2016 #7
Brian Williams...gag me hibbing Jun 2016 #9
Williams: "Bernie Failed to Connect." McKim Jun 2016 #17
I Went To An Event With 20,000 People In Key Arena scottie55 Jun 2016 #39
I went to the polls with several million other voters, which is where it counts in the end Hekate Jun 2016 #70
The Dirty Trick in California was The Media "Calling it for Hillary"... bvar22 Jun 2016 #83
Yep. mmonk Jun 2016 #48
I wouldn't call raucous support a bad thing. Would you? Nitram Jun 2016 #65
I don't know. merrily Jun 2016 #77
Not the original, but this is what I feel like singing sometimes around here. Hoyt Jun 2016 #2
"I see. Well, in that case...." johnp3907 Jun 2016 #3
Bernie fought the good fight Politicub Jun 2016 #4
Thank you. mmonk Jun 2016 #49
I hope we hear more from Bernie Politicub Jun 2016 #54
Bernie lost because he did not get enough votes. iandhr Jun 2016 #5
That's very true. It's not that less people wanted him as president but somehow, as if by magic rhett o rick Jun 2016 #10
Can you think of anything that Sanders might have done better? Orrex Jun 2016 #18
Seen this? proverbialwisdom Jun 2016 #22
I'm not sure that that's actually a drop Orrex Jun 2016 #26
I'm not making any claims whatsoever beyond noting the oddness of the stats. (nt) proverbialwisdom Jun 2016 #28
Well, ok. Orrex Jun 2016 #32
Not at all, it's "big data" the Sanders campaign professionals should examine and understand. (nt) proverbialwisdom Jun 2016 #34
I read the tweet to mean... WaitWut Jun 2016 #36
You got it! FailureToCommunicate Jun 2016 #44
Ah. I see. Orrex Jun 2016 #46
Yes. Better organization. Understanding the rules of each state and what was required. Then again Laser102 Jun 2016 #63
anti-Trump sentiment Skittles Jun 2016 #29
I have an opinion Auggie Jun 2016 #33
I appreciate that answer. Thank you. Orrex Jun 2016 #45
Having more people step up on the national stage would help Auggie Jun 2016 #50
Senator Sanders liberal from boston Jun 2016 #69
You missed my point. I was referring to the national stage of presidential primary debates. Auggie Jun 2016 #73
as a communication expert NJCher Jun 2016 #74
I disagree. He needed more. Auggie Jun 2016 #79
As long as you're asking, Orrex... calimary Jun 2016 #75
Thanks for that perspective. Orrex Jun 2016 #76
Live in an alternative universe where the media would actually give equal time to the front runners? robbob Jun 2016 #81
NPR has done a lousy job this entire cycle, yes. Orrex Jun 2016 #82
Not getting enough votes is not magic. Nitram Jun 2016 #66
No magic at all. Less people DID want him as president. Lord Magus Jun 2016 #85
I'm thinking more like: kcdoug1 Jun 2016 #6
"Progressives" - making excuses since Henry Wallace in 1948 wyldwolf Jun 2016 #8
SO HARD....OH SO HARD!! Jack Bone Jun 2016 #25
Ah, look at that. MisterFred Jun 2016 #31
Help Of Corporate Media? JGug1 Jun 2016 #11
The media helped big time. The only thing major about the dem party is its level of desmiller Jun 2016 #12
what a shitty reply Skittles Jun 2016 #30
Post removed Post removed Jun 2016 #35
naughty list Skittles Jun 2016 #38
Are you? The way I see it, you're just picking a fight. atomingai Jun 2016 #51
none of you folk are fooling me Skittles Jun 2016 #59
You're obviously foolproof. Nitram Jun 2016 #67
I prefer "Island of Misfit Toys" Major Nikon Jun 2016 #72
Got a shittier one. chapdrum Jun 2016 #40
WHY DO YOU THINK I AM A HILLARY VOTER? Skittles Jun 2016 #60
You must have been watching on MARS ! penndragon69 Jun 2016 #14
google is our friend for sure stupidicus Jun 2016 #16
Sanders was everywhere, on TV, etc. Don't know where these people have been. Hoyt Jun 2016 #24
Clinton being the first woman to win a presidential nomination sulphurdunn Jun 2016 #15
Amen! afertal Jun 2016 #27
I also believe that your post and the previous post are gloating. Oldtimeralso Jun 2016 #19
Enjoy Watching The Coming Wars McKim Jun 2016 #20
Post removed Post removed Jun 2016 #13
I'm looking forward to their excuse-making throughout her presidency stupidicus Jun 2016 #21
Feel the Bern! StrictlyRockers Jun 2016 #23
Baloney! MarianJack Jun 2016 #37
Your reply, that is. chapdrum Jun 2016 #41
Oh, I can't wait for the 16th MarianJack Jun 2016 #58
Time, quite frankly, isn't on the Rolling Stones' side anymore. MADem Jun 2016 #42
"If the media is "in the tank" for anyone, chapdrum Jun 2016 #43
You will not last long here if you continue to toss insults like that. MADem Jun 2016 #47
Not intended as an insult. chapdrum Jun 2016 #53
This message was self-deleted by its author bobopa Jun 2016 #57
Thanks for all the replies both pro and con. mmonk Jun 2016 #52
The Stones were never the same after Bill Wyman left Ishoutandscream2 Jun 2016 #55
Ditto Taylor's departure. chapdrum Jun 2016 #56
Yes, excellent point Ishoutandscream2 Jun 2016 #61
Rec'd, but time is not on our side dreamnightwind Jun 2016 #62
Ah, the joys of victimhood and martyrdom. Nitram Jun 2016 #64
Time is on no one's side. davidthegnome Jun 2016 #68
Excellent post, David! Raster Jun 2016 #71
Bernie had some inherent flaws as a candidate that lexington filly Jun 2016 #78
I do agree: Right person *perhaps* at the wrong time of his life... Raster Jun 2016 #80
Interactive Map - Clinton or Sanders: Who did your L.A. neighborhood choose? proverbialwisdom Jun 2016 #84
 

chapdrum

(930 posts)
1. An assist, that's putting it mildly.
Wed Jun 8, 2016, 04:03 PM
Jun 2016

Then again, that's what they do, time and time again.
MSNBC had a chyron describing Sanders supporters as "raucous."
Brian Williams was his smug, condescending self.

The CEO of CBS summed up the corporate media ethos, when he admitted (publicly, too) that
Trump is "hurting America," but he's great for ratings.

As we have long known, profits first - EVERYTHING else to the back of the line.

hibbing

(10,175 posts)
9. Brian Williams...gag me
Wed Jun 8, 2016, 04:38 PM
Jun 2016

Glad to know I'm not the only one who has a dislike of him. I've posted before about his constant little jokes that he is so proud of himself about.

Peace

McKim

(2,412 posts)
17. Williams: "Bernie Failed to Connect."
Wed Jun 8, 2016, 05:11 PM
Jun 2016

It was a rich moment last night when Brian Williams blamed Bernie because he "failed to connect". Amazing! Wonder why he failed to connect with voters, Brian!

 

scottie55

(1,400 posts)
39. I Went To An Event With 20,000 People In Key Arena
Wed Jun 8, 2016, 06:19 PM
Jun 2016

I didn't see anyone he failed to connect with there.....

Maybe Brian is too busy stashing his cash in the Cayman Islands to notice the obvious.

Hekate

(92,438 posts)
70. I went to the polls with several million other voters, which is where it counts in the end
Thu Jun 9, 2016, 12:20 PM
Jun 2016

In California we have a paper trail, so if you want a recount, go for it.

bvar22

(39,909 posts)
83. The Dirty Trick in California was The Media "Calling it for Hillary"...
Thu Jun 9, 2016, 03:44 PM
Jun 2016

...the night before the election.

Nitram

(23,657 posts)
65. I wouldn't call raucous support a bad thing. Would you?
Thu Jun 9, 2016, 11:55 AM
Jun 2016

Raucous support is not violent, just a little noisy. Every candidate has raucous supporters.

merrily

(45,251 posts)
77. I don't know.
Thu Jun 9, 2016, 02:09 PM
Jun 2016

How do you decide that Trump gets bigger ratings than Bernie? Very early on, Trump was not drawing crowds, Bernie was drawing 30,000. If I were betting early on on who would give me better ratings, Trump, Hillary or Bernie, I would have gone with Bernie.

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
10. That's very true. It's not that less people wanted him as president but somehow, as if by magic
Wed Jun 8, 2016, 04:39 PM
Jun 2016

the side in charge of counting the votes, the Establishment won. All we can do is take our blue pill and pretend he lost fair and square. Those that chose to side with the Establishment so they could gloat should remember that it's going to be those among us that are struggling that are going to get the worst of this. For every war for profit, every "bank crisis", ultimately hurts the most vulnerable. There are two sides to this class war the Progressive Side fighting for the People and the Corporate Side fighting for bigger and bigger profits for corporations. We may lose this battle but we will be back.

Orrex

(63,562 posts)
18. Can you think of anything that Sanders might have done better?
Wed Jun 8, 2016, 05:12 PM
Jun 2016

Last edited Thu Jun 9, 2016, 07:15 AM - Edit history (1)

Specifically, what errors of strategy or message do you think he made that allowed this to happen?

I'm looking for a serious answer here, as opposed to "he failed to call Clinton out for such-and-such."

If Sanders had it to do over again, what might he have done differently?

proverbialwisdom

(4,959 posts)
22. Seen this?
Wed Jun 8, 2016, 05:20 PM
Jun 2016
https://twitter.com/ShaunKing/status/740599850002157569/photo/1

Shaun King
@ShaunKing

Wow. In spite of record voter registration in California, voting PLUMMETED after the @AP said the race was over.
http://pic.twitter.com/nCucNf8BA3
10:42 AM - 8 Jun 2016


Orrex

(63,562 posts)
26. I'm not sure that that's actually a drop
Wed Jun 8, 2016, 05:27 PM
Jun 2016

Two statements are made:
1. A record number of people registered to vote.

2. Fewer people voted in the Democratic primary in 2016 than in 2008.

I'm not sure that I see how those are necessarily incompatible. For instance:

It's entirely possible that many who registered didn't vote in the primary.
It's entirely possible that many who voted in 2008 didn't vote in 2016.
It's entirely possible that many who registered would have voted for Clinton.
It's entirely possible that many who registered are Republicans.

You seem to be suggesting that California experienced massive voter suppression or fraud; if that's not your claim, then please clarify. I would be interested to see what evidence we have of actual voters whose votes didn't make it into the final count.


And while we're at it, Sanders could have taken the state yet still lost to Clinton.



Beyond all of that, your post does nothing to answer my question.

WaitWut

(71 posts)
36. I read the tweet to mean...
Wed Jun 8, 2016, 06:00 PM
Jun 2016
Wow. In spite of record voter registration in California, voting PLUMMETED after the @AP said the race was over.


Meaning that every major news network and website ran with the "Hillary's Won" headline an hour before the poles opened in California, and that might have had a marginal impact on voter turnout in a previous record high registration cycle.

What a whacky thought that is.

Orrex

(63,562 posts)
46. Ah. I see.
Wed Jun 8, 2016, 07:44 PM
Jun 2016

I guess that's a fair point, though I'm not sure what he might have done about it.

I have a somewhat related suggestion, though: for states with closed primaries, it might have been helpful for Sanders' campaign to reach out to voters in those states to advise them of early cut-off dates for registration (e.g., NY) and to provide information about how to register or switch. I'm aware of the perception that many voters in such states weren't able to cast primary ballots for Sanders because of those cut-off dates, so perhaps he could have gotten out in front of that trend.



Laser102

(816 posts)
63. Yes. Better organization. Understanding the rules of each state and what was required. Then again
Thu Jun 9, 2016, 11:21 AM
Jun 2016

it could be the Hispanic population registered a number of people to stop tRump. They simply didn't vote in the primary.

Auggie

(31,414 posts)
33. I have an opinion
Wed Jun 8, 2016, 05:45 PM
Jun 2016

Sanders voter here. I donated money too.

I wish he would have brought more specific thought and/or plans to his speeches and his debates. He kept repeating the same rhetoric. I think people needed more details on how we might achieve change rather than just what the problems are.

Orrex

(63,562 posts)
45. I appreciate that answer. Thank you.
Wed Jun 8, 2016, 07:39 PM
Jun 2016

FWIW I sensed a bit of the same, and after a while it gave the impression (right or wrong) that he might not have answers for the problems that he identified.

I believe that he still has a lot to say on the matter, though, so I hope that he keeps talking!

Auggie

(31,414 posts)
50. Having more people step up on the national stage would help
Wed Jun 8, 2016, 07:54 PM
Jun 2016

Of course MSM coverage on progressive issues outside of elections is non-existent. Heck, it was nearly non-existent during the primary.

We really need progressive ideas to be presented with plans, however rough, that would/could implement them. Some might be even be news-worthy for corporate media to notice.

69. Senator Sanders
Thu Jun 9, 2016, 12:19 PM
Jun 2016

Last edited Thu Jun 9, 2016, 01:14 PM - Edit history (1)


Strange that you did not hear what I heard. When you donated to Senator Sanders did you not see his detailed economic policies on his website?? BTW, Robert Reich & 170 Economists Endorse Senator Sanders Plan to Reform Wall Street & Rein In Greed.

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/01/14/170-economists-bernie-sanders-plan-reform-wall-st-rein-greed.html


http://blogpro.eu/wall-street-titan-bernie-sanders-will-help-the-real-economy/

Auggie

(31,414 posts)
73. You missed my point. I was referring to the national stage of presidential primary debates.
Thu Jun 9, 2016, 01:15 PM
Jun 2016

Do you expect the mass electorate to dig into a website for details? They're too lazy to even vote most the time (it's being reported a lot of millenials didn't bother to vote in the CA primary -- truly a WTF moment). The debates were his best opportunity and I'm afraid to say he blew it by being too general and too repetitious.

Website!

NJCher

(36,516 posts)
74. as a communication expert
Thu Jun 9, 2016, 01:50 PM
Jun 2016

I am a professor of communication and also have been a practitioner (public relations, marketing) for some of the world's largest corporations. Repetition is the key. You may have heard it, but you're paying attention. Most people don't.

As people get closer to the election, they start paying more attention.

One of the many things I've admired about Bernie is how rigorously he stuck to his message. He never deviated; he was very clear. The fact that he educated the public, along with Occupy Wall Street, is due to the single-minded nature of his message.

In case you are wondering what happens when the message varies too much, it is confusion. The candidate or "sender," as we call it in communication, muddies the waters and there is no clear picture.


Cher

Auggie

(31,414 posts)
79. I disagree. He needed more.
Thu Jun 9, 2016, 02:40 PM
Jun 2016

Sustainable campaigns need variations in voice and support points. You can focus on the same message but you need to give it little creative twists and added support points to keep the audience engaged and to keep the message fresh.

Yeah, he stuck to the message and never deviated. After a few debates it got to be boring and expected. And implementing support points were lacking.

I've been an advertising creative for over 35 years. So there!


calimary

(82,601 posts)
75. As long as you're asking, Orrex...
Thu Jun 9, 2016, 02:02 PM
Jun 2016

I'd like very respectfully to offer this perspective. As a longtime Californian, it kinda stunned me to hear Bernie dismiss Jerry Brown as "establishment." That was insulting, and it seemed as though it was MEANT to be an insult, or a put-down, or some such.

I've been around long enough to have happily voted for Jerry Brown the FIRST two times he won the governorship here. It is, well, shall we say - bewildering - to imagine that ANYBODY would describe Jerry Brown as "establishment." As a Hillary supporter, I'm not okay with ME being dismissed as "establishment" either - because I was/am supporting her, which that remark also clearly implied. Our daughter just got married and during the celebrations we were the ones affectionately regarded as the "old hippies."

Just a REALLY teeny nitpick, I know, and please forgive me if it seems as though I'm overreacting. But when I think back over all those years of my own activism (since I was 17, starting with the Student Coalition for Humphrey/Muskie before I was even old enough to vote), gotta say that really stung.

There were many other things about Bernie that I found very difficult to get behind, as well, but I'll just stop it there, with this.

I appreciate your caring enough to ask, though.

Orrex

(63,562 posts)
76. Thanks for that perspective.
Thu Jun 9, 2016, 02:04 PM
Jun 2016

Interesting to hear it from someone "on the ground" in California.

Here in PA there was less uncertainty about the primary, because the numbers seemed to favor Clinton rather early on, and that's how it played out.

robbob

(3,567 posts)
81. Live in an alternative universe where the media would actually give equal time to the front runners?
Thu Jun 9, 2016, 03:06 PM
Jun 2016

I listen to NPR/VPR as I drive in an out of Montreal on my way to work, trying to keep in touch with what is happening down in the USA. For the last several months I have listened to segment after segment where a panel of talking heads would look at the week in campaign developments. Usually the segment would involve discussing the various GOP candidates still in the race, with the emphasis gradually shifting to Trump, Cruz and Rubio as the others dropped out.

Even as it became more and more apparent that Cruz and Rubio had NO chance of winning there was still intense focus on who was saying what, how the GOP would react to Trump winning, would Cruz and Rubio work together to overcome Trumps lead (THAT lasted about 24 hours, lol!), and other such "analysis" from the professional pollsters.

Then, with about 2 minutes left in the segment, the focus would shift to the Dems. "What will Hillary do about this"? "Here is what Hillary had to say about the latest Trump gaffe...", etc. etc. And very often the segment would end without even a MENTION of Bernie Sanders. This did not happen once. This did not happen twice. I heard this happening over and over again, literally dozens of times. And not just in the last few weeks, when Hillary looked pretty certain to win the nomination, and not just in the first couple of weeks, when Bernie was a relative unknown with little chance of winning delegates. This happened consistently throughout the primaries.

Now keep a couple things in mind: many of the GOP clown car inhabitants never had ANY chance of getting the nomination. And yet they all received their moment in the spotlight. Even towards the end, as it became more and more apparent that Rubio and Cruz were NOT winning delegates, still hours and hours of air time was spent relating their stories to the public.

Another thing to keep in mind: Bernie Sanders ran a HISTORIC campaign, funded entirely from small contributions by individual supporters. Also historic were the energized and exiting rallies he ran all across the country, speaking to tens of thousands of people at a time.

And yet, for some reason, none of this was newsworthy according to the "experts" at NPR, a supposedly "left wing" source of news in America (although we all know better). Now listen; I KNOW Bernie's campaign did receive some attention in the media, and not all of it unfavorable, but I am just saying that I literally lost count of the number of times I sat through a "week in politics" summary of the primary campaign trail, and literally did not even hear Bernie's name come up.

How do you fight against that kind of bias?

Orrex

(63,562 posts)
82. NPR has done a lousy job this entire cycle, yes.
Thu Jun 9, 2016, 03:22 PM
Jun 2016

In addition to generally eclipsing Sanders, their coverage of Clinton has been generally favorable to Republicans, while they've downplayed the most grotesque behavior of Republican candidates.

If I had to guess, I'd speculate that NPR will now run more stories on Sanders and his campaign which, as you note, is historic.

Nitram

(23,657 posts)
66. Not getting enough votes is not magic.
Thu Jun 9, 2016, 11:56 AM
Jun 2016

Thinking you didn't get enough votes is magic suggests magical thinking.

Lord Magus

(1,999 posts)
85. No magic at all. Less people DID want him as president.
Fri Jun 17, 2016, 12:46 AM
Jun 2016

Or rather, more people wanted Hillary as president. Your insinuation that "the establishment" cheating in the counting of votes is a load of crap. Bernie did in fact lose fair and square.

MisterFred

(525 posts)
31. Ah, look at that.
Wed Jun 8, 2016, 05:43 PM
Jun 2016

Another Democrat who hates those 'god-damn pinko commie liberals'. With friends like these... right?

JGug1

(320 posts)
11. Help Of Corporate Media?
Wed Jun 8, 2016, 04:43 PM
Jun 2016

It is always disturbing to me when I find that fellow liberals complain about the "corporate media." I assume the complaint is about Bernie losing the nomination. Bernie lost. I admired much of what he brought, maybe all of what he brought but he lost. He didn't lose because of the media. Everywhere I looked, I found admiring coverage of his run for the nomination. When he won, he got great encouragement. He lost, not only the overall popular vote to Hillary but he lost New Jersey and California, two HUGE sources of delegates and he lost NY, another big state. It is not time to mourn. It is time to celebrate that the first woman in history has won nomination to be the candidate of a major party.

desmiller

(747 posts)
12. The media helped big time. The only thing major about the dem party is its level of
Wed Jun 8, 2016, 04:57 PM
Jun 2016

corruption. I believe that your post is the polite version of gloating. I've lost my patience and extremely fed up with you Hillary supporters. I going to put you in my naughty list before you reply back with more garbage.

Response to Skittles (Reply #30)

 

atomingai

(71 posts)
51. Are you? The way I see it, you're just picking a fight.
Wed Jun 8, 2016, 07:58 PM
Jun 2016

Sometimes, a person's happiness can make him do and say stupid things.


des was right to put you in his ignore list. I think I'll do the same, because I believe that supporters like you are a defect to Democracy. So long!!

 

chapdrum

(930 posts)
40. Got a shittier one.
Wed Jun 8, 2016, 06:22 PM
Jun 2016

Hillary laughed at requests to release transcripts of her $225K speeches to...Goldman Sachs.
One of the companies that engaged in fraudulent practices that helped crash the economy in 2008.
But, no problem for the Hil.

That shit speaks quite eloquently for itself.

Of course, NONE of this is lost on the Blankfeins and Dimons of our country.

Hillary voters, thy name is masochism.

Skittles

(154,774 posts)
60. WHY DO YOU THINK I AM A HILLARY VOTER?
Wed Jun 8, 2016, 09:13 PM
Jun 2016

seriously - WHY? I was not even allowed to post in the Hilary room.....GET SOME CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS

 

penndragon69

(788 posts)
14. You must have been watching on MARS !
Wed Jun 8, 2016, 05:03 PM
Jun 2016

All the corporate media did was worship Clinton and Trump and IGNORED
Bernie. If they even mentioned him, it was as a side note saying...

Oh yeah, this sanders guy was running also.

Shameless hillbot shills.

 

sulphurdunn

(6,891 posts)
15. Clinton being the first woman to win a presidential nomination
Wed Jun 8, 2016, 05:07 PM
Jun 2016

is as irrelevant to her policy positions and history in office as the color of Donald Trump's hairpiece is his, or Obama's race was to his.

 

afertal

(148 posts)
27. Amen!
Wed Jun 8, 2016, 05:36 PM
Jun 2016

For the life of me I don't understand why I am supposed to celebrate that we have now nominated a Female multi-millionaire who is a Wall-street favorite and prone to international 'adventures'. I wouldn't vote for a man with that background if I had a choice, but I'm supposed to be excited because she is a woman.

I guess it matters what kind of plumbing you have when you run for president, but take heart, at least you can use the restroom of your choice.

Oldtimeralso

(1,941 posts)
19. I also believe that your post and the previous post are gloating.
Wed Jun 8, 2016, 05:13 PM
Jun 2016

And as the late and great Yogi once said,"It ain't over till it's over!"

McKim

(2,412 posts)
20. Enjoy Watching The Coming Wars
Wed Jun 8, 2016, 05:14 PM
Jun 2016

So you will enjoy the coming wars as thousands die in the Middle East, won't be your kids or grandkids soing the fighting and dying.

Response to mmonk (Original post)

 

stupidicus

(2,570 posts)
21. I'm looking forward to their excuse-making throughout her presidency
Wed Jun 8, 2016, 05:16 PM
Jun 2016

(assuming she isn't indicted and wins the general) when the real HC shows up

MADem

(135,425 posts)
42. Time, quite frankly, isn't on the Rolling Stones' side anymore.
Wed Jun 8, 2016, 06:47 PM
Jun 2016

That mean old corporate media gave Bernie Sanders more airtime and attention than any other candidate, save Trump:


http://www.mediaite.com/tv/bernie-sanders-more-than-triples-hillary-clinton-in-sunday-show-appearances/

Bernie Sanders More Than Triples Hillary Clinton in Sunday Show Appearances
by Tommy Christopher | 1:28 pm


Independent Vermont Senator and Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders and his supporters would like voters to believe that they have been victims of “extreme bias” from the news media, a claim that all three candidates can make to some degree. In one key metric, however, Bernie Sanders blows away not just Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton, but even presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump.

While it’s true that there are clear examples of bias against Sanders, as there are with Hillary Clinton and even against Donald Trump, the overall effect can be difficult to measure. There’s one metric, though, that clearly indicates how much of the most advantageous kind of coverage a candidate is getting, the kind of coverage in which the candidates get to speak for themselves directly to a national audience. On that score, Bernie Sanders is the hands-down winner, racking up more than triple the number of Sunday news show appearances of Hillary Clinton, and even eclipsing the total of media puppeteer Donald Trump.

Since the beginning of this campaign, Sanders has made 82 Sunday show appearances to Hillary Clinton’s 25, while Trump is close behind Sanders at 75, including this past weekend.

Even by other measures, though, it doesn’t appear that Sanders is getting short-shrift from the media. Analysis of “earned” versus paid media shows Hillary Clinton more than doubling Sanders (while Trump doubles the two of them put together), but another recent study shows that most of the free media Hillary earns has been negative. In blunt metrics like cable news mentions over the past three months, Clinton and Sanders split about a hundred thousand mentions 60-40, which roughly tracks with the vote totals they’ve received in the primaries. Donald Trump, meanwhile, is mentioned as much as Sanders and Clinton combined, despite earning millions fewer votes.



If the media is "in the tank" for anyone, it's Trump.
 

chapdrum

(930 posts)
43. "If the media is "in the tank" for anyone,
Wed Jun 8, 2016, 07:11 PM
Jun 2016

it's Trump."

With Shillary right behind.

Of course, she looks like FDR next to Trump. But it's quite clear that she's no FDR.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
47. You will not last long here if you continue to toss insults like that.
Wed Jun 8, 2016, 07:51 PM
Jun 2016

You might want to edit your bitter post.

Or not. I don't really care.

Hillary Clinton is going to be the next POTUS--and it will be a great day when she is sworn in. You can join us, and help to make history, or be left by the roadside. Your choice.

Response to MADem (Reply #42)

mmonk

(52,589 posts)
52. Thanks for all the replies both pro and con.
Wed Jun 8, 2016, 08:20 PM
Jun 2016

I do think Bernie's ideas are the future. I just hope I'm still alive and my sons' have a brighter outlook.

dreamnightwind

(4,775 posts)
62. Rec'd, but time is not on our side
Thu Jun 9, 2016, 04:39 AM
Jun 2016

Time is on the side of catastrophic climate change and a mass extinction event.

That is what drives the urgency for getting our political situation right, like yesterday. Apparently we tried but failed (with a huge assist, as you correctly pointed out, by the MSM and the corporations behind them and behind our party leadership).

davidthegnome

(2,983 posts)
68. Time is on no one's side.
Thu Jun 9, 2016, 11:58 AM
Jun 2016

Particularly when we think about climate change and the extinction-level event likely headed our way...

My issue with the corporate media is that they basically nominated Trump. It's not like any of the Republican candidates were great... but, Trump? Mr. "Hey you, you're fired!", "We gonna build us a wall and keep the Mexicans out - and make the Mexicans pay for it!", "Obama? Well, he's a muslim, you know... wasn't even born here..."

It wasn't just the stupid primary and caucus voters. It was the billions of dollars worth of free media time that Trump received, far above and beyond anything Clinton or Sanders could have hoped for. It's not over yet, either. The nightmare is just getting started.

I think Sanders was the right man for the time... the right man to fight back against the economic and social injustices of our time - but he lost. That particular battle is over. I'll tell you one thing though... time? Time is going to send us into oblivion if we let it. Forget the politicians and who leads the circus, what we need is a global, massive effort to force clean energy and a reduced carbon footprint. Either that, or start building giant sea walls, maybe put some damn mirrors in outer space, or colonizing the moon or something - because the big damn boom is coming.

Children born today may not live to see sixty or seventy... because of greed, ignorance, stupidity - and corruption. This is what we have to take on, if we are to leave behind a world for future generations of human beings to live in. Trump will lead us further into the wrong direction. Sanders, I think, would have been more progressive at the helm... but if Clinton is who we have to work with (and, she is, the race for the nomination is over) then I think we need to get busy yesterday.

Time... time is a funny thing - and we are all running out of it.

lexington filly

(239 posts)
78. Bernie had some inherent flaws as a candidate that
Thu Jun 9, 2016, 02:34 PM
Jun 2016

he was powerless to change. Many saw him as a one term candidate and believed he couldn't move his agenda very far and solidify it in only four years. I'm a senor so I think it's fair I can say, I never would have voted for him in the second election because he would have been 79 his 5th year in office. I believe Bernie was the right person at the wrong time of his life.

And Bernie was not a Democrat but an Independent; he just in truth co-opted the Party to run. Many considered him a "guest" of the Party. But when the guest bad mouths the host to such a degree, and the host's loyal history-making candidate; the guest isn't so welcomed by those who aren't Progressives under this tent.

Raster

(20,999 posts)
80. I do agree: Right person *perhaps* at the wrong time of his life...
Thu Jun 9, 2016, 02:46 PM
Jun 2016

... as to "guest" of the Party...balderdash. Senator Sanders has been more of a Democrat - albeit liberal, progressive Democrat- than many of our same party, whose loyalty is not to the citizens they supposedly serve, but to the Lords of Money they worship.

"But when the guest bad mouths the host to such a degree, and the host's loyal history-making candidate; the guest isn't so welcomed by those who aren't Progressives under this tent." Ah, the pendulum swings... good thing those closed-minded tent dwellers are reaching the end.

As for co-opting the party to run: so Ms. Goldwater Girl has been doing it longer and with more money. Other than the "history-making" aspect- the actual relevance remains to be seen. Let's pick this conversation back up in a few years...

proverbialwisdom

(4,959 posts)
84. Interactive Map - Clinton or Sanders: Who did your L.A. neighborhood choose?
Fri Jun 10, 2016, 12:57 AM
Jun 2016
http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-pol-ca-primary-2016-la-precincts/

Clinton or Sanders: Who did your L.A. neighborhood choose?

Hillary Clinton carried California by a big margin in Tuesday's primary, but early results show the vote varied across Los Angeles County. Explore how each precinct voted using this interactive map.

By Ben Welsh
June 9, 2016
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»Video & Multimedia»You may have beaten us ba...