Just because I think Hillary is more likely than Bernie to win the Democratic nomination, I don;t think it’s over, not do I think it should be a coronation. It’s not and it shouldn’t. .Because I have shared some articles that included media bias toward Hillary, I am also sharing the following article that includes bias toward Bernie. I agree with large parts of it, and will discuss some of the items with which I disagree.
It’s not over. Far from it. The economic and political establishment, which includes the Democratic National Committee (DNC), its Wall Street and corporate backers, and the major media, most of it now owned by a half dozen big corporations, have worked feverishly to turn the Democratic primary process into a coronation for Hillary Clinton.
Bottom line, they wanted to declare it over before actual voters could vote, but their carefully crafted strategy began to #FeelTheBern.
Here’s ten ways that establishment has sought to orchestrate the results, and why the race has a long ways to go.
1. Major Media Blackout
When Sanders began his campaign, as he often recounts, he had virtually no national name recognition (compared to Clinton’s universal recognition) and trailed her by 60 to 70 points in national polls.
The major media barely breathed his name, even when he began drawing crowds of 20,000 or more to summer rallies. Partly the result of the obsession with Trump, but also because the conglomerates controlling the media hardly wanted to promote such a fierce critic of Wall Street and the 1 percent.
In December the nightly news networks had allotted Trump 23 times more coverage than Sanders, on ABC alone 81 minutes to Trump for the year, compared to only 20 seconds for Sanders.
Even though while Sanders was holding extensive campaign events and press availabilities for months, Clinton was mostly avoiding public events and media avails, with the media largely ignoring its rebuff. (Even today you rarely see it pointed out that Clinton continues to dodge press conferences.)
2. They’re Debating When?
Ironically unlike the Republican National Committee, the DNC manipulated its debate schedule to have the fewest number of debates at the worst times, intended to minimize voter viewing, including setting them on holiday weekends and the Saturday night before Christmas.
The goal was to restrict voter exposure and side-by-side comparison with other candidates who offered a significant alternative to Clinton, which served to keep name recognition of Sanders and his prescription for change artificially low. Additional debates were only added much later after widespread condemnation of the DNC…
Inserted from <AlterNet>
I shared the first two. Click through for the other eight. I especially agree with these two items. However there are some items with which I disagree,
#4 talks about vote rigging in Arizona to throw the election to Hillary, through the small number of polling places in Maricopa county. There is no evidence that the Republican cut in polling places was better for Hillary than Bernie, Since the demographic group most effected was Latinos, and since exit polling shows that the majority if those that did vote preferred Hillary, it may well have helped Bernie.
#6 calls closed primaries undemocratic, because independent voters tend to favor Bernie. Primaries are not general elections to chose what independent voters want. They are elections to determine what the members of a specific political party want. It is only fair that members of the Democratic Party choose which candidates will represent that party. In SC in 2010, so many Republican Party members crossed the lines in that state’s open primary that they nominated Alvin Greene, an extreme conservative, as the Democratic nominee for the US Senate. Also, the Republican Party has a national rule that only registered Republican voters count in all Republican primaries. They can use that rule as an excuse to declare primary elections in Open Primary states invalid to steal their nomination from Fecal Dump Trump. Opening primaries to non-party voters is an invitation for disaster. For those, who insist that they should have their say, my answer is simple. Join the party in which you want to have your say. You are under no obligation to vote for the candidates in the general election.
#11 claims that “the math” guarantees that Bernie will win. The last time I heard that argument was when Karl Rove claimed that “the math” guaranteed that Little Lord Willard would beat Obama in 2012. “The math” holds as much water as a sieve.
When we know, we’ll know.
My big concern is that, no matter who wins, the supporters of the other will feel resentful, pick up their toys, and go home. Over the years I have seen it many, many times. This year that cannot be. This year, whoever wins, we must all go on together.
13 Responses to “Not a Coronation”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Morning Joe finally broke the blackout and did a major segment on Bernie.
I want to see a NY debate. Wish the DNC was pressuring Clinton to do so.
The reports of folks who had registered DEM and even had the cards to prove it that were told they couldn't vote because of what the ID scan result told the poll workers is the greater concern in terms of rigging–that's where Bernie supporters were mostly affected. The disproportionately affected recently registered (the young).
Even in CA the open primary rule excludes presidential primaries.
Joe is a Republican that has hated Hillary for years. I'mn glad Bernie got the coverage but few Democrats watch Joe.
You will see a NY debate.
Republicans are incompetent, and their registrtion database has not beeen kept up to date. That is not bias against Bernie, but it does effect him more, he is so popular with young voters.
Open Parmaries aree more likely to cause trouble down-ballot.
I'd like to see a debate HRC & Bernie too.
My first choice in Bernie, of course, but of course, Hillary 2nd.
My heart says Bernie, but ultimately, vote Democrat!!!
Interesting article.
I agree with you that Arizona was not rigged to hurt Bernie. It was not even rigged to hurt Democrats, in the primary. The rigging was likely designed to hurt democrats n the General, and the primary just showed the rigging up, which seems to have turned out to be an "Oooops!" for the riggers. The way it was mentioned in the article, though, doesn't specify its hurting Bernie, and in fact I have no idea whether it did or not. But it hurt democracy.
On open vs. closed primaries, I couldn't agree with you more. It's clear to me that the push to open (or jungle) primaries is coming from the right, and if you look at states that have them, you can mostly see why. IMO any party, and that includes the Greens, the Libertarians, and any other parties that are duly formed, and that people are registered with, should be left alone to have its own primaries its own way. In my state, independent (we call them "unaffiliated" voters, which is probably more accurate, because from what I have seen their thinking is anything but "independent") voters are welcome to affilliate to vote in a primary, even on the day of the primary, even at the polling place by affidavit, and vote. Just not for more than one primary. And it's easy to change back. In fact, even affiliated voters may change affiliation to vote in the other party's primary, though not at the last minute – it must be done ahead of time (but it's also wasy to change back.) Sometimes this is termed "ratf**king," but I have done it, in self-defense and only once. I lived in a very red area where a reasonable Republican (there were still such things) was being primaried by what we would now call a TeaBagger or a RWNJ (there were a few around but they were not yet a "movement.") Probably half the Democrats in the District did the same. If we had had a viable candidate who was opposed in our primary, we of course would not have done so – it was a very rare occurrence – but possible.
WRT "The Math" – it's still true – figures don't lie, but liars do figure. As you say, we'll know when we know.
I also am concerned about voters picking up their toys and going home. So, incidentally, is Bernie. It's not the Democratic thing to do, nor is it the grown-up thing to do. But people are human. But again, we won't know what we are up against in this regard until we know.
P. S. – I suppose it's pretty easy to see the similarities between Bernie's platform and FDR's. But with the slough of smiling and laughing pictures that are now starting to cme out, there's even a physical similarity between Bernie and "The Happy Warrior."
I REALLY want Bernie!!!! But if I have to, I'll vote for Hillary. I think the best solution is that whoever wins, they should ask the other to run as VP. It would make sure both sides' supporters VOTE in the general. Plus it would show how grown-ups conduct elections & solve problems! 😉
Yes, we will see what we will see. I do not know that Pres. and VP. candidacies ought to go together, here, as they are both, essentially, from the same quadrant of the country, but maybe that is a rule of thumb that does not matter this year.
One way, or another, we NEED to get a Dem president!
The media "block" of Bernie has been a disgrace. I want him to be the nominee, but if Clinton is the Dem candidate, I will vote for her. We do not need anyone from the clown car in the White House.
Bottom line is: no Republican in the White House! AND don't forget: vote as many Republicans out of office, any office, too!
I'd love to see Bernie Sanders as president, but for him to be able to do anything he'll need a virtual revolution in the Democratic party to back him. Hillary is second choice, but still a good choice. Make sure she is held to her promises by putting as many progressives in Congress as you can.
Bingo!
Pretty much nail meeting hammer …
On one of my threads, a Care2 commentator remarked how a particular "… US university (can't remember which one) which has correctly predicted who will be POTUS for the last four decades. Some time ago they predicted it would be Bernie Sanders! "
I don't know how true that is but what a thought! . . . especially in light of the matters mentioned in the article. I have a question though . . . Would a President Sanders run into the same obstructionist attitude? I can see the obstruction continuing because 1) Bernie is a self proclaimed social democrat which to Republicans is the same as a socialist; and 2) Republicans would publically confirm their racism (as if we did not already know). It is so important to look down the ballot as well to get the correct people in place to help reverse 2010.
Go Bernie!
A president Sanders would bebefit from mot being black, so he wouldn't pique Republican Racism. He would benefit from not being a woman, so he wouldn't pique Republican misogyny. But as a social democrat, he presents a greater threat to them than either Obama or Clinton who are socially liberal, but fiscally moderate. THerefore, he would probably face even more obstruction.
All I can say is VOTE BLUE come November of you don't want CRAZY in the White House!