The purpose here isn't to offer an exhaustive analysis of this phenomenon; there's simply too much of it--and too few hours in the day--for this writer to comprehensively cover it. To keep the material at a manageable level, I've opted to focus only on one aspect of this: headlines that declare Sanders to be somehow in crisis. Nearly all of them are from 2019. This is not, by any stretch, a complete listing of them. These kinds of headlines have been a running joke among progressives for much of this year but when, in September, the number of them really increased, it seemed a good idea to call some attention to them. This is the fruit of, cumulatively, maybe 90 minutes of casual Googling, most of it using Google's somewhat imperfect date parameters for the months of this year (usually set for two of them at a time).
 | |
| Randy Bish cartoon, Westfield Free Press-Courier (17 June, 2016) |
After the end of Sanders' 2016 primary campaign, his supporters founded a new group, Our Revolution, which described its mission thusly:
"Through supporting a new generation of progressive leaders, empowering millions to fight for progressive change and elevating the political consciousness, Our Revolution will transform American politics to make our political and economic systems once again responsive to the needs of working families."
Politico wasn't having any of that. On 23 Aug., 2016--the day before it officially launched--Politico responded with an article, "Bernie Sanders' New Group Is Already In Turmoil."
Politico returned for another round on 29 May, 2017,"Sanders Revolution Hits A Rough Patch."
On 21 May, 2018, as Our Revolution was endorsing progressive candidates around the U.S. for that year's elections, Politico struck again: "Bernie's Army In Disarray."
A few months later, on 8 Aug., 2018, more of the same: "Bernie and His Army Are Losing 2018."
Such headlines proliferated during the 2018 congressional cycle. At the time, Justin Anderson of Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting covered the press proclivity towards "writing premature obituaries for the Democratic left," and these kinds of All Things Progressive Are Dead stories have only continued since. Sanders In Perpetual Crisis has emerged as the current cycle's major manifestation of the phenomenon.
On 19 Jan,, 2019, MSNBC contributor Jason Johnson appeared on MTP Daily and, asked about how Elizabeth Warren's entry into the race will affect Sanders' upcoming presidential campaign, offered this assessment: "He's done.... I was literally having this conversation with a good contact who's on the campaign. I was like 'I see Bernie Sanders launching his campaign and by August realizing he won't be in the top 5 in Iowa and dropping out.' I don't think he'll get that far."
On 19 Feb., Bernie Sanders officially entered the presidential race. I wrote at the time about how the Washington Post greeted this news with a flood of articles completely dismissing Sanders.[see Appendix] As usual, Sanders eschewed the corrupt big-money fundraising that has become a woefully standard practice in U.S. politics in favor of grassroots crowdfunding his campaign, with most of his support coming from small donations from supporters. In his first day alone, Sanders raised a staggering $6 million, on his way to raising $10 million from 359,914 individual donors in his first 6 days.
On 21 Feb., in the middle of that incredible windfall, Clintonite-right columnist Froma Harrop boldly declared, "Bernie Sanders, It's Over."
That day, execrable alt-right outlet Breitbart was barking up the same tree: "Donald Trump: 'Bernie's Going to Start to Fade'."
The Week, 11 March: "Bernie Sanders Has Already Lost More Than Half of His 2016 Supporters."
CNN, 20 March: "Polls show Bernie Sanders Popularity Among All Voters Is Plummeting."
That was written by Clintonite-right pollster Harry Enten and was then picked up by delighted far-right outlets:
Newmax, 20 March: "CNN: Polls Show Bernie Sanders' Popularity Dropping."
The Daily Wire, 22 March: "Sad Socialist: New Presidential Polls Show Declining Support For Bernie Sanders."
On 16 April, the first-quarter fundraising numbers for the presidential candidates were released. Sanders led the pack with over $18 million.
CNN, 29 May: "The Incredible Shrinking ... Bernie Sanders?"
The Washington Post, 29 May: "Bernie Sanders Revolution Stalls."
Bloomberg, 10 June: "Is Bernie Sanders Finished?"
Harrop was back on 18 June: "Many Democrats Happy to See Bernie Sanders on the Downward Slope."
The same day, the New York Post approvingly editorialized and expanded on Harrop with "Why So Many Democrats Are Glad To See Bernie Falling and Other Commentary."
Fox News, 28 June: "Juan Williams: Warren 'Rising' As Sanders 'Fades' In 2020 Field." (28 June, 2019)
The Hill, 3 July: "Sanders Slips In Polls, Raising Doubts About Campaign."
CNN, 3 July: "Bernie Sanders 2020 Is In Big Trouble."
The Hill, 10 July: "Billionaire Democratic Donor: Bernie Sanders Is A 'Disaster Zone.'"
On 20 July, Gallup reported that Sanders was the 2020 candidate most liked by the public. This did nothing to slow the roll of these articles.
Politics USA, 8 Aug.: "Joe Biden Leads, Elizabeth Warren Surges, And Bernie Sanders Fades In Iowa."
Liz Peek column at Fox News, 3 Sept.: "Bye-Bye Bernie – Dems Won't Nominate Socialist Senator To Run Against Trump."
The Week, 5 Sept.: "Why Bernie Sanders Is Stalled."
Politico, 17 Sept.: "Sanders Campaign Wracked By Dissension."
A headline on Sean Hannity's site on 18 Sept. declares "Fading Bernie."
Vanity Fair, 18 Sept.: "Is Bernie Sanders Beginning To Flail?"
The next day, 19 Sept., Sanders became the first presidential campaign of the cycle to hit 1 million individual donors. That same day:
CNN, 19 Sept.: "Why is Bernie Sanders Stuck in Neutral?" That's Chris Cillizza--like CNN's Harry Enten, a very anti-Sanders commentator. His same piece, in video form, was put up elsewhere on CNN under the headline, "Has Bernie Sanders Run Out of Gas?"
The Columbus Dispatch, 19 Sept.: "Sanders Campaign Turmoil As Iowa Political Director Out."
National Review, 26 Sept.: "The Beginning of Bernie's End."
Politico, 30 Sept.: "Bernie Sanders Is In Trouble."
The Washington Free Beacon, echoing Politico, 20 Sept.: "Sanders Campaign in Disarray as Warren Rises."
On 1 Oct., the candidates released their third-quarter numbers; Sanders had raised $25.3 million--by far the most of the Democratic candidates. That same day in the Daily Wire: "Is Bernie Over? Sanders Campaign Might Be Nearing Its End."
Later that day, Sanders was taken to the hospital with chest pains; it was eventually revealed he'd had a heart attack. The next day (2 Oct.) the "conservative Christian" news site NOQ Report declared, "Bernie Sanders Is Done."
Sanders rebounded quickly, saying he "was back." On 10 Oct., CNN wrote, "Bernie Sanders Says He's Back. Is He?"
That question seemed to be answered on 19 Oct., when, in New York, Sanders held what became the biggest rally of the entire presidential cycle to date. Nearly 26,000 people showed up, topping even the crowds drawn by the sitting incumbent president.
And the next day, NBC was back to the usual: "Bernie Sanders Struggles To Rebound: Staffing, Strategy, Health."
These examples come from a wide variety of sources--straight news stories and op-eds, major news outlets and some smaller specialty operations, etc. Politically, they range from far-right to Clintonite-right (progressive outlets don't seem compelled to wallow in this). Their root in anti-progressive ideology is really their only common feature. When it comes to presenting Sanders as in crisis, the Hillary Clinton brigade is indistinguishable from the white nationalists of Breitbart. Or Trump himself. They're all telling exactly the same story.
Whatever one thinks of these articles on their individual merits, this is, as a genre, gaslighting. Since the day Sanders announced his candidacy, he's has been a top-3 Democratic candidate. Month after month, poll after poll, he's been one of the leaders in the pack but this is the story the press is choosing, over and over again, to tell, a narrative that, being based in ideology, seems impervious to good news for the Sanders campaign, which I've sprinkled through this presentation. No matter what happens, he's failing, in disarray, losing, in trouble--basically, over.
That needs to change.
--j.
---
APPENDIX
The article in which I wrote about the Post's handling of Sanders' 2020 campaign launch is somewhat lengthy and deals with a lot of other subjects. Some of the articles, published by the Post in the first two days of Sanders' campaign, belong among those I've covered here. Rather than pull them out and insert rewritten summaries of them in the timeline above, I've simply reproduced them here in their complete context (alongside some articles that perhaps fall outside the relatively narrow scope of this one):
A few years ago in Harper's, Thomas Frank documented the absolute visceral hatred of Bernie Sanders that editorially emanated from the Washington Post during the 2016 primary season. The Post wasn't very happy with Sanders joining the 2020 race either. From virtually the moment the news was announced, the Post began generating a string of anti-Sanders op-eds and analyses:
"The Daily 202: The Biggest Challenge Facing Bernie Sanders 2.0," in which James Hohmann asserts that "most Democratic strategists, analysts and insiders see Bernie’s quest as quixotic." Hohmann compares Sanders to Rick Santorum, a fringe reactionary loon who carried out two unsuccessful Republican presidential campaigns. He drags out most of the cliche's of the pour-cold-water-on-Sanders-2020 press, offering the "Sanders is a victim of his own success" trope, the "Sanders will face more scrutiny" trope (in which he brings up the sexual harassment business from 2016), points out that Sanders is old, Sanders will "again take heat for past apostasies on immigration and guns," and so on. Hohmann dives into complete Clinton cult fantasy when he asserts that Sanders "enters the race with high negatives, limiting his upside potential... [M]any from the party establishment... blamed him for their defeat," and he quotes Hillary Clinton on the point! As I've covered so often it's become a trope of my own, Sanders is overwhelmingly popular in the Democratic party. The notion of "high negatives" is a flat-out lie. And yes, Hohmann goes here too: "Another factor that still annoys many Democrats: He is not a registered Democrat," which is hardly meaningful, as Sanders' state of Vermont doesn't have party registration. Hohmann concludes by pointing out Sanders' difficulties attracting African-American voters in 2016 (which is largely a myth--Sanders won young black voters but lost the more numerous and active old ones), and ignores the last two years of polling data, which has shown Sanders' popularity among African-Americans has hovered around 70% (it's at 68% in the most recent Harvard/Harris poll).
Eugene Scott does the same thing in "Bernie Sanders Struggled To Win Black Voters. It Could Be Even More Difficult In 2020."
Then, there's "Bernie, Your Moment Has Come--And Gone," in which David Von Drehle compares Bernie Sanders to Eugene McCarthy, who saw brief, flash-in-the-pan success in the 1968 presidential campaign only to pursue multiple subsequent--and wildly unsuccessful--presidential campaigns. "Sanders will find, like gruff Gene, that his moment is gone, his agenda absorbed by more plausible candidates, his future behind him. Only the residue of unslaked ambition remains."
"Bernie Sanders Is Probably Just Another One-Hit Wonder," in which Henry Olsen offers the Sanders "victim of his own success" cliche by analogizing Sanders to a musical act. "Sanders’s songs are not novel. Just as the Beatles begat a host of imitators, it seems that virtually every Democratic contender sings some sort of Bernie-inspired tune. He launches a new single, 'Medicare-for-all,' and suddenly most other Democrats are covering it." All that's required for Olsen to have a point is a world in which the Beatles are forgotten by history while everyone listens to the Monkees. He brings up Eugene McCarthy and Rick Santorum too.
"Bernie Sanders Is No Big Deal the Second Time Around," in which Jennifer Rubin just repeats some of the standard talk-it-down tropes, adding nothing original. It's mostly noteworthy because Rubin, a conservative, repeats the identity attacks of the Clintonite right.
Back in January, when Kamala Harris raised $1.5 million in the first 24 hours of her campaign, the press cooed. That matched Sanders' first-day haul from 2016, which was thought to be a record. Sanders 2020 promptly buried that record, raising $5.9 million from--also probably a record--223,000 donors (Harris had only 38,000 donors). Given that fundraising is one of the major metrics by which the corporate press measures success and viability, one would think this would inspire some humility by the journalists, pundits, outlets that had spent so much time pouring cold water on his campaign's chances.
Yeah, right.
Jennifer Rubin was right back with another cooler-full with "Why Sanders Money Haul Doesn't Mean Very Much," in which she assured readers that Sanders' "Democratic opponents shouldn’t be surprised or concerned." But she's a snowball--or a snowflake--in Hell on this one; here's what she has to say about Sanders raising nearly 4 times the previous record:
"For someone with nearly universal name recognition, an extensive donor list and a long run-up to his announcement, Sanders’s haul shouldn't impress knowledgeable political watchers."And...
"(Should Joe Biden announce, I would bet his 24-hour fundraising total will dwarf Sanders’s total. A former vice president shouldn't have to lift a finger to trigger a flood of money.)"...the petulance of which is just, well, you get the picture. Rubin goes on to argue that, suddenly, money isn't really that important in political campaigns, and gosh-darn it, Sanders can't win black voters.
