tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-63213443755447280272024-03-17T20:02:16.692-07:00News ReviewsCritically Covering the Corporate Press & Other Musingscinemarchaeologisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13507603255666191405noreply@blogger.comBlogger116125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6321344375544728027.post-67512371009264620102023-07-18T20:02:00.004-07:002023-07-20T15:57:32.579-07:00Biden's Fundraising: Covering the Hype, Bailing on the Reality<p>A day before<span class="css-901oao css-16my406 r-poiln3 r-bcqeeo r-qvutc0"> filing its fundraising data with the FEC, Joe Biden's campaign released <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUw6wi2R5O0">a video</a> that made some extravagant claims about its 2nd-quarter fundraising, some others it tried to present as extravagant. Despite some very questionable assertions, the press reported this. </span>"<a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2023/07/14/biden-doubles-trump-by-raising-72-million-in-second-quarter/70413746007/">Biden Raises $72 Million Since Announcing Reelection, Doubling Trump Over Same Stretch</a>," headlined USA Today. The New York Times (in a story headlined "<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/14/us/politics/biden-fundraising-trump-dnc.html">Biden and DNC. Announce $72 Million in Fund-Raising, a Substantial Haul</a>") quoted a Biden partisan's spin:<br /></p><blockquote>"'This is proof positive that this party and its people and the
country believe in Joe Biden and the accomplishments of this
administration,' said Henry R. Muñoz III, a former Democratic National
Committee finance chairman. 'This reaffirms Joe Biden’s appeal to the
working people and everyday heroes of this country.'"</blockquote>Mediaite: "<a href="https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/biden-doubles-trump-s-fundraising-haul-bringing-in-whopping-72m-in-second-quarter/ar-AA1dSaPr">Biden Doubles Trump’s Fundraising Haul, Bringing In Whopping $72M In Second Quarter</a>,"<br /><blockquote>"'The Biden-Harris team dramatically outraised the announced totals from
every GOP candidate running for president, including Donald Trump by
more than 2:1 and Ron DeSantis by more than 3:1,'" the president’s
campaign said in a statement."</blockquote><span class="css-901oao css-16my406 r-poiln3 r-bcqeeo r-qvutc0">Well, it turned out the actual data didn't live up to this hype, and that part isn't getting much press attention. This is an adaptation of a Twitter thread I've written on the subject in the last few days. Scrappy and perhaps not up to the standards of my usual articles, it's hopefully worth the effort to reproduce it here.<br /><br /></span><span class="css-901oao css-16my406 r-poiln3 r-bcqeeo r-qvutc0">The loud claims by the Biden camp should have raised immediate concerns, in that they were at odds with Biden's history--beyond the usual corporate and financial elites he serves, Biden has always been a very poor fundraiser. Only a few weeks ago, <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2023/06/21/anxiety-mounts-over-bidens-early-fundraising-00103031">Politico reported</a> that Democratic bundlers and donors were expressing anxiety about Biden's fundraising prowess, in the face of less than stellar results.</span><span class="css-901oao css-16my406 r-poiln3 r-bcqeeo r-qvutc0"><br /><br /></span><span class="css-901oao css-16my406 r-poiln3 r-bcqeeo r-qvutc0">The Biden campaign's Friday video said the Biden campaign, the Biden Victory Fund (Biden's joint fundraising committee with the Democratic National Committee and all 50 state Democratic parties) and the DNC itself raised $72 million, from 400,000 donors.
"There's only one word [for this], <a href="https://www.npr.org/2023/07/14/1187702969/biden-campaign-fundraising-dnc-fec-donors">said</a> Biden campaign chair Jeffrey Katzenberg. "Blockbuster." </span><a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/2024-presidential-race-fundraising-donald-trump-ron-desantis-joe-biden-republicans-democrats/">Multiple</a> <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2023/07/14/biden-2024-campaign-raises-over-72-million-in-second-quarter.html">press</a> <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-07-14/biden-raised-72-million-in-second-quarter-to-open-campaign">outlets</a>
repeated the Biden campaign's claim that its $77 million cash-on-hand
"represents the highest total amassed by a Democrat at any comparable
point in history."<br /><span class="css-901oao css-16my406 r-poiln3 r-bcqeeo r-qvutc0"><br />The reality is that Biden's numbers are quite poor. <a href="https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/biden-campaign-dnc-announce-raised-72-million-q2/story?id=101287865">ABC News notes</a> that in Q2 in 2019, the Trump campaign, its joint fundraising org and the Republican National Committee had raised $105 million. A similar combo by Obama and the Democrats way back in 2011 raised $86 million from 550,000 donors. A chart from Axios shows these numbers adjusted to 2023 dollars:<br /><br /></span><p></p><p style="text-align: center;"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUvxUT7gDOiDI0pQrXgBo26iQt6pgPAh8T3ZVkAh_KJXFpz2kIV7T_eNPb2r45gnlLoWnEE0JPU5Ko-UZHV9XjEQ-LKPd9nYvKOI-Kw5uiPgQh1PeGtaO20Br_Tb_zIQA-2nX-66vqtYa0JU2ZSs33NAGZe_IZSnftww_wKsbH8NwBDsfxh3Zce27t/s1290/Axios_Biden_Obama_Trump_compare.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="757" data-original-width="1290" height="376" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUvxUT7gDOiDI0pQrXgBo26iQt6pgPAh8T3ZVkAh_KJXFpz2kIV7T_eNPb2r45gnlLoWnEE0JPU5Ko-UZHV9XjEQ-LKPd9nYvKOI-Kw5uiPgQh1PeGtaO20Br_Tb_zIQA-2nX-66vqtYa0JU2ZSs33NAGZe_IZSnftww_wKsbH8NwBDsfxh3Zce27t/w640-h376/Axios_Biden_Obama_Trump_compare.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><span class="css-901oao css-16my406 r-poiln3 r-bcqeeo r-qvutc0"></span><p></p><p><span class="css-901oao css-16my406 r-poiln3 r-bcqeeo r-qvutc0"><br />So Biden, with $72 million from 394,000 donors, hasn't done well.<br /><br /></span><span class="css-901oao css-16my406 r-poiln3 r-bcqeeo r-qvutc0">The video is positively covered in grass. It says that, "thanks to the support of grassroots donors across the country," Team Biden has raised this money, claims "we've seen incredible enthusiasm" for Biden. "Our team's strength is our grassroots supporters," says their coalition is "powered by grassroots donors."<br /><br />The "incredible enthusiasm" part is easy to address. Biden's <a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president-biden-job-approval-7320.html">job approval numbers</a> went into "majority disapprove" only a few months into his presidency. Even <a href="https://jriddle.medium.com/re-elect-president-wile-e-coyote-by-the-numbers-8e5730ab4da">large majorities of Dems</a> have been telling pollsters for a year that they don't want Biden to run again. So no, there isn't "incredible enthusiasm" for Biden, Such judgments are subjective but while it's to be expected that any incumbent will try to offer up positive spin on behalf of his own rule, it does come across as delusional--at best, an indication of a candidate with little understanding of the difficult task he faces and at worst, like something one would see in state-controlled media under some dictatorship.</span><br /><span class="css-901oao css-16my406 r-poiln3 r-bcqeeo r-qvutc0"><br />The video makes several more specific claims </span><span class="css-901oao css-16my406 r-poiln3 r-bcqeeo r-qvutc0">about that $72 million. This image is from the video itself.<br /><br /></span></p><p style="text-align: center;"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhTtFnwp1b2-zaDHN8jHmqbwdUQIu-KdG_oki0bkLXm_LHi_38U4D08ASzJvGZsuRCFYDs702wjwOaKJ8kD8t-E-Wlxc6OwZadJ3eEI0PBieAvyEi7eYKXaGeMuIATiMRsm7ksbEpbHaIArZ1pAnm30eQr28gvldaBkXgYaDU0niLWf0cUGw8gmqAI4/s720/Biden_claims.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="720" data-original-width="720" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhTtFnwp1b2-zaDHN8jHmqbwdUQIu-KdG_oki0bkLXm_LHi_38U4D08ASzJvGZsuRCFYDs702wjwOaKJ8kD8t-E-Wlxc6OwZadJ3eEI0PBieAvyEi7eYKXaGeMuIATiMRsm7ksbEpbHaIArZ1pAnm30eQr28gvldaBkXgYaDU0niLWf0cUGw8gmqAI4/w640-h640/Biden_claims.png" width="640" /></a></div><span class="css-901oao css-16my406 r-poiln3 r-bcqeeo r-qvutc0"></span><p></p><p class="css-at9mc1 evys1bk0"><span class="css-901oao css-16my406 r-poiln3 r-bcqeeo r-qvutc0"><br /></span><span class="css-901oao css-16my406 r-poiln3 r-bcqeeo r-qvutc0">Small-dollar donations mean a campaign has broader support and isn't just funded by a relative handful of Big Money sources.</span><span class="css-901oao css-16my406 r-poiln3 r-bcqeeo r-qvutc0"> For decades, Clintonite politicians argued it was necessary to prostitute their offices to well-heeled interests in order to remain competitive with other pols who take the bribes allowed by the broken campaign finance system. During his 2016 race for the Democratic presidential nomination, progressive Bernie Sanders exposed this as a self-serving lie peddled by dirty pols and proved that small donations from supporters provided an entirely credible alternative. Since then, progressive Democratic candidates have taken pride in their grassroots support. </span><span class="css-901oao css-16my406 r-poiln3 r-bcqeeo r-qvutc0">So those last two claims in that video sound particularly impressive.</span><br /><span class="css-901oao css-16my406 r-poiln3 r-bcqeeo r-qvutc0"><br />They're also huge red flags. </span><span class="css-901oao css-16my406 r-poiln3 r-bcqeeo r-qvutc0">Biden's campaign held <a href="https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/biden-campaign-dnc-announce-raised-72-million-q2/story?id=101287865">38 mega-dollar fundraisers</a> in wealthy alcoves around the U.S. in Q2. Those don't lead to "donations under $200" or "grassroots donations." </span><span class="css-901oao css-16my406 r-poiln3 r-bcqeeo r-qvutc0">At the
same time, contributions to the Biden Victory Fund are supposed to be
shared by the DNC and the state parties, which allows wealthy individuals to give nearly $1 million--many, many times the
normal legal limit. It isn't set up that way to foster grassroots donations. </span><span class="css-901oao css-16my406 r-poiln3 r-bcqeeo r-qvutc0">Even Sanders, who virtually reinvented small-dollar fundraising, was never able to get anything like "97% of donations under $200," and the odds of plutocrat-pal Biden managing it are nil. The weasel-wording of "average grassroots donation" segregates such donations from others without explaining how. Typically, a donation under $200 is a good guide here, but Biden and the Dems didn't raise $68.9 million--97% of $72 million--with donations that average $39.</span><br /><span class="css-901oao css-16my406 r-poiln3 r-bcqeeo r-qvutc0"><br /></span>On Saturday, Biden's campaign filed with the FEC and the real picture began to emerge. The New York Times <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/16/us/politics/biden-fundraising-2024.html">reported</a> <span class="css-901oao css-16my406 r-poiln3 r-bcqeeo r-qvutc0">that "the Biden campaign and the Biden Victory Fund... collected $10.2 million from small donors--defined as those who gave $200 or less."<br /><br />That's <i>not</i> "97%" of $72 million.<br /><br />It isn't dealing with the whole $72 million either, in that it doesn't include the part that only went to the DNC, but those numbers, whatever they may turn out to be, aren't even going to be in the same galaxy as anything that justifies the Biden campaign's Friday claims about small donors. There's also a potential issue with including the Victory Fund, in that a significant chunk of the money given to it is supposed to be earmarked for the state Dem parties. It's unclear from the Times story--or any other press account this writer has been able to find--whether the Victory Fund money claimed by Biden is the portion that is actually supposed to be used by his campaign or includes those state parties.[1]<br /><br />Reid Epstein, the Times reporter, notes that "Mr. Biden’s campaign highlighted an array of statistics to promote its grass-roots donor operation," and debunks some of those claims but doesn't get into the more seriously mendacious ones. For example, Epstein reports that Biden's filing shows 21% of funds to his campaign and the Biden Victory Fund coming from small donors, then notes that Trump, at the comparable point, raised 35% of his funds from small donors. Unconscionably</span><span class="css-901oao css-16my406 r-poiln3 r-bcqeeo r-qvutc0">, Epstein doesn't touch Biden's claims that "97%" of his donations were under $200, or that his "average grassroots donation" was "$39" But it does point out the real source of Biden's actual funding:<br /></span></p><blockquote>"[T]he president's finance reports show that
he is far more dependent on the wealthiest donors than Mr. Trump was in
his re-election bid or Mr. Biden’s opponents were in the 2020
Democratic presidential primary contest.<br /><br />"Ten
donors, including Mr. Katzenberg, Reid Hoffman, the co-founder of
LinkedIn, and Stewart W. Bainum Jr., the Maryland hotel magnate, gave
$500,000 or more to the Biden Victory Fund. Another 82 donors
contributed $100,000 or more."</blockquote><p></p><p>Biden's campaign has <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4100416-biden-campaign-touts-fundraising-numbers-knocks-republicans-totals/">chided Republicans</a> for allegedly poor fundraising.<br /></p><blockquote>"'The numbers are in, and there's no hiding the stunning and embarrassing lack of enthusiasm for the Republican candidates running for president. President Biden and Vice President Harris significantly out-raised the entire GOP field last quarter, out-raising Donald Trump by more than 2:1 and Ron DeSantis by more than 3:1,' the Biden-Harris campaign’s communications director, Michael Tyler, said in a statement."</blockquote>But how much did Biden's actual reelection campaign--minus the padding of the Victory Fund and the DNC--raise in Q2? Only <span class="css-901oao css-16my406 r-poiln3 r-bcqeeo r-qvutc0">$19.9 million of his "$72 million." This <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2024-showdown-how-desantis-fared-trump-second-quarter-fundraising">compares</a> to $20.1 million by Ron DeSantis' campaign and $17.7 million by Trump's campaign.<br /></span><br /><p></p><p style="text-align: center;"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh2MXVwLeoeyn3Fhq3FygZBoQZetgj7E6vzDPJCpav-Bdk8Hd9hJ9UF3sp_LIUGyStNOQPj2lEeWW4vu_7YUlfEgH1gEB6ncK3OCzVUn2_MH4RXXOgwMiFtuX6piX9SyHdYNNrSzN8s9XarRatTWOsGYYjXzy503OMtMaar3GJTboPiVEU877DL2nQW/s715/Biden_Trump_Desantis_chart.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="503" data-original-width="715" height="450" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh2MXVwLeoeyn3Fhq3FygZBoQZetgj7E6vzDPJCpav-Bdk8Hd9hJ9UF3sp_LIUGyStNOQPj2lEeWW4vu_7YUlfEgH1gEB6ncK3OCzVUn2_MH4RXXOgwMiFtuX6piX9SyHdYNNrSzN8s9XarRatTWOsGYYjXzy503OMtMaar3GJTboPiVEU877DL2nQW/w640-h450/Biden_Trump_Desantis_chart.png" width="640" /></a></div><span class="css-901oao css-16my406 r-poiln3 r-bcqeeo r-qvutc0"></span><p></p><p><span class="css-901oao css-16my406 r-poiln3 r-bcqeeo r-qvutc0"><br />The managers of Joe Biden's Twitter account have trolled abut Biden's allegedly superior fundraising over the Republicans. Beneath the laughable "powered by the grassroots" legend, they tweeted this chart:<br /><br /></span></p><p style="text-align: center;"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiqcfSJdTfY4IS8AZS-0rdDbdtT7eHmppd5ygyVrfgO74au31ZBH9203l-OxehTv0sqVtcwpv9sbmQ-NEcw3eO0-MVBzE6C2xagx88tH2iO-PXEQk92WzkZQO2ODYfw-wvzK8y6iLNn-QyxM8JJL8vdWtnWh-sy5Tqyd1UKyYhaVhV3ZtcDKcWuokqB/s1621/bidens_fundraising_comparison.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1620" data-original-width="1621" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiqcfSJdTfY4IS8AZS-0rdDbdtT7eHmppd5ygyVrfgO74au31ZBH9203l-OxehTv0sqVtcwpv9sbmQ-NEcw3eO0-MVBzE6C2xagx88tH2iO-PXEQk92WzkZQO2ODYfw-wvzK8y6iLNn-QyxM8JJL8vdWtnWh-sy5Tqyd1UKyYhaVhV3ZtcDKcWuokqB/w640-h640/bidens_fundraising_comparison.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><span class="css-901oao css-16my406 r-poiln3 r-bcqeeo r-qvutc0"></span><p></p><p><span class="css-901oao css-16my406 r-poiln3 r-bcqeeo r-qvutc0"><br />That's using the more expansive (and questionable) $72 million, Trump's total includes money to a pro-Trump super PAC, etc., but even these figures (which don't cover the entire Repub field) show that those looking to unseat Biden collectively raised $72.5 million to "his" $72 million,[2] and that's before one gets to any of the money raised by the Republican National Committee (while "Biden's" total includes that raised by the DNC). Is this really anything to crow about?<br /><br />Corrupt politicians selling their potential future office to the highest bidder always makes for a disgusting spectacle. Biden's current efforts to do this while cosplaying as Bernie Sanders are particularly deplorable. A few days after Biden's FEC filing--and after hyping Biden's pre-filing claims--the press has largely been AWOL in calling this out. That needs to change.<br /><br />--j.<br /><br />---<br /><br />[1] In 2016, Hillary Clinton and the Dems turned their early Victory Fund into a <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/clinton-fundraising-leaves-little-for-state-parties-222670">straight-up</a> <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/dnc-leak-clinton-team-deflected-state-cash-concerns-226191">money-laundering operation</a>. Wealthy individuals were allowed to give many times the legal limit on the premise that a large portion of the money would go to the state parties for use by downballot candidates but those state parties were, instead, just used as a front to reroute the money back for use by Clinton and were left with nothing. A completely dysfunctional Federal Election Commission never touched this. Everyone involved in it should have gone to prison but no charges were ever brought. Dems may be planning a repeat. The money from the Biden Victory Fund should be watched <i>very</i> carefully.<br /><br />[2] Biden's Dem opponents, who are also looking to unseat him, have also raised money. Robert Kennedy Jr. <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2023/07/15/rfk-fundraising-republicans-00106481">raised</a> $6.3 million in Q2; Marianne Williamson <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2023/07/15/marianne-williamson-campaign-debt-00106487">raised</a> nearly $1 million.<br /></span></p>cinemarchaeologisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13507603255666191405noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6321344375544728027.post-19149669071895223552021-09-23T01:07:00.008-07:002021-10-02T23:33:46.497-07:00Politico "Centrist"-izes Conservative "Democrats"<p>Corporate press outlets ubiquitously privilege Clintonite-right Democratic politicians with favorable labels like "moderate" or "centrist," tags that make <span class="css-901oao css-16my406 r-poiln3 r-bcqeeo r-qvutc0">them sound pragmatic, intemperate, reasonable, not ideologically rigid, and that generally camouflage motives that are significantly less than virtuous.[1] </span><span class="css-901oao css-16my406 r-poiln3 r-bcqeeo r-qvutc0"><span class="css-901oao css-16my406 r-poiln3 r-bcqeeo r-qvutc0">It isn't a neutral characterization; g</span>ifting this class of elected official with such descriptors is just as much an ideologically partisan decision as this author's own description of them as "the Clintonite right," but this is never acknowledged.<br /><br />Politico recently offered <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2021/09/15/centrist-democrats-drug-pricing-511955">a great example</a> of why this is so problematic.<br /><br /></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhejINUNLiMyWig5-cvul7I4UEJSCtthAJnbQWTkvHbgK0drojsmNU8JZoqV6Qkc8tuZ48syNMvb-1En8nU4xusRwauAf8RuIjHsOvTJsALGKO7uDpSx42kIPWlmEWMLe3PLV1FS0tlkw/s829/politico_centrist.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="475" data-original-width="829" height="366" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhejINUNLiMyWig5-cvul7I4UEJSCtthAJnbQWTkvHbgK0drojsmNU8JZoqV6Qkc8tuZ48syNMvb-1En8nU4xusRwauAf8RuIjHsOvTJsALGKO7uDpSx42kIPWlmEWMLe3PLV1FS0tlkw/w640-h366/politico_centrist.JPG" width="640" /></a></div><br />Under the headlline "Centrist Democrats scramble House drug pricing effort," Alice Miranda Ollstein and Sarah Ferris write,<br /><blockquote>"A trio of centrist House Democrats
threw their party's health care agenda into disarray Wednesday by
blocking a plan that would have authorized direct government negotiation
of drug prices and help pay for a $3.5 trillion social spending bill.<br /><br />Reps. Scott Peters (D-Calif.),
Kathleen Rice (D-N.Y.) and Kurt Schrader (D-Ore.) joined Republicans in
voting against leadership-backed drug pricing language at the end of a
three-day House Energy and Commerce Committee markup of the sweeping
package. The 29-29 tie vote meant the provision could not advance."</blockquote>What "center" are these members of congress representing? At what "center" do they sit?<br /><br />Like most major progressive proposals, allowing Medicare to negotiate for lower drug prices is incredibly popular. A quick Google search yielded two recent polls on the matter, both released in June. In one, <a href="https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/556701-poll-majority-of-republicans-support-medicare-negotiations-for-prescription?rl=1">a Gallup poll</a>, 81% of respondents supported it, including a whopping 97% of Democrats. The other, <a href="https://www.kff.org/health-costs/poll-finding/kff-health-tracking-poll-may-2021/">a Kaiser poll</a>, found 88% support, including 96% of Democrats. Both polls showed the proposal draws overwhelming support from even Republicans.<br /><br />When it comes to Americans, support for this policy is the broad "center" position, and these members of congress are profoundly out of step with it. The Politico journalists specifically referred to them as "centrist" Democrats, but those numbers make plain that, among Democrats, they're a marginal fringe--practically a margin-of-error--faction. Every one of the Democrats' many presidential hopefuls last year--including the eventual winner of the presidential race--<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/policy-2020/medicare-for-all/drug-negotiation/">ran on this policy</a>, and it has been the official position of the party, <a href="https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/2004-democratic-party-platform">enshrined</a> in its platform, for 17 years now. One need proceed no further than the Politico story itself to establish that, among their House colleagues, these congressmen are, likewise, no "centrists"; all of the other Democrats on the House Energy and Commerce Committee--29 out of 32--voted for the policy. Last year, House Democrats actually <a href="https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2019682">passed a bill</a> that would have allowed Medicare this leeway; 228 out of 231 Democrats voted for it (none were against it; the 4 non-yeas didn't vote). All three of these congressmen who just voted to kill the proposal voted for it as well. Because back then, Mitch McConnell and the Republicans controlled the Senate, and there was no danger of it ever becoming law. Ollstein and Ferris do note that Scott Peters said he voted for that measure "because he knew the plan would die in the Senate..."<br /><br />In short, it's impossible to justify positioning these congressmen as politically
"centrist" in the context of the broader public, their party or even
their congressional colleagues. And there ain't any more contexts.<br /><br />Pulling out another of those warm-and-fuzzy words, Ollstein and Ferris call the dissenting congresspeople "moderates," writing, "the moderates have argued the drug pricing plan... would hurt innovation in the
pharmaceutical industry," and spend 4 paragraphs letting these "moderates" repeat this, presenting this as a legitimate argument offered in good faith without interrogating it and--perhaps more glaringly--without noting that this is propaganda from the industry itself, long deployed against this proposal, as it threatens to cut into the <a href="https://www.newsweek.com/big-pharma-companies-profits-industries-study-1490407">sky-high profits</a> the companies make at present. Much deeper in the story, Ollstein and Ferris note that the industry is preparing to launch "a seven-figure ad blitz" carrying this very message but those dots are never connected.<br /><br />Another such dot left free-floating: Ollstein/Ferris write that progressive advocacy groups vowed to "draw attention to the sizeable donations [these congresspeople have] received from drug companies," and quotes a statement from the group Social Security Works condemning them for this but that's the end of the discussion of money.<br /><br />A <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/summary?cid=N00033591&cycle=CAREER&type=I">quick trip to OpenSecrets</a> shows that the Big Pharma is one of Scott Peters' biggest campaign contributors.<br /><br /><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiaD6NIZj_GtbtVV__T9D5SJmkT5eP8M4rl9UaMhM9ORAAE7FzzLR3uTIL6Xz0JoY4-z0M8rMmgDz6cZXQzmJyRfSkydFgXzNUQPv1K37vzb38SCWXtHOQJMV4sEwtyrSMw0jyO3QC98g/s607/scottpeters_pharma.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="252" data-original-width="607" height="266" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiaD6NIZj_GtbtVV__T9D5SJmkT5eP8M4rl9UaMhM9ORAAE7FzzLR3uTIL6Xz0JoY4-z0M8rMmgDz6cZXQzmJyRfSkydFgXzNUQPv1K37vzb38SCWXtHOQJMV4sEwtyrSMw0jyO3QC98g/w640-h266/scottpeters_pharma.JPG" width="640" /></a></div><p><br />And $743,255 of the $860,465 donations he's taken from the industry come from PAC contributions (meaning they're from the companies, not the janitors and secretaries that work there).<br /></p><br />With Kurt Schrader, the <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/kurt-schrader/summary?cid=N00030071&cycle=CAREER&type=I">story is the same</a>:<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhPIw3qZxZy5pZ5_lPGJb0cHKP16oWzSw1aY0zFUSY7oaA1fhL_CyRdbjiiEcfvXXfpQDK7YfZgNrOK-eX14X6d3PxVEl92Zws4bh9bYkmJURfvqT26cEsuNnZ2nisl7LhZpB7IqV3_5Q/s597/kurtshrader_pharma.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="245" data-original-width="597" height="262" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhPIw3qZxZy5pZ5_lPGJb0cHKP16oWzSw1aY0zFUSY7oaA1fhL_CyRdbjiiEcfvXXfpQDK7YfZgNrOK-eX14X6d3PxVEl92Zws4bh9bYkmJURfvqT26cEsuNnZ2nisl7LhZpB7IqV3_5Q/w640-h262/kurtshrader_pharma.JPG" width="640" /></a></div><br />Not only does most of his Big Pharma money come from PACs, the larger healthcare industry is his major contributor.[2]<br /><br />Politico doesn't include any of that and certainly doesn't tie it to the rest. It's journalistic malpractice to devote space to quoting these congressmen parroting self-serving industry propaganda as if it's good-faith argumentation by what are favorably described as "centrists" and "moderates" without detailing the fact that that Big Pharma owns a significant chunk of them.<br /><br />--j.<br /><br />---<br /><br />[1] The press often unjustifiably does this with Republicans as well, but that's a story for another day.<br /><br />[2] Kathleen Rice's contributions from the healthcare industry are much
smaller. She has actually campaigned on this very policy; now, with this
flip-flop, she seems to have her hand out.cinemarchaeologisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13507603255666191405noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6321344375544728027.post-9497433134038402512020-06-24T23:33:00.046-07:002023-03-21T16:49:45.576-07:00Centrist Joe & the Unelectable Bro: The Role of the Press in the Democratic Primary<div>Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders has dropped out of the Democratic presidential race, clearing a path for the weak and uninspiring Joe Biden to clench the nomination and bumble his way into losing to Donald Trump in the general. What brought us to this? Well...<br />
<br />
After the first 3 contests of this year's Democratic presidential race, Bernie Sanders was riding high, getting the most votes in Iowa, taking New Hampshire then managing a major blow-out win in Nevada. Then, within only a few days, the entire race suddenly shifted, at the break of a neck, to his major rival, former Vice President Joe Biden. It was an extraordinary on-a-dime turnaround the likes of which modern American politics had never seen.<br />
<br />
Corporate press outlets began writing up explanations for it--post-mortems for Sanders while Sanders was still in the race. In "<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/21/us/politics/bernie-sanders-democrats-2020.html">How It All Came Apart for Bernie Sanders</a>," the New York Times focused on "fateful decisions and internal divisions" within the Sanders campaign, particularly Sanders' refusal to make an aggressive case against Biden. The Huffington Post's version--"<a href="https://www.huffpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-campaign-retrospective-2020-democratic-primary_n_5e837ecfc5b603fbdf4a8782">Bernie Sanders Soared Back To Life. But He Couldn't Close the Deal</a>"--covers most of the same ground. Sanders' unwillingness to go hard at his opponents--a courtesy they've never extended to him--has been a standing problem in both of his presidential campaigns. With "<a href="https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/03/bernie-sanders-anti-establishment-lost-voters.html">The Establishment Didn't Destroy Bernie Sanders. He Destroyed Himself</a>," Slate offered an even stronger Clintonite-right slant, arguing the direct opposite. Recalling Sanders losses, William Saletan asserts<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"one reason for this pattern is Sanders' constant message of antagonism.
He has cultivated enemies instead of friends. Now he's paying the price... What Sanders fails to understand is the connection between his defeats
and his rhetoric. It wasn't the media or the Democratic National
Committee that turned Buttigieg, Klobuchar, and millions of voters
against him. It was Sanders. His relentless message of conflict, along
with his expanding list of putative enemies, attracted a fraction of the
electorate but alienated everybody else. As the primaries narrowed to a
two-man race, his base was no longer enough to win. The establishment
didn’t destroy Bernie Sanders. He destroyed himself."</blockquote>
Much of that article is sheer Clintonite-right fantasy. In that same vein falls the New York Times' "<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/01/us/politics/biden-sanders-democratic-voters.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur">How 'Never Bernie' Voters Threw In With Biden and Changed the Primary</a>":<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="css-exrw3m evys1bk0">
"[B]eyond ideology, race and turnout, a
chief reason for Mr. Biden’s success has little to do with his
candidacy. He became a vehicle for Democrats... who were
supporting other candidates but found the prospect of Mr. Sanders and
his calls for political revolution so distasteful that they put aside
misgivings about Mr. Biden and backed him instead.</div>
<div class="css-exrw3m evys1bk0">
<br /></div>
<div class="css-exrw3m evys1bk0">
"In
phone interviews, dozens of Democrats, mostly aged 50 and over, who
live in key March primary states like Massachusetts, Virginia, Michigan
and Florida, said that Mr. Biden’s appeal went beyond his case for
beating President Trump. It was his chances of overtaking Mr. Sanders,
the only candidate in the vast Democratic field they found objectionable
for reasons personal and political."</div>
</blockquote>
<div class="css-exrw3m evys1bk0">
In reality, "Never Sanders" Democrats are like "Never Trump" Republicans--mostly a press-manufactured fairy-tale that takes what is, in reality, a microscopic portion of the electorate and tries to elevate it to a major force of great significance. The <a href="https://harvardharrispoll.com/">Harvard CAPS/Harris poll</a> has tracked Bernie Sanders' favorability more closely and for longer than any other pollster. Democrats with a "very unfavorable" opinion of Bernie Sanders have, over the past 4 years, floated at 4-7%--barely more than a margin-of-error faction. At the end of February--the <a href="https://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/HHP_February2020_RegisteredVoters_Crosstabs.pdf">last poll</a> before Sanders' Super Tuesday losses--it stood at 7%. Tracking with the other favorability polls throughout the current contest, Sanders' favorability among Democrats was, at the time, identical to Biden's; it has always been equivalent to or better than Biden's. Challenging this same Times piece, Olivia Riggio of Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting <a href="https://fair.org/home/nyt-writes-post-mortems-for-a-sanders-campaign-it-did-its-best-to-kill/">points out</a>:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="css-exrw3m evys1bk0">
"Such [Never Sanders] voters no doubt exist, but that they exist in numbers large enough
to swing the election is dubious. In the last Morning Consult poll
conducted prior to Super Tuesday (2/23–27/20),
74% of Democratic voters said they viewed Sanders favorably, vs. 22%
who saw him unfavorably. For Biden, it was 67% favorable, 27%
unfavorable. A month later (3/23–29/20),
no doubt boosted by media treating him as the nominee-apparent, Biden’s
numbers had improved to 76%/20%--but Sanders favorability was little
changed, at 72%/23%."</div>
</blockquote>
If news really is, as Alan Barth observed, "the first rough draft of history," future generations will find little real explanation inside these pre-post-mortems for what has happened. The fact that all of them were written while Sanders was still in the race does, however, point to what actually changed that race. David Karpf, <span class="st">associate professor of media and public affairs at George Washington University</span>, <a href="https://www.wired.com/story/bidens-path-to-victory-does-not-bode-well-for-voters/?fbclid=IwAR1Lx-Tw7xvNxhyj719z0-rIUhZWPqPdN1d7CjB1XsFyKeCXlBborOhc6T0">provides</a> some critical context:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"There are a few measurable activities that we generally associate with
strong campaigns. They identify supporters, raise money, make headlines,
frame the debate, knock on doors, make phone calls, and turn people out
to vote. Biden's did virtually none of those things. Mike Bloomberg
spent an unprecedented $500 million on advertising and field
campaigning; Biden's campaign was on the brink of running out of money.
Elizabeth Warren, Pete Buttigieg, and Amy Klobuchar all had memorable
debate moments that seized public attention; Biden's debate performances
were cringe-inducing at worst, forgettable at best. Bernie Sanders
spent five years building a massive grassroots movement, and built
momentum with early victories; Biden barely had field offices in several
Super Tuesday states and won elections where he hadn’t bothered to
campaign."</blockquote>
<span class="css-901oao css-16my406 r-1qd0xha r-ad9z0x r-bcqeeo r-qvutc0">Prior to his South Carolina win, Biden <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/26/us/politics/joe-biden-california-super-tuesday.html">hadn't held</a>
a single campaign event in a single
Super Tuesday state in over a month. This was sometimes attributed to a lack of funds but while that was no doubt a factor, Biden's handlers had mostly kept him <a href="http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/05/bidens-early-campaign-doesnt-involve-much-campaigning.html">off the</a> <a href="http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/05/bidens-early-campaign-doesnt-involve-much-campaigning.html">campaign trail</a> right from the beginning, likely out of a reasonable fear that too high a public profile would <a href="https://extranewsfeed.com/give-me-a-break-the-sad-sorry-spectacle-of-joe-biden-de866498eac9">draw attention</a> to his appalling record, <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/457486-biden-allies-float-scaling-back-events-to-limit-gaffes">expose</a> his <a href="https://extranewsfeed.com/bidens-brain-on-biden-cognitive-decline-in-press-coverage-5cdd99d3b3ba">cognitive decline</a> and sink his campaign. There's never been any real public enthusiasm for his candidacy. He was </span><span class="css-901oao css-16my406 r-1qd0xha r-ad9z0x r-bcqeeo r-qvutc0"><a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/28/biden-energy-crisis-1345359">never able</a> <a href="https://www.inquirer.com/news/joe-biden-enthusiasm-philadelphia-sad-watch-parties-elizabeth-warren-grassroots-fundraising-20191020.html">to draw</a> <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/warren-s-big-rallies-biden-s-smaller-events-what-crowd-n1057371">significant</a> <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/small-crowds-for-biden-and-buttigieg-in-iowa/">crowds</a>
and had been forced to hold his few campaign events in small venues, with
journalists often outnumbering non-journalist Biden supporters. His spending on campaign ads <a href="https://www.newsweek.com/biden-spent-4000-california-ads-before-super-tuesday-while-bloomberg-bought-78-million-worth-1489821">was</a> <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/26/joe-biden-super-tuesday-ad-campaign-117711">minimal</a>. He had <a href="https://extranewsfeed.com/the-clothes-with-no-emperor-joe-biden-on-policy-d8d3a78910a9">no real policy platform</a>. But while Biden didn't have much in the way of a traditional campaign organization or a traditional campaign, he had the one thing on his side that proved decisive. A</span>rguably the most important factor in the outcome of the primary race is the
thing that is barely mentioned or entirely absent as a stated factor from all those press
explanations of what happened but <i>is</i>, however, represented by them: the press itself.<br />
<br />
Karpf gets this. Sort of. He writes:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Biden came out on top because he captured the media narrative at just
the right time. A string of prominent endorsements fueled a tidal wave
of enthusiastic media coverage. That free media attention proved more
powerful than Sanders' legion of well-organized grassroots supporters or
Bloomberg's limitless checkbook."</blockquote>
While this is true, it's only a piece of a much larger story. Karpf is right about Biden's bad debate performances but something he doesn't bring up--and that points to the bigger picture here--is that after each of those, corporate press outlets widely declared Biden the <i>winner</i>. Even his catastrophic performance in the September debate, which, like so many other things Biden has said and done, would have ended any other campaign on the spot, saw him <a href="https://extranewsfeed.com/give-me-a-break-the-sad-sorry-spectacle-of-joe-biden-de866498eac9">broadly praised</a> as the victor. The reversal of Biden's fortunes wasn't just a consequence of that one extraordinary "tidal wave of enthusiastic media coverage."<br />
<br />
The hatred shown by most corporate press outlets for progressives in general and Bernie Sanders in particular is a subject this author has covered at some length over the years. In the present campaign, as in 2016, much of the press has alternated between covering him as little as possible and, when covering him was necessary, doing so in a relentlessly negative way. The expression of this antipathy runs the gamut from visceral terms--MSNBC's Mimi Rocah <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmZVqkhgTPw">declared</a> "Bernie Sanders makes my skin crawl"--to what seem more like petty, sophomoric pranks, like tv news programs working against Sanders by <a href="https://fair.org/home/msnbcs-anti-sanders-bias-makes-it-forget-how-to-do-math/">manipulating</a> on-screen graphics. The disproportionate focus in those pre-post-mortem analyses on dissension within the Sanders campaign is just the latest iteration of what has become a well-established press genre, <a href="https://extranewsfeed.com/fading-failing-in-trouble-bernie-sanders-american-crisis-2119be1e2b3">Sanders In Perpetual Crisis</a>--press outlets have declared Sanders' campaign to be fading, in trouble, failing, dying, dead since before he officially entered the race.<br />
<br />
The treatment of Sanders' Clintonite-right rivals makes for quite a vivid contrast. Designated as "moderates" and "centrists" and "center-left" candidates--designations that are, themselves, ideologically rather than factually based and intended to make these candidates sound more appealing--many of them went through periods when their candidacies were being promoted by the major press outlets. Beto O'Rourke's candidacy was a press invention. The intense focus on him that had goaded him into the race dried up once he entered it; his candidacy eventually followed. Elements of the press tried very hard--and ultimately unsuccessfully--to make both Kamala Harris and Pete Buttigieg into hot items. And, of course, Joe Biden--by any serious analysis a joke candidate--has not only been the focus of most press attention throughout the process but has been actively promoted through long periods of the race and has faced virtually no serious scrutiny, as the press has largely swept under the rug his profound shortcomings.<br />
<br />
This is the background for the big 2020 primary-season turnaround.<br />
<br />
It was during the weeks in which Sanders led the Democratic race--a time when, normally, the candidate in that kind of lead would be bolstered by positive press coverage because of his wins--that the hostility of the press to his candidacy reached its zenith. Instead of positive coverage, Sanders' every win was met with an array of narratives that dismissed, downplayed, explained them away, while, at the same time, treating them as outright disastrous and harbingers of coming disaster for Democrats. Faced with the prospect of a potential Sanders nomination and presidency, the corporate press broke out the hazmat suits and uncapped an 85-gallon drum of nuclear Smear and Fear, intent on drowning both Sanders and the progressive movement in it. What followed was a concentrated campaign of malicious defamation that escalated with every Sanders win. This author has described it as a gang-rape of Sanders, and the metaphor is appropriate. Once Sanders has been sufficiently maligned to completely kill his momentum and make him seem, to a Democratic electorate focused on defeating Trump, far too risky a general-election prospect, the press treated Biden's resulting win in conservative, deep-red South Carolina as a major turning-point in the race and lavished the former Vice President with glowingly positive coverage as dense as a neutron star leading into Super Tuesday and beyond, all the while continuing to pound Sanders and treating <i>his</i> cause, once he fell behind, as lost. Sanders' own errors and failings as a candidate are many and varied (and will almost certainly be the subject of a subsequent article) but future historians looking to understand the sudden and radical shift in the 2020 race in those weeks must start with the press.<br />
<br />Corporate press antipathy toward progressives is, of course, nothing new. Even when their views are in line with most of the public, progressives are treated as some kind of kooky fringe, their ideas ridiculed, rejected as totally unrealistic or actively destructive and dismissed without any real hearing, usually by megaphoning the self-concerned objections to them by the entrenched business and financial interests whose bottom line they'd affect. A very long-running theme in political coverage is that "moderate" = "electable," with "moderate" defined as well to the right of both the Democratic base and the general public. Democrats are goaded into supporting candidates of that species, which are presented as the serious, pragmatic option, as opposed to those rigid, inflexible pie-in-the-sky lefties. When the candidate wins, it's chalked up to his "moderation." When the candidate fails, it's said to be because he was Too Liberal, and the advised solution is always the same: move (even further) right. In much of the corporate press, all of this is treated as Conventional Wisdom. Those with a little grey in the hair and who follow public affairs have heard it in an infinity of variations for decades. Progressive press critic Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting, founded in 1986, <a href="https://fair.org/home/conventional-wisdom/">has</a> <a href="https://fair.org/extra/move-to-the-right/">documented</a> <a href="https://fair.org/extra/move-to-the-right-2/">it for</a> <a href="https://fair.org/home/move-over8212over-and-over/">the</a> <a href="https://fair.org/home/victorious-dems-lectured-by-media-establishment/">length of</a> <a href="https://fair.org/home/moderation-and-the-midterms/">the</a> <a href="https://fair.org/home/the-return-of-the-inexplicable-republican-best-friend/">org's</a> <a href="https://fair.org/home/pragmatic-how-corporate-media-praise-dems-who-abandon-progressive-values/">existence</a>.<br />
<br />
In the current cycle, Joe Biden and the other Clintonite-right candidates plugged into this long-running narrative, arguing that they were more "electable" than Sanders. Biden, in fact, made this the major selling-point of his campaign. That's fair enough--it <i>is</i> a presidential race, after all, and candidates are going to try to make the case that they're the best choice--but by continuing to perpetuate this narrative and refusing to interrogate it,[1] corporate press outlets were acting as a de facto arm of these campaigns. This was particularly the case with the Biden campaign, as the press was, in that case, directly promoting its <i>central</i> theme at every opportunity but giving it a sheen of greater respectability than it may have had coming from the campaign itself (where it could be seen as self-serving). Many journalists have enthusiastically embraced this role. Polls showed Democratic voters prioritizing defeating Trump;[2] Sanders' opponents, both in the race and in the press, recognized that the way to defeat Sanders was to make him seem unelectable. The idea that he would lose to Trump, kill Democrats'
chances of winning the Senate, cost them the majority in the House of
Representatives and have a devastating impact on downballot races was, despite being an extreme doomsday scenario, unsupported by any real data and contradicted by both the available data on the question (which was never consulted) and much of the electoral history of the last few decades, <span class="css-901oao css-16my406 r-1qd0xha r-ad9z0x r-bcqeeo r-qvutc0">presented,
hour after hour across national media outlets,
as self-evident.[3] During the period under examination here, from mid-to-late-January forward, this theme was ubiquitous.[4]</span><br /><br />When it came to trying to stop Sanders in those weeks, nothing was considered too
extreme, too out-of-bounds. Major media figures felt entirely
comfortable going on nationwide television and comparing the success of
the Jewish Sanders to the rise of <i>Nazism</i>. Historians won't recognize
the Third Reich in anything Sanders has said or done but they will find
something very familiar about press language during this same period
that compared Sanders to natural disasters and plague. Sanders was said to be the same as Trump--as vacuous a trope as was produced by a campaign not exactly noted for its intelligent consideration of substantive issues. He was presented as a candidate supported by the Russians, via their illicit scheming.<br />
<br />
Sanders self-identifies as a democratic socialist. Polls show a large number of Americans, primarily older people, to be uncomfortable with the idea of "socialism." Those polls don't ask about democratic socialism though, and given the fact that polls also show overwhelming public support for most of the policies that make up Sanders' "democratic socialism," they arguably aren't even relevant to Sanders but the press, perceiving this as a Sanders weakness, sought to exploit it; efforts to portray him as some kind of would-be Bolshevik proliferated. Stories from Sanders' more radical younger days and of his past associations were trotted out and harped on, McCarthy style. In the wake of Sanders' Nevada win, the press went through a period of particularly intense focus on his decades-old praise of Cuba's post-revolution literacy program. Sanders was portrayed, more broadly, as an apologist for Marxist dictatorships. <span class="css-901oao css-16my406 r-1qd0xha r-ad9z0x r-bcqeeo r-qvutc0">It was suggested that if Sanders the socialist won, there may be executions of dissidents in New York's Central Park.</span><br />
<br />
Sanders has attracted a large, enthusiastic grassroots following,
particularly among young voters, a constituency notoriously difficult to
mobilize. While entirely eschewing the corrupt, big-money fundraisers
that usually capitalize political campaigns, Sanders outraised every
other Democratic candidate with small donations from supporters. His
campaign events draw far larger crowds than any other Dem contender. All
of this should be cause for celebration, an indication of the
candidate's strengths, both obvious and potential.<br />
<br />
Instead,
Sanders' supporters are persistently presented by the press as
problematic, as a cruel, sexist, racist, even dangerous white
male rabble, something akin to a cult. "Bernie Bros" whose enthusiasm
and strong defense of their candidate is presented as obsessive
fanaticism, they themselves as demented, radical thugs who take glee
in sadistically bullying women and people of color and whose existence
suggests something fundamentally wrong with Sanders, his campaign and
progressive in general. These are constant themes in the coverage of
Sanders. Sanders supporters alone are treated this way by the press and
Sanders alone has repeatedly faced demands that he condemn his own
supporters. Sanders' repeated and unconditional condemnation of
bullying, harassment and so on--things he did nothing to encourage in
the first place--only provoke further demands that he do more to shut up
progressives, coupled with the suggestion--or the insistence--that he
hasn't actually condemned such behavior anyway. "They're deplorable and he could stop them if he would but he won't."<br />
<br />
The following timeline documents these and other themes--the major themes in Sanders' press coverage from mid-January until his exit from the presidential race--and examines their impact. It isn't comprehensive; it does effectively convey the flavor of that coverage.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhsaHqnxdonBQLI28P84rGGuRUMQURtzy0WPTUdbRjxfuTJYaLybucAMABtfYT6yf3IJAGQ3vaPaCfFGRTA6Z0hmjf-6aRfIhhY1zTfuBFVbUAUZU4VDwO3PP9KSwIdCkwHH6rumdTdPw/s1600/press_sniper.PNG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="299" data-original-width="474" height="401" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhsaHqnxdonBQLI28P84rGGuRUMQURtzy0WPTUdbRjxfuTJYaLybucAMABtfYT6yf3IJAGQ3vaPaCfFGRTA6Z0hmjf-6aRfIhhY1zTfuBFVbUAUZU4VDwO3PP9KSwIdCkwHH6rumdTdPw/s640/press_sniper.PNG" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
We join the campaign already in progress. In "<a href="https://www.jacobinmag.com/2020/01/joe-biden-bernie-sanders-social-security-2020-democratic-primary">The Orwellian Assault on Bernie Sanders</a>," Branko Marcetic, writing in Jacobin, covers a few days in the middle of January, which nicely sets up where things then stood and what was to follow:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Let's review what happened just this last week. First <cite>Politico</cite> succeeded in <a href="https://www.jacobinmag.com/2020/01/2020-democratic-primary-sanders-warren-campaign">drumming up outrage</a>
over an anodyne Sanders campaign script that instructed volunteers to
tell people they 'like Elizabeth Warren' and consider her their 'second
choice,' but that they had concerns about her more affluent,
well-educated voter base, a base that was originally described in <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/12/sanders-warren-voters-2020-1408548">another <cite>Politico</cite> report</a>. This was roundly <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/11/bernie-quietly-goes-negative-on-warren-097594">condemned</a> as a vicious <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/bernie-sanderss-campaign-goes-on-the-attack-as-he-seeks-a-victory-in-the-iowa-caucuses/2020/01/12/7a8addb4-356f-11ea-9541-9107303481a4_story.html">attack</a> by the Sanders camp.<br />
<br />
"Next, in one of the most finely orchestrated bits of political
theater in recent memory, CNN first reported Warren's allegation that
Sanders had told her in 2018 a woman couldn't win the presidency against
Trump, a <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/sanders-warren-feud-takes-a-turn-onto-the-dangerous-turf-of-gender/2020/01/13/a6bf6bee-3627-11ea-bf30-ad313e4ec754_story.html">contested</a> claim her own campaign <a href="https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/rubycramer/elizabeth-warren-bernie-sanders-woman-president-deescalation">doesn't seem</a> to be sure about. Then, during the following night's debate, a CNN moderator flatly <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/media/478340-cnn-moderator-criticized-for-question-to-sanders">treated</a>
Warren’s version of events as fact, all but called Sanders a liar on
national TV when he denied it, and teed Warren up for a pre-prepared and
<a href="https://www.jacobinmag.com/2020/01/elizabeth-warren-electoral-track-record-2020-democratic-primary">factually dubious</a>
speech about the candidates' electoral histories. At a time of
extraordinary political division, the incident was notable for uniting
everyone from the <a href="https://twitter.com/RichLowry/status/1217433127674634242"><cite>National Review</cite></a> to <a href="https://twitter.com/davidfolkenflik/status/1217278291826085889"><cite>NPR</cite></a> to <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/media/morning-joe-cnn-democratic-debate-painful-sanders-warren"><cite>Morning Joe</cite></a> to <a href="https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/478453-hilltv-host-saagar-enjeti-rips-cnns-outrageous-questioning-of-sanders">Hill.TV’s <cite>Rising</cite></a> in condemnation of the lack of professionalism involved.<br />
<br />
"As footage circulated of a post-debate altercation between
Warren and Sanders, the surrounding discourse only became more unhinged.
The <cite>LA Times</cite> published a piece attacking Sanders's rejected outstretched hand as a <a href="https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2020-01-15/bernie-sanders-elizabeth-warren-women-presidents-iowa-democratic-debate">master class in handling</a> sexism, accusing Sanders of 'gaslighting' Warren. <a href="https://twitter.com/neeratanden/status/1216832259841495044">Sanders’s liberal enemies</a> began <a href="https://www.elle.com/ocd/a30570200/warren-sanders-feud-not-about-me-too/">weaponizing</a> the <a href="https://jacobinmag.com/2020/01/believe-women-cant-be-used-to-score-cheap-partisan-points">language of sexual assault</a>, insisting that Warren--a politician with a <a href="https://www.currentaffairs.org/2020/01/the-credibility-gap">history of incorrect claims</a> about her own past and currently trying to win an election--should be '<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jan/17/believe-women-elizabeth-warren-bernie-sanders">believed</a>'
as we would an assault survivor. Even Bush-era apparatchiks could now
leverage their newfound feminist bona fides to join in the pile-on:
Matthew Dowd--who once helped run a campaign for a guy <a href="https://edition.cnn.com/2018/10/11/entertainment/arnold-schwarzenegger-me-too/index.html">accused by several women</a> of sexual harassment--<a href="https://twitter.com/matthewjdowd/status/1217118920991264768">seemed to suggest</a> that the only way Sanders could now prove he wasn't sexist was to simply step aside and let Warren win the nomination.<br />
<br />
"Meanwhile, MSNBC’s Joy Reid <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/01/18/why-no-one-trusts-media-msnbc-slammed-featuring-body-language-expert-who-calls">brought on</a> a 'body language expert' who moonlights as an <a href="https://www.mintpressnews.com/msnbc-joy-ann-reid-invites-jeanine-driver-trash-bernie-sanders/264219/">anti-vaccine conspiracist</a>
to tell us how Sanders’s hand gestures and posture proved he was
definitely lying about the Warren allegation. At this rate, it won't be
long before Brian Williams invites a psychic to tell viewers that
Sanders’s parents actually oppose Medicare for All from beyond the
grave."</blockquote>
Marcetic writes that "somehow none of this even qualifies as the low point of the week," and goes on to make the case that said low-point was when the press decided to "condemn Sanders and his campaign for the crime of criticizing Biden for
his very real history of trying to cut entitlements like Social
Security," condemnations which included the straight-up lie that Sanders was being dishonest about that history.<br />
<br />
Marcetic is prophetic:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Why is this happening? The simple answer is that these quarters have
belatedly realized Sanders has a real shot at winning, and the
anti-Sanders attack machine is now revving up into overdrive to stop
him. From December onward, it <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/12/18/lets-nip-sht-bud-cynical-accusations-anti-semitism-against-bernie-sanders-draw-fire">started</a> with <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/dec/18/the-rights-accusations-of-antisemitism-against-sanders-are-cynical-and-dangerous">bogus antisemitism accusations</a>, dipped back into the well of <a href="https://www.jacobinmag.com/2020/01/bernie-sanders-elizabeth-warren-sexism-controversy-woman-president">misogyny accusations</a>, and now <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/478715-former-vermont-governor-sanders-will-play-dirty">the new line</a>--for the moment, at least--is that Sanders is a Trump-like demagogue. <a href="https://twitter.com/kurtbardella/status/1219423133154803712">Here’s</a> former Republican aide and <cite>Breitbart</cite> spokesperson and<a href="https://www.breitbart.com/author/kurt-bardella/"> sometime contributor</a> Kurt Bardella--fresh off his own conveniently timed <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/voices/2018/12/16/first-year-democrat-found-my-voice-embraced-my-identity-column/2301857002/">rebranding</a> as a woke Democrat--<a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/trump-s-maga-supporters-twitter-bernie-bros-have-ugly-tactic-ncna1117901">solemnly warning</a> that Trump's and Sanders's supporters share the same aggressive intolerance. Just yesterday, Hillary Clinton <a href="https://www.axios.com/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-nobody-likes-him-f570ec0d-9ded-4966-9037-68dbf9abe931.html">amplified these voices</a> for the <a href="https://jacobinmag.com/2020/01/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-documentary-quote-election">umpteenth time</a>."</blockquote>
This was only the beginning...<br />
<br />
Washington Post, 15 Jan.: "<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/01/15/bernie-sanderss-agenda-makes-him-definition-unelectable/">Bernie Sanders's Agenda Makes Him the Definition of Unelectable</a>":<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div>
<div class="font--body font-copy gray-darkest ma-0 pb-md">
"In
the lead-up to the Iowa caucuses, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is
arguing that he is the Democratic candidate most likely to beat
President Trump. He has touted his electability in speeches and interviews and on social media, and his campaign has said it welcomes a debate on electability.</div>
<div class="font--body font-copy gray-darkest ma-0 pb-md">
<br /></div>
<div class="font--body font-copy gray-darkest ma-0 pb-md">
"We
should have that debate, because the fact is that the United States has
never elected anyone as president who is as far left as Sanders. The
only modern Democratic nominees approaching Sanders's ideological views
were former vice president Walter Mondale in 1984 and then-Sen. George
McGovern in 1972. Together, they won a scant 30 electoral college votes
and lost the popular vote by a combined 35 million votes. Mondale's
wipe-out was the biggest electoral college loss in U.S. history.</div>
<div class="font--body font-copy gray-darkest ma-0 pb-md">
<br /></div>
<div>
<div class="font--body font-copy gray-darkest ma-0 pb-md">
"The
centerpiece of that agenda is Medicare-for-all, a politically toxic
proposal that represents the only way Democrats could fumble away their
health-care advantage over Trump. Democrats’ pledge to preserve and
expand on President Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act was a decisive
factor in flipping the House from red to blue in 2018. Sanders would do
the opposite, ditching Obamacare in favor of his single-payer, government-run proposal. This plan has steadily lost popularity over the past year and fares particularly poorly in the make-or-break 'Blue Wall' states...Electability
matters down the ballot as well. If Sanders is the nominee, he will
face the spectacle of Democrats in swing states and districts running
from his agenda, not toward it... Let's be clear: Sanders is not only far less electable against Trump
than is Joe Biden, but he's also less electable than Sens. Elizabeth
Warren (Mass.) and Amy Klobuchar (Minn.), former mayors Pete Buttigieg
and Mike Bloomberg, and just about anyone else who qualifies for a
debate stage or is registering in national polls. Of course, loyal
Democrats, including us, would absolutely vote for Sanders against
Trump. But the Sanders agenda won’t stand up to scrutiny for a lot of
people who are open to ousting him. That's the definition of
unelectable."</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Notes:<br />
<br />
--A Kaiser Family Foundation poll from a few weeks prior to this article <a href="https://www.kff.org/health-reform/slide/most-democrats-and-democrat-leaning-independents-favor-both-public-option-and-medicare-for-all/">showed</a> that 74% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents favored the "politically toxic proposal" of Medicare For All.<br />
<br />
--Walter Mondale wasn't "approaching Sanders' ideological views"; he was a lifelong moderate who won the 1984 nomination by defeating the progressive candidate (Jesse Jackson). Franklin Roosevelt, John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson were, when it came to domestic policy, very similar to Sanders; significantly to his left in many respects. But, of course, they won.<br />
<br />
--The article insists Sanders is "less electable" than several candidates. It's interesting to compare that conclusion to the then-current head-to-head polling. The RealClearPolitics <a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_klobuchar-6803.html">database</a> lists 4 Trump-vs.-Amy Klobuchar polls from January, when that article was written. In all four, Trump and Klobuchar were in a statistical tie. Mike Bloomberg was <a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_bloomberg-6797.html">statistically tied</a> with Trump in 3 of the 5 polls that month and winning over the margin of error in two. In the 8 <a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_buttigieg-6872.html">Trump-vs.-Buttigieg polls</a>, Buttigieg was statistically tied with Trump in all but one. In the 8 <a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_warren-6251.html">Warren/Trump polls</a>, Warren wins 3, loses to Trump in one and is tied in the others. The article asserts that Sanders is "far less electable" than Biden; in the 8 <a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_biden-6247.html">Biden/Trump polls</a>, Biden was winning 4 and tied in 4. There were 8 <a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_sanders-6250.html">Sanders/Trump polls</a>, Sanders was winning 4 and tied in 4, matching Biden and outperforming every other candidate. This isn't, of course, a conclusive case that Sanders or Biden <i>are</i> more electable than the others but that is the data available on the question and the commentary on the matter of "electability," as offered here and restated over and over again in the press during this period, is entirely disconnected from--and, more importantly, directly contradicted by--that data.<br />
<br />
Politico, 16 Jan.: "<a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/16/bernie-sanders-elizabeth-warren-feud-100129">Bernie 'Will Play Dirty': Ex-Vermont Governor Slams Sanders</a>":<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"In an interview with POLITICO, Peter Shumlin--who has endorsed Joe
Biden for president in 2020 and served as Vermont's governor from 2011
to 2017, while Sanders represented the state in the Senate--warned that
Sanders, an independent and a self-described democratic socialist,
ultimately did not feel loyalty to Democrats.<br />
<br />
<div class="story-text__paragraph">
"'What I've seen in Bernie's politics is he and his team feel they're
holier than the rest. In the end, they will play dirty because they
think that they pass a purity test that Republicans and most Democrats
don't pass,' said Shumlin. 'What you're seeing now is, in the end, even
if he considers you a friend, like Elizabeth Warren, Bernie will come
first. That's the pattern we've seen over the years in Vermont, and
that's what we are seeing now nationally'... Shumlin accused Sanders of trying to
'Hillarize' Warren, saying the senator had cast Hillary Clinton, too, as
an elitist, contributing to divisions in the Democratic electorate.</div>
<div class="story-text__paragraph">
<br /></div>
<div class="story-text__paragraph">
"'We should be weakening Donald Trump,
not each other,' Shumlin said. 'I'm concerned that we're seeing a replay
of the kind of dynamics that didn't allow Hillary to win.'"</div>
</blockquote>
Blaming Sanders for Clinton's loss--and, most hilariously, for the
perception of the insufferably elitist Clinton as an elitist--is Clintonite-right boilerplate nonsense,[5] as is the practice of pejoratively characterizing anyone with any basic standards, beyond party affiliation, in what they want from a candidate as holding to some entirely unreasonable "purity test." Bernie Sanders as some sort of "dirty" fighter--more Clinton garbage--is straightforward gaslighting; one of the things the less delusional of those press-authored pre-post-mortems get right is that a central failing of both of Sanders' presidential campaigns was his absolutely adamant refusal to attack his opponents. He allowed them to treat him as a punching bag and never really fought back.<br />
<br />
NBC News, 19 Jan.: "<a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/trump-s-maga-supporters-twitter-bernie-bros-have-ugly-tactic-ncna1117901">Trump's MAGA Supporters And Twitter Bernie Bros Have This Ugly Tactic In Common</a>":<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="endmarkEnabled">
"Time and again, we see how backlash on social
media is used to bully people into submission and silence criticism... The attacks against Warren come from the same corners of social media that disparage Democrats (like myself) as being 'puppets,' 'centrist,' 'anti-Semitic, and 'ageist' for having the audacity to question or scrutinize their chosen leader. People of color and women who dare to disagree with Sanders' political assertions have often borne the brunt of this abuse.</div>
<div class="endmarkEnabled">
<br /></div>
<div class="endmarkEnabled">
"This hyper-vocal faction of Sanders supporters--colloquially know as 'Bernie Bros'--never went away after the 2016 presidential election. In my personal experience, these bros are almost overwhelmingly white
men. And they share, like Trump's ardent supporters, a desire to 'put me
in my place.' Disturbingly, there are times where you really can't distinguish between the tone and tactics of Trump's #MAGA nation and Sanders' 'Bros.'"</div>
</blockquote>
New York Times, 19 Jan.: "<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/01/19/opinion/amy-klobuchar-elizabeth-warren-nytimes-endorsement.html">The Democrats' Best Choices For President</a>":<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Mr. Sanders would be 79 when he assumed office, and after an October
heart attack, his health is a serious concern. Then, there's how Mr.
Sanders approaches politics. He boasts
that compromise is anathema to him. Only his prescriptions can be the
right ones, even though most are overly rigid, untested and divisive. He
promises that once in office, a groundswell of support will emerge to
push through his agenda. Three years into the Trump administration, we
see little advantage to exchanging one over-promising, divisive figure
in Washington for another."</blockquote>The Times offered, instead, a duel endorsement of Amy Klobuchar and Elizabeth Warren, neither of whom would win a single primary before dropping out of the race.<br /><br />
Buzzfeed, 20 Jan.: "<a href="https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/henrygomez/joe-biden-bernie-sanders-2020-house-democrats">Joe Biden’s Powerful Weapon In His Fight With Bernie Sanders: Vulnerable House Democrats</a>":<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"[I]n some cases [Biden's endorsements by party insiders] reflects a growing concern among moderates that
Sanders, the democratic socialist senator from Vermont, remains a
frontrunner.<br />
<br />
"Biden made that argument in a roundabout way during <a href="https://www.thestate.com/news/politics-government/election/article239447948.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">an interview posted Sunday by the State</a>, a South Carolina newspaper.<br />
<br />
"'I'm
just asking the rhetorical question,' Biden told the newspaper. '"Bernie's at the top of the ticket in North and South Carolina, or [Sen.
Elizabeth] Warren’s at the top of the ticket. How many Democrats down
the line do you think are going to win? It's just practical.'<br />
<br />
"[Ami] Bera [of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee],
in a telephone interview with BuzzFeed News, was more explicit: 'I
think that if Bernie Sanders is our nominee, it'll make a lot of these
Trump districts that we picked up extremely competitive and probably
does put our House majority in jeopardy. If you nominate anyone else,
Bernie Sanders or even Sen. Warren, it’s going to be hard for me... I’ve
heard that multiple times, and I think other members in these
competitive districts are hearing that same thing'... Bera's remarks came days after Jim Messina--the manager of Barack
Obama and Biden's 2012 reelection campaign who recently attended a Biden
fundraiser but has not endorsed a 2020 candidate--raised concerns
about Sanders in <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/11/bernie-sanders-trump-jim-messina-097578" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">an interview with Politico</a>.<br />
<br />
"'If
I were a campaign manager for Donald Trump and I look at the field, I
would very much want to run against Bernie Sanders,' Messina said. 'I
think the contrast is the best. He can say, "I'm a business guy, the
economy's good and this guy's a socialist." I think that contrast for
Trump is likely one that he'd be excited about in a way that he wouldn't
be as excited about Biden or potentially Mayor Pete [Buttigieg] or some
of the more Midwestern moderate candidates.'"</blockquote>
On 20 Jan., anti-corruption campaigner--and Sanders supporter--Zephyr Teachout authored <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jan/20/joe-biden-corruption-donald-trump">an article</a> making the case that Biden's long history of corruption makes him a poor choice as a candidate to throw against Trump. Though nothing in this article was even alleged to be inaccurate and Teachout doesn't work for the Sanders campaign, Sanders repudiated the article and <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/21/us/politics/bernie-sanders-apologizes-joe-biden.html">apologized</a>. "It is absolutely not my view that Joe is corrupt in any way," said Sanders. "And I'm sorry that that op-ed appeared." One of Sanders' longest-running themes is, of course, opposition to exactly the sort of corruption Teachout was targeting but Sanders has always insisted on criticizing the corrupt system, rather than personally criticizing those within it. This served him poorly in both 2016 and 2020.<br /><br /> It didn't earn him any courtesy in return; later on the same day Sanders had apologized, Biden was out with <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/479341-biden-sanderss-attacks-on-social-security-record-were-taken-out-of-context">an anti-Sanders attack ad</a> accusing Sanders of lying for accurately reporting Biden's history of advocating cuts to "entitlements" like Social Security. The Sanders campaign had raised this issue repeatedly in the previous weeks. While the press was all too happy to repeat, ad infinitum, Biden's central campaign theme about Sanders' "electability," this was a stake aimed straight at the heart of the former Vice President's base of support--old people--and corporate press outlets were having none of it. <a href="https://jacobinmag.com/2020/01/social-security-medicare-joe-biden-record-sanders">Other writers</a> <a href="https://theintercept.com/2020/01/13/biden-cuts-social-security/">have</a> <a href="https://fair.org/home/how-corporate-media-factchecked-bidens-calls-for-social-security-cuts-into-oblivion/">covered at</a> <a href="https://www.jacobinmag.com/2020/01/joe-biden-bernie-sanders-social-security-2020-democratic-primary">some length</a> how the press handled this, fighting back, manufacturing and selling to the public a series of fake rationales for why Biden's plain words, captured on decades of videos, didn't say what they clearly said, insisting that what everyone who knew Biden's record knew to be true wasn't, condemning the Sanders campaigns' accurate criticism as false attacks. Sending Biden's history down a Memory Hole. Straight-up lying for Biden, and doing so under the rubric of "fact-checking" the Sanders campaign. By three weeks into January, Biden, emboldened by these fictions, was regularly citing them in insisting the Sanders camp was lying and that--embellishing further--it was circulating "doctored" video to support its criticism, a false claim that not even Biden's gaslighting press defenders had ever made. And his charges <a href="https://fair.org/home/23-headlines-obscure-bidens-lies-about-cutting-social-security/">were being privileged</a> in headlines across the corporate press.<br />
<br />
Hillary Clinton, <a href="https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/features/hillary-clinton-full-a-fiery-new-documentary-trump-regrets-harsh-words-bernie-1271551">Hollywood Reporter</a>, 21 Jan.:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"[I]t's not only him [Sanders], it's the culture around him. It's his leadership
team. It's his prominent supporters. It's his online Bernie Bros and
their relentless attacks on lots of his competitors, particularly the
women. And I really hope people are paying attention to that because it
should be worrisome that he has permitted this culture--not only
permitted, [he] seems to really be very much supporting it. And I don't
think we want to go down that road again where you campaign by insult
and attack and maybe you try to get some distance from it, but you
either don't know what your campaign and supporters are doing or you're
just giving them a wink and you want them to go after Kamala [Harris] or
after Elizabeth [Warren]. I think that that's a pattern that people should take into account when they make their decisions."</blockquote>
ABC News, 21 Jan.: "<a href="https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-sen-bernie-sanders-likes/story?id=68424746">Hillary Clinton on Sen. Bernie Sanders: 'Nobody Likes Him'</a>":<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton levied scathing attacks on Sen. Bernie Sanders in a new Hulu documentary and in an interview with <a href="https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/features/hillary-clinton-full-a-fiery-new-documentary-trump-regrets-harsh-words-bernie-1271551?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=THR%20Breaking%20News_2020-01-21%2004:00:00_kkilkenny&utm_term=hollywoodreporter_breakingnews">The Hollywood Reporter</a>.<br />
<br />
"Clinton, who competed for the 2016 Democratic nomination against Sanders
and won, claimed that Sanders is unlikable and has been relatively
unaccomplished during his congressional tenure.<br />
<br />
"'He was in Congress for years. He had one senator support him. Nobody
likes him, nobody wants to work with him, he got nothing done,' Clinton
said in the documentary. 'He was a career politician. It's all just
baloney and I feel so bad that people got sucked into it.'<br />
<br />
"Clinton would not pledge to support Sanders if he won the 2020
Democratic nomination citing the wide Democratic field and concerns
about Sanders’ online supporters, calling them 'Bernie Bros.'"</blockquote>
The Daily Beast, 22 Jan.: "<a href="https://www.thedailybeast.com/bernie-bros-are-loud-proud-and-toxic-to-bernie-sanders-campaign">Bernie Bros Are Loud, Proud, and Toxic to Sanders' Campaign</a>."<br />
<br />The Washington Post, 23 Jan.: "<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/01/23/sanders-might-actually-be-democratic-nominee-nobody-knows-if-hes-electable/">Sanders Might Actually Be the Democratic Nominee. Nobody Knows If He's Electable.</a>"<br /><br />In this op-ed, Paul Waldman is, as the headline suggests, fearmongering about Sanders' "electability," attacking Sanders on numerous fronts as some too-far-left radical, while--in what had become a common journalistic trope when dealing with Sanders--laundering the attack behind concern-trolling about what Trump and the Republicans would say about Sanders were he to become the Democratic candidate. This piece is notable because only 5 months earlier, the same writer, Waldman, had, in the same publication, the Washington Post, authored a pretty good article, "<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/08/15/why-democratic-voters-need-stop-thinking-about-electability/">Why Democratic Voters Need To Stop Thinking About 'Electability'</a>," in which he made the case for just that. Waldman, in seems, was sweet on Elizabeth Warren's candidacy at the time but was dismayed by a New York Times story featuring<br /><blockquote>"a bunch of quotes from voters attesting to how much they love Warren but worry that <i>other people</i>
might not like her. And so we witness the vicious cycle of
'electability,' one almost immune to facts and experience, in which both
savvy journalists and ordinary voters convince themselves that general
elections are won by candidates who don’t turn off the mythical average
voter, achieving that majority appeal that can be heard when the
electorate cries as one, 'He’s okay, I guess. I mean, could be worse.'... [T]he entire enterprise of determining 'electability' and then voting
not for the person you prefer but the person you think other people
will prefer is a terrible mistake... Barack Obama was not electable by any of the standards we’re applying to
the 2020 candidates, but he won twice, and by substantial margins.
Donald Trump was not remotely electable, but he won, too... There's an assumption--again, on the part of both commentators and the voters
who get quoted in this kind of story--that when President Trump insults [Warren], it will have some kind of magical power to get people to vote
against her, but that assumption doesn’t carry over onto candidates like
Biden, at whom Trump is also already throwing personal insults. He’ll
do it to whomever the Democratic nominee is, and we have precisely zero
evidence that it makes any difference at all.<div class="article-body" data-qa="article-body"><p class="wpds-c-cYdRxM wpds-c-cYdRxM-iPJLV-css font-copy" data-el="text" data-testid="drop-cap-letter">"So
if you're a Democratic primary voter, just vote for the candidate you
like! It might seem like a crazy idea, but it's pretty much the only
primary voting strategy that has been proven to work."</p></div></blockquote>It took only 5 months and the possibility of Sanders becoming the Dem nominee for Waldman, who had derided and talked down Sanders in both the <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/01/22/why-african-american-voters-may-doom-bernie-sanders-candidacy/">2016</a> and <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/01/28/why-bernie-sanders-has-an-uphill-climb-ahead/">2020</a> cycles, to walk back all of this and begin darkly dwelling on Sanders' "electability."<br /><br />
Newsweek, 24 Jan.: "<a href="https://www.newsweek.com/bernie-sanders-poll-warren-biden-2020-nominee-emerson-college-1483831">Only 53% of Bernie Sanders Voters Will Definitely Support 2020 Democratic Nominee If He Doesn’t Win: Poll</a>":<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Only a small majority of Bernie Sanders voters say they will
definitely support the eventual Democratic nominee at the 2020 election
if the independent Vermont senator does not win the race, according to a
poll.<br />
<br />
"<a href="https://emersonpolling.reportablenews.com/pr/national-2020-biden-and-sanders-battle-in-two-way-race-for-democratic-nomination">The National Emerson College Poll</a>
of 1,128 registered voters between January 21 and January 23 found that
53 percent of Sanders supporters said 'yes' when asked if they would
support the Democratic nominee even if it is not their candidate.<br />
<br />
"Another
31 percent of Sanders supporters said it depends on who the nominee is
and 16 percent flat-out said no. The poll, conducted via landline calls
and an online panel, has a 2.8 percentage point margin of error.<br />
<br />
"The
poll suggests some Sanders supporters are out of step with their own
chosen candidate on the question of supporting the Democratic nominee
regardless of who it is.<br />
<br />
"'Let me be clear: If any of the women on
this stage or any of the men on this stage win the nomination--I hope
that's not the case, I hope it's me--but if they do I will do everything
in my power to make sure that they are elected in order to defeat the
most dangerous president in the history of our country,' <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5CUfvoRCx4">Sanders said</a> at the recent Iowa debate.<br />
<br />
"By
comparison to Sanders, 87 percent of former vice president Joe Biden's
supporters said yes to voting for whoever wins the nomination, 9 percent
it depends on the winning candidate, and 5 percent said no to anyone
that is not Biden.<br />
<br />
"And
90 percent of Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren's supporters said
they would vote for whoever is the nominee, while the remaining 10
percent said it depended on who won the nomination.<br />
<br />
"None of Warren's supporters said they would not vote for the eventual nominee if she loses the Democratic race."</blockquote>Here, as often happened, the fact that Sanders drew a broader base than his rivals and his supporters' greater loyalty to their candidate, both of which should be treated as indications of a candidate's strength, are, instead, presented as problematic, while the fact that the other candidates draw a less loyal base of almost entirely Dem die-hards who say they'd vote for any old Dem, no matter who it may be, isn't presented as a weakness for those campaigns but an ideal of which Sanders' voters fall short. This happened in the 2016 Democratic primaries as well, when polls showed Hillary Clinton's base to be almost entirely Dem die-hards who would have been just as happy to vote for Sanders in the general, whereas Sanders' base, which included not-normally-Dem-minded independents and even some Republicans, were less likely to say they'd support Clinton if she became the nominee. Dems went on, in that year's general, to lose voters they would have gotten had Sanders been the nominee. It further illustrates the fundamental bad faith of the "elctability" narrative as weaponized against Sanders in the 2020 race that the same corporate press obsessed with that matter couldn't resist also spinning this indication of Sanders' <i>greater</i> "electability" into yet another opportunity to bash Sanders and his supporters. Almost as if bashing Sanders and his supporters, rather than offering any sort of reasoned or consistent analysis of the race, was the point.<br /><br />Washington Examiner, 25 Jan.: "<a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/bernie-sanders-isnt-a-democratic-socialist-hes-an-all-out-marxist">Bernie Sanders Isn't A 'Democratic Socialist'--He's An All-Out Marxist</a>."<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"The senator's growing appeal ought to be disconcerting to us all,
because Sanders is not the nice, Nordic-style 'democratic socialist' he
claims to be. At his core, Sanders is almost certainly an all-out
Marxist."</blockquote>
Boston Herald, 26 Jan.: "<a href="https://www.bostonherald.com/2020/01/26/dem-attacks-on-bernie-sanders-long-overdue/">Democratic Attacks on Bernie Sanders Long Overdue</a>":<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Bernie Sanders’ campaign recently stabbed Elizabeth Warren in the
back. She was the Vermont senator's comrade in arms. It also threw a
pack of lies at Joe Biden, tarring him as corrupt with zero evidence. As
former Vermont Gov. Peter Shumlin told Politico, Sanders 'will play
dirty.' The Democrat added, 'I'm concerned that we’re seeing a replay of
the kind of dynamics that didn’t allow Hillary to win.'<br />
<br />
"The difference between now and 2016, though, is that Sanders' targets
are finally hitting back. This outbreak of hostilities among Democrats
is not hurting the party. On the contrary. An airing of these grievances
is long overdue."</blockquote>
The Atlantic, 27 Jan.: "<a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/01/bernie-sanderss-biggest-challenges/605500/">Bernie Can't Win</a>":<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Bernie Sanders is a fragile candidate. He has never fought a race in
which he had to face serious personal scrutiny. None of his Democratic
rivals is subjecting him to such scrutiny in 2020. Hillary Clinton
refrained from scrutinizing Sanders in 2016. It did not happen, either,
in his many races in Vermont... The Trump campaign will not steer clear. It will hit him with everything
it’s got. It will depict him as a Communist in the grip of twisted sexual fantasies, a useless career politician who oversaw a culture of sexual harassment in his 2016 campaign."</blockquote>
The notion that Sanders has never been properly "vetted" is another leftover bit of rubbish from the 2016 Clinton campaign, transformed into a genre in the press. FAIR's Adam Johnson <a href="https://fair.org/home/the-myth-that-sanders-hasnt-been-criticized-wont-go-away/">flattened it</a> back then. A few days before that Atlantic piece, CNN had been flogging it ("<a href="https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/15/opinions/bernie-sanders-2020-scrutiny-test-lockhart/index.html">Bernie Sanders Isn't Facing Enough Scrutiny</a>"). The New Republic, to its credit, <a href="https://newrepublic.com/article/156333/eternally-unvetted-bernie-sanders">very forcefully countered this notion</a> the day after that Atlantic piece. And, of course, this article speaks rather directly to the subject.<br />
<br />
NBC News, 27 Jan.: "'<a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/oh-my-god-sanders-can-win-democrats-grapple-bernie-surge-n1123806">Oh my God, Sanders can win': Democrats grapple with Bernie surge in Iowa</a>":<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="endmarkEnabled">
"[S]ome
Democrats are only just now, a week out from the first contest in the
2020 presidential primary season, beginning to come to grips with the
fact that he could actually win the nomination... A Sanders win would
turn the Democratic Party upside down, much as Donald Trump's victory
did for the GOP in 2016... Now, some moderate Democrats feel the need to
sound the alarm and try to
wake supporters up to the fact that Sanders is not a mere protest
candidate, but a real threat to win the nomination and, they argue,
potentially cost Democrats the election against Trump... [Amy] Klobuchar
suggested that nominating Sanders
could hurt down-ballot Democrats. 'I do not come from a state that is as
blue as Vermont,' she told reporters in Ames. 'I have been able to get
those votes and bring them in. And so I think a lot of people have
talking points about how they can do this. I actually have the
receipts.'</div>
<div class="endmarkEnabled">
<br /></div>
<div class="endmarkEnabled">
"Matt Bennett, the vice president of the centrist Democratic think tank Third Way, which has <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/sanders-wing-party-terrifies-moderate-dems-here-s-how-they-n893381">agitated against Sanders and his philosophy</a> for years, said many political insiders have a Sanders-size 'blind spot.'</div>
<div class="endmarkEnabled">
<br /></div>
<div class="endmarkEnabled">
"'We
issued a warning a year ago that Sanders could win the nomination and
would likely lose to Trump. And we've been the only ones really taking
the fight to him,' Bennett said.</div>
<div class="endmarkEnabled">
<br /></div>
<div class="endmarkEnabled">
"'It's past
time for other Democrats to come off the sidelines and for the media to
start doing its job to vet a serious contender for the nomination,' he
added. 'We simply can't stand by while there's a threat that Democrats
could nominate a guy who would hand such nuclear-level ammunition to the
Trump campaign.' </div>
<div class="endmarkEnabled">
<br /></div>
<div class="endmarkEnabled">
"Voters at events for
moderate candidates this weekend expressed concern about Sanders'
potential nomination, though all said they would vote for him in the
general election."</div>
</blockquote>
A large SurveyUSA poll released only 5 days before this NBC article found that, in <a href="https://www.newsweek.com/bernie-sanders-trump-poll-election-2020-biden-bloomberg-1483423">the words of Newsweek</a>, Sanders led Trump "by the widest margin
of all the candidates in the Democratic Party's 2020 race." Sanders had a 9-point lead over Trump. Amy Klobuchar, she with the "receipts," was losing to Trump by two points.<br /><br />Washington Post, 27 Jan.: "<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/01/27/bernie-sanderss-trump-like-campaign-is-disaster-democrats/">Bernie Sanders' Trump-Like Campaign Is A Disaster For Democrats</a>":<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"While
he has defended himself against attacks from Sen. Elizabeth Warren
(D-Mass.) and against the argument that he lacks age and maturity,
[Pete] Buttigieg has rarely gone negative on any opponent. That is
extraordinary in a primary as close and competitive as this one. He
understands at the end of the process, the bare minimum he must do is
unite the party before turning to every persuadable voter.<br />
<br />
"The
polar opposite of this is Sanders and his fleet of Bernie Bros who
slash and burn, attack and smear other Democrats. The New York Times <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/27/us/politics/bernie-sanders-internet-supporters-2020.html" target="_blank">reports</a>
on Sanders’s swarm of online supporters, who have waged vicious and
personal attacks on his critics, often focusing on feminist women... Sanders's own behavior sets the tone and belies the notion that he is
not responsible for the most divisive campaign in the primary."</blockquote>
New York Times, 27 Jan. - "<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/27/us/politics/bernie-sanders-internet-supporters-2020.html">Bernie Sanders and His Internet Army</a>":<br />
<br />
This is an appalling rubbish-tip of an article that regurgitated the "Bernie Bros" narrative at some length. The Times offered nothing to establish that
Sanders' supporters are in any way more toxic or more prone to toxicity
than supporters of any other candidate. Its entire case is--as always--a
handful of scattered anecdotes about the behavior of random idiots on
the internet. The sort of language it uses:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Some progressive activists who declined to back Mr. Sanders have begun
traveling with private security after incurring online harassment.
Several well-known feminist writers said they had received death
threats. A state party chairwoman changed her phone number. A Portland
lawyer saw her business rating tumble on an online review site after
tussling with Sanders supporters on Twitter... For some perceived Sanders critics, there has been mail sent to home
addresses--or the home addresses of relatives. The contents were
unremarkable: news articles about the political perils of centrism. The
message seemed clear: We know where you live."</blockquote>
The "Portland lawyer" mentioned there was Candice Aiston, to which the article returns a little later:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Candice Aiston, a lawyer who supported Ms. Harris before she left the
primary, sparred with Sanders supporters last year and found herself
targeted beyond Twitter: Some condemned her in Google reviews of her law
practice and reported her to the Oregon state bar association, which
dismissed the complaints."</blockquote>
Entirely unmentioned is
the fact that Aiston is, herself, a notoriously toxic Twitter troll;
the platform has, in fact, repeatedly suspended her account for her
inappropriate and harassing behavior.<br />
<br />
Someone who knew
the subject could, of course, have pointed out that fact, except the
Times mostly excluded anyone with any contrary point of view. Nina
Turner, Sanders' campaign co-chair and one of the only exceptions, was
quoted pointing out that "the same folks who want to complain that
Sanders supporters are more
vicious than anybody else never come out to chastise the supporters of
other candidates," but the Times only included her in order to
immediately dismiss her:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"But many political veterans outside the Sanders operation fault the campaign's handling of the vitriol."</blockquote>
The
Times fixes the blame for the behavior of the "Bernie Bros" firmly on
Sanders himself, dragging the political corpses of Hillary Clinton and
her advisors out of the grave to parrot this line:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="css-exrw3m evys1bk0">
"Peggy Huppert, an Iowa activist who
consulted for the 2016 Sanders campaign, said she had decided to support
Mr. Buttigieg, the former mayor of South Bend, Ind., in 2020 'in large
part because of the way he conducts himself.' She praised Mr. Sanders’s
letter to supporters after his announcement but said that this message
had plainly failed to resonate.</div>
<div class="css-exrw3m evys1bk0">
<br /></div>
<div class="css-exrw3m evys1bk0">
"'Obama
set the tone for his campaign: "You are positive, you are respectful,
you are civil,"' Ms. Huppert said. 'I guess Bernie hasn't.'... And last
week, Mrs. Clinton resurfaced to revisit old wounds, telling The
Hollywood Reporter that Mr. Sanders was to blame for permitting and
'very much supporting' a toxic campaign culture."</div>
</blockquote>
And so on.<br />
<br />
New York Magazine, 28 Jan.: "<a href="https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/01/bernie-sanders-electable-trump-2020-nomination-popular-socialism.html">Running Bernie Sanders Against Trump Would Be an Act of Insanity</a>."<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"[T]he totality of the evidence suggests Sanders is an extremely, perhaps
uniquely, risky nominee. His vulnerabilities are enormous and untested.
No party nomination, with the possible exception of Barry Goldwater in
1964, has put forth a presidential nominee with the level of downside
risk exposure as a Sanders-led ticket would bring. To nominate Sanders
would be insane."</blockquote>Slate, 28 Jan.: "<a href="https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/01/trump-bernie-sanders-socialism.html">Bernie Is the Opponent Trump Wants</a>."<br /><br />Two days before this article, former Trump henchman Lev Parnas released a recording of a conversation with Trump in which <a href="https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-said-it-wouldve-been-tougher-win-2016-if-clinton-had-picked-bernie-sanders-vp-1484074">Trump said</a> that, in 2016, he'd feared Hillary Clinton would choose Bernie Sanders as her running-mate, a ticket Trump thought would have been "tougher." While, in fact, the press turned into a recurring narrative the notion that Sanders was the opponent against whom Trump really wanted to run, the Parnas revelation was just one of several behind-the-scenes reports--completely ignored, as usual--that Trump was <a href="https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-2020-president-privately-tells-confidants-that-socialism-wont-be-so-easy-to-beat">afraid of</a>, even <a href="https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-privately-obsessed-with-bernie-sanders-popularity-and-socialisms-appeal">"obsessed" with</a>, Bernie Sanders' popularity and thought Sanders would be a very tough opponent.<br /><br />
USA Today, 29 Jan.: "<a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/01/29/bernie-sanders-socialist-ideas-will-lose-2020-election-column/4595571002/">Democrats Court Doom By Backing Bernie Sanders. His Ideas Are Toxic Outside Blue America</a>."<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"If Democratic voters, hungry for a winner, buy into that myth and
believe that Sanders is the most 'electable' candidate, they will be
making a grave mistake that could hand the presidency back to Donald
Trump."</blockquote>
NBC News, 29 Jan.: "<a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/meet-the-press/blog/meet-press-blog-latest-news-analysis-data-driving-political-discussion-n988541/ncrd1125231#blogHeader">New Iowa Ad Questions Bernie Sanders' Electability, Questions His Heart Attack</a>":<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"A Democratic pro-Israel group will start running <a href="https://www.dropbox.com/s/p163th4c9so8pte/DMFI%20PAC%20Electable%20TV%20Ad.mp4?dl=0" target="_blank">a television ad</a> here
Wednesday hitting Vermont Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders that
references his heart attack and argues the Vermont independent senator
is unelectable against President Donald Trump.<br />
<br />
<div class="endmarkEnabled">
"The almost $700,000 advertising campaign, from the PAC associated with the group Democratic Majority for Israel, comes as <a class="vilynx_listened" href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/meet-the-press/here-s-why-sanders-rising-how-he-could-win-n1123731" target="_blank">Sanders has surged</a> in Iowa days before Monday's first-in-the-nation caucuses... Democratic Majority for Israel’s president and
CEO, longtime Democratic pollster Mark Mellman, told NBC News that the
group is concerned both with Sanders' ability to beat Trump and his
views on Israel. Mellman is a longtime Democratic Party pollster who has
worked for a variety of lawmakers, including former Senate Majority
Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.</div>
<div class="endmarkEnabled">
<br /></div>
<div class="endmarkEnabled">
"'We looked at
the data and saw that he did have a possibility of getting the
nomination and we thought that would be a big mistake,' Mellman said of
Sanders. 'It's vitally important to defeat Donald Trump and we think
Bernie Sanders is not equipped to do that.'"</div>
</blockquote>
Chicago Sun-Times, 30 Jan.: "<a href="https://chicago.suntimes.com/columnists/2020/1/30/21116058/bernie-sanders-supporters-democratic-presidential-election-gene-lyons-ezra-klein">Bernie Sanders Supporters Can't See the Forest For the Tree</a>."<br />
<br />
Politico, 31 Jan., "<a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/31/dnc-superdelegates-110083">DNC Members Discuss Rules Change To Stop Sanders At Convention</a>":<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="story-text__paragraph">
"A small group of Democratic National
Committee members has privately begun gauging support for a plan to
potentially weaken Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign and head off a
brokered convention.</div>
<div class="story-text__paragraph">
<br /></div>
<div class="story-text__paragraph">
"In conversations on the sidelines of a
DNC executive committee meeting and in telephone calls and texts in
recent days, about a half-dozen members have discussed the possibility
of a policy reversal to ensure that so-called superdelegates can vote on
the first ballot at the party’s national convention. Such a move would
increase the influence of DNC members, members of Congress and other top
party officials, who now must wait until the second ballot to have
their say if the convention is contested... [T]he talks reveal the extent of angst that many establishment Democrats are feeling on the eve of the Iowa caucuses."</div>
</blockquote>
Throughout 2019 and 2020, Democratic elites openly discussed derailing democracy in order to stop Sanders and rather than treating it as a major scandal, the press covered it respectfully.<br />
<br />
New York Times, 31 Jan.: "<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/31/opinion/bernie-sanders-campaign.html">Bernie Sanders Can't Win</a>":<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="css-1fanzo5 StoryBodyCompanionColumn">
<div class="css-53u6y8">
<div class="css-nnwssh evys1bk0">
"[Sanders] cannot beat Donald Trump, for the same reason people do not
translate their hatred of the odious rich into pitchfork brigades
against walled estates.</div>
<div class="css-nnwssh evys1bk0">
<br /></div>
<div class="css-nnwssh evys1bk0">
"The
United States has never been a socialist country, even when it most
likely should have been one, during the robber baron tyranny of the
Gilded Age or the desperation of the Great Depression, and it never will
be... The next month presents the last chance for serious scrutiny of Sanders,
who is leading in both Iowa and New Hampshire. After that, Republicans
will rip the bark off him. When they're done, you will not recognize the
aging, mouth-frothing, business-destroying commie from Ben and Jerry’s
dystopian dairy."</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
The Hill, 31 Jan.: "<a href="https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/480827-republicans-want-to-reelect-trump-vote-for-bernie">Republicans: Want To Reelect Trump? Vote For Bernie</a>":<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Here's what Republican and independent supporters in Iowa can do to reelect Donald Trump: Re-register as Democrats and vote for Sen. Bernie Sanders
(I-Vt.) in the February 3 caucuses... Supporters of Donald
Trump--Republicans and independents--should
change their registrations and head to those caucuses to talk up
Bernie... Why should Republicans back Bernie? Because he has a real
chance of
securing the nomination and exactly zero chance of winning the election
in November. Democratic leaders know that, which is why they have been
targeting him these past few weeks... Many senior Democrats, supposedly
including former President <span class="rollover-people" data-behavior="rolloverpeople"><a class="rollover-people-link" data-nid="188226" href="https://thehill.com/people/barack-obama">Barack Obama</a></span>, <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/472090-obama-privately-said-he-would-speak-up-to-stop-sanders-report" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">do not think</a>
Bernie can beat Trump. They think his policies are too radical and that
he will not win over the majority of voters; they are correct."</blockquote>
New York Times, 31 Jan.: "<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/31/opinion/sanders-bernie-bros.html">Bernie's Angry Bros</a>."<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"...no
other Democratic candidate has so many venomous followers--no Biden
Brothers or Warren Sisters to return fire with fire. The only real
analog in U.S. politics today to the Bernie nasties are the Trump
nasties. They resemble each other in ways neither side cares to admit.
The most obvious resemblance is the adulation they bestow on their
respective champions, whom they treat less as normal politicians than as
saviors who deserve uncritical and uncompromising support."</blockquote>
The Hill, 2 Feb.: "<a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/481112-trump-i-think-sanders-is-a-communist">Trump: I Think Sanders Is A Communist</a>":<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Fox News host Sean Hannity<span class="rollover-people" data-behavior="rolloverpeople"></span>
asked Trump in an interview that aired prior to Super Bowl LIV for
quick reactions to a number of Democratic presidential candidates,
including Sanders.<br />
<br />
"'I think he's a communist. I mean, you know,
look, I think of communism when I think of Bernie,' Trump told Fox News
host Sean Hannity."</blockquote>
Axios, 2 Feb.: "<a href="https://www.axios.com/biden-bernie-sanders-iowa-caucuses-surrogates-0e8316bc-b777-4834-ab15-54604f68d139.html">Biden Surrogates Test Electability Argument Ahead of Iowa Clash with Sanders</a>":<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Former Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), a friend and top surrogate for Joe
Biden, said Sunday that if Bernie Sanders were the Democratic nominee,
he'd have a 'very difficult time' beating President Trump and pose a 'serious' threat to Speaker Nancy Pelosi's ability to retain control of
the House... Dodd said many of Sanders' views are 'not mainstream views of Democrats' and that Medicare for All is 'a great mistake'... Trump would have a 'field day' running against socialism, and that would
have repercussions down the ballot, Dodd said. 'Nancy Pelosi does not
want to become the minority leader in the House again,' he said, adding
that 'in the long run, you've got to win on Nov. 3.'"</blockquote>
It's worth noting here, even if Axios didn't, that a <a href="https://www.kff.org/health-reform/poll-finding/kff-health-tracking-poll-january-2020/">Kaiser poll</a> released only three days before Dodd made these comments showed that 77% of Democrats favored the Medicare For All healthcare plan Dodd insisted was not a mainstream view among Democrats. Most Americans--56%--support it as well. This is consistent with all of the serious polling on that issue.<br /><br />The day before Dodd spoke, NBC News released <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/sanders-biden-are-neck-neck-new-nbc-wsj-national-poll-n1127051">a poll</a> that matched both Biden and "Very Difficult Time" Sanders against Trump and showed that both were beating him by statistically-identical numbers. But among the 70% of Democrats who cited beating Trump as a top priority, Biden had a huge 11% lead over Sanders. Same poll, same respondents.<br /><br />Like every other, February was a month of Sanders The Unelectable as a central theme of both Sanders' opponents and of the press and like every other month, the data was never referenced when the claim was made. There are 9 <a href="http://Sanders-vs.-Trump">Sanders-vs.-Trump</a> polls in the RealCelarPolitics database for the month. Sanders was beating Trump in every one of them, though 3 were statistical ties. There were 9 <a href="http://Biden-vs.-Trump">Biden-vs.-Trump</a> polls, and Biden was winning 8 and losing 1, with 2 of the wins being statistical ties.<br />
<br />
Time, 3 Feb.: "<a href="https://time.com/5776543/joe-biden-bernie-sanders-iowa/">Joe Biden Positions Himself as the Anti-Bernie Sanders in Iowa and Beyond</a>":<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"In the days and hours before tonight's caucuses in Iowa, Joe Biden's campaign appears to be making a nuanced, but strategic<b>,</b>
pivot. The former Vice President’s team seems no longer to be running
against Donald Trump or the rest of the Democratic field, but against
one opponent in particular: Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders.<br />
<br />
"Democrats must rally around Biden, his campaign
argues repeatedly. It's the only way to prevent Sanders from securing to
the nomination and Trump winning a second term.<br />
<br />
"'We cannot nominate Bernie. If he’s the nominee, it’s a disaster,' said Rep. Tim Ryan, an Ohio Democrat who endorsed Biden after dropping out of the presidential race himself last year. 'Socialism is not popular and would sink us.'"</blockquote>
On 3rd February, Sanders landed the most votes in the Iowa caucus. Though his count was thousands of votes more than that of his closest rival Pete Buttigieg, the befuddling rules of the caucus awarded more delegates to Buttigieg, who had poured a fortune into the state to artificially inflate his numbers. "Mr. Electability" Joe Biden finished in a distant 4th place. Biden had run for president 3 times over 33 years and this was the first contest in all of that in which he'd ever won a single delegate (he took only 6).<br />
<br />Unfortunately, the <a href="https://apnews.com/article/0fe3fad38fb174de808553293c06bbe8">complete mess</a> the Iowa Democratic party made of the caucus--riddled
with errors, questionable judgment and shady dealing--took many days to
untangle (and was, in fact, never entirely resolved) and <i>that</i>, rather than the results that eventually emerged, became the major story.<br /><br /> Buttigieg, meanwhile, declared himself the winner and was allowed to take a multi-day victory-lap in the press. The New York Times: "<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/07/us/politics/pete-buttigieg-iowa-caucus.html">How Pete Buttigieg Became the Surprise of the Iowa Caucuses</a>" ("Now, as the focus turns to New Hampshire and its primary next Tuesday,
Mr. Buttigieg has emerged as a formidable top-tier contender, harnessing
the momentum from Iowa and campaigning with confidence and a large dose
of swagger."). The New York Daily News: "<a href="https://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/ny-buttigieg-polls-new-hampshire-surge-20200207-whqp7ydvg5cldakuavq6pwir54-story.html">Buttigieg Rides Major #Pete-mentum Surge in New Hampshire Polls As Primary Looms</a>" (#Pete-mentum is no joke."). CNN: "<a href="https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/07/politics/pete-buttigieg-iowa/index.html">How Pete Buttigieg Rose To the Top</a>" ("Pete Buttigieg knew he had pulled off a feat that, a year ago, was unthinkable"). And so on.<br /><br /> Biden's poor showing, which, if given proper attention by the press, could have had a devastating impact on his campaign, led to a <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/05/politics/joe-biden-2020-primary-new-hampshire-iowa/index.html">handful</a> of <a href="https://www.thedailybeast.com/joe-biden-is-running-out-of-gas">critical</a> <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/02/how-joe-biden-blew-it/605821/">stories</a> but was basically ignored. Perhaps the most bizarre take on it came from the Washington Post's Dan Balz, who <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/joe-bidens-campaign-has-a-problem-and-it-begins-with-the-candidate/2020/02/06/7493855c-4904-11ea-9164-d3154ad8a5cd_story.html">wrote</a> "Biden has been a lackluster advocate for his own candidacy, and the
weakness of that advocacy was an unwelcome element of his campaign," as if Biden and his campaign and potential presidency were somehow entirely separate things. And, of course, any momentum Sanders may have gained from getting the most votes was lost.<br />
<br />Then, the next day, it was back to business as usual re:Sanders.<br />
<br />
Wall Street Journal, 4 Feb.: "<a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/stop-bernie-sanders-now-11580859738">Stop Bernie Sanders Now</a>":<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"The socialist senator's extreme positions will lead to Democratic disaster in November."</blockquote>
Laurinburg Exchange, 5 Feb.: "<a href="https://www.laurinburgexchange.com/opinion/33297/sanders-would-hurt-state-democrats">Sanders Would Hurt State Democrats</a>":<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"[Democratic North Carolina Gov. Roy] Cooper has amassed an impressive war chest and enjoys early polling
leads against his likely GOP challenger, Lt. Gov. Dan Forest. Other
Democratic candidates for state and local offices have high hopes, as
well, fueled primarily by the polarizing presidency of Donald Trump.<br />
<br />
"But if Bernie Sanders--headed from a strong performance in Iowa to a
likely win in New Hampshire--ends up at the top of the ticket, all
bets will be off. North Carolina Republicans couldn’t ask for a bigger
favor.<br />
<br />
"Sanders isn’t a garden-variety Democrat. He isn’t even the kind of
progressive Democrat who can now find a secure political home in urban
counties such as Wake, Mecklenburg, and Guilford. Sanders is a
self-professed socialist. In fact, he is a barely reconstructed
apologist for communist dictators.<br />
<br />
"I use the term advisedly. In his early days as an activist and local
politician, Sanders championed the Cuban revolution of Fidel Castro and
the Sandinista revolution in Nicaragua. He honeymooned in the Soviet
Union."</blockquote>
Washington Post, 7 Feb.: "<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/bernie-sanders-poses-a-quandary-for-vulnerable-democrats/2020/02/07/e8a4fac8-491a-11ea-bdbf-1dfb23249293_story.html">Is Sanders An Election-Year Disaster Waiting To Happen?</a>":<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div>
<div class="font--body font-copy gray-darkest ma-0 pb-md">
"The
bleakest assessment came from Marshall Matz, a policy adviser for Sen.
George McGovern's 1972 presidential bid, who said that if Sanders is
nominated, Democrats should expect the sort of landslide loss that
McGovern suffered to President Richard M. Nixon. 'He would not just lose but would lose badly,' Matz told the Stamford Advocate.</div>
<div class="font--body font-copy gray-darkest ma-0 pb-md">
<br /></div>
<div class="font--body font-copy gray-darkest ma-0 pb-md">
"And Republicans, he cautioned, 'are really good at making elections about who's at the top of the ticket.'</div>
<div class="font--body font-copy gray-darkest ma-0 pb-md">
<br /></div>
<div class="font--body font-copy gray-darkest ma-0 pb-md">
"Other
establishment Democrats also fear Trump will barnstorm battleground
states that Democrats need to keep control of the House and regain the
Senate, loudly branding Sanders a socialist--a label many voters find
hard to swallow. Montana Sen. Jon Tester, who led Senate Democrats' campaign arm in 2016, told the Associated
Press, 'I come from a state that's pretty damn red. There is no doubt
that having "socialist" ahead of "Democrat" is not a positive thing in
the state of Montana.' And Republicans, he cautioned, 'are really good at making elections about who’s at the top of the ticket'... So, yes, establishment Democrats are worried, and for good reason... Vulnerable congressional Republicans--as well as Trump--are no doubt
rooting for a Sanders Democratic victory. Some are even trying to make
it happen. There are GOP leaders in South Carolina calling on Republican voters to cast their ballots for Sanders in South Carolina's Feb. 29 open primary."</div>
</div>
</blockquote>On 7 Feb., the Democratic candidates held a <a href="https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/new-hampshire-democratic-debate-transcript">debate</a> in New Hampshire and the first 12 minutes were devoted to the question of whether Democrats would be taking a risk by nominating a socialist. Moderator George Stephanopoulos recounted Joe Biden's assertion that Sanders was a risky candidate, quoted Trump's attacks on Sanders' socialism ("Those hits are going to keep coming if you’re the nominee. Why shouldn’t Democrats be worried?") and then sent the matter around the stage, giving each candidate the opportunity to criticize Sanders' alleged lack of electability. Some did, some passed.<br /><br /> Sanders' socialism and its purported negative impact on his electability was rather tiresomely raised as a subject at nearly every Democratic debate in the 2020 cycle, both the moderators and the other candidates making sure to make a front-and-center issue of it, always discussing it (despite Sanders' efforts to add meat to the matter) as a nebulous abstraction separate from the (actually very popular) policies which Sanders defines as the substance of his socialism.<br /><br />On MSNBC's post-debate coverage (7 Feb.), Chris Matthews went on a fear-mongering <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5MRDEXRk4k">rant</a> against socialism, suggesting that if Sanders won, there could be executions of dissidents in Central Park.<br /><blockquote>"I have my own views about the word 'socialist'... They go back to the early 1950s. I have an
attitude about them. I remember the Cold War... I believe if Castro and the
Reds had won the Cold War there would have been executions in Central
Park and I might have been one of the ones getting executed. And certain
other people would be there cheering, okay?... I don’t know
what [Sanders] means by socialist."</blockquote>CNN, 7 Feb.: "<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgGl-NEMYec">What It's Like To Be Swarmed by Sanders Supporters</a>":<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Two victims of this tell CNN they were <i>so afraid</i> of the online attacks they faced, they don't even want us to describe the <i>circumstances</i> for fear it would start up again."</blockquote>
CNN, 9 Feb.: "<a href="https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/07/politics/bernie-sanders-social-media-attacks-invs/index.html">The 'Swarm': How a Subset of Sanders Supporters Use Hostile Tactics to Drown Out Critics</a>":<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="zn-body__paragraph">
"More than a dozen social media users spoke to CNN about their experiences with bullying by Sanders supporters.</div>
<div class="zn-body__paragraph">
<br /></div>
<div class="zn-body__paragraph">
"They
described threats against family members, the creation of imposter
accounts that resembled their own and what some described as being
'swarmed,' where barrages of vitriol filled their Twitter feeds and
inboxes for days after they posted something critical of Sanders...
Multiple staffers of rival Democratic campaigns--none of whom were
authorized by their campaigns to speak on the record--argue that
trends of bullying within Sanders' online base spring not only from the
scale of his social media following but also the tone of his campaign."</div>
</blockquote>
<div class="zn-body__paragraph">
CNN
quotes former Clinton consultant Peter Daou, who, after years of online
hostility to progressives, had a come-to-Jesus moment and became a
Sanders supporter:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="zn-body__paragraph">
"'You're taking one group of obnoxious people online and you're
tarnishing an entire campaign,' said Daou, who said he has also faced
personal attacks for his pro-Sanders opinions."</div>
</blockquote>
<div class="zn-body__paragraph">
Without
any sense of self-awareness re:the article's own headline-stated
thesis, CNN stuck that quote (and another by Sanders supporter Laura
Moser) toward the end of the piece, totally overwhelmed by the tales of
Sanders supporters' sadism--in perhaps the 10,000th article devoted to
tales of Sanders supporters' sadism.</div>
<br />
<div class="zn-body__paragraph">
The Palmer Report, 9 Feb.: "<a href="https://www.palmerreport.com/analysis/come-on-bernie-sanders-youve-got-to-call-off-your-dogs-on-this-one/25088/">Bernie Sanders and His Attack Dogs Are Completely Out of Control, and Everyone Knows It</a>":</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="zn-body__paragraph">
"Every candidate has a handful of supporters who are conspiracy loons,
turds, and mentally unwell people. But within the Bernie Sanders
movement, these loons are consistently speaking the most loudly on his
behalf--and Bernie does <i>nothing</i> to stop it. It’s been about
twenty hours since Bernie's goons began disrupting Democrats' speeches
in New Hampshire, and Bernie has yet to disavow it. He's there in the
state. He and his campaign are well aware of what’s going on. They're
just rolling with it. At this point it's clear that either Bernie
approves of this behavior because he thinks it helps him, or that even
Bernie is afraid of how deranged his own goons are. Either way, his
silence is enough to disqualify him as a candidate. If he doesn't have
the strength to take on his own most toxic and deranged supporters, he
sure as hell isn’t fit to be president... When Larry David portrayed
Bernie Sanders on Saturday Night Live last night, he made a point of
calling out the 'Bernie Bros' for their psychotic trolling--and he also
called out Bernie for refusing to call off the dogs."</div>
</blockquote>
<div class="zn-body__paragraph">
ABC News, 9 Feb. "<a href="https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/biden-doubles-warning-sanders-nomination-concedes-hampshire-uphill/story?id=68852924">Biden Doubles Down on Warning of Sanders Nomination, Concedes New Hampshire an 'Uphill Battle'</a>":<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Following a debate that featured numerous confrontations between Biden
and Sanders over health care, foreign policy and electability, Biden
again warned that nominating the self-avowed socialist is too risky.<br />
<br />
"'I think it's gonna be incredibly more difficult. I'm not gonna say we--look, if I don't get the nomination and Bernie gets it, I'm gonna
work like hell for him. But I tell you what, it's a bigger uphill climb,
running as a senator or a congressperson or as a governor on a ticket
that calls itself a Democratic socialist ticket,' Biden told
Stephanopoulos.<br />
<br />
"Biden, as he has done during recent stump speeches, argued that
nominating Sanders would force Democrats up and down the ballot to cope
with the potential downside of being associated with 'a socialist,' a
label President Donald Trump could attack and exploit.<br />
<br />
"'It's gonna go all the way down the line. That's what's gonna happen.
You gonna win in North Carolina? You gonna win in Pennsylvania? You
gonna win in those states? In the Midwest?' Biden continued. 'I didn't
put the label on Bernie. Bernie calls himself a Democratic socialist.'"</blockquote>The same day Biden spoke, Quinnipiac wrapped up a <a href="https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/02/donald-trump-versus-democrats-2020-poll">new poll</a> in which Sanders was beating Trump by 8 points, Biden by 7.<br /><br />On 10 Feb., Sanders overtook Biden in the RealClearPolitics national <a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.html">polling average</a> to become the leader of the Democratic field.<br /><br />CBS News, 10 Feb.: "<a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/amy-klobuchar-bernie-sanders-troubled-democratic-socialist-democratic-ticket/">Amy Klobuchar 'Troubled' By Having Democratic Socialist Sanders Atop Ticket</a>."<br /><br />The Bulwark, 10 Feb.: "<a href="https://thebulwark.com/newsletter-issue/bernie-bros-and-the-internet-of-beefs/">Bernie Bros and the Internet of Beefs</a>":</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"I was reading the 417th piece about how Bernie supporters form online
mobs that are basically the mirror-image of Twitter MAGA world... An army of people (or bots or Russians or whoever) hounding
opponents, enforcing discipline, quashing any sort of dissent--and trying
to preempt anyone else from taking sides against the Dear Leader.<br />
<br />
"Whether or not Bernie is personally coordinating this effort makes absolutely no difference to the facts on the ground.<br />
<br />
"No other candidate has anything like this sort of digital brownshirt brigade. I mean, except for Donald Trump."</blockquote>
MSNBC, 10 Feb.: During a panel-discussion that, as usual, featured no Sanders supporters, Chuck Todd <a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2020/02/10/chuck_todd_cites_quote_calling_sanders_supporters_digital_brownshirt_brigade.html">approvingly read</a> that Bulwark column that referred to Sanders' supporters as a "digital brownshirt brigade." Andrea Mitchell fretted that there are no party "elders" to stop Sanders. Todd compared Sanders' movement to Trumpism:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"I know everybody's freaking out it but you saw the MAGA rally that's
prepared around here there are people that are coming from three or four
states. That is real. This is like Bernie."</blockquote>
Rather than being chastised for these comments, Todd was rewarded by being chosen as the moderator of the next Democratic debate.<br />
<br />
Miami Herald, 10 Feb.: "<a href="https://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/article240147903.html">Anxiety of a Bernie Sanders Democrat Ticket Begins To Spread Down the Ballot in Miami</a>."<br />
<br />
On 11 Feb., Sanders won the New Hampshire primary. Joe "Mr. Electability" Biden finished in a distant 5th place, earning zero delegates.<br /><br />On Fox News that night, Laura Ingraham <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/transcript/ingraham-moderates-need-to-consolidate-to-beat-sanders">called</a> Sanders a "monster of radicalism" and offered advice to "moderate" Democrats:<br /><blockquote>"So the Democrats, think about this, they created this monster of
radicalism by tolerating for a long time now, this anti-free market,
anti-business, anti- law enforcement, anti-borders and some people think
anti-American strain in some quarters of their party. Now, the chickens are coming home to roost... [F]or you moderates... you need to pick one [candidate] at this point... If you want to beat Sanders... you have to form a coalition now. Not that you'll take my advice but I think the moderate should coalesce behind one person."</blockquote>Ingraham had a suggestion as to who this should be as well:<br /><blockquote>"Now if I had to pick someone who would perhaps have appeal beyond just
New England and a few college town, it would be Amy Klobuchar."</blockquote>Klobuchar only managed a 3rd place finish in New Hampshire, but in a bizarre twist, she was the candidate treated to a winner's positive press, while the negative coverage of 1st-place Sanders continued. The day began with Vox writing "<a href="https://www.vox.com/2020/2/11/21131586/new-hampshire-klobuchar-who-could-win">Klobmentum could be happening in New Hampshire</a>." Later in the evening, Vox returned to insist "<a href="https://www.vox.com/2020/2/11/21133949/amy-klobuchar-new-hampshire-electable">Amy Klobuchar's Electability Case Is Strong After New Hampshire</a>," a piece that said she was "the thinking moderate Democrat's electability candidate." Trip Gabriel of the New York Times <a href="https://twitter.com/tripgabriel/status/1227428354355351554">tweeted</a> that the "No. 1 story of the night" was Amy Klobuchar, and that Sanders had emerged "<span class="css-901oao css-16my406 r-poiln3 r-bcqeeo r-qvutc0">as a relatively weak front runner."</span><br /></div><div><br />The next day, these sorts of stories piled up. NPR ("<a href="https://www.npr.org/2020/02/12/805155617/klobuchars-3rd-place-finish-in-new-hampshire-shocked-the-establishment">Klobuchar's 3rd Place Finish In New Hampshire 'Shocked The Establishment'</a>"), CNN ("<a href="https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/12/politics/amy-klobuchar-momentum/index.html">Amy Klobuchar Gets Her Moment In New Hampshire</a>"), Politico ("<a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/12/klobuchar-new-hampshire-primary-114303">'Our Comeback Kid': Klobuchar Seizes Her Moment</a>"), the Financial Times ("<a href="https://www.ft.com/content/e2895ea0-4da6-11ea-95a0-43d18ec715f5">Amy Klobuchar's 'Scrappy, Happy' Campaign Finally Clicks</a>"), the Boston Globe ("<a href="https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/02/12/metro/amy-klobuchar-shakes-up-new-hampshire-primary/">Amy Klobuchar Shakes Up New Hampshire Primary</a>"), etc.[6]<br /><br /> At the time, Klobuchar was in 6th place in the Democratic race, <a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.html">averaging</a> only 4.4% support--barely above the polling margin of error. After only 2 more contests, she'd be out of the race.<br /><br />On the night, Jennifer Rubin over at the Washington Post was talking up Klobuchar as well. She also provided a look at how, alongside all those stories, Sanders' win would be treated by the press:<br /><br />Washington Post, 11 Feb.: "<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/02/11/sanders-won-hes-not-big-story-coming-out-new-hampshire/">Sanders Won, But He's Not the Big Story Coming Out of New Hampshire</a>."<br /><blockquote>
"[T]he vote-share of the moderate candidates' (Biden, Buttigieg, Klobuchar)
came in at more than 50 percent, swamping that of progressives Sanders
and Warren, who together accounted for less than 40 percent of the vote."</blockquote>That's neither how elections work nor, more to the point, how voters divide. As part of its regular polling, Morning Consult tracked voters' 2nd choice candidates throughout the primary season and at no point did they cleanly divide along those kind of ideological lines. Voters who supported the more conservative Joe Biden, for example, named Bernie Sanders as their top 2nd choice. Nearly half of Biden's voters, in fact, chose either Sanders or Elizabeth Warren as their 2nd choice. Warren and Biden traded places back and forth over time as the top 2nd choice of Sanders supporters. FiveThirtyEight turned Morning Consult's 2nd-choice data for December into <a href="https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/voters-second-choice-candidates-show-a-race-that-is-still-fluid/">a handy chart</a>:<br /><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhzAJyG_6mYUocA0D1fQvNZpZsDXCbPAGdU4ccvSTVl-C4H2FExpkGljrqVM2Fxg8tm-Ukw893plReWy5PewyDbriy97arzZ6YTeoVLD1TEkGJ_QxJVAa7ZP1-LYPyXKy1vqSjFkIEK3w/s751/morning_consult_2ndchoice_Dec_2019.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="667" data-original-width="751" height="568" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhzAJyG_6mYUocA0D1fQvNZpZsDXCbPAGdU4ccvSTVl-C4H2FExpkGljrqVM2Fxg8tm-Ukw893plReWy5PewyDbriy97arzZ6YTeoVLD1TEkGJ_QxJVAa7ZP1-LYPyXKy1vqSjFkIEK3w/w640-h568/morning_consult_2ndchoice_Dec_2019.JPG" width="640" /></a></div><br />There was plenty of data available on this, and all of it refuted the notion that voters could be easily divided into blocs along these ideological lines but the notion that a "moderate" bloc was outpacing a progressive bloc provided a way of negatively framing Sanders' win, so various press outlets simply ignored the data entirely--as usual--and ran with it in the days that followed.<br /><div><br />In MSNBC's live coverage of New Hampshire, Lawrence O'Donnell <a href="https://twitter.com/Ibrahimpols/status/1227291363953139712">offered this</a>:<br /><blockquote>"Four years ago, sitting right here, Bernie Sanders won 60% of the vote... He's gonna' get half that, if he's lucky, tonight, and by the way, when he won 60% of the vote last year in New Hampshire, that was not enough of a launching-pad to actually win the nomination. So the story of the Sanders campaign so far this year is how much gorund he's <i>lost</i> from four years ago. He's lost half of his support in New Hampshire. He's lost half of his support nationwide."</blockquote>This "analysis" also became its own subgenre of "Sanders In Crisis" in these weeks, with journalists and pundits endlessly pretending as if
they'd forgotten basic math and positing the notion that Sanders was
somehow underperforming because he wasn't drawing as many raw votes in
an election in which he had 16 brand-name competitors as he had in 2016,
when he only had one. Whereas any other candidate would have
gotten a boost of positive coverage, press outlets opted for this
intellectually indefensible negative presentation of Sanders' victory,
framing a win as a loss, his accumulating vote wins as losing ground.<br /><br />
New York Times, 12 Feb.: "<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/12/us/politics/democrats-fear-bernie-sanders.html">Moderate Democrats Fear Bernie Sanders Could Cost Them the House</a>."<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"As
Bernie Sanders emerges as the leader in the race for the Democratic
presidential nomination, his rise is generating fears among centrist
Democrats that the apparent leftward shift of their party could cost
them not only a chance to retake the White House, but also their hold on
the majority in the House of Representatives and their shot at winning
the Senate."</blockquote>
Chicago Tribune, 12 Feb.: "<a href="https://www.chicagotribune.com/election-2020/ct-nw-nyt-bernie-sanders-centrist-democrats-20200213-bm3g4ajj35bazijqm742krgywe-story.html">Centrist Democrats Want To Stop Bernie Sanders. They're Not Sure Who Can</a>."<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"...[U]nless another Democrat rapidly consolidates support, Sanders could
continue to win primaries and caucuses without broadening his political
appeal, purely on the strength of his rock-solid base on the left--a
prospect that alarms Democratic Party leaders who view Sanders and his
slogan of democratic socialism as wildly risky bets in a general
election.<br />
<br />
<div class="crd clln--it" data-type="text">
<div class="crd--cnt">
"The
Biden team stoked that sense of alarm Wednesday: Rep. Cedric Richmond
of Louisiana, a chairman of Biden’s national campaign and a former
chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, warned on a conference call
with reporters that Democrats would risk 'down-ballot carnage' if they
selected Sanders.<br />
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="crd clln--it" data-type="text">
<div class="crd--cnt">
"'If
Bernie Sanders was at the top of the ticket, we would be in jeopardy of
losing the House,' Richmond said. 'We would not get the Senate back.'"</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Insider.com, 12 Feb.: "<a href="https://www.insider.com/iowa-democrats-fear-bernie-sanders-might-win-nomination-2020-2">Biden Has Now Lost Twice, and Top Democrats Are Terrified Sanders Will Do To Them What Corbyn Did To Labour in the UK</a>":<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Former Vice President Joe Biden's poor showing in the New Hampshire and Iowa primaries this week--and Bernie Sanders' strong performance in both--are
terrifying the Democratic party's top managers and fundraisers.<br />
<br />
"We got to taste that fear when Obama-era Secretary of State <a data-analytics-module="body_link" data-analytics-post-depth="20" href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/john-kerry-overheard-discussing-possible-2020-bid-amid-concern-sanders-n1128476">John Kerry was overheard on a phone call in a hotel lobby in Des Moines, Iowa</a>,
telling someone that voters 'now have the reality of Bernie' and it
would lead to 'the possibility of Bernie Sanders taking down the
Democratic Party--down whole.'<br />
<br />
"In a viral rant on MSNBC, James Carville--the Democratic strategist who famously got Bill Clinton into the
White House--also said he was 'scared to death' of what he was seeing."</blockquote>
The Associated Press, 12 Feb.: "<a href="https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/democrats-fear-fallout-sanders-atop-ticket-68948568">Some Democrats Fear Fallout From Sanders Atop the Ticket</a>."<br />
<br />
Forbes, 12 Feb.: "<a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2020/02/12/bernie-sanders-gets-50-fewer-votes-in-new-hampshire-than-2016-trump-gets-24-more/">Bernie Sanders Gets 50% Fewer Votes In New Hampshire Than 2016, Trump Gets 24% More</a>":<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"This isn't your 2016 Bernie Sanders.<br />
<br />
"Yes, he won New Hampshire. And yes, the PredictIt market has him
winning every state on Super Tuesday. But the biggest takeaway from last
night as far as the Bernie Sanders campaign goes is that he lost half
his voter base from the last election. The question now is whether he
can recover that and beat President Trump... Assuming Sanders is begrudgingly nominated by the powers-that-be in
the Democratic Party (he is an I-VT, in the DNCs mind), this is a man
who has lost a significant part of the mojo he had the last time he ran
for the presidency, based on Iowa and New Hampshire turnout.<br />
<br />
"Look, in 2016 he got 151,000 votes, or 60.4% of the Democratic Party primary voters in New Hampshire.
Hillary got 95,000. Trump got 100,000 and topped the Republican ticket.<br />
<br />
"If New Hampshire always gets the presidential picks right, they were
right in 2016 because Trump got more primary voters than did Hillary.<br />
<br />
"This year, Trump got 24% more votes than he did in 2016.<br />
<br />
"Sanders got 50% less!"</blockquote>A new variant on this particular spin, one that doubled down on the bullshit and also became common. Trump saw his vote rise because he was running without a single serious opponent, whereas in 2016, he had over 20; Sanders went from one opponent to 16 and saw his drop; Sanders is not only underperforming but the Republican is overperforming!<br /><br />On the New York Times podcast "The Daily" (12 Feb.), host Michael Barbro <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/12/podcasts/the-daily/bernie-sanders-new-hampshire.html">summed up</a> the New Hampshire results:<br /><span><blockquote>"[I]f you add up all the moderates together, they collectively got something like 70 percent of the vote."</blockquote></span>On CNBC (12 Feb.), Kayla Tausche <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HnFORJp0luY">"reported"</a> Sanders' win:<br /><blockquote>"I think the takeaway is that, um, if you had seen Sanders and Warren both toward the top of the pack, then you would have seen that there was clear support for these progressive platforms. The fact that both Buttigieg and Klobuchar, taken together, got about 50% of the vote, that shows you that, here in New Hampshire at least, that's where the largest bloc of voters wants the party to go... Sanders won this state handily back in 2016 with 60%, and it is notable that he saw nowhere near that level of support this time around."</blockquote>One of the other commentators chimed in to assert that Sanders' victory was "the lowest win that you've ever seen in New Hampshire."<br /><br />
MSNBC, 12 Feb.: Sanders had won the most votes in both Iowa and New Hampshire and had jumped to the front in polling on the Democratic race but on an MSNBC panel discussion, Chuck Todd <a href="https://www.mediaite.com/tv/chuck-todd-on-nh-winner-and-national-poll-leader-bernie-sanders-i-dont-understand-how-hes-considered-a-frontrunner/">scoffed</a> at the idea that Sanders was now the frontrunner.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"I don’t understand how Bernie is considered a frontrunner. This is a guy
that... more people showed up to the polls, highest turnout even, and
his percentage went down [from 2016], not up... I don’t know why some people--I feel like the only people going out on a
limb and calling Bernie Sanders a frontrunner, they have other reasons
to call him a frontrunner. It feels like no frontrunner right now."</blockquote>
With no one on the panel who either supported Sanders or understood math, no one bothered to correct Todd's premise. Cornell Belcher dismissed the notion that these early-state wins mean anything:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"I think Iowa and New Hampshire don't mean what Iowa and New Hampshire meant a decade ago."</blockquote>
Analyst Charlie Cook of the Cook Political Report <a href="https://www.newsweek.com/msnbcs-chuck-todd-doesnt-get-why-sanders-considered-frontrunner-after-senator-wins-new-1487087">predicted</a> that Sanders would lose and that Mike Bloomberg would capture the nomination.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"We don't know where it's going but I'm willing to make some guesses. I think I know who the nominee's going to be. I think it's
going to be Michael Bloomberg."</blockquote>
In 3 weeks, Bloomberg would be out of the race.<br /><br />MSNBC, 12 Feb.: On HARDBALL's Chris Matthews offered <a href="https://www.msnbc.com/transcripts/hardball/2020-02-12-msna1330511">his analysis</a> of the race:<br /><blockquote>"Buttigieg and Klobuchar and Biden split the moderate vote with their
combined percentage overwhelming that of Sanders, who got 26 percent.
That gave Sanders one of the smallest pluralities and the narrowest
margin of victory in the history of the Democratic New Hampshire
primary. It's also less than half of the share of the votes that he won
there in 2016."<br /></blockquote></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgINPnZlGv8JXOsIEe0tIhoBOsy9ZOW40InYK2e0HNmB7jITI6yE0s_Qi8-5pmWj66JjCbH6DTgXZcej0h3crt5s3lV8bxuwqzt4pumzkaX-4mRE0LzdqFhoafh4v3XQnr1tqnpBXrUrQ/s1450/hardball_200212j.JPG" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="830" data-original-width="1450" height="366" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgINPnZlGv8JXOsIEe0tIhoBOsy9ZOW40InYK2e0HNmB7jITI6yE0s_Qi8-5pmWj66JjCbH6DTgXZcej0h3crt5s3lV8bxuwqzt4pumzkaX-4mRE0LzdqFhoafh4v3XQnr1tqnpBXrUrQ/w640-h366/hardball_200212j.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">From Hardball, with Chris Matthews (12 Feb., 2020)<br /></td></tr></tbody></table><div><br />
Nevada Independent, 12 Feb.: "<a href="https://thenevadaindependent.com/article/culinary-union-condemns-vicious-attacks-by-sanders-supporters-after-receiving-hostile-calls-emails-tweets">Culinary Union Condemns 'Vicious Attacks' By Sanders Supporters After Receiving Hostile Calls, Tweets</a>."<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"The politically powerful Culinary Union is punching back at
supporters of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, who have lashed out at the
union after it began distributing a one-pager to members warning that
the Democratic presidential hopeful would 'end Culinary Healthcare' if
elected president.<br />
<br />
"Culinary Union Secretary-Treasurer Geoconda Arguello-Kline said in a
statement Wednesday that Sanders supporters have 'viciously attacked'
the union since it<a href="https://thenevadaindependent.com/article/in-new-flyer-culinary-union-warns-members-sanders-would-end-their-health-care-if-elected-president"> began distributing</a>
a one-pager to union members that takes specific aim at the Vermont
senator over his Medicare-for-all policy. The Culinary Union, which
provides insurance to 130,000 of its members and their families through a
special kind of union health trust, strongly opposes the creation of a
single-payer, government-run health insurance system on the grounds that
it would eliminate their health plan."</blockquote>
This
particular "controversy" ran for days in the lead-up to the Nevada caucus. The Culinary Workers Union declined to endorse any
candidate in this cycle but its Clintonite-right-aligned leadership
circulated a flyer aimed at misinforming its members about Sanders'
signature healthcare proposal while promoting other candidates. The
Nevada Independent recounts:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"According to the flyer, Sanders would 'end Culinary Healthcare'... It uses much softer language to describe Massachusetts Sen.
Elizabeth Warren’s Medicare for all plan, which the union says would
'replace Culinary Healthcare after 3-year transition or at end of
collective bargaining agreements.'<br />
<br />
"The flyer also
praises four other Democratic presidential hopefuls--former Vice
President Joe Biden, former South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg,
Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar and California billionaire Tom Steyer--for
backing plans that would create a government-run public health care
option that the union says would 'protect Culinary Health care.'"</blockquote>
And how did some people react to this?<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Since news of the flyer broke on Tuesday night, the Culinary Union has
faced attacks in the form of tweets, phone calls and emails, a union
spokeswoman said.<br />
<br />
"On Twitter, the union has been derided, among other things, as
'corrupt,' 'incompetent' and 'operating in bad faith.' The spokeswoman
said the content of the phone calls and emails has largely been the
same."</blockquote>
In short, some people expressed a contrary
opinion. Scandalous! There are a number of ways this story could have
been reported. The most obvious would have been to note that an element
of the union leadership that was clearly sympathetic to other candidates
was circulating a tendentious analysis aimed at harming one they didn't
like then crying about it to the press when people objected, said
crying intended to further harm said candidate. Geoconda Arguello-Kline,
the union official quoted in the first line of the story, was even <a href="https://www.pastemagazine.com/politics/democratic-primary/culinary-union-nevada-bernie-sanders-warren/#">involved</a>
in a previous anti-Sanders smear-campaign immediately prior to the 2016 Nevada
caucus, a fact that should have been omnipresent in the presentation of this story regardless of how it was reported. Instead, the story was framed as another example of those bad
"Bernie Bros," just as that bad-faith element of the leadership wanted, and then run into the ground for days on end, positioning Sanders--by any serious analysis the most pro-union candidate in the race by far--as anti-union.<br />
<br />
Whatever the union leadership thought, the union rank-and-file in Nevada didn't seem confused by this; in their state's caucus a few days later, Sanders got the <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/entrance-polls-2020-nevada-caucuses/">largest share</a> of votes from union households.<br />
<br />
Politico, 12 Feb.: "<a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/12/bernie-sanders-nevada-culinary-union-114687">Nevada Culinary Union Lays Into Sanders Supporters After Health Care Backlash</a>."<br />
<br />
The Hill, 12 Feb.: "<a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/482850-culinary-union-disappointing-to-see-sanders-supporters-attacking-us-over">Culinary Union: 'Disappointing' To See Sanders Supporters Attacking Us Over Health Care Criticism</a>."<br />
<br />
Reuters, 12 Feb.: "<a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-sanders-nevada/democrat-sanders-nevada-union-in-escalating-feud-ahead-of-state-nominating-contest-idUSKBN207031">Democrat Sanders, Nevada Union In Escalating Feud Ahead of State Nominating Contest</a>."<br />
<br />
The Hill, 13 Feb.: "<a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/483052-sanders-addresses-allegations-of-harassment-from-culinary-union">Sanders Calls Online Harassment 'Unacceptable' After Allegations From Culinary Union</a>."<br />
<br />Washington Post, 13 Feb.: "<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/were-witnessing-the-reemergence-of-the-moderate-democrat/2020/02/13/ffdab50e-4e9f-11ea-9b5c-eac5b16dafaa_story.html">We're Witnessing the Reemergence of the Moderate Democrat</a>."<br /><blockquote>"For all the thunder on the Bernie Sanders left, the most interesting
trend in the Democratic campaign this year may be the reemergence of the
moderate wing of the party, led by charismatic new voices: former South
Bend, Ind., mayor Pete Buttigieg and Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar... While Sanders, the independent senator from Vermont, <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/elections/election-results/2020-live-results-new-hampshire-democratic-primary/?itid=hp_hp-top-table-main_nh-label%3Ahomepage%2Fstory-ans&itid=lk_inline_manual_7">posted</a>
a win Tuesday in New Hampshire, the bigger stories there, arguably,
were Buttigieg's strong second-place showing and Klobuchar's breakout
performance in finishing third. The two moderates together carried 44.2
percent of the vote, compared with Sanders's 25.8 percent. Even if you
add Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren's 9.2 percent to Sanders’s
total, the balance is toward the center, not the left."</blockquote>Associated Press, 13 Feb.: "<a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/02/13/some_congressional_dems_worry_sanders_nomination_would_hurt_ticket_142390.html">Some Congressional Dems Worry Sanders Nomination Would Hurt Ticket</a>."<br />
<br />
Daily Beast, 13 Feb.: "<a href="https://www.thedailybeast.com/james-carville-fires-back-at-communist-bernie-sanders-proudly-calls-himself-a-hack">James Carville Fires Back At 'Communist' Bernie Sanders, Proudly Calls Himself A 'Hack'</a>":<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"'Last night on CNN, Bernie Sanders called me a political hack,' Carville
said, according to [Vanity Fair contributor Peter] Hamby. 'That's exactly who the fuck I am! I am a
political hack! I am not an ideologue. I am not a purist. He thinks it's
a pejorative. I kinda like it! At least I’m not a communist.'"</blockquote>
Newsday, 13 Feb.: "<a href="https://www.newsday.com/opinion/columnists/cathy-young/bernie-sanders-cathy-young-democratic-presidential-candidate-nomination-2020-new-hampshire-1.41755984">The Disaster of a Sanders Nomination</a>":<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"After four years of anti-establishment populism in power, its left-wing
version no longer looks fresh or idealistic. What’s more, revelations
about Sander’s history raise new questions about just how radical a
candidate the self-proclaimed Democratic socialist is--as do some of
his current associations... Sanders' nomination will be a disaster for America whether he wins or
loses in November. There is still time for Democrats to come to their
senses."</blockquote>
Bloomberg, 13 Feb.: "<a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-02-13/sanders-as-frontrunner-raises-democratic-jitters-in-congress">Sanders As Front-Runner Raises Democratic Jitters in Congress</a>."<br />
<br />
Fox News, 13 Feb.: "<a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/down-ballot-dems-freaking-out-over-bernie">Down-ballot Dems Freaking Out Over Bernie</a>."<br />
<br />
NBC News, 13 Feb.: "<a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/sanders-success-ramps-concern-among-congressional-democrats-n1136456">Sanders' Success Ramps Up Concern Among Congressional Democrats</a>."<br />
<br />
Spectrum News, Central North Carolina, 14 Feb.: "<a href="https://spectrumlocalnews.com/nc/triangle-sandhills/politics/2020/02/15/what-could-a-sanders-nomination-mean-for-down-ballot-races-in-nc-">What Could a Sanders Nomination Mean for Down-Ballot Races in N.C.?</a>"<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Sanders’ good showing in the first two primary states has led some
national Democrats to sound alarm bells that if the self-described
Democratic socialist from Vermont is atop the 2020 ticket, it may hurt
their party's chances in key down-ballot races."</blockquote>
Fox News, 14 Feb.: "<a href="https://video.foxnews.com/v/6132734571001#sp=show-clips">Moderate Democrats Worry Over Bernie Sanders' Down-ballot Impact</a>."<br />
<br />
Reuters, 15 Feb.: "'<a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-biden/disown-them-biden-criticizes-sanders-for-supporters-online-attacks-idUSKBN20A001">Disown Them:' Biden Criticizes Sanders For Supporters' Online Attacks</a>."<br />
<br />
Vanity Fair, 16 Feb.: "<a href="https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/02/biden-to-bernie-mind-your-bros">Biden To Bernie: Mind Your Bros</a>."<br />
<br />
Vox, 16 Feb.: "<a href="https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2020/2/16/21139774/bernie-sanders-joe-biden-online-attacks-culinary-union">Biden Says Sanders Needs To Do More To Stop Supporters' Online Attacks</a>."<br />
<br />MSNBC, 16 Feb.: "<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWBgqVXHbrY">Bernie Sanders Hits A Ceiling In First Primary Contests</a>."<br /><blockquote>"Bernie Sanders may have eked out the most votes in Iowa and New Hampshire, but if you look at the numbers more closely, it shows a candidate hitting a ceiling for now, rather than a glide-path to the nomination... If you look at the combined percentages among the centrist candidates, the do much better than the progressives, earning 51% of the vote in Iowa and 52% in New Hampshire... Those kinds of numbers do <i>not</i> favor the Sanders campaign..."</blockquote><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgYoYLG1uGIYdewJd12p2h7PdQfBNeJVRSr1Zcs3uv9ZVQ_kstxl0_Vp4-VY0hrIVF1cR7npx0okbiLaut_ndPXgYi_aH1GY2NfSTplQN7Ocv4LEjNiWDTnGjYtg8f1Rfevp_e2liemuw/s1920/MSNBC_200216.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1080" data-original-width="1920" height="360" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgYoYLG1uGIYdewJd12p2h7PdQfBNeJVRSr1Zcs3uv9ZVQ_kstxl0_Vp4-VY0hrIVF1cR7npx0okbiLaut_ndPXgYi_aH1GY2NfSTplQN7Ocv4LEjNiWDTnGjYtg8f1Rfevp_e2liemuw/w640-h360/MSNBC_200216.JPG" width="640" /></a></div><div><br />
Fox News, 17 Feb.: "<a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/bloomberg-scorches-sanders-with-video-on-bernie-bro-threats">Bloomberg Scorches Sanders With Video On 'Bernie Bros' Threats</a>."<br />
<br />
Commentary, 17 Feb.: "<a href="https://www.commentarymagazine.com/noah-rothman/bernie-sanders-confronts-his-bros/">Bernie Sanders Vicious Fans Become A Campaign Issue</a>."<br />
<br />
Boston Herald, 17 Feb.: "<a href="https://www.bostonherald.com/2020/02/17/bernie-sanders-doesnt-have-the-goods-to-beat-trump/">Bernie Sanders Doesn't Have the Goods To Beat Trump</a>."<br />
<br />
USA Today, 17 Feb.: "<a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/02/17/bernie-sanders-success-2020-primary-worrying-some-democrats/4752572002/">Why Some Democrats Are Worried Sanders Could Be Unstoppable For the 2020 Nomination</a>":<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="p-text">
"[Sanders' lead] causes consternation among some Democrats who
say Sanders wouldn't be as strong a general election candidate against
President Donald Trump [as a 'moderate' candidate]. There are also fears that a Sanders nomination
could make it harder for the<a data-track-label="inline|intext|n/a" href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/12/us/politics/democrats-fear-bernie-sanders.html" target="_blank"> Democrats defending the swing congressional districts </a>that won the party the House majority in 2018.</div>
<div class="p-text">
<br /></div>
<div class="p-text">
"'I
know that there's a panic among some quarters of the Democratic Party
about Bernie Sanders because he has a base and he has the resources to
go on,' veteran Democratic strategist David Axelrod said on
his podcast Wednesday."</div>
</blockquote>Forbes, 18 Feb.: "<a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/sergeiklebnikov/2020/02/18/leon-cooperman-says-communist-bernie-sanders-is-a-bigger-threat-than-coronavirus/#58eebbac3069">Leon Cooperman Says 'Communist' Bernie Sanders Is A 'Bigger Threat' Than Coronavirus</a>":<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Billionaire investor Leon Cooperman said in an interview with CNBC on
Tuesday that Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is a 'bigger threat' to the
stock market than the coronavirus, while also accusing the Vermont
senator of 'misrepresenting himself' as a socialist rather than a
communist... 'I look at Bernie Sanders as a bigger threat than the
coronavirus,' Cooperman said, while also adding that Mike Bloomberg is
the only candidate he thinks can beat President Trump in the 2020
election... The billionaire investor and founder of Omega Advisors
accused Sanders of 'misrepresenting' himself to voters: 'He's not a
socialist. He is, rather, a communist.'"</blockquote>
Los Angeles Times, 18 Feb.: "<a href="https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2020-02-18/bernie-sanders-rise-worries-centrist-democrats-in-congress">With Sanders At the Top of the Ticket, Will Democrats Keep the House Seats They Won in Moderate Districts?</a>"<br />
<br />
MSNBC, 18 Feb.: Hardball host Chris Matthews <a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2020/02/19/chris_matthews_bernie_sanders_is_full_of_it_would_lose_49_states_to_trump.html">raged</a> against the other Democratic candidates for their alleged failure to challenge Sanders and urged them to do so:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"I hope the candidates who have been telegraphing punches against Sanders
are going to deliver them. I hope they actually do what they promised
to do. Are they going after him about the bad behavior of Bernie
Sanders' supporters or not?... [Sanders] said he can't control them [his supporters] but I think he'll be called to account by
the other candidates because they have a hesitancy or a fear of going
after his ideology, going after his self-declared socialism, or about
the doability of all the things he's going to do and in a Congress that
is split right now. Everybody knows half of the U.S. Senate is run by
Republicans and run by half Republicans next time and it takes 60 votes
to get this through.<br />
<br />
"Nobody just says the obvious: 'Bernie, you're full of it. None of this
is going to get passed. You're going to be a miserable president,
frustrated from the first day because you're not going to get Medicare
for All. You're not going to get free college tuition for public
universities. You're not going to get payoffs of all student loans. None
of this is going to happen, and you're just going to sit there and stew
in it,' so, why don't they bring that up? I do not understand why they
don't bring that up... They're just pandering to the Bernie people, and you know what pandering
gets you? Nothing. They've got to get out there and say, 'I disagree
with socialism. I believe in the markets. I think he's wrong. I think
he'll never get it done, and this country will never go that direction,
and, by the way, we'll lose 49 states.'"</blockquote>NBC News, 18 Feb.: "<a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/bernie-sanders-isn-t-frontrunner-democratic-race-moderates-are-ncna1138351">Bernie Sanders Isn't the Frontrunner In the Democratic Race: The Moderates Are</a>."<br /><blockquote>"[T]he rush to crown Sanders, the independent senator from Vermont and
self-proclaimed democratic socialist, as the heir apparent to the
Democratic nomination overlooks a central dynamic. Sanders is topping
the polls as Biden’s support has eroded and the moderate lane has
completely fractured. Yet the combined backing for progressive
candidates is much lower than it was in the fall--in fact, it now
trails the combined support for moderates considerably."</blockquote>On 18 Feb., pollster YouGov carried out an <a href="https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2020/02/18/democrat-head-to-head-poll">interesting experiment</a>, matching the Democratic presidential hopefuls against one another in theoretical one-on-one races. The results were another stake through the heart of the narrative that Sanders was only winning because the "moderate" vote was divided:<br /><blockquote>"A Yahoo News/YouGov poll released on Thursday shows that Sanders would
effectively defeat other strong, moderate Democratic candidates... Former Vice President <a href="https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/explore/public_figure/Joe_Biden">Joe Biden</a> narrowly loses to Sanders (44% to 48%). The Vermont Senator boasted the strongest victory over former South Bend Mayor <a href="https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/explore/public_figure/Pete_Buttigieg">Pete Buttigieg</a> (37% to 54%), who beat him for the most delegates in Iowa, and Minnesota <a href="https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/explore/public_figure/Amy_Klobuchar">Amy Klobuchar</a> (33% to 54%), who delivered a third-place performance in the New Hampshire primary last week."</blockquote>Biden fared poorly in these match-ups; he "only wins a clear margin of victory over Bloomberg (47% to 34%). He
loses by eight points against Warren in a head-to-head (49% to 41%) and
loses by four points to Sanders (44% to 48%)."<br /><br />ABC's THE VIEW, 19 Feb.: Co-host Meghan McCain, interviewing Sanders surrogate Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, went on a an <a href="https://www.salon.com/2020/02/20/meghan-mccain-confronts-rep-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-about-bernie-bros-he-has-a-real-problem/">unhinged rant</a> against Bernie Sanders' supporters.<br /><blockquote>"The one thing that connects women on the left and women on the
right I have found... is the abuse that we have all been subjected to
by Bernie Bros. It is by far, of anything
I've ever seen in my entire life, the most violent, the most
misogynistic, the most sexist, the most harmful... He has a real problem, and I don't think he is doing enough to
tamp it down... How do you feel that
he's attached to this deeply misogynistic--and I would go so far as to
say violent--sector of people?"</blockquote>Politico, 19 Feb.: "<a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/19/democratic-debate-bernie-sanders-supporters-116204">Democrats Criticize Sanders For Online Behavior of His Supporters</a>."<br />
<br />
Los Angeles Times, 19 Feb.: "<a href="https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2020-02-19/bernie-sanders-supporters-toxic-online-culture">Bernie Sanders Faces Questions Over Supporters' Online Behavior</a>."<br />
<br />
Dallas Morning News, 19 Feb.: "<a href="https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/commentary/2020/02/20/what-could-go-wrong-for-democrats-if-they-nominate-sanders-plenty/">What Do Democrats Have To Fear About Bernie Sanders? Plenty</a>."<br /><br />The Week, 19 Feb.: "<a href="https://theweek.com/articles/895714/historical-argument-against-bernie-sanders">The Historical Argument Against Bernie Sanders</a>."<br /><blockquote>"Heading into tonight's debate and Saturday's Nevada caucuses, Bernie
Sanders is the frontrunner in the topsy-turvy Democratic primary. That's
the worst nightmare for many Democrats, who fear not only that he will
lose to Donald Trump, but that Sanders will damage Democrats
down-ballot, even potentially <a class="polaris__link -is-external" href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/12/us/politics/democrats-fear-bernie-sanders.html" rel="noopener" target="_blank">costing them the House</a>.
These fears are well founded..."</blockquote>The day that article appeared, a new <a href="https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/sanders-bloomberg-rise-biden-falls-sharp-shifts-views/story?id=69049533">ABC News/Washington Post poll</a> was published showing Sanders beating Trump by 6 points.<br /><br />That evening, at the <a href="https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/democratic-debate-transcript-las-vegas-nevada-debate">Democratic debate</a>
in Las Vegas, Pete Buttigieg denounced Sanders as "a socialist
who thinks that capitalism is the root of all evil," who isn't a
Democrat, who "wants to burn this party down" and "wants to burn the
house down." Mike Bloomberg <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u30AE7V-5-Q">attacked</a> Sanders' plan to make it possible for workers to own a piece of the corporations for which they work:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"I
can't think of a ways that would make it easier for Donald Trump to get
re-elected than listening to this conversation. This is ridiculous!
We're not going to throw out capitalism. We tried that--other countries
tried that. It was called communism and it just didn't work."</blockquote>As usual, the moderators--Chuck Todd, in this case--had to suggest Sanders' socialism made him unelectable.<br /><blockquote>"Senator Sanders, our latest NBC News, Wall Street Journal poll released
yesterday. Two thirds of all voters said they were uncomfortable with a
socialist candidate for President. What do you say to those voters, sir?"</blockquote>Sanders
pointed out that the same poll had him leading the Democratic field by a
substantial margin. Todd would later go after Buttigieg for, 20 years
earlier, writing an article in which he praised Sanders "for embracing
socialism."<br /><br />
MSNBC, 20 Feb.: On Morning Joe, Donny Deutsch <a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2020/02/20/msnbcs_donny_deutsch_is_panicking_that_bernie_sanders_is_running_away_with_presidential_nomination.html">goes on a rant </a>about Sanders:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"[I]s anybody panicked beside me in that it does look like Sanders is
rolling and 2/3 of the country thinks we're going in the right
direction, and a guy who wants to burn it down? I don't see him having
any shot in a general election, and I'm panicked. I am absolutely
panicked."</blockquote>
Philadelphia Inquirer, 20 Feb.: "<a href="https://www.inquirer.com/politics/pennsylvania/bernie-sanders-2020-pa-swing-districts-20200220.html">Bernie Sanders' 2020 Rise Prompts Fear In PA. Swing Districts</a>."<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"[A]s self-described democratic socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders roars ahead
in the presidential primary, winning Nevada's caucuses Saturday to
establish himself as the clear Democratic front-runner, some party
officials in Pennsylvania and New Jersey worry that if he becomes the
nominee, he could cost them hard-won gains."</blockquote>
The Federalist, 20 Feb.: "<a href="https://thefederalist.com/2020/02/20/after-nearly-dying-at-the-hand-of-a-bernie-bro-steve-scalise-attests-to-their-violence/">After Nearly Dying At The Hand Of A ‘Bernie Bro,’ Steve Scalise Attests To Their Violence</a>."<br />
<br />
Bloomberg, 20 Feb.: "<a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-02-20/bernie-sanders-supporters-driven-by-outrage">Bernie Sanders Supporters Driven By Outrage</a>."<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Bernie Sanders has said that he will support the Democratic
Party's presidential nominee, no matter who he or she is. But some
Democrats worry that a lot of his supporters will not work or even vote
for any other candidate, whereas the backers of his Democratic rivals
will enthusiastically work or vote for anyone the party nominates,
including Sanders.<br />
<br />
"It
is too soon to know whether this worry is justified. But we do know
that in 2016, many of Sanders’s supporters were extremely angry that
Hillary Clinton won the Democratic nomination, and they refused to
support her... If past is prologue, then many Sanders supporters would
feel and act the same way in 2020, if he does not get the nomination."</blockquote>
Washington Post, 21 Feb.: "<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/bernie-sanders-briefed-by-us-officials-that-russia-is-trying-to-help-his-presidential-campaign/2020/02/21/5ad396a6-54bd-11ea-929a-64efa7482a77_story.html">Russia Trying To Help Bernie Sanders' Campaign, According To Briefing From U.S. Officials</a>":<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="teaser-content">
"U.S.
officials have told Sen. Bernie Sanders that Russia is attempting to
help his presidential campaign as part of an effort to interfere with
the Democratic contest, according to people familiar with the matter.<br />
<br />
"President
Trump and lawmakers on Capitol Hill also have been informed about the
Russian assistance to the Vermont senator, those people said, speaking
on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive intelligence.<section><div>
<div class="font--body font-copy gray-darkest ma-0 pb-md">
<br /></div>
<div class="font--body font-copy gray-darkest ma-0 pb-md">
"It
is not clear what form that Russian assistance has taken. U.S.
prosecutors found a Russian effort in 2016 to use social media to boost
Sanders’s campaign against Hillary Clinton, part of a broader effort to
hurt Clinton, sow dissension in the American electorate and ultimately
help elect Donald Trump."</div>
</div>
</section></div>
</blockquote>
For two years, the Clintonite-right-aligned elements of the press engaged in an hysteria regarding alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election and U.S. politics, suggesting, among other things, that this interference had determined the 2016 election, that Donald Trump was a puppet of Russian leader Vladimir Putin and that this would inevitably <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1ab6uxg908">end</a> Trump's presidency. The Clinton cult particularly relished harping on alleged Russian efforts to aid the 2016 Sanders campaign, though no significant effort to do so was ever documented. The Clinton campaign and ultimately the Democratic Establishment found in the Russian interference narrative a scapegoat that allowed them to avoid taking any responsibility for the 2016 disaster.[7] In the end, it <a href="https://www.thenation.com/article/russiagate-elections-interference/">amounted</a> <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/02/the-russian-conspiracy-to-commit-audience-development/553685/">to nothing</a>--other than yet another black eye for American journalism.<br />
<br />
With Sanders leading the 2020 Democratic race, it was resurrected from the dead. Sources saying Russia was somehow aiding Sanders' campaign but no one could say who, no one could say how and no one would even go on record. <i>That isn't even a story</i> but in the midst of the Democratic primary contest Sanders was leading (and only a day before the Nevada caucus), it was splashed all over the press (<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/21/us/politics/bernie-sanders-russia.html">here</a>, <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/21/politics/bernie-sanders-russia-election-interference/index.html">here</a>, <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/21/bernie-sanders-reportedly-told-that-russia-wants-to-help-his-campaign.html">here</a>, <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/02/21/bernie-sanders-told-russia-helping-presidential-campaign-report/4835049002/">here</a>, <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/484121-us-officials-told-sanders-that-russia-is-trying-to-help-his-2020-campaign">here</a>, <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-russia-sanders/u-s-officials-tell-democrat-sanders-russia-is-trying-to-help-his-campaign-washington-post-idUSKBN20F2TH">here</a> <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/u-s-officials-told-bernie-sanders-russia-is-trying-to-help-his-campaign/">here</a>, <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/bernie-sanders-was-warned-russia-is-trying-to-boost-his-presidential-campaign-11582330668">here</a>, <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/21/bernie-sanders-condemns-russian-116640">here</a> and on into infinity). Alan Macleod of Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting, <a href="https://fair.org/home/media-stoop-to-russian-assistance-to-explain-sanders-rise/">writing about this</a> a few days later:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Commenting on Sanders' blowout in Nevada, former Clinton strategist James Carville told <b>MSNBC</b> (<a href="https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/watch/carville-the-happiest-person-right-now-is-vladimir-putin-79233605619">2/22/20</a>):
'The happiest person right now? It's about 1.15 a.m. Moscow time. This
thing is going very well for Vladimir Putin.' Host Nicole Wallace backed
him up: 'That's absolutely right,' she replied. Why is Putin happy?
Obama’s White House Communications Director, Dan Pfeiffer, explained to <b>MSNBC'</b>s <b>Meet the Press</b> (<a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/meet-press-february-23-2020-n1141376">2/23/20</a>) that the Russians 'are trying to give Trump the opponent that Trump wants'... Despite this, the poorly sourced, evidence-free and <a href="https://edition.cnn.com/2020/02/23/politics/intelligence-briefer-russian-interference-trump-sanders/index.html">quickly walked-back</a> report became the basis for endless stories linking Russia and Sanders. <b>GQ</b> (<a href="https://www.gq.com/story/why-does-putin-love-bernie">2/23/20</a>), for example, asked its readers 'why exactly does Putin love Bernie?' <b>Vox</b> (<a href="https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2020/2/22/21148415/sanders-russian-interference-2020-campaign-trump">2/22/20</a>) claimed that Sanders' 'chaos' was good for Russia and Trump. Meanwhile, the <b>New York Times</b> (<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/24/opinion/bernie-sanders-russia.html">2/24/20</a>), disregarding all polling data, stated categorically: 'Sanders would be Trump's weakest opponent.'"</blockquote>Positioning Sanders as a candidate being backed by some kind of illicit Russian activity is a McCarthy-style attack. It aims to inflicts harm on Sanders' campaign but because there's no substance to the story, there's nothing to address, nothing to investigate further, no way for Sanders to even respond. The only big question raised by it: who, exactly, wants to circulate this kind of story? Faced with a potential political scandal, with Sanders' political opponents in both the Trump administration and congress as the suspects, the press never asked, and opted, instead, to act as an arm of whatever Sanders enemy wanted it in circulation.<br />
<br />
San Francisco Chronicle, 21 Feb.: "<a href="https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/Bernie-Sanders-backers-Medicare-for-All-fury-15074118.php">Bernie Sanders Backers Unleash Fury on Union Opposing His Medicare For All Plan</a>."<br />
<br />
Politico, 21 Feb.: "<a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/21/congress-sanders-republicans-trump-116523">Down-ballot Republicans Watch With Glee As Sanders Gains Steam</a>."<br />
<br />
McClatchey, 21 Feb.: "<a href="https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/white-house/article240488741.html">Republicans Against Trump Open To Voting For a Moderate Democrat--Just Not Sanders</a>."<br />
<br />
Reuters, 21 Feb.: "<a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-bloomberg/sanders-trump-like-rhetoric-encouraged-vandals-bloomberg-camp-says-idUSKBN20F2NE">Sanders 'Trump-Like Rhetoric' Encouraged Vandals, Bloomberg Camp Says</a>":<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Michael Bloomberg's presidential campaign on Friday alleged that rival
Bernie Sanders' 'Trump-like rhetoric' encouraged supporters to vandalize
a Bloomberg campaign office in Tennessee and others across the country... 'We don’t know who is responsible for this vandalism, but we do know
it echoes language from the Sanders campaign and its supporters,'
Bloomberg campaign manager Kevin Sheekey said in a statement.<br />
<br />
"'We
call on Bernie Sanders to immediately condemn these attacks and for his
campaign to end the Trump-like rhetoric that is clearly encouraging his
supporters to engage in behavior that has no place in our politics,'
Sheekey said."</blockquote>
On 22 Feb., Sanders won a massive victory in the Nevada caucus, capturing nearly half the vote in a contest with six other candidates. Joe Biden finished in 2nd place, with less than half of Sanders' vote, his 3rd failure in a row. As the results were coming in, MSNBC's Chris Matthews <a href="https://www.mediaite.com/tv/chris-matthews-compares-bernie-sanders-winning-nevada-to-france-falling-to-germany-in-1940/">compared</a> Sanders' victory in Nevada to the Nazi conquest of France in 1940:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"I was reading last night about the fall of France in the summer of 1940,
and the general, Reynaud, calls up Churchill and says, 'It's over.' And
Churchill says 'How can it be? You've got the greatest army in Europe.
How can it be over?' He said, 'It's over.'"</blockquote>
It was a sign of things to come. Anti-Sanders stories had been ramping up in advance of Sanders' anticipated Nevada win and hit peak density in this period, as, increasingly unable to muddle the matter of a frontrunner, corporate press outlets became wall-to-wall attacks on his candidacy.<br />
<br />
USA Today, 22 Feb.: "<a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/02/22/bernie-sanders-nevada-win-leaves-democrats-worried-november/4830404002/">Bernie Sanders' Nevada Win Forces Democrats To Reckon With Potential Impact of His Nomination</a>":<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"More moderate candidates were already fighting about who should step
aside to allow one person to try to consolidate the vote against [Sanders].<br />
<br />
<div class="p-text">
"In combative remarks Saturday night, Pete Buttigieg
said the only way Democrats can deliver on the progressive changes the
party wants is with a nominee 'who actually gives a damn about the
effect you are having' on races from the top of the ticket to the
competitive House and Senate races Democrats must win.</div>
<div class="p-text">
<br /></div>
<div class="p-text">
"Buttigieg
accused Sanders of ignoring, dismissing and even attacking 'the very
Democrats that we absolutely must send to Capitol Hill.'</div>
<div class="p-text">
<br /></div>
<div class="p-text">
"'Let's
listen to what they are telling us and support them from the top of the
ticket,' said Buttigieg, who won more delegates than Sanders in Iowa
and collected the same amount as Sanders did in New Hampshire. 'It is
too important.'"</div>
</blockquote>
Third Way, 22 Feb.: "<a href="https://www.thirdway.org/memo/stand-up-to-bernie-or-you-and-we-all-lose">Stand Up To Bernie Or You--And We--All Lose</a>."<br />
<br />
Axios, 22 Feb.: "<a href="https://www.axios.com/centrist-democrat-bernie-trump-wins-2020-76900aca-ca3c-42a6-a7db-983d1dded0e2.html">Centrist Democrats Beseech 2020 Candidates: 'Stand up to Bernie' or Trump Wins</a>."<br />
<br />
Washington Post, 22 Feb.: "<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/as-bernie-sanderss-momentum-builds-down-ballot-democrats-move-to-distance-themselves/2020/02/22/3364ddd8-5516-11ea-9e47-59804be1dcfb_story.html">As Bernie Sanders's Momentum Builds, Down-ballot Democrats Move To Distance Themselves</a>."<br />
<br />
Fox News, 22 Feb.: "<a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/some-democrats-are-freaking-out-at-prospect-of-sanders-nomination">Some Democrats Are Freaking Out At Prospects That Sanders Could Win Nomination</a>."<br />
<br />
MSNBC, 23 Feb.: Former Bill Clinton political strategist James
Carville <a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2020/02/23/james_carville_on_sanders_youre_a_fool_if_you_think_he_can_win_by_expanding_the_electorate.html">reacts</a> to Sanders' win in Nevada:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"[Sanders'] entire theory that by expanding the electorate is a--increasing
turnout so you can win an election is similar to a climate denial. When
people say that, they're as stupid to a political scientist as a climate
denier is to an atmospheric scientist.<br />
<br />
"If you want to vote for Bernie Sanders because you feel good about his
program, you don't like the banks on Wall Street or you don't like
pharmaceuticals, that's legitimate, I understand that. If you're voting
for him because you think he'll win the election, politically, you're a
fool. And that's just a fact. It's no denying it, there's so much
political science, so much research on this that it is not even a
debatable question."</blockquote>
The Hill, 23 Feb.: "<a href="https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/484219-sanders-is-a-risk-not-a-winner">Sanders Is A Risk, Not A Winner</a>."<br />
<br />
Politico, 23 Feb.: "<a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/23/sanders-democratic-establishment-panic-mode-117065">Sanders Sends Democratic Establishment Into Panic Mode</a>":<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="story-text__paragraph">
"Moderate Democrats watched in horror as Bernie Sanders soared to a landslide victory in Nevada.</div>
<div class="story-text__paragraph">
<br /></div>
<div class="story-text__paragraph">
"It wasn't the win that was surprising--it was the walloping Sanders gave his opponents, his ability to
dominate among Latino voters, and the momentum he gained moving into
South Carolina and Super Tuesday. The performance sent already worried
Democrats into a full-blown panic.</div>
<div class="story-text__paragraph">
<br /></div>
<div class="story-text__paragraph">
"'In
30-plus years of politics, I’ve never seen this level of doom. I’ve
never had a day with so many people texting, emailing, calling me with
so much doom and gloom,' said Matt Bennett of the center-left group
Third Way after Sanders' win in Nevada.</div>
<div class="story-text__paragraph">
<br /></div>
<div class="story-text__paragraph">
"Bennett said moderates firmly believe a
Sanders primary win would seal Donald Trump’s reelection. 'It's this
incredible sense that we’re hurtling to the abyss. I also think we could
lose the House. And if we do, there would be absolutely no way to stop
[Trump]. Today is the most depressed I’ve ever been in politics.'"</div>
</blockquote>
Note: Third Way is a conservative, not "center-left," think tank. Funded by <a href="https://www.prwatch.org/news/2020/01/13535/centrist-third-way-funded-corporate-interests-attacks-sanders-iowa">corporate</a> <a href="https://theintercept.com/2019/08/13/koch-brothers-third-way/">interests</a>, <a href="https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/third-way-majority-our-financial-support-wall-street-business-executives/">Wall Street</a> and <a href="https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/gop-donors-and-k-street-fuel-third-ways-advice-democratic-party/">the Republicans</a>, it exists to work against progressives from within the Democratic party.<br />
<br />
Breitbart, 23 Feb.: "<a href="https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/02/23/democratic-party-establishment-freakout-after-bernie-sanders-wins-nevada/">Democratic Party Establishment Freakout After Bernie Sanders Wins Nevada</a>":<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg, who finished third in Nevada, warned
fellow Democrats that the 'democratic socialist' from Vermont is
unelectable: 'Senator Sanders believes in an inflexible,
ideological revolution that leaves out most Democrats, not to mention
most Americans.'"</blockquote>
Associated Press, 23 Feb.: "<a href="https://wtmj.com/national/2020/02/23/the-latest-biden-says-sanders-could-hurt-down-ballot/">Biden Says Sanders Could Hurt Down-ballot</a>."<br />
<br />
Washington Times, 23 Feb.: "<a href="https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/feb/23/james-clyburn-bernie-sanders-would-bring-extra-bur/">James Clyburn: Bernie Would Bring 'Extra Burden' For Down-ballot Dems</a>."<br />
<br />
On 23 Feb., Sanders was featured in a segment on CBS News' 60 Minutes and was asked about things he'd said about the Castro regime decades earlier. <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TeYCIfmeW70">Sanders</a>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"We're very opposed to the authoritarian nature of Cuba, but y'know, it's unfair to simply say everything is bad. Y'know, when Fidel Castro came into office, you know what he did? He had a massive literacy program. Is that a bad thing, even though Fidel Castro did it?"</blockquote>
This set off yet another firestorm of anti-Sanders coverage.<br />
<br />
American politics doesn't really do nuance, particularly in the era of Trump, but while what Sanders actually said here is entirely defensible, there's a tone-deafness in it that, in this writer's view, is not. It's even more prevalent--and even less defensible--in some of his other long-ago comments about Cuba that didn't get as much attention. To be perfectly pedantic in pointing out the obvious, Castro's Cuba was an authoritarian Bolshevist state where freedom was smothered and dissent landed one in prison or dead. That's the context for anything the Cuban regime may have done. A thing isn't bad just because the Castro regime did it but one should take great care never to sound sympathetic to such a regime.<br />
<br />
In the face of the press feeding-frenzy that followed, some left writers have argued Sanders' comments weren't even a legitimate issue. Sanders, they argue, wasn't talking about Cuba on the campaign trail, most of his comments were from decades earlier and Sanders obviously doesn't support constructing an authoritarian Bolshevist state in the U.S.. All of that is true but I disagree with these writers' conclusion. Someone who presents himself for an elected office in a liberal democracy should, by the logic of liberal democracy (insert laugh-track here), have his record examined. In this case, it's a question of judgment, a not-at-all-unimportant quality in a presidential candidate.<br />
<br />
Those writers are, however, entirely correct to object to the use the press often made of Sanders' comments. Headlines blared that Sanders had "defended" and even "praised" the Castro regime. The story was used to feed a narrative of Sanders as some kind of crazy radical, himself a Bolshevik and--that old saw again--unelectable. It's true as well--and pointed out by Sanders--that in 2016, then-President Obama had, without any accompanying outrage, said <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/obama-in-cuba-change-is-gonna-happen-here-221031">substantially the same things</a> about the Cuban regime. It's also difficult to argue that Sanders' long-ago record should be so scrutinized when no other candidate was ever subjected to that kind of sustained dissection. Joe Biden's success--and, indeed, his presence in the presidential race for more than 30 seconds--was entirely dependent on the refusal of the press to cover his record, which would have almost certainly damned him with Democratic voters.<br />
<br />
Fox News, 23 Feb.: "<a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/bernie-sanders-fidel-castro-cuba-socialist-defense">Bernie Sanders Defends Fidel Castro's Socialist Cuba: 'Unfair To Simply Say Everything Is Bad</a>'".<br />
<br />
New York Times, 24 Feb.: "<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/24/us/bernie-sanders-fidel-castro-florida.html">Sanders’s Comments on Fidel Castro Provoke Anger in Florida</a>":<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Comments
from Senator Bernie Sanders praising aspects of the Communist Cuban
revolution drew a forceful rebuke on Monday from Cuban-Americans,
Florida Democrats and several of Mr. Sanders's opponents, who cast him
as too extreme in his views to represent the party as its presidential
nominee.<br />
<br />
<div class="css-53u6y8">
<div class="css-nnwssh evys1bk0">
"'I'm
totally disgusted and insulted,' said Lourdes Diaz, the president of
the Democratic Hispanic Caucus in Broward County, who is Cuban-American.
'Maybe this will open people's eyes to how super, super liberal and
radical Bernie is. I’m not going to defend him anymore. I'm over it'... Mr. Sanders, a Vermont senator, has cast himself as a democratic
socialist in the vein of social democrats in Europe. But though as a
candidate he likes to compare his policies to those of Denmark, in the
past he has expressed praise not only for Mr. Castro in Cuba but also
support for the Sandinistas in Nicaragua--troubling stances in Florida, a magnet for Latin Americans fleeing political unrest in Managua, Havana and Caracas."</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
In a practice that would become all too common, the Times hilariously tried to draw, well, <i>some</i> kind of distinction between Obama's 2016 comments on Cuba and those of Sanders:<br />
<div class="css-1fanzo5 StoryBodyCompanionColumn">
<div class="css-53u6y8">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="css-158dogj evys1bk0">
"Mr.
Sanders’s campaign said his views have remained the same and argued
that President Barack Obama made a similar allusion to Cuba’s
educational gains in a 2016 speech in Havana... But
Mr. Obama, who praised Cuba's 'enormous achievements in education and
in health care,' had made a historic policy overture and was not in the
middle of a primary campaign."</div>
</blockquote>
<div class="css-158dogj evys1bk0">
...which is, of course, <i>completely</i> irrelevant to the fact that Obama said almost exactly the same thing as had Sanders.</div>
</div>
</div>
<br />
Daily Beast, 24 Feb.: "<a href="https://www.thedailybeast.com/bernie-sanders-staffer-mocked-elizabeth-warrens-looks-pete-buttigiegs-sexuality-on-private-twitter-account">Bernie Staffer Mocked [Elizabeth]Warren’s Looks, Pete’s [Buttigieg] Sexuality on Private Twitter Account</a>":<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"During the most recent presidential primary debate in Las Vegas, Sen.
Bernie Sanders (I-VT) suggested that critiques of some of his most
antagonistic online supporters are largely unfounded and unfair,
proposing that some of the worst offenders might actually be Russian trolls on a mission to sow disunity in the field.<br />
<br />
"But
the private Twitter account of a newly promoted campaign staffer
indicates that despite his condemnation of online harassment, at least
some of the Vermont senator's most toxic support is coming from inside
the house.<br />
<br />
"Using the account @perma_ben, Ben Mora, a regional field director for Sanders’ campaign based in
Michigan, has attacked other Democrats in the field--as well as their
family members, surrogates, journalists, and politically active
celebrities--in deeply personal terms, mocking their physical appearance,
gender, and sexuality, among other things... Mora, the Sanders campaign confirmed, has been fired."</blockquote>
Washington Post, 24 Feb.: "<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/02/24/vote-bernie-elect-trump/">A Vote For Bernie Sanders Equals A Vote For Donald Trump</a>":<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="font--body font-copy gray-darkest ma-0 pb-md">
"Watching Bernie Sanders roll through the Democratic primaries--he won the <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/elections/election-results/2020-live-results-nevada-democratic-caucuses/?itid=hp_hp-top-table-main_html-nv-table%3Ageneric%2Fcustom-html&tid=lk_inline_manual_2&itid=lk_inline_manual_2" target="_blank">Nevada caucuses</a>
on Saturday by more than 25 points over his nearest rival--gives me
the same sinking feeling, the same combination of dread and despair,
that I felt watching Donald Trump roll through the Republican primaries
four years ago. This is actually worse in some ways, because back in
2016 I naively imagined that Hillary Clinton, a sane centrist, would
save America from the horror of a Trump presidency. Now, by contrast,
barring a Super Tuesday miracle, there is little hope for anything but a
Sanders vs. Trump election in which there is no good outcome... Sanders divides Americans nearly as much as Trump--not along
racial-ethnic lines but along class lines. He is an ideologue who
denounces 'billionaires' as often as Trump denounces undocumented
immigrants... The '1 percent' are for
Sanders what 'illegal aliens' are for Trump: objects of hatred who are
unfairly blamed for all the ills of modern America while their
contributions are totally ignored... Sanders is
no Trump...
but there are certain uncomfortable parallels. Like Trump, Sanders has a
tendency toward anti-media paranoia: He hinted
that The Post was pursuing a vendetta against him by reporting Russian
support for his campaign. He is almost as secretive as Trump--this
78-year-old candidate who had a heart attack last year refuses to release his health records.</div>
<div class="font--body font-copy gray-darkest ma-0 pb-md">
<br /></div>
<div class="font--body font-copy gray-darkest ma-0 pb-md">
"And,
like Trump, Sanders has attracted an army of abusive and obnoxious true
believers who are determined to destroy any doubters. Bakari Sellers, a
former South Carolina state legislator who supported Sen. Kamala D.
Harris (D-Calif.), told the New York Times:
'You have to be very cognizant when you say anything critical of Bernie
online. You might have to put your phone down. There's going to be a
blowback, and it could be sexist, racist and vile.' Sellers, who is
African American, had some Sanderistas calling him an 'Uncle Tom' and
wishing him brain cancer."</div>
</blockquote>
New York Times, 24 Feb.: "<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/24/opinion/bernie-sanders-democrats.html">Why Swing-District Democrats Don't Want Bernie Sanders as the Nominee</a>."<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Swing-district House Democrats don’t
agree on which candidate they want to lead them on the ticket this year,
but they do seem to agree on which candidate they don’t: Bernie
Sanders.<br />
<br />
"Of the 46 Democratic
representatives who hold districts classified by Sabato's Crystal Ball
House ratings as at least marginally competitive, not one has endorsed
Mr. Sanders, the Vermont senator who won a decisive victory in the
Nevada caucus over the weekend.<br />
<br />
"Some have actually gone further, actively distancing themselves from Mr. Sanders."</blockquote>
Breitbart, 24 Feb.: "<a href="https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/02/24/politico-democrat-establishment-in-panic-mode-over-bernie-sanders/">Politico: Democrat Establishment in 'Panic Mode' Over Bernie Sanders</a>."<br />
<br />
Miami Herald, 24 Feb.: "<a href="https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/news-columns-blogs/andres-oppenheimer/article240596861.html">Sanders Praised Cuba, Spurned Israel Group. If He's the Nominee, He Just Lost Florida</a>":<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Democratic front-runner Sen. Bernie Sanders' latest remarks about
Cuba and Israel are so offensive to many moderate Democrats and
independent voters that they would almost guarantee a Donald Trump
victory in Florida if Sanders becomes the Democratic nominee for
president.<br />
<br />
"Worse, Sanders’ statement about Cuba in a Sunday
interview with CBS' '60 Minutes,' as well a tweet explaining why he will
boycott a meeting of the pro-Israel AIPAC lobbying group, may cost
Democrats key congressional seats--and perhaps cause the Democrats to
lose the House of Representatives."</blockquote>
Colorado Springs Gazette, 24 Feb.: "<a href="https://www.coloradopolitics.com/opinion/editorials/colorado-springs-gazette-democrats-are-headed-for-a-disaster/article_5bfa93b8-572e-11ea-9b5e-931d11fc9a3b.html">Democrats Are Headed For A Disaster</a>":<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"A Sanders nomination gives voters the choice between: A. an offensive
socialist with plans to raise middle-class taxes, deprive Americans of
private health insurance and other frightening threats; or B. an
offensive capitalist with a message of 'America first,' lower taxes and
hope for the future. Sanders pollutes the Democratic well."</blockquote>
Wall Street Journal, 24 Feb.: "<a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/bernies-cuba-illiteracy-11582590096">Bernie's Cuba Illiteracy</a>."<br />
<br />
Fox Business, 24 Feb.: "<a href="https://www.foxbusiness.com/money/bernie-sanders-trump-democrats-2020-varney">Varney on why Democrats believe Bernie Sanders will lose to Trump</a>."<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Fox
Business' Stuart Varney, in his latest 'My Take,' argues that a Bernie
Sanders nomination would ultimately be a 'nightmare for all Democrats'
and his lead is causing a great divide in the party...Varney
said the 'knock' on Sanders is that he can’t win the election, causing
other Democrats 'further down on the ballot' to lose too. And a House
and Senate controlled by Republicans, plus re-election for President
Trump, would be a real nightmare for Democrats, he said."</blockquote>
Breitbart, 24 Feb.: "<a href="https://www.breitbart.com/2020-election/2020/02/24/democrats-condemn-bernie-sanders-praise-of-fidel-castro-absolutely-unacceptable/">Democrats Condemn Bernie Sanders’ Praise of Fidel Castro: 'Absolutely Unacceptable'</a>":<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Rep. Debbie Mucarsel-Powell (D-FL) on Monday decried Democrat primary frontrunner Sen. Bernie Sanders’ (I-VT) for praising aspects of communist dictator Fidel Castro’s revolution in Cuba.<br />
<br />
"'As the first South American immigrant member of Congress who proudly represents thousands of Cuban Americans, I find Senator Bernie Sanders’ comments on Castro's Cuba absolutely unacceptable,' Mucarsel-Powell wrote on Twitter 'The Castro regime murdered and jailed dissidents, and caused unspeakable harm to too many South Florida families. To this day, it remains an authoritarian regime that oppresses its people, subverts the free press, and stifles a free society'... In addition to Mucarsel-Powell, Sanders was met with condemnation
from Rep. Donna Shalala (D-FL), who tweeted that she hopes 'in the
future, Senator Sanders will take time to speak to some of my
constituents before he decides to sing the praises of a murderous tyrant
like Fidel Castro.'"</blockquote>
Los Angeles Times, 24 Feb.: "<a href="https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2020-02-24/bernie-sanders-takes-heat-over-commentary-about-communist-cuba">Bernie Sanders Takes Heat For Praising Communist Cuba's Literacy Rates</a>":<br />
<br />
The Independent, 24 Feb.: "<a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/bernie-sanders-campaign-russia-bots-trolls-bros-2020-election-a9352026.html">Inside the Troubled Bernie Sanders Campaign, From Russian Bots to American Trolls</a>":<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1">"...[A] number of Democratic activists,
strategists, and campaign insiders who know how Sanders operates say his
protestations ring more than a bit hollow.</span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"><br /></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1">"Instead, these insiders describe a
campaign that has dispensed with the largely positive tone which
characterized Sanders' 2016 presidential run in favor of a combative,
grievance-driven one. They say it is led by a team of 'true believers'
who have little experience with presidential campaigns, are too
enthralled by Sanders to question or challenge him, and who knowingly
wield swarms of angry, harassment-happy pro-Sanders social media users
like any other tool in the campaign toolbox for a candidate who, despite
claims to the contrary, is perfectly fine with it."</span></div>
</blockquote>
Daily Wire, 24 Feb.: "<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/report-bernie-bros-are-taking-their-marching-orders-from-sanders-staff-sanders-knows-exactly-whats-happening">REPORT: Bernie Bros Are Taking Their Marching Orders From Sanders' Staff, Sanders Knows 'Exactly What‘s Happening'</a>":<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"...the Independent reports that not only does Sanders know exactly what
the Bernie Bros are doing online, some of his senior staff have been
instrumental in targeting the Bernie Bros’ attacks.<br />
<br />
"'Bernie knows
exactly what's happening,' one Democratic activist claimed to the
outlet. 'And his campaign is in the loop about this coordinated
viciousness.'"</blockquote>
Washington Post, 24 Feb.: "<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/in-cold-war-travels-bernie-sanders-found-much-to-admire-behind-enemy-lines-now-thats-a-problem-for-his-campaign/2020/02/24/fd02fb50-572a-11ea-8753-73d96000faae_story.html">Bernie Sanders' 60 Minutes Interview Renews Concerns Over Communist Country Trips and How They Shaped His Politics</a>."<br />
<br />
USA Today, 24 Feb.: "<a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/02/24/sanders-support-cuba-policies-may-sink-his-chances-florida/4856649002/">Sanders Praises Cuba, Angers Many Republicans, Democrats in Florida</a>."<br />
<br />
CNN, 25 Feb.: "<a href="https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/24/politics/sanders-defends-castro-cuba-comments-cnntv/index.html">Sanders Defends Comments Praising Castro's Cuba: 'The Truth is the Truth'</a>":<br />
<br />
Washington Post, 25 Feb.: "<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/02/25/why-bernie-sanderss-repeating-cuban-propaganda-rankles-so-many-latinos/">Why Bernie Sanders's Repeating Cuban Propaganda Rankles So Many Latinos</a>."<br />
<br />New York Times, 25 Feb.: "<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/25/opinion/bernie-sanders-mike-bloomberg.html">Imagine Bernie Sanders in the Oval Office</a>."<br /><blockquote>"[If the election is Sanders vs. Trump], it's like asking me to choose between a slow-growing malignant cancer (Trump) and a sudden brain hemorrhage (Sanders)... I'm like the guy who is being offered two poisoned vials..."</blockquote>
Washington Examiner, 25 Feb.: "<a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/the-bernie-bros-are-toxic">The Bernie Bros Are Toxic</a>."<br />
<br />
Vanity Fair, 25 Feb.: "<a href="https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/02/journalists-face-bernie-sanders-supporters-wrath">Journalists Face the Wrath of Bernie Sanders Supporters</a>."<br /><br />Miami Herald, 25, Feb.: "<a href="https://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/leonard-pitts-jr/article240630207.html">Ava DuVernay Gets Death Threats From Sanders Supporters</a>."<br /><blockquote>"You'd have thought she had thrown Bernie Sanders to his death from a tower of million-dollar bills.<br /><br />"Actually, what film director Ava DuVernay tweeted on Saturday was just a mild rebuke: 'I'm undecided. But I know this isn’t what I want.' She was responding to a Sanders tweet warning the Democratic and Republican establishments that, 'They can't stop us.'<br /><br />"In response to her response, a digital mob numbering in the thousands descended upon DuVernay. Many contented themselves with noting how 'surprised' and 'disappointed' they were at her failure to appreciate the senator's wonderfulness. Others went below and beyond, calling her 'bitch' and, more insulting, 'right winger.' There were isolated death threats."</blockquote>
Politico, 25 Feb.: "<a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/25/nrcc-chairman-house-flip-sanders-117322">NRCC Chairman: House Will Flip With Sanders Atop Dem Ticket</a>."<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"The chairman of House Republicans’ campaign arm reveled on Tuesday in Democratic panic
over Sen. Bernie Sanders’ frontrunning campaign for the party's
presidential nomination, expressing confidence that the GOP would be a
shoo-in to retake control of the House with a self-described democratic
socialist atop the opposite ticket."</blockquote>
Politico, 25 Feb.: "<a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/25/bloomberg-internal-poll-claims-bernie-would-hurt-downballot-dems-117290">Bloomberg Internal Poll Claims Bernie Would Sink Downballot Dems</a>."<br /><br />The Hill, 25 Feb.: "<a href="https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/484586-the-bernie-sanders-problem">The Bernie Sanders Problem</a>":<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-weight: 400;">"If Sanders were the Democratic nominee,
it would spell disaster for the party, as purists seldom win national
elections. Capitalism and the free market system elevated the idea that
the United States is where all can come and succeed. Republicans would
love to see Sanders nominated since his progressive rhetoric combined
with a strong economy grant Donald Trump reasons for optimism."</span></blockquote>
CNN, 25 Feb.: "<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6ITw1LJgTU">Pete Buttigieg Warns That Bernie Sanders Will Hurt Down-ballot Democrats</a>."<br />
<br />
Texas Tribune, 25 Feb.: "<a href="https://www.texastribune.org/2020/02/25/bernie-sanders-texas-democrats/">Bernie Sanders stokes question for Texas Democrats: How would his nomination affect their down-ballot plans?</a>"<br />
<br />
The Atlantic, 25 Feb.: "<a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/02/state-democratic-race/607024/">The Price of a Sanders Nomination</a>."<br />
<br />
Vox, 25 Feb.: "<a href="https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2020/2/25/21152538/bernie-sanders-electability-president-moderates-data">Bernie Sanders Looks Electable in Surveys--But It Could Be a Mirage</a>":<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div id="FBrI6W">
"Bernie Sanders, the most left-wing candidate in the Democratic primary,
polls as well against Trump as his more moderate competitors in
surveys. Democratic voters have appeared to take these polls to heart,
as a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll finds that Democrats believe
Sanders has the best chance of beating Trump.
Why does Sanders look similarly electable to leading moderates in polls
against Trump?<b> </b>We fielded a 40,000-person survey in early 2020 that helps us look into this question with more precision... Our data (<a href="https://osf.io/25wm9/">laid out in an academic working paper here</a>)
also found what polls show: that Sanders is similarly electable to more
moderate candidates. But, on closer inspection, it shows that this
finding relies on some remarkable assumptions about youth turnout that
past elections suggest are questionable... [F]or Sanders to do as well as a moderate Democrat against Trump in
November by stimulating youth turnout, his nomination would need to
boost turnout of young left-leaning voters enormously--according to our
data, one in six left-leaning young people who otherwise wouldn't vote
would need to turn out because Sanders was nominated. There are good
reasons to doubt that Sanders’s nomination would produce a youth turnout
surge this large... The case that Bernie Sanders is just as electable as the
more moderate candidates thus appears to rest on a leap of faith: that
youth voter turnout would surge in the general election by double digits
if and only if Bernie Sanders is nominated, compensating for the voters
his nomination pushes to Trump among the rest of the electorate.</div>
<div id="FBrI6W">
<br /></div>
<div id="FBrI6W">
"There are reasons to doubt a Sanders-driven youth turnout surge of this size would materialize."</div>
</blockquote>
<div id="FBrI6W">
This--a "study" by academics David Broockman and Joshua Kalla that
purports to show Sanders was virtually unelectable--became a source of
multiple press stories in the days after its appearance.</div>
<div id="FBrI6W">
<br /></div>
<div id="FBrI6W">
Mother Jones, 25 Feb.: "<a href="https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2020/02/new-survey-suggests-bernie-can-win-only-with-enormous-youth-turnout/">New Survey Suggests Bernie Can Win Only With Enormous Youth Turnout</a>":</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div id="FBrI6W">
"In a new paper, David Broockman and Joshua Kalla use the detailed
results of a huge new survey and conclude that Sanders can indeed do as
well against Trump as more moderate candidates, but only if he makes up
for lost votes among older voters by motivating young voters to turn out
in unprecedented numbers... [T]o have a chance in the general election
he’d need youth turnout to be
well over 50 percent. That’s never happened in recent history."</div>
</blockquote>That evening, the Democratic candidates debated in Charleston, South Carolina.<br /><br />Daily Mail, 25 Feb.: "<a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8044731/Democrats-hammer-Bernie-Sanders-final-2020-debate-South-Carolina.html">Democrats Shout At Each Other..</a>.":<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Democratic
presidential candidates got into a series of angry and personal
exchanges at Tuesday night's debate in Charleston... Proving to be the
night's punching bag, Sanders was slammed and accused of being backed by
Putin, unelectable and divisive."</blockquote>"Vladimir Putin thinks that Donald Trump should be President of the
United States," <a href="https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/south-carolina-democratic-debate-transcript-february-democratic-debate">asserted</a> Mike Bloomberg. "And that's why Russia is helping you [Sanders] get elected, so you
lose to him." Pete Buttigieg:<br /><blockquote>"...if you think the last four years has been chaotic, divisive, toxic,
exhausting, imagine spending the better part of 2020 with Bernie Sanders
versus Donald Trump. Think about what that will be like for this
country!"</blockquote>This, Mayor Pete insisted, is what the Russians want. Amy Klobuchar recalled how, at a previous debate, she'd said she "had a problem with a socialist leading the ticket." Moderator Margaret Brennan to Sanders:<br /><blockquote>"You've praised the Chinese Communist Party for lifting more people out
of extreme poverty than any other country. You also have a track record
of expressing sympathy for socialist governments in Cuba and in
Nicaragua. Can Americans trust that a Democratic Socialist president
will not give authoritarians a free pass?"</blockquote>While both his opponents and the moderators--no daylight between them--tried to tear Sanders to pieces, the debate offers a perfect example of the impunity granted Joe Biden by the press. Biden asserted that his "entire career has been wrapped up in dealing with civil rights and civil liberties," but no moderator pointed out his horrendous record on civil liberties or asked about his past work with segregationists (which had been briefly raised by Kamala Harris at a debate earlier in the campaign) or his <a href="https://shaunking.substack.com/p/2-truths-and-31-lies-joe-biden-has">repeatedly lying</a>--very ornately lying--about his involvement in the civil rights movement. Democrats participated in 11 debates in the 2020 cycle and, as with most of Biden's problematic record, Biden was never asked about the latter in <i>any</i> of them.<br /><br /> Perhaps most egregiously--because it had just played out--Biden had spent the days leading up to this debate trying to ingratiate himself with the state's black voters by repeatedly claiming he'd been arrested in Apartheid South Africa in the 1970s for attempting to visit the then-imprisoned Nelson Mandela. The story was detailed--it even involved Mandela visiting Biden years later and praising him for getting arrested--and it turned out to be completely false. Prior to the debate, the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/21/us/politics/biden-south-africa-arrest-mandela.html">New York Times</a> and the <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/02/25/bidens-ridiculous-claim-he-was-arrested-trying-see-mandela/">Washington Post</a> had already exposed this as an outrageous lie. Hot-off-the-presses material but Biden was never asked a single question about it. The matter was never even raised. Sanders, in perhaps a bit of cheek, favorably quoted Nelson Mandela on an unrelated matter in his closing statement.<br /><br />
Miami Herald, 25 Feb.: "<a href="https://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/article240627047.html">Fidel Castro Again Haunts a Presidential Debate as Rivals Blast Sanders' Cuba Views</a>":<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"During Tuesday night’s presidential primary debate in South Carolina, Sanders, the front-runner for the Democratic nomination, was blasted by his rivals over comments he made in a '60 Minutes' interview that aired Sunday praising literacy rates on the Caribbean island following Castro’s 1959 Cuban revolution.<br />
<br />
"Pressed by CBS moderators on his past 'sympathies' for socialist regimes in Cuba and Nicaragua, Sanders defended himself, saying he's condemned authoritarian regimes across the world. He said he was repeating talking points used by former President Barack Obama during a 2016 appearance in Havana.<br />
<br />
"'Of course you have a dictatorship in Cuba. What I said is what Barack Obama said in terms of Cuba, that Cuba made progress in terms of education,' Sanders said, drawing boos from the audience... Sanders' controversial remarks about Cuba... have given his opponents an opening to attack him as the
self-described Democratic socialist threatens to pull away from the
field.<br />
<br />
"'We are certainly not going to win by reliving the Cold War,' Pete Buttigieg said, warning that a Sanders nomination would <a href="https://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/article240147903.html" rel="Follow" target="_blank">doom down-ballot Democrats</a>
and hand unilateral control of the federal government to the Republican
Party. 'And we are not going to win these critical, critical House and
Senate races if people in those races have to explain why the nominee of
the Democratic Party is telling people to look at the bright side of
the Castro regime.'"</blockquote>CNBC, 26 Feb.: "<a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/26/megadonor-urges-pelosi-schumer-to-pick-candidate-to-stop-bernie-sanders.html">Democratic Megadonor Urges Pelosi and Schumer To Pick A Candidate in a Bid To Stop Bernie Sanders</a>":<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Democratic megadonor Bernard Schwartz has started reaching out to
party leaders, particularly House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate
Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, to encourage them to back a candidate for
president in order to stop the surge of Sen. Bernie Sanders.<br />
<br />
"Schwartz,
the CEO of BLS Investments, told CNBC that in recent days he's been
trying to speak with Pelosi and Schumer about making a pick, in the hope
that voters will follow their lead and end up denying Sanders the
party's presidential nomination.<br />
<br />
"'We
should know who is the best person to beat Donald Trump, and with all
due respect, Bernie Sanders cannot beat Trump,' he explained, describing
the message he has relayed to the two Democratic leaders.<br />
<br />
"Schwartz
noted he has yet to hear back from them but insisted that, with Super
Tuesday under a week away, party leaders have to take a stand now
before Sanders captures the nomination--and, in his view, takes down
the party."</blockquote>
This rubbish runs under the above headline, is written up entirely seriously as if it's news and its six paragraphs into the story before the article's writer finally reveals that Bernard Schwartz is backing Joe Biden.<br />
<br />
Yahoo News, 26 Feb.: "<a href="https://news.yahoo.com/sanderss-surge-spreads-fear-among-house-and-senate-democrats-211151041.html">Sanders surge spreads fear among House and Senate Democrats</a>."<br />
<br />
Fox News, 26 Feb.: "<a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/congressional-dems-echo-concerns-about-down-ballot-consequences-of-bernie-nomination">Congressional Dems Echo Concerns About Down-ballot Consequences of Bernie Nomination</a>."<br />
<br />
Charleston City Paper, 26 Feb.: "<a href="https://www.charlestoncitypaper.com/charleston/in-south-carolina-concerns-over-down-ballot-democrats-pitched-as-one-reason-to-look-for-moderate-nominee/Content?oid=30779138">In South Carolina, Concerns Over Down-ballot Democrats Pitched As One Reason To Look For Moderate Nominee</a>."<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"State
Rep. JA Moore (D-Berkeley) says a potential Sanders nomination '100
percent' influenced his decision to endorse Buttigieg after
initially backing Kamala Harris.<br />
<br />
"'I'm very concerned with Bernie Sanders at the top of the
ticket, I think it puts in jeopardy my dear friend Joe Cunningham, I
think it puts in jeopardy my race, I think it puts in jeopardy Krystle
Matthews' race. I think it's important that whoever's at the top of the
ticket can bring together the entire country,' Moore says."</blockquote>
CNN, 26 Feb.: "<a href="https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/25/opinions/bernie-sanders-versus-donald-trump-avlon/index.html">Can Bernie Sanders Beat Donald Trump? Here's the Reality</a>."<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Bernie Sanders has built a movement and he has momentum. But there are
plenty of rational reasons to think that nominating a democratic
socialist in a center-right country is a real risk--and could deliver
Donald Trump a second term."</blockquote>
Third Way, 26 Feb.: "<a href="https://www.thirdway.org/memo/what-a-sanders-nomination-would-mean-for-tennessee-democrats">What A Sanders Nomination Would Mean For Tennessee Democrats</a>."<br />
<br />
Fox News, 26 Feb.: "<a href="https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/bernie-sanders-social-democrat-communist-ben-shapiro">Ben Shapiro: Bernie Sanders is Not a Social Democrat, He's a Lifelong Communist. Dems Have No Gatekeepers</a>":<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Sanders isn't a European social democrat, warm toward Denmark and
Norway. He's a lifelong communist--a man who declared himself fully on
board with the nationalization of nearly every major American industry
in the 1970s--and an advocate for anti-Americanism abroad."</blockquote>
Washington Post, 26 Feb.: "<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-more-years-of-populism-would-be-a-disaster-for-america/2020/02/26/952483aa-58bf-11ea-9b35-def5a027d470_story.html">Five More Years of Populism Would Be A Disaster for America</a>":<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div>
<div class="font--body font-copy gray-darkest ma-0 pb-md">
"Capitalism
isn't broken, but populism may be on the verge of breaking it. If
Democratic Party front-runner Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) ends up
securing the presidential nomination, the Oval Office will be occupied
by a populist for the next five years--regardless of who wins in
November. This is a chilling prospect.</div>
<div class="font--body font-copy gray-darkest ma-0 pb-md">
<br /></div>
<div class="font--body font-copy gray-darkest ma-0 pb-md">
"The United States faces no problem today to which populism offers the best solution... President Trump’s brand of populism has made the United States worse off... The Sanders agenda would be worse for the country. An analysis
by Brian Riedl of the Manhattan Institute concludes that if Sanders had
his way with Medicare-for-all, free college tuition, and other
entitlements and guarantees, the federal government would double in
size, half the U.S. workforce would be government employees and the
deficit would rise to more than one-third of gross domestic product,
despite his many tax increases. This would be a disaster, and the fact
that Sanders would never get more than a fraction of his agenda enacted
offers little comfort."</div>
</div>
</blockquote>Fox News, 26 Feb.: "<a href="https://video.foxnews.com/v/6135961209001">Sen. Rubio: Bernie Sanders Isn't A Socialist, He's A Marxist</a>."<br /><br />New York Times, 27 Feb.: "<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/27/opinion/bernie-sanders.html">No, Not Sanders, Not Ever</a>."<br />
<br />
Time, 27 Feb.: "<a href="https://time.com/5791185/bernie-sanders-democratic-party-donors/">Big-Money Democratic Donors Are Trying to Stop Bernie Sanders. But Even They Worry It Could Be Too Late</a>":<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"As Bernie Sanders's lead in the Democratic presidential primary has solidified this
month, some major Democratic donors have started funneling their money
into an effort to thwart the rise of the self-described democratic
socialist. But even some of the donors involved in the attempt to stop
Sanders concede it may be too late.<br />
<br />
"Major donors and strategists worry the fractured
field of Democratic candidates going into Super Tuesday will split up
the delegates and funding necessary to block Sanders from running away
with the nomination... In the aftermath of the New Hampshire primary, more than half a dozen
donors turned to Jonathan Kott, a former longtime aide to West Virginia
Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin. 'A lot of Democrats were surprised that
Bernie Sanders had been able to avoid the scrutiny of a front runner,'
Kott says, 'and they decided to act and make sure voters had all the
information about his radical views before they voted.'<br />
<br />
"Kott formed the Big Tent Project, a group which, as
a 501(c)4 nonprofit, does not have to disclose its donors. Within days
the group received more than $1 million, which it poured into ads in
Nevada and South Carolina to sow doubt about Sanders’ ability to deliver
on his policy platform. 'Socialist Bernie Sanders promises the world,' <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrbJ88PD7_8&feature=youtu.be" target="_blank">stated</a> one ad that aired in both states. 'But at what cost? $60 trillion.'"</blockquote>
Washington Examiner, 27 Feb.: "<a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/highest-levels-of-democrats-trying-to-prevent-down-ballot-massacre-of-bernie-sanders-led-ticket-columnist">'Highest Levels' of Democrats Trying To Prevent 'Down-ballot Massacre of Bernie Sanders-Led Ticket: Columnist</a>."<br />
<br />
Washington Times, 27 Feb.: "<a href="https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/feb/27/bernie-sanders-brand-of-socialism-is-communism/">Bernie Sanders' Brand of Socialism Is Communism</a>":<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Bernie Sanders is a communist.<br />
<br />
"Those aren't my words (although I believe it to
be true). These are the words of Democratic pundit James Carville. For
those of you too young to remember, he was the mastermind of Bill
Clinton's surprise win in 1992.<br />
<br />
"After the results of last week’s Nevada caucuses, it looks more and more like the Democrats are going to nominate a communist."</blockquote>
New York Times, 27 Feb.: "<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/27/us/politics/democratic-superdelegates.html">Democratic Leaders Willing To Risk Party Damage To Stop Bernie Sanders</a>":<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="css-158dogj evys1bk0">
"House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senator
Chuck Schumer, the minority leader, hear constant warnings from allies
about congressional losses in November if the party nominates Bernie
Sanders for president. Democratic House members share their Sanders
fears on text-messaging chains. Bill Clinton, in calls with old friends,
vents about the party getting wiped out in the general election.</div>
<div class="css-158dogj evys1bk0">
<br /></div>
<div class="css-158dogj evys1bk0">
"And officials in the national and state parties are increasingly anxious about splintered <a class="css-1g7m0tk" href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/27/us/politics/super-tuesday.html" title="">primaries on Super Tuesday</a> and beyond, where the liberal Mr. Sanders, of Vermont, edges out moderate candidates who collectively win more votes.</div>
<div class="css-158dogj evys1bk0">
<br /></div>
<div class="css-158dogj evys1bk0">
"Dozens
of interviews with Democratic establishment leaders this week show that
they are not just worried about Mr. Sanders's candidacy, but are also
willing to risk intraparty damage to stop his nomination at the national
convention in July if they get the chance. Since <a class="css-1g7m0tk" href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/22/us/politics/bernie-sanders-nevada-caucus.html" title="">Mr. Sanders’s victory in Nevada's caucuses on Saturday</a>,
The Times has interviewed 93 party officials--all of them
superdelegates, who could have a say on the nominee at the convention--and found overwhelming opposition to handing the Vermont senator the
nomination if he arrived with the most delegates but <a class="css-1g7m0tk" href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/22/us/politics/democratic-primary-dnc-superdelegates.html" title="">fell short of a majority</a>... From California to the Carolinas, and North Dakota to Ohio, the party leaders say they worry that Mr. Sanders, <a class="css-1g7m0tk" href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/24/us/politics/bernie-sanders-democratic-voters.html" title="">a democratic socialist with passionate but limited support so far</a>, will lose to President Trump, and drag down moderate House and Senate candidates in swing states with <a class="css-1g7m0tk" href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/25/upshot/medicare-for-all-basics-bernie-sanders.html" title="">his left-wing agenda of 'Medicare for all'</a> and free four-year public college."</div>
</blockquote>
The Hill, 27 Feb.: "<a href="https://thehill.com/opinion/international/484878-bernie-sanders-didnt-mention-the-dark-side-of-education-in-castros-cuba">Bernie Sanders Didn't Mention the Dark Side of Education in Castro's Cuba</a>":<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Plain ignorance is the most charitable explanation for the misleading defense of communist Cuba <a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2020/02/24/bernie_sanders_60_minutes_interview_unfair_to_say_everything_is_bad_about_cuban_revolution_castro.html" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">offered</a> by Sen. Bernie Sanders<span class="rollover-people" data-behavior="rolloverpeople"></span>
(I-Vt.) on CBS News' '60 Minutes.' While saying he was opposed to
Cuba's 'authoritarian nature,' Sanders insisted that 'it's unfair to
simply say everything is bad. You know? When Fidel Castro came into office, you know what he did? He had a massive literacy program. Is that a bad thing?'<br />
<br />
"Sanders
correctly stated that education became universal in Castro's Cuba, but
he ignored the deeply Orwellian nature of the educational
system. Literacy was not sought by the Cuban regime just for the sake of
literacy. From the outset, the regime viewed education, as two experts
on Cuba <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/02/how-education-shaped-communist-cuba/386192/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">explained</a> in The Atlantic, as the 'key to the revolution taking hold and creating a literate population loyal to the government.'"</blockquote>New York Times, 27 Feb.: "<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/02/27/two-reasons-bernie-sanders-should-terrify-democrats-florida-pennsylvania/">Two Reasons Bernie Sanders Should Terrify Democrats: Florida and Pennsylvania</a>."<br /><blockquote>"National Democratic leaders are worried that nominating Sen. Bernie
Sanders (I-Vt.) could cost them the White House and imperil their hold
on the House. A close look at two swing states, Florida and
Pennsylvania, shows why those fears are justified."</blockquote>
Ft. Worth Star-Telegram, 28 Feb.: "<a href="https://www.star-telegram.com/news/politics-government/article240621407.html">Could a Bernie Sanders nomination be a death knell for down-ballot Texas Democrats?</a>"<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Some fear that Sanders at the top of the ticket would pave an easy path
for President Donald Trump’s re-election and hamper the fight to reclaim
a majority in the Texas House of Republicans. That might be why some
Republicans reportedly are voting in the Democratic primary, to throw
their vote to Sanders.<br />
<br />
"'They want him to do well,' said Bill Miller, an Austin-based
political consultant. 'They view him as the godsend of opponents' for
Trump.<br />
<br />
"'And he will not have any coattails. You have a
candidate who is not a Democrat. He's a socialist and he's running in
the Democratic primary. That’s so far afield for what is acceptable. And
it’s a death knell for any down-ballot Democrat.'"</blockquote>
Washington Post, 28 Feb.: "<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/02/28/americans-really-dislike-socialism-can-bernie-sanders-overcome-that/">Does Socialist Label Make Bernie Sanders Unelectable?</a>"<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"While Biden, Buttigieg and other Democrats also have not faced the same
level of scrutiny of their records as a presidential nominee would get,
polling is crystal clear about Americans' negativity toward socialism."</blockquote>The polling was still crystal-clear about where the race stood as well. The day before this ran, a new <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fox-news-poll-sanders-knocks-biden-out-of-first-majority-thinks-trump-wins">Fox News poll</a> showed Sanders beating Trump by 7 points, Biden by 8--statistically identical margins.<br /><br />CNN, 28 Feb.: "<a href="https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/28/politics/jim-clyburn-2020-cnntv/index.html">Rep. Jim Clyburn Says Democrats Are Concerned About 'Down-ballot Carnage'</a>"<br />
<br />
Fox News' Dan Bongino, 28 Feb.: "<a href="https://bongino.com/top-dem-party-is-concerned-that-a-sanders-nomination-will-cause-down-ballot-carnage/">Top Dem Warns: Party is Concerned that a Sanders Nomination will Cause 'Down-Ballot Carnage'</a>."<br />
<br />
Real Clear Politics, 28 Feb.: "<a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/02/28/dems_cant_wait_until_the_convention_to_stop_sanders_142514.html">Dems Can't Wait Until the Convention to Stop Sanders</a>."<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Everyone is afraid of Sanders and unwilling to try to block him, despite
the fact that he isn't a Democrat, a socialist can't win a general
election, and he is fraudulently selling his voters an agenda he knows
will not, and cannot, become reality... [A] Sanders down-ballot slaughter would sting for far longer than the next decade."</blockquote>
Wall Street Journal, 28 Feb.: "<a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/some-southern-democrats-say-sanders-nomination-would-hurt-down-ballot-candidates-11582885802">Some Southern Democrats Say Sanders Nomination Would Hurt Down-Ballot Candidates</a>."<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Some Democrats in Southern states from North Carolina to Florida are
anxious about Bernie Sanders winning the Democratic presidential
nomination, saying it could jeopardize a closely-won governor’s seat,
reverse recent gains in state legislatures and turn what might be
competitive congressional races into GOP landslides."</blockquote>
Kansas City Star, 28 Feb.: "<a href="https://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article240689621.html">KC Area Democrats Weigh Down-Ballot Effects of Bernie Sanders</a>."<br />
<br />
ABC News, 29 Feb.: "<a href="https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/moderate-democrats-turn-ballot-races-bid-blunt-sanders/story?id=69255914">Moderate Democrats Turn To Down Ballot Races in Bid to Blunt Sanders' Momentum</a>."<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"[Bernie Sanders is] the newly-minted Democratic front-runner, whose more moderate rivals
argue will hurt the party's chances of holding their majority in the
U.S. House and winning back power in the U.S. Senate, and blunt any
chance of passing the progressive agenda they have been preaching for
over a year on the campaign trail.<br />
<br />
"That anxiety, described by one of former Vice President Joe Biden's top surrogates as '<a href="https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/28/politics/jim-clyburn-2020-cnntv/index.html" target=" _blank">down ballot carnage</a>' has only increased as Sanders took an early lead in the delegate race."</blockquote>
CNN, 29 Feb.: CNN host Michael Smerconish does a segment in which he <a href="https://deadline.com/2020/02/cnn-host-compares-bernie-sanders-campaign-to-coronavirus-1202871491/">compares Sanders to the coronavirus</a>, by then a global outbreak.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgaNp3WTfxiFDzHwBcCaBrZPkFp8_cyxrvrRN45GXbGo3SWN32NrNPM_z9qUUjuTXHT4j_KmcYk-hCfX8za_M4MKzgde1mSmppt8C2_lTL5gDBB8fZVNj81SI6OFkB-lZu8TgYNGhbt7w/s1600/sanders_coronavirus_cnn.jpg"><img border="0" data-original-height="985" data-original-width="1600" height="392" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgaNp3WTfxiFDzHwBcCaBrZPkFp8_cyxrvrRN45GXbGo3SWN32NrNPM_z9qUUjuTXHT4j_KmcYk-hCfX8za_M4MKzgde1mSmppt8C2_lTL5gDBB8fZVNj81SI6OFkB-lZu8TgYNGhbt7w/s640/sanders_coronavirus_cnn.jpg" width="640" /></a><br />
<br />
CNN, 29 Feb.: "<a href="https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/28/opinions/sanders-versus-trump-disaster-dent/index.html">It Would Be A Disaster For Us To Have To Choose Between Sanders and Trump</a>":<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"In this volatile primary race, Bernie Sanders, a candidate leading in the national polls<a href="https://www.cnn.com/election/2020/candidate/sanders" target="_blank"> </a>among
a plurality of Democratic voters, may be poised to garner an
insurmountable delegate lead, provided he doesn't stumble badly Saturday
in South Carolina and next week's all-important Super Tuesday.<br />
<br />
<div class="zn-body__paragraph">
"But as Sanders surges ahead, 2020 for
Democrats looks a lot like 2016 did for Republicans. And it will yield a
similar result: nominating an unacceptable candidate that so many smart
people thought could never win a general election, let alone a major
party primary contest. In today's politics, never say what will never
happen because it may actually happen. Hey, can you say President Donald
Trump?</div>
<div class="zn-body__paragraph">
<br /></div>
<div class="zn-body__paragraph">
"The
bottom line is that the Democratic primary will deliver a contest that
many Americans may fear most in 2020: Trump versus Sanders. Both
represent two sides of the same coin. They both appeal to anger. They
scream that the system is rigged, you're a victim, and that they can
give you your country back if only you follow them. At least, that's
their tale... A choice between a know-nothing nativist and unapologetic 'democratic
socialist'--from the old school--is really no choice at all for a
broad swath of the American public. It's akin to Mutually Assured
Destruction (MAD)--a military strategy developed during the Cold War in
which opposing sides use the threat of full-scale nuclear war,
resulting in destruction of both sides."</div>
</blockquote>
On 29 Feb., Joe Biden won the South Carolina primary in a major wipe-out, accruing 48.6% of the vote, while Sanders, the #2 finisher, drew just shy of 20%.<br />
<br />
The exit-polling on the contest pointed to the kind of effect this coverage seemed to be having. A plurality of South Carolina voters--49%--said they supported Medicare For All, but nearly half of those voted for Joe Biden, who is entirely opposed to it. Joe Biden was running on a return to pre-Trump "normalcy"--a Democratic version of Trump's own Make America Great Again--and had flatly stated, earlier in the campaign, that "nothing would fundamentally change" under his rule, comments the press largely ignored. South Carolina voters were asked, "Do you think
the economic system in the United States works well enough as is, needs
minor changes or needs a complete overhaul?" A majority--53%--chose "complete overhaul," but half those voters went to Biden.<br />
<br />
Why?<br />
<br />
The pollsters seemed to find the answer: "Would you rather nominate a candidate who agrees with you on major issues or can beat Donald Trump?" Most--53%--said they preferred a candidate who can beat Trump and over half of those--52%--voted for Biden. Sanders got only 17% of the votes of this contingent. It's also the case that 43% of voters prioritized a candidate who agrees with them but by far the biggest portion of those--43%--also voted for Biden who, by the relatively sparse issues data provided by the exit-polls, entirely disagrees with them.<br />
<br />
The inference is that Biden's South Carolina win was driven by low-information voters, particularly those who were buying into the empty "electability" narrative being drilled into them by the press, to the extent that they thought a candidate who had very badly lost all of the first 3 contests was more "electable" then the guy who had won them. A remarkable 37% of South Carolina voters said they only decided who they'd support
in the last few days before voting.
The campaign had been ongoing for over a year by this time; deciding so
late suggests an <i>extreme</i> detachment from public affairs but it
also means this segment of voters were making their decision while
viewing the campaign through the press environment covered by this
article. Half of those late deciders cast their vote for Biden. Nationally, Sanders had always led the race among younger voters while Biden dominated among the elderly--those who rely on and are most susceptible to the messaging of the traditional corporate press. In South Carolina, a whopping 71% of those who went to the polls were over the age of 45 and they broke very heavily for Biden.[8] This pattern repeated throughout the contests to come.<br />
<br />
In subsequent commentary, much weight--excessive weight--has been given to SC congressman Jim Clyburn's <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/26/politics/jim-clyburn-endorses-joe-biden/index.html">endorsement</a> of Biden on 26 Feb. as something that played a major role in the vote--Clyburn is popular with black voters in the state. That analysis is superficial. Polling showed Sanders consistently gaining in SC while Biden almost as consistently collapsed. On 7 Jan, Biden was, by <a href="https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-primary-d/south-carolina/">the 538 average</a>, in a comfortable lead with 38.7% support, with Sanders at less than half that. As he lost contest after contest, Biden's lead collapsed, hitting its low of 23.4% on 21 Feb., while Sanders had risen to the point that multiple polls showed he was within the polling margin of error. Sanders won Nevada and instead of reaping the benefit of positive press coverage any other campaign would have enjoyed, Sanders was met, at that point, with a corporate press that doubled and tripled its efforts to drive him from the race. Over the week that followed, his numbers collapsed, while Biden's soared, hitting, just before the vote, their highest point since October 2019. At the time of the Clyburn endorsement, Biden had already rebounded to 31.1%, a nearly 8% jump. Clyburn, as a representative of the Democratic Establishment, may, by his endorsement, have given some who look to party Establishment types for such guidance permission to vote for Biden but the race had already turned by then, and that relentlessly hostile press environment--the thing that makes people turn to such Establishment types for guidance--is the context for his endorsement.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiO0HS5n01fs9F1Z0p5c1Xpk8pturTd53knk7yDP_f6SlYBaQqwBxabnCzTrTHGEpoipWHCccnEHyGx-K-r4ifFkA87xohh5y_U7a9caRoDNxlYCIB0ezuzEI3qf9wvBo-ZGsA9stywzQ/s1600/South_Carolina_538.PNG" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="544" data-original-width="789" height="440" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiO0HS5n01fs9F1Z0p5c1Xpk8pturTd53knk7yDP_f6SlYBaQqwBxabnCzTrTHGEpoipWHCccnEHyGx-K-r4ifFkA87xohh5y_U7a9caRoDNxlYCIB0ezuzEI3qf9wvBo-ZGsA9stywzQ/s640/South_Carolina_538.PNG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">538 Polling Average</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
South Carolina is a deep-red state, one that will overwhelmingly vote for Trump in the Fall no matter what happens, but the press reaction to Biden's win there was sheer ecstasy; it was treated as a major turnaround in the race, Biden as a conquering hero. In the 3 days after South Carolina, the press lavished <a href="https://twitter.com/KevinCate/status/1235040804722233345">over $100 million</a> in free positive press coverage on his campaign leading into Super Tuesday. To put that in perspective, <span class="css-901oao css-16my406 r-1qd0xha r-ad9z0x r-bcqeeo r-qvutc0"> that's more, in only 3 days, than <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/summ.php?chrt=V&type=S">all </a></span><a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/summ.php?chrt=V&type=S"><span class="css-901oao css-16my406 r-1qd0xha r-vw2c0b r-ad9z0x r-bcqeeo r-qvutc0">super PACs</span></a><span class="css-901oao css-16my406 r-1qd0xha r-ad9z0x r-bcqeeo r-qvutc0"><a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/summ.php?chrt=V&type=S"> combined</a> had spent in the entire 2020 cycle up to that point.</span><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEirHRJurIczOzQV0WLLaCwu9aIuEHNQ66hASccMAMh6HPQT2S3YiQMUw0HqyC390DBhkJ8p3s7kRV5SEWfWi3KPAaNe0qmW7RJyqfcT4v97spoyeC-pG1H6oI5s67_fTBDAkBEj6pFuVg/s1600/2020_superpacs.PNG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="239" data-original-width="555" height="274" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEirHRJurIczOzQV0WLLaCwu9aIuEHNQ66hASccMAMh6HPQT2S3YiQMUw0HqyC390DBhkJ8p3s7kRV5SEWfWi3KPAaNe0qmW7RJyqfcT4v97spoyeC-pG1H6oI5s67_fTBDAkBEj6pFuVg/s640/2020_superpacs.PNG" width="640" /></a></div>
Sanders, on the other hand, continued to get the same treatment he always had:<br />
<br />
The Hill, 1 March: "<a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/485354-biden-says-sanders-would-lose-to-trump">Biden Says Sanders Would Lose To Trump</a>."<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Former Vice President <span class="rollover-people" data-behavior="rolloverpeople"><a class="rollover-people-link" data-nid="188332" href="https://thehill.com/people/joe-biden">Joe Biden</a></span> said on Sunday that President Trump would beat Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) in a general election.<br />
<br />
"Asked
by NBC's Chuck Todd on 'Meet the Press' if Sanders would lose to the
Republican incumbent in the fall, Biden said, 'I do.'<br />
<br />
"'I
think Bernie Sanders's positions on a number of issues, even in the
Democratic Party, are very controversial,' Biden said, noting the hefty
price tag of the senator's signature 'Medicare for All' proposal."</blockquote>A <a href="https://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/HHP_February2020_RegisteredVoters_Crosstabs.pdf">Harvard/Harris poll</a>, released a day earlier, showed Sanders beating Trump by 8 points, Biden beating Trump by 10--another statistical tie.<br /><br />
NBC News, 1 March: "<a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/meet-the-press/after-south-carolina-win-biden-takes-aim-sanders-very-controversial-n1146431">After South Carolina Win, Biden Takes Aim at Sanders' 'Very Controversial' Ideas</a>":<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="endmarkEnabled">
"Former Vice President Joe Biden took aim at
Bernie Sanders on Sunday's 'Meet the Press,' arguing that the Vermont
senator's policies are 'very controversial' and that Sanders would lose
to President Donald Trump if he were to be the Democratic party’s
presidential nominee.</div>
<div class="endmarkEnabled">
<br /></div>
<div class="endmarkEnabled">
"'They are not looking
for revolution, they are looking for results, they’re looking for
change, they’re looking for movement forward,' Biden said of the
American people.</div>
<div class="endmarkEnabled">
<br /></div>
<div class="endmarkEnabled">
"When asked if he thought Sanders would lose to Trump, Biden replied: 'I do.'</div>
<div class="endmarkEnabled">
<br /></div>
<div class="endmarkEnabled">
"'I
think Bernie Sanders’ positions on a number of issues, even in the
Democratic Party, are very controversial,' pointing to the price tag for
Sanders’ Medicare for All health care plan."</div>
</blockquote>
ABC News, 1 March: "<a href="https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/joe-biden-democrats-great-trouble-bernie-sanders-top/story?id=69259654">Joe Biden Says Democrats Could Have 'Great Trouble' With Bernie Sanders At the Top of the Ticket</a>":<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Former Vice President Joe Biden said on ABC's 'This Week' that Sen. Bernie Sanders could have difficulty helping down-ballot candidates in the 2020 election, when asked if the
Democratic Party could 'lose big' with Sanders at the top of the ticket.<br />
<br />
"'Well I think he's gonna have--he'll have great trouble bringing along
other senators, keeping the House of Representatives, winning back the
Senate and down-ballot initiatives. So I think--I think it is a stark
choice and it's not about whether or not we restore the soul of the
Democratic Party. It's about restoring the soul and unite this country,
the whole country,' Biden told ABC News Chief Anchor George Stephanopoulos on Sunday. 'And I think--I think I can do that.'"</blockquote>
On 1 March, Pete Buttigieg <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03/02/pete-buttigieg-campaign-2020-election-118573">dropped out</a> of the presidential race. Showing the same lack of class that had helped kill his campaign, he used his exit speech to attack Sanders.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="story-text__paragraph">
"In his final weeks as a candidate, Buttigieg repeatedly <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/22/pete-buttigieg-bernie-sanders-nevada-116755" target="_blank"><u>criticized</u></a>
Sanders, warning against the Vermont senator's 'revolution with a tenor
of combat, division and polarization.' He started airing attack ads
against Sanders in South Carolina that said 'instead of polarization,
progress.'</div>
<div class="story-text__paragraph">
<br /></div>
<div class="story-text__paragraph">
"And Buttigieg used his dropout speech
in South Bend to call for 'a broad-based agenda that can truly deliver
for the American people, not one that gets lost in ideology.'"</div>
</blockquote>On 2 March, Amy Klobuchar followed suit. That same day, she and <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/485610-beto-orourke-to-endorse-biden-for-president-report">Beto O'Rourke</a> traveled to Texas to appear with and <a href="https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/transcript-buttigieg-klobuchar-and-orourke-endorse-biden-in-dallas-rally">endorse</a> Biden, an event that may have been partially engineered by former President Obama.[9]<br /><br />The press continued its orgasmic Triumph over Biden's win in a single insignificant state but for Sanders, the story remained the same:<br /><br />Stamford Advocate, 2 March: "<a href="https://www.stamfordadvocate.com/news/article/Democratic-fears-that-Bernie-Sanders-would-hurt-15099305.php">Democratic Fears That Bernie Sanders Would Hurt Down-ballot Candidates Influence Suburban Voters</a>."<br />
<br />
Newsweek, 2 March: "<a href="https://www.newsweek.com/bernie-sanders-will-lose-trump-super-tuesday-nominee-1490095">True, Polls Have Bernie Beating Trump. But The Republicans Haven't Even Started on Him Yet</a>."<br />
<br />
New York Times, 2 March: "<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/02/opinion/bernie-sanders-2020-election.html">Bernie Sanders Can't Count on New Voters</a>":<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="css-1fanzo5 StoryBodyCompanionColumn">
<div class="css-53u6y8">
<div class="css-nnwssh evys1bk0">
"According
to Broockman and Kalla's figures, Sanders loses a significant number of
swing votes to Trump, but he makes up for them in support from young
people who say they won't vote, or will vote third party, unless Sanders
is the nominee... But
if Broockman and Kalla are right, by nominating Sanders, Democrats
would be trading some of the electorate’s most reliable voters for some
of its least. To prevail, Democrats would need unheard-of rates of youth
turnout."</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Washington Post, 3 March, "<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/03/03/despite-his-promised-turnout-surge-sanders-is-getting-fewer-votes-than-he-did-2016/">Despite His Promised Turnout Surge, Sanders Is Getting Fewer Votes Than He Did In 2016</a>."<br /><blockquote>"In the four states that have voted in 2020... Sanders is not exactly demonstrating that he can spur a surge in turnout.<br /><br />"In
all four states, he has earned a smaller share of the vote than he did
four years ago. There are three states in which we can compare actual
vote totals with 2016. In two, he received fewer votes than he did then.
In the other, he saw a small increase in votes--but the vote total in
the state grew four times as large."</blockquote>Boston Globe, 3 March: "<a href="https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/03/03/opinion/democrats-concerned-with-electability-bernie-sanders-is-an-unlikely-answer/">For Democrats Concerned With Electability, Bernie Sanders Is An Unlikely Answer</a>."<br />
<br />
Politico Magazine, 3 March: "<a href="https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/03/03/never-trump-maybe-bernie-118981">'The Worst Possible Scenario': Never Trumpers Wonder What to Do About Bernie</a>."<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="story-text__paragraph">
"[W]ith the Democrats quite possibly heading toward nominating an avowed
socialist for president, horrified Never Trumpers are facing yet another
crisis beyond their imaginings... Heading into Super Tuesday, the
delegate leader in the 2020 Democratic field--and, depending on what
happens in California and elsewhere, the potential runaway
frontrunner--is Bernie Sanders, the most left-wing major-party candidate
in modern American history. The prospect of choosing between Sanders and
Trump is, for this group of influencers who were once regarded as major
players in the Republican Party, a looming civic crisis. 'It's sort of
like choosing between death by hanging versus death by gunshot,' Sykes
told me.</div>
<div class="story-text__paragraph">
<br /></div>
<div class="story-text__paragraph">
"'The worst possible scenario' were
McMullin’s words. Wilson--a famously foul-mouthed GOP
strategist--described a potential Sanders-Trump race as 'the fucking
apocalypse.'"</div>
</blockquote>
New York Daily News, 3 March: ""<a href="https://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/ny-edit-20200303-eo4l6kx63zaujhvd6xfkkpxvoa-story.html">Bernie Sanders Could Imperil Democrats' Downballot Races</a>."<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="crd clln--it" data-type="text">
<div class="crd--cnt">
"Over
the last week, two former mayors articulated the potential consequences
of a Bernie Sanders nomination. Super Tuesday voters should take their
warnings to heart.<br />
<br />
"As
Pete Buttigieg put it: 'The time has come for us to stop acting like
the presidency is the only office that matters. Not only is this a way
to get Donald Trump reelected, we got a House to worry about. We got a
Senate to worry about.'<br />
<br />
"Mike
Bloomberg argued that putting Sanders atop the ticket would lead to a
down-ballot bloodbath, including 'a lot of gerrymandering down-ballot in
states, which will hurt the country for a long time. But worse, at the
federal level, you will have a whole bunch of judges--probably even two
Supreme Court justices--that the Republicans will appoint.'<br />
<br /></div>
</div>
"Amen."</blockquote>
Breitbart, 3 March: "<a href="https://www.breitbart.com/radio/2020/03/03/former-biden-adviser-on-bernie-sanders-we-cannot-let-this-man-be-the-nominee/">Former Biden Adviser on Bernie Sanders: 'We Cannot Let This Man Be the Nominee'</a>":<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Democrats must not select Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) as their presidential nominee, warned Moe Vela, former senior adviser to Vice President Joe Biden and president of the Vela Group, on Monday's edition of SiriusXM’s Breitbart News Tonight with host Rebecca Mansour and special guest host John Hayward.<br />
<br />
"'[Bernie Sanders] will be disastrous for down-ballot races,' said Vela of a possible Democrat presidential nomination for the Vermont senator. 'From sheriff to school board to mayor, all the way up to the U.S. Senate and the House, he will be absolutely disastrous for down-ballot Democratic races.'<br />
<br />
"Vela continued, 'We cannot let this man be the nominee of the Democratic
Party,' adding, 'It would be like giving Donald Trump a gift with a bow
on it, and Republicans would be jumping up and down if Bernie Sanders
was the nominee because they know, as we say in Texas, you can just open
up a can of whoop-ass.'"</blockquote>
Super Tuesday on 3 March saw 14 contests across the U.S.. Bolstered by that tidal wave of positive press--and with the press having beaten down his primary rival as best it could--Biden won 10 of them, and <a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.html">shot past</a> Sanders in the national RCP polling average to again assume the position of frontrunner in the Democratic field.<br />
<br />
The exit-polling showed the same trends as in South Carolina. As this author <a href="https://stuffdept.blogspot.com/2020/03/disconnected-dems.html">wrote</a> at the time:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"In <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/elections/election-results/maine-democratic-primary-live-results/">Maine</a>,
a state Biden won by 1.1%, wholly 47% of voters were late deciders, the
vast bulk of them going to Biden; 69% supported M4A but 24% of
that--16.6% of the total state vote--went to Biden. In <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/elections/election-results/massachussetts-democratic-primary-live-results/">Massachusetts</a>,
11.5% of total voters supported M4A yet voted for Biden; Biden won the
state by a hair under 7%. M4A had the support of 62% of <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/elections/election-results/minnesota-democratic-primary-live-results/">Minnesota</a>
Democrats but 16.2% of total voters supported it but cast their ballots
for Biden; he won there by a little over 8%. In Tennessee, 53%
supported M4A; 17% of the state's voters supported M4A but voted for
Biden; 17.04% were late-deciders who voted for Biden; Biden won by just
under 17%. In <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/03/10/us/elections/exit-polls-michigan-primary.html">Michigan</a>,
just under 21% supported M4A but voted for Biden; 18.5% thought the
economic system needed a complete overhaul but voted for Biden; Biden
won the state by 16%. In <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/03/03/us/elections/exit-polls-texas-primary.html">Texas</a>,
53% said they'd only decided for whom to vote in the past month and the
largest chunk of those went to Biden; 63% said they supported M4A but
just under a quarter of those--15% of total voters--voted Biden; Biden
won the state by 4.5% of the vote. And so on."</blockquote>
The polling across these contests suggested Biden was winning because large numbers of voters, particularly elderly voters (whose turnout was surging everywhere), had bought into the press "electability" narrative and were voting for Biden based on it, even though his policy views--if one can abuse a phrase--don't align with their own. This contingent was larger than Biden's margin of victory everywhere he won.<br />
<br />
Detroit News, 4 March: "<a href="https://www.detroitnews.com/story/opinion/2020/03/05/opinion-bernie-sanders-socialism-happen-america/4942382002/">How Can Bernie Sanders Happen in America?</a>":<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="speakable-p-2 p-text">
"Pundits have recently argued that
younger voters, especially those under 30, are less inclined to be
bothered when they hear the word “socialism,” since they have no
firsthand memory of the Cold War.</div>
<div class="speakable-p-2 p-text">
<br /></div>
<div class="speakable-p-2 p-text">
"To
some extent, this must be true. Those who weren't alive during
socialism’s cruelest catastrophes--or even its many banal failures--will be less put off by the idea. Then again, if a presidential
candidate were praising the excellent public transportation system of
the Third Reich or going on about some alleged benefit to American
slavery, they would rightly be chased from the public square forever
even though the vast majority of voters have no firsthand knowledge of
the Holocaust or slavery. Anti-Semitism and racism haven’t disappeared,
and neither has Marx, sadly.</div>
<div class="speakable-p-2 p-text">
<br /></div>
<div class="speakable-p-2 p-text">
"It’s true that Bernie
Sanders' fans aren't acquainted with socialism (and, incidentally, this
is true only if we ignore the existence of Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea,
China, etc.)... [L]ike millions of other saps over the past century-plus, they’ve been
enticed by the collectivist 'ethic'--its revolutionary appeal, its
religiosity and its quixotic promises... No, Sanders isn’t Stalin. He claims to be a democratic socialist. I get it. But there's an array of good reasons no one says, 'Hey, let's give
democratic fascism a shot.' There are just as many good reasons not to
normalize socialism. At their core, both ideologies are authoritarian.
The only difference is that academics and our cultural stewards have
whitewashed one of them."</div>
</blockquote>
Boston Globe, 4 March: "<a href="https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/03/04/metro/intractable-bernie-bros-what-they-might-mean-sanders-campaign/">The Intractable Bernie Bros and What They Might Mean For the Sanders Campaign</a>."<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div id="SyEbgM">
"The socialist emperor of Vermont has no clothes.</div>
<div id="SyEbgM">
<br /></div>
<div id="TGc49s">
"The feverish anti-establishment antipathy that’s helped
fuel Bernie Sanders’ presidential ambitions over the past few years has
relied on a belief that the system (what system? every system) has been
rigged against him.</div>
<div id="TGc49s">
<br /></div>
<div id="vQgabg">
"From Wall Street to drug companies, from the Democratic
Party to corporate America, these powerful institutions were aligning to
rob him of what was rightfully his, what 'the people' wanted... Sanders himself rang the alarms this week about the
coming coup: 'Look, it's no secret,' he told reporters. 'The Washington
Post has 16 articles a day on this--there’s a massive effort to stop
Bernie Sanders... The corporate establishment is coming together, the
political establishment is coming together, and they will do anything
and everything.' That, presumably, gets his supporters riled up and
ready for battle, and there's likely some truth to the idea that
mainstream Democrats are concerned Sanders' socialism will get Trump
reelected. (They're not wrong.)</div>
<div id="vQgabg">
<br /></div>
<div id="THG8e3">
"But what happened on Super Tuesday totally dismantled the
Sanders conspiracy theory that, if only 'the establishment' would get
out of voters’ way, this would be his for the taking... The truth is, despite having run once before, accruing
potent name ID and running a sophisticated grassroots campaign, Sanders
is simply not a national candidate. He has a vocal, very aggressive base
of support, but it's localized and it's not representative of a
majority of Democratic voters. His candidacy has a very real ceiling,
and Biden just found it.</div>
<div id="THG8e3">
<br /></div>
<div id="THG8e3">
"The truth is the establishment isn’t standing in Sanders' way. Voters are."</div>
</blockquote>
Chicago Sun-Times, 4 March: "<a href="https://chicago.suntimes.com/columnists/2020/3/4/21164783/2020-democratic-presidential-primary-bernie-sanders-joe-biden-s-e-cupp-super-tuesday">The Establishment Isn't Standing in Bernie Sanders' Way. Voters Are</a>":<br />
<br />
NPR, 5 March: "<a href="https://www.npr.org/2020/03/05/812186614/how-russia-is-trying-to-boost-bernie-sanders-campaign">Russian Media Aims To Help Bernie Sanders Campaign Get the Democratic Nomination</a>":<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"It's 2016 all over again--at least from Russia's perspective.<br />
<br />
"Russia's state-sponsored messaging about Bernie Sanders' presidential campaign was more neutral in the fall.<br />
<br />
"But
over the past six weeks, this coverage has shifted to mirror
pro-Sanders talking points first used in the last presidential campaign,
said Clint Watts of the Foreign Policy Research Institute, who has been
monitoring Russian interference continuously.<br />
<br />
"'What's really
come on strong just in the last 30 to 45 days are very similar
narratives that we saw in 2016 about Sanders,' Watts told NPR... It isn't clear precisely how much Russia is doing to help Sanders via
the anonymity of cyberspace, but national security officials warned on Monday that social media agitation and disinformation have continued through this year's presidential race."</blockquote>
New York Times, 5 March: "<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/05/world/europe/bernie-sanders-soviet-russia.html">As Bernie Sanders Pushed for Closer Ties, Soviet Union Spotted Opportunity</a>":<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Previously unseen documents from a Soviet archive show how hard Mr. Sanders worked to find a sister city in Russia when he was a mayor in the 1980s. Moscow saw a chance for propaganda."</blockquote>
Newsweek, 6 March: "<a href="https://www.newsweek.com/bernie-sanders-russian-media-coverage-1490862">Bernie Sanders Is Receiving 7 Times As Much Positive Russian Media Coverage As Joe Biden, Analysis Shows</a>":<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Bernie Sanders has received the
most positive coverage of any contender from Russian state-backed news
agencies, according to new research from a foreign policy think tank.<br />
<br />
"Russia
is believed to be trying to boost Sanders' primary campaign while also
helping President Donald Trump. New analysis from the Foreign Policy Research Institute revealed that Sanders received the most positive coverage of any candidate from Russia's Sputnik and RT news services."</blockquote>
Daily Mail, 6 March: "<a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8085243/Elizabeth-Warren-blasts-Sanders-online-bullying-Bernie-Bros.html">Elizabeth
Warren Slams 'Bernie Bros' For 'Online Bullying' Sanders' Rivals and
Insists Candidates Are 'Responsible' For the 'Threatening, Ugly,
Dangerous Things' Their Supporters Do</a>:"<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Elizabeth
Warren has accused some Bernie Sanders’ supporters of doxxing and
threatening women who backed her failed presidential campaign.<br />
<br />
"The
senator from Massachusetts accused the 'Bernie Bros'--a nickname given
to hardcore supporters of the Democratic candidate who are active on
social media--of 'some really ugly stuff,' including an 'onslaught of
online threats.'"</blockquote>
Lowell Sun, 7 March: "<a href="https://www.lowellsun.com/2020/03/07/beware-the-bernie-bros/">Beware the Bernie Bros</a>."<br />
<br />
Salt Lake Tribune, 9 March: "<a href="https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/2020/03/09/bernie-sanders/">Bernie Sanders As Presidential Nominee Could Hurt Vulnerable Democrats Like Utah’s Ben McAdams</a>."<br />
<br />
NBC News, 10 March: "<a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/clyburn-calls-democrats-shut-primary-down-if-biden-has-big-n1155131">Clyburn Calls For Democrats To 'Shut this Primary Down' If Biden Has Big Night</a>":<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="endmarkEnabled">
"[Biden supporter] Rep. Jim Clyburn... says the Democrat National Committee should 'shut this primary down' to help the former vice president's chances in November.</div>
<div class="endmarkEnabled">
<br /></div>
<div class="endmarkEnabled">
"''I
think when the night is over, Joe Biden will be the prohibitive
favorite to win the Democratic nomination, and quite frankly, if the
night ends the way it has begun, I think it is time for us to shut this
primary down, it is time for us to cancel the rest of these debates--because you don't do anything but get yourself in trouble if you
continue in this contest when it's obvious that the numbers will not
shake out for you,' Clyburn<a href="https://apps.npr.org/liveblogs/20200310-primaries/?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=npr&utm_medium=social&utm_term=nprnews#clyburn-says-if-sanders-doesnt-70" target="_blank"> told NPR</a>.</div>
<div class="endmarkEnabled">
<br /></div>
<div class="endmarkEnabled">
"Pressed on the issue, Clyburn, the House Democratic whip, said a clean
sweep would make Biden the 'prohibitive nominee,' and he added that the
DNC should 'step in, make an assessment and determine whether they ought
to have any more debates.'"</div>
</blockquote>
<div class="endmarkEnabled">
On 10 March, Biden--still flying high on positive press coverage--won 5 of the 6 Democratic contests.<br /><br />By this time, the Covid-19 pandemic was beginning to get serious, with 13 states declaring public health emergencies. Sanders and later Biden <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03/10/sanders-cancels-evening-event-due-to-coronavirus-fears-125138">canceled</a> their scheduled post-primary rallies, and the virus brought a halt to traditional campaigning. This proved a boon to Biden, who had barely been campaigning in the prior 11 months anyway. His "campaign" retreated to his basement in Delaware, where access to the candidate was more tightly controlled than ever, as he interacted with the world via video feeds and could "answer" questions by reading cue-cards prepared by his staff. Sanders, meanwhile, was taken off the campaign trail where he excelled, while, with over half the U.S. (26 of the 50 states) having not yet voted, the Democratic party Establishment and the corporate press ramped up efforts to get him to quit the race.<br /><br />The New Yorker, 10 March: "<a href="https://www.newyorker.com/news/current/bernie-sanderss-electability-argument-falls-apart-in-michigan">Bernie Sanders Electability Argument Falls Apart In Michigan</a>."<br /><br />A <a href="https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/vrbl9mmctz/econTabReport.pdf">YouGov poll</a> that wrapped on this same day showed both Biden and Sanders beating Trump by identical 4% margins.<br />
<br />
Politico, 10 March: "<a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03/10/democrats-establishment-sanders-lose-tuesday-125070">Democrats Weigh How To Nudge Sanders Out After Tuesday Losses</a>":</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="endmarkEnabled">
<div class="story-text__paragraph">
"Even before Joe Biden romped in
another big primary night on Tuesday, Democrats were already talking
about the next move: how to get Bernie Sanders out of the race.</div>
<div class="story-text__paragraph">
<br /></div>
<div class="story-text__paragraph">
"More than two dozen political operatives and delegate experts<b> </b>agreed
in interviews that a walloping in Michigan and Mississippi and a tight
finish in Washington state would all but close Sanders’ path to the
nomination... Now Democrats, trying to avoid a prolonged primary that they say would
only help Donald Trump's reelection efforts, are conferring over when--or even whether--to prod Sanders to clear the way for Biden. Democrats
agree they want to avoid a repeat of 2016's protracted race and risk
turning over a bloodied and bruised nominee to face off against
President Donald Trump. Singed by the devastating general election loss
four years ago, some Democrats say they refuse to go down that road
again."</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Washington Examiner, 10 March: "<a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/bernie-sanderss-time-to-drop-out-has-come">Bernie Sanders's Time To Drop Out Has Come</a>."<br />
<br />
U.S. News & World Report, 10 March: "<a href="https://www.usnews.com/news/elections/articles/2020-03-10/bernie-sanders-and-the-pressure-to-leave-the-stage">Say Goodbye, Bernie</a>":<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Just two weeks ago, Sen. Bernie Sanders appeared on an unstoppable path to the nomination, and pressure was mounting on Joe Biden to get out of the race so another moderate candidate could take on the Vermont lawmaker one on one.<br />
<br />
<div class="Raw-s13q2jmv-0 cbHawU" size="5">
"After Tuesday
nights results--which had the former vice president taking the big
prize of Michigan, along with Mississippi and Missouri--the tables have
turned 180 degrees, and it is Sanders who will be facing pressure to
move aside so the party can rally around Biden and build a coalition to
achieve their central goal: to oust President Donald Trump.<br />
<br />
"Before
polls had even closed in Idaho, Washington state and North Dakota, the
primary narrative was written in ink, with leading political forces
declaring Biden as the near-certain choice to face Trump in November.</div>
<div class="Raw-s13q2jmv-0 cbHawU" size="5">
<br />
"'The
math is now clear. Joe Biden is going to be the Democratic nominee for
President and @prioritiesUSA is going to do everything we can to help
him defeat Donald Trump in November. I hope others will join us in the
fight,' tweeted Guy Cecil, chairman of the Democratic SuperPAC
Priorities USA."</div>
</blockquote>
Fox Business, 10 March: "<a href="https://www.foxbusiness.com/money/varney-bernie-sanders-joe-biden-election">Varney: Bernie Sanders Is Done</a>."<br /><br />
The Atlantic, 11 March: "<a href="https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/e882d259-5157-3824-ba99-b88c55d9b993/it%E2%80%99s-over-for-bernie.html">It's Over For Bernie</a>."<br />
<br />
Reuters, 11 March: "<a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-sanders/the-revolution-that-wasnt-bernie-sanders-second-presidential-bid-falls-to-earth-idUSKBN20Y2PG">The Revolution That Wasn't: Bernie Sanders' Second Presidential Bid Falls To Earth</a>."<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"State after state, voters by roughly 2 to 1 said they would rather
pick a candidate who can beat Trump than one they agree with on major
issues, according to Edison Research exit polls in the states that voted
on Tuesday as well as last week’s Super Tuesday contests.<br />
<br />
"The
overwhelming majority of these voters who cited beating Trump as the top
priority - 61% in Michigan, 67% in Missouri, and 82% in Mississippi -
voted for Biden, the polls show... Wall Street investors fearful of a government takeover of healthcare
dumped shares in health insurers, while Democratic Party insiders
sounded the alarm that the self-described democratic socialist would not
only lose to Trump in November but would also hurt the party’s chances
down ballot."</blockquote>
Politico, 11 March: "<a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03/11/bernie-sanders-primaries-takeaways-125390">Bernie Sanders Is All But Done</a>":<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="story-text__paragraph">
"The night was so debilitating for
Bernie Sanders that after retreating to his home state of Vermont on
Tuesday, he didn't even make a speech.</div>
<div class="story-text__paragraph">
<br /></div>
<div class="story-text__paragraph">
"In every way, other than mathematically, his presidential campaign is done.</div>
<div class="story-text__paragraph">
<br /></div>
<div class="story-text__paragraph">
"It wasn't just the results of the primaries on Tuesday that spelled the
end, though they were miserable for Sanders. It was the realization
that, for the first time, Sanders' campaign had no excuse--and nothing
better to look forward to."</div>
</blockquote>
Washington Post, 11 March: "<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/03/11/james-carville-sanders-biden/">‘Let's Shut This Puppy Down': James Carville Says It's Time To End Democratic primary After Biden's Big Night"</a>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Carville, the longtime Democratic strategist and MSNBC analyst, urged
Sanders on Tuesday night to drop out of the race and allow former vice
president Joe Biden to focus on a general election matchup with
President Trump. Biden seized control of the Democratic presidential
contest with four more decisive wins, including Michigan, the night's biggest prize.<br />
<br />
"'Let's shut this puppy down, and let’s move on and worry about
November,' Carville said. 'This thing is decided. There’s no reason to
keep it going, not even a day longer.'"</blockquote>
The Atlantic, 11 March: "<a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/03/its-time-bernie-sanders-drop-out/607804/">The Best Thing Bernie Sanders Can Do Is Drop Out</a>":<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Sanders now faces a crucial choice. He could respond creatively to the
political and medical news. He could return to the Senate, and there use
his high profile and his massive mailing list to lead the fight for a
generous response to the epidemic--achieving, at last, the big
legislative legacy that has until now eluded him.<br />
<br />
"Or he could do as President Donald Trump is urging him to do, not to
mention Jill Stein and thousands of bots on Twitter: Continue his doomed
campaign for the nomination, not with a view to winning, but with a
view to inflicting as much damage as possible on Joe Biden. In 2016,
Sanders played an important role in legitimating Trumpist attacks on
Hillary Clinton: She was bought and paid for by Goldman Sachs; she’d
plunge us into World War III over Syria. In the end, a large group of
Sanders voters—perhaps as many as 12 percent—crossed lines to vote for
Trump. Unknown numbers of others dropped out of the political process
altogether. Trump slavers for a repeat of that performance in 2020."</blockquote>
The Independent, 11 March: "<a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/democratic-primary-results-bernie-sanders-joe-biden-delegates-2020-a9392891.html">Bernie Sanders Needs To Step Aside To Let Biden Defeat Trump</a>."<br />
<br />
Slate, 11 March: "<a href="https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/03/bernie-sanders-anti-establishment-lost-voters.html">The Establishment Didn't Destroy Bernie Sanders. He Destroyed Himself</a>." <br />
<br />
Chicago Sun-Times, 12 March: "<a href="https://chicago.suntimes.com/2020/3/12/21175975/bernie-sanders-joe-biden-coronavirus-covid-19-illinois-democratic-primary-presidential-election">Bernie Sanders Should Drop Out Now and Give Joe Biden Clean Win Amid Coronavirus Fears</a>."<br />
<br />
Washington Post, 13 March: "<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/03/13/if-biden-wins-nomination-will-sanders-supporters-vote-him/">Sanders Supporters May Not Vote For Biden If He Wins the Democratic Nomination</a>."<br />
<br />
NBC News, 14 March: "<a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/sanders-had-some-vulnerable-democrats-worried-biden-s-surge-easing-n1152616">Sanders Had Some Vulnerable Democrats Worried. Biden's Surge is Easing Their Minds</a>."<br />
<br />
New York Post, 14 March: "<a href="https://nypost.com/2020/03/14/bernie-bros-warn-of-massive-exodus-if-democrats-nominate-joe-biden/">Bernie Bros Warn of 'Massive Exodus' If Democrats Nominate Joe Biden</a>":<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"As the presidential campaign of Sen. Bernie Sanders continues to crash and burn, the socialist's most hard-core supporters are vowing they will never
vote for Joe Biden at the ballot box--even if that means handing Trump a
second term.<br />
<br />
"'We will never--NEVER boost or support Joe Biden or defend his
abysmal record and terrible policy positions,' Henry Williams, executive
director of The Gravel Institute, told The Post. 'We will tell people,
as we always have, to vote their conscience and to make decisions based
on the interests of all the world's oppressed people… I do expect a
massive exodus from the Democratic Party'... The grumbling from Sanders die-hards is no idle threat. A whopping
12% of them voted for Trump in 2016, according to an analysis by
Cooperative Congressional Election Study. That added up to roughly
216,000 voters in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, exit polls
showed. Trump’s combined margin of victory in those states was 77,744.<br />
<br />
"An untold number of additional Sanders fans almost certainly stayed
home or voted third party in 2016 in an election plagued by low turnout
on both sides. Green Party candidate Jill Stein earned more votes in
each rust-belt battleground than the margin separating Trump from
Hillary Clinton."</blockquote>
Washington Examiner, 15 March: "<a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/sanders-supporters-warn-of-massive-exodus-from-democratic-party-if-biden-wins-nomination">Sanders Supporters Warn of 'Massive Exodus' From Democratic Party If Biden Wins Nomination</a>":<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"The socialist Vermont senator’s most vocal supporters, including 'Bernie Bros,' could give President Trump and Republicans a boost if their preferred candidate does not make it to the general election, according to a New York Post report."</blockquote>Back in January, this writer <a href="https://extranewsfeed.com/setting-the-record-straight-on-sanders-voters-elected-trump-1d6876e0ce73">debunked, at length</a>, the Clintonite notion that Sanders voters were responsible for Clinton's 2016 defeat.<br /><br />On 15 March, the <a href="https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/march-democratic-debate-transcript-joe-biden-bernie-sanders">last Democratic debate</a> was held in Washington D.C., Joe Biden vs. Bernie Sanders. In his most mendacious performance of the entire primary campaign, Biden was allowed to <a href="https://extranewsfeed.com/the-clothes-with-no-emperor-joe-biden-on-policy-d8d3a78910a9">walk away from his entire history</a> without pushback from or correction by any of the moderators. From the 2005 Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention act, which put the screws to creditors on behalf of the financial services industry that bankrolled his senate career, to the Iraq war--Biden had constructed all manner of falsehoods about his role in bringing about the conflict and continuing it--Biden was allowed to deny, deflect, obfuscate and walk back most of the high-points--the low-points--of his career. When Bernie Sanders pointed out Biden had repeatedly advocated cuts to Social Security and Medicare, Biden was not only allowed to lie and deny this but moderator Dana Bash took an old Sanders article out of context to falsely suggest Sanders himself had advocated such cuts.<br /><br />
Washington Post, 17 March: "<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/03/17/its-over-biden-is-presumptive-nominee/">It's Over. Biden is the Presumptive Nominee</a>":<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"There is near-universal recognition on the Democratic side, from Biden
supporters and those who favored other candidates, as well as pollsters
and operatives, that the Democratic primary is effectively over. Biden's
lead is insurmountable, and there is no conceivable mechanism by which
Sanders might turn the tide."</blockquote>
Newsweek, 17 March: "<a href="https://www.newsweek.com/bernie-sanders-supporters-are-not-loyal-joe-biden-average-democrat-poll-shows-1492733">Bernie Sanders Supporters Are Not As Loyal To Joe Biden As The Average Democrat, Poll Shows</a>":<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Democratic supporters of Senator Bernie Sanders are less likely than
the average member of their party to commit to backing Joe Biden in a
match-up against President Donald Trump should the former vice president
clinch the nomination, a new poll showed.<br />
<br />
"While 90 percent of
Democrats would commit themselves to support Biden in a head-to-head
match-up against Trump, 82 percent of Sanders supporters would do the
same, the survey from Morning Consult found."</blockquote>
While Newsweek chose this spin on the poll in question, here's another of its findings reported in the same story:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Eighty-five percent of Biden supporters said they would be inclined to
back Sanders over Trump, a mere three-point improvement over Sanders'
numbers."</blockquote>
A 3% difference means a statistical tie between Sanders and Biden supporters--no difference at all--but Biden didn't get a story proclaiming his supporters are less loyal than that fabricated "average member of the party," despite the fact that Biden supporters <i>were</i> also less likely than that "average" Dem to say they'd support the other candidate. Note, also, how the purported inferior loyalty of Biden's supporters to their man is characterized as an "improvement." And, of course, Biden is treated as inevitable:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Tracking where Sanders' voters will go is significant because
Biden is poised to clinch the nomination and will need to maintain a
coalition that includes disaffected Sanders supporters in order to
ensure a general election victory. The latest FiveThirtyEight primary
forecast calls Biden's nomination a near-certainty."</blockquote>
New York Magazine, 17 March: "<a href="https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/03/bernie-sanders-should-drop-out-of-the-democratic-primary.html">Why Is Bernie Sanders Still Running For President?</a>"<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="clay-paragraph" data-editable="text" data-uri="nymag.com/intelligencer/_components/clay-paragraph/instances/ck7wne8jl00133h67eckqc0rt@published" data-word-count="8">
"It's
not clear what [Sanders] has to gain by devoting that movement and its
resources to the cause of losing a long series of primaries. Deepening
the association of Bernie-ism with a failure to accept political reality
and disinterest in the Democratic Party's greater good seems
counterproductive to its long-term goals.</div>
<div class="clay-paragraph" data-editable="text" data-uri="nymag.com/intelligencer/_components/clay-paragraph/instances/ck7wne8jl00133h67eckqc0rt@published" data-word-count="8">
<br /></div>
<div class="clay-paragraph" data-editable="text" data-uri="nymag.com/intelligencer/_components/clay-paragraph/instances/ck7wne8jl00133h67eckqc0rt@published" data-word-count="8">
"What possible reason does he have to continue?"</div>
</blockquote>
On 17 March, Illinois, Florida and Arizona held their Democratic contests, and Biden won all three. Exit pollsters used a slightly different slate of questions than had been the case in prior contests but the same trend was still evident: Biden was winning via the votes of older people and those with whom his politics don't align because he was regarded as the most "electable."[10]<br />
<br />
New York Times, 18 March: "<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/18/us/politics/bernie-sanders-campaign.html">Bernie Sanders Has No Realistic Chance to Win. Some Democrats Say, 'It's Over.'</a>":<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="css-1fanzo5 StoryBodyCompanionColumn">
<div class="css-53u6y8">
<div class="css-158dogj evys1bk0">
"Some
Democrats said that with the delegate outlook so bleak, and with a
deadly pandemic gripping an anxious nation, Mr. Sanders risks appearing
self-centered and out of step if he insists on pressing ahead.</div>
<div class="css-158dogj evys1bk0">
<br /></div>
<div class="css-158dogj evys1bk0">
"'Bernie
is getting beat by 30 and 40 points--it's over,' said Representative
Don Beyer of Virginia, who has endorsed Mr. Biden. 'This is the adult
thing to do--knowing when it is time to disappear.'"</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
With 23 of the 50 states having not yet voted, this article flatly asserted that "a crushing round of primary losses" had "left [Sanders] with no realistic path to the Democratic nomination" and that Joe Biden "has now amassed a nearly insurmountable lead."<br />
<br />
The Week, 18 March: "<a href="https://theweek.com/articles/903037/over-bernie-sanders">It's Over For Bernie Sanders</a>":<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Whether or not Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders suspends his campaign for
president in the coming days, he is not going to be the Democratic
nominee for president in 2020... Sanders' most fervent followers won't want to accept it. They'll say
that the race is far from over. That plenty more states still need to
vote. That even after Tuesday night's delegates are allocated, Biden
will be hundreds away from clinching the nomination. That Sanders will
only be a couple hundred or so behind.<br />
<br />
"All of that will be true, but none of it will matter. That's because
Bernie failed to win the nomination in 2016 while running a far more
electorally formidable campaign than he has this time around. When we
compare his performance in these two cycles, we see a straightforward
story of electoral decline and diminishing political momentum... In state after state, Sanders has underperformed in comparison with 2016."</blockquote>
New York Post, 18 March: "<a href="https://nypost.com/2020/03/18/biden-just-made-bernie-nothing-more-than-a-two-time-loser/">Biden Just Made Bernie Nothing More Than a Two-Time Loser</a>":<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Now the big, the dramatic, the breathless question is: Will Sanders drop out?<br />
<br />
"Who cares?<br />
<br />
"Yeah, he pushed his party to the left. Yeah, a Sandernista will
probably take over the Democratic Party if Biden is defeated in
November.<br />
<br />
"But Bernie--Bernie the Fidel Fanboy, Bernie the Jewish Jew-Basher--is a two-time loser.<br />
<br />
"Leave now or leave later, you're leaving either way."</blockquote>
New York Daily News, 18 March: "<a href="https://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/ny-oped-do-whats-right-bernie-20200318-ayrbool52bfxvlispdkfgwssza-story.html">It's Time For Bernie Sanders To Do What's Right For America</a>":<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Democrats were also sounding the alarm to pull the plug on Bernie Sanders' life support campaign.<br />
<br />
"'I think the conversation is going to quickly turn to how and when does
Bernie Sanders unite the Democratic Party,' said former Missouri
Senator Claire McCaskill said on MSNBC... [E]ven
before COVID-19 crippled the country with fear, Sanders was
underperforming in counties and states that he won in 2016. Fewer
Americans are feeling the Bern, and that math isn't changing as the
electoral map gets even harder for Sanders.<br />
<br />
"Sanders' race is also hurting the Democratic party. While he says he’s
attempting to nudge Biden to the far-left so that his voters can feel
they have permission to vote for him, Sanders' supporters have been
attacking the Democratic frontrunner and certain nominee in ways that
could seriously injure him with the general electorate, going after
Biden’s mental health and his capacity to do the job of president."</blockquote>
<div class="crd clln--it" data-type="text">
<div class="crd--cnt">
</div>
</div>
<div class="crd clln--it" data-type="text">
<div class="crd--cnt">
</div>
</div>
Washington Post, 19 March: "<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/03/19/sanders-has-some-nerve/">Bernie Sanders Has Some Nerve</a>":<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div>
<div class="font--body font-copy gray-darkest ma-0 pb-md">
"In what
universe should Biden be making concessions to someone who has done so
poorly in the race and who, the Democratic voters decided, holds views
that make him unelectable? When a candidate wins based on voters’
perception, <i>he</i> is the most electable. He should not have to concede to the loser.</div>
<div class="font--body font-copy gray-darkest ma-0 pb-md">
<br /></div>
<div class="font--body font-copy gray-darkest ma-0 pb-md">
"The Sanders gang might argue that Biden needs the Sanders people to win in November. Perhaps... Here’s an idea: Ignore Sanders. There are no more debates scheduled.
When the primaries come along, Biden will rack up more delegates.
Sanders can stay or go, but Biden should be treated as the presumptive
nominee, which is effectively what he is."</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
New York Times, 21 March: "<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/21/us/politics/bernie-sanders-democrats-2020.html">How It All Came Apart for Bernie Sanders</a>."<br />
<br />
Hartford Courant, 21 March: "<a href="https://www.courant.com/opinion/op-ed/hc-op-marcus-bernie-sanders-20200321-uicjq7wm7rf63etr35zbsvac5q-story.html">Bernie Sanders, It's Time To Go</a>":<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"...Joe
Biden has a lead in delegates that cannot be overcome short of a
miracle. We already have seen one miracle--the resurgence of Joe Biden.
It's not going to happen twice in the same presidential campaign.<br />
<br />
"After the Tuesday blowout, Biden has increased his delegate lead so
that Sanders should recognize that he is just satisfying his ego by
staying in the race and possibly irreparably hurting the Democratic
Party.<br />
<br />
"Sanders was a major factor in Hillary Clinton losing to Trump. Bernie
claims that Joe Biden is his friend and that they just differ on ideas.
Well, now is the time to give up the ego contest, face up to reality and
do the right thing by withdrawing from the race for president."</blockquote>
<div class="crd clln--it" data-type="text">
<div class="crd--cnt">
</div>
</div>
Sioux City Journal, 22 March, "<a href="https://siouxcityjournal.com/opinion/editorial/our-opinion-sanders-should-concede-race-to-biden/article_951675eb-19dc-5709-998a-5d8c93587ec7.html">Our Opinion: Sanders should concede race to Biden</a>":<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div>
"[T]his race is over. Democrats have decided who they wish to represent them in the general election versus President Trump.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
"Not
only does continuation of this race through the spring serve no
practical purpose, but it raises concerns related to coronavirus. If
holding additional competitive primaries won't affect the final outcome,
why put the health of more voters at risk?"</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
Despite being self-evidently false, the idea that Sanders was selfishly putting voters in danger by failing to exit the race, thus insuring they would have to participate in primaries during the Covid-19 outbreak, became a persistent anti-Sanders theme in the press. All of the states that had yet to vote had extensive primaries for other offices; Sanders presence or exit wouldn't have affected the primary calendar at all.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Simultaneously--yet never mentioned when playing out that theme--it was the DNC <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/488685-democrats-grow-nervous-over-primary-delays">pressuring states</a> not to postpone their primaries due to the virus, out of concern that this would make for a protracted primary battle. The DNC suggested states adopt mail-in ballots but made <a href="https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2020/3/31/21199930/coronavirus-2020-primary-delays-dnc-states-could-lose-delegates-national-convention">very clear</a> that however they opted to hold the contests, delegates from states who delayed their primaries would be punished. On 15 March, Sanders was the one who <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/16/politics/bernie-sanders-primaries-postpone/index.html">suggested</a> upcoming primary contests should be postponed because of the virus. Biden not only <a href="https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/biden-trump-campaigns-called-wisconsin-postpone-primaries-amid/story?id=69964061">declined</a> to do the same but, instead, <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/biden-urges-voters-cast-ballots-tuesday-primaries-coronavirus-concerns-mount-n1159471">urged</a> voters to go to the polls.<br /><blockquote>"If you are feeling healthy, not showing symptoms, and not at risk of being exposed to COVID-19: please vote on Tuesday."</blockquote>But, of course, by going to the polls and being around large numbers of people doing the same, these voters <i>would</i> be putting themselves at risk of being exposed to the virus. At the time, progressive journalist Ryan Grim called Biden's refusal to call for a delay "despicable" and "irresponsible," but press pundits were soon megaphoning the notion that it was Sanders endangering the public.<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
National Review, 23 March: "<a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2020/03/23/back-to-the-ussr/">Bernie Sanders: Marxist</a>."<br />
<br />On 24 March, a former Biden staffer named Tara Reade came forward and publicly accused Joe Biden of sexually assaulting her back in 1993. She <a href="https://theintercept.com/2020/03/24/joe-biden-metoo-times-up/">told her story</a> to Ryan Grim of the Intercept and on the <a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/tara-reade-joe-bidens-accuser-finally-tells-her-full/id1020563127?i=1000469429963">Katie Halper Show</a> podcast. The corporate press is ordinarily quite enthusiastic about such stories, even dubious and thinly-sourced ones, but this one, a potential threat to Biden's candidacy, was simply made to disappear. In Commentary (15 June), Christine Rosen <a href="https://www.commentary.org/articles/christine-rosen/the-medias-tara-reade-stress-test/">wrote about</a> what happened next.<br /><blockquote>"For several weeks, no major newspaper mentioned the allegations, even
though information about them was circulating widely on social media and
in conservative publications. Biden continued to give television
interviews to reporters who never once asked him about Tara Reade. It
was almost three weeks later when the <i>New York Times</i> finally published a story about it..."<br /></blockquote>Rosen doesn't mention it but that coverage, which began three weeks after the allegation was made, only happened after Bernie Sanders dropped out of the primary contest, leaving Biden unchallenged for the Democratic nomination. Biden wasn't even asked about the allegations until 1 May.<br /><br />There were, as it developed, serious problems with Reade's story. Maybe it was all just nonsense. One could make an argument that exercising some journalistic restraint on something that had the potential to significantly impact a presidential race was a responsible course but it seems pretty unlikely journalists suddenly became afflicted, in this matter, with a sense of responsibility nowhere in evidence in any other aspect of their coverage of this campaign. While, speaking personally, this writer isn't at all interested in allegations like this if they suddenly emerge years after the alleged events and in the middle of a political campaign, that opinion certainly doesn't at all reflect the appetite of the corporate press. About that, Ryan Grim is quite correct when he said "typically, in a situation like this, media outlets would be competing intensely for the first major on-camera interview" with the accuser. In this MeToo era rife with loud, public reckonings over sexual improprieties, the reader will have to draw his own conclusion as to why this was kept from public view until a few days after Sanders left the race.<br /><br />
Washington Post, 25 March: "<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/03/25/bernie-clings-fantasy-campaign/">Bernie Sanders Clings To A Fantasy Campaign</a>":<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"[Biden] is, for all intents and purposes, the presumptive nominee, and yet
Sanders announces he is going to stay in the race through New York's
April 28 primary (unless it is moved to June 2 along with others?). He
also declares he is ready for the next debate! (There is no next debate
scheduled, and the chances the Democratic National Committee would
countenance such a ludicrous affair are slim to none.)<br />
<br />
"Matt Bennett, head of the moderate Democratic group <a href="https://twitter.com/ThirdWayMattB/status/1242539622120423426" target="_blank">Third Way, tweeted</a>:
'This is selfish, stupid, unforgivable. The primary is over, and we are
in the midst of a world-historic catastrophe. The president is creating
new disasters every day. What the hell is <a href="https://twitter.com/BernieSanders">@BernieSanders</a> doing?'<br />
<br />
<div>
<div class="font--body font-copy gray-darkest ma-0 pb-md">
"Well, in
one sense what he is 'doing' is proving his critics right, namely
showing himself to be a self-absorbed crank. He wouldn’t get off the
stage in 2016, precluding the party's unification behind Hillary
Clinton; he is doing the same now with regard to Biden... What was vaguely pathetic--a defeated candidate unable to give up the stage--now seems a bit unhinged. <i>He lost, doesn't he know? He needs even more loses to get the hint he will not be the nominee? </i>The longer he stays in, the more feckless he and his 'movement' looks..."</div>
</div>
</blockquote>Washington Post, 30 March: "<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/bernie-sanders-says-hes-staying-in-the-presidential-race-many-democrats-fear-a-reprise-of-their-2016-defeat/2020/03/28/a6b8a8dc-7032-11ea-a3ec-70d7479d83f0_story.html">Bernie Sanders Says He’s Staying in the Presidential Race. Many Democrats Fear a Reprise of Their 2016 Defeat</a>."<br /><blockquote>"Four years later, with the senator still running against former vice
president Joe Biden despite almost impossible odds of victory, some
party leaders are increasingly worried about a reprise of the bitter
divisions that many Democrats blame for Hillary Clinton's loss.<br /><br />"'It's the equivalent of a World War II kamikaze pilot,' said Philippe
Reines, a longtime adviser to Clinton. 'They have no better option than
to plow into USS Biden.'... 'I just think it's a terrible decision for him to make because he looks
very selfish,' said former Democratic senator Barbara Boxer of
California, who backs Biden."</blockquote>
Washington Post, 31 March: "<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/03/31/benefit-democrats-denouncing-sanders-selfishness/">The Benefit of the Democrats Denouncing Sanders's Selfishness</a>":<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"If you are in the search for silver linings, one benefit of Sen. Bernie
Sanders (I-Vt.) pointlessly continuing his losing campaign is the
freedom for Democrats to denounce him and his anti-party escapades.
After years of humoring him, the vast majority of Democrats, from
super-progressives to moderates, can now say out loud what they've said
quietly: <i>It has always been about Bernie</i>.<i> It’s not a movement, but rather a vanity project</i>... The problem, according to many Democrats, remains that 15 percent of
Sanders supporters say in polling that they would vote for President
Trump over Biden. This nugget actually makes the<i> opposite </i>argument:<i>
There is nothing that would satisfy some faction of the Sanders
coalition that would rather blow up our democracy and reelect Trump</i>.
With people so irrational, the best response is to ignore them. They,
like the MAGA-hat crowd, are unreachable and cannot be bargained with
(e.g., more New Green Deal
talk!). So do not try. No more outreach to Sanders, no more promised
policy modifications, no more speaking slot at the convention. Enough."</blockquote>
NBC News, 1 April: "<a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/donald-trump-only-real-winner-if-bernie-sanders-remains-democratic-ncna1173501">Donald Trump is the Only Real Winner If Bernie Sanders Remains in the Democratic Primary</a>":<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"At a time when voters are scared for their health and fear going to the
polls for the primary contests, it would be smart of Sanders to read the
moment and recognize that it's just not his... [I]t would
behoove Sanders and the party he supposedly seeks to serve to recognize
this unique moment we're in is bigger than his ego and bow out."</blockquote>
Orlando Sentinel, 2 April: "<a href="https://www.orlandosentinel.com/coronavirus/os-op-coronavirus-bernie-sanders-should-drop-out-20200402-3zpk4widdjgqreqc7uwyayy3qq-story.html">Bernie Sanders Must Drop Out--Now--and Clear the Way for Joe Biden's Nomination</a>":<br />
<div class="crd clln--it" data-type="text">
<div class="crd--cnt">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div>
"The reason for Biden's success in Florida and around the country wasn't
all that complicated: Democrats want a candidate who can beat Donald
Trump, a person singularly unsuited to serve as president of these
United States... Beating the virus, saving lives and preserving our economy are the
nation' top priorities at this moment. Come this November, the priority
is ensuring Trump does not have a second term.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
"That's why Sanders needs to drop out of the Democratic primary. Not later. Not after Congress has acted on the present crisis.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
"Now.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
"Nothing is gained from Sanders staying in the race. Nothing. His
chances of overtaking Biden are infinitesimal, even more so now with
America facing years of recovery from the economic, societal and
psychological damage of coronavirus.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
"Fewer and fewer people are in the mood for the kind of upheaval Sanders
trades on. We're undergoing an upheaval now, and people already are
exhausted from it. And we still face long weeks or maybe months of
isolation, disruption and uncertainty.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
"The nation's going to need someone who can heal, and Bernie--with all
his anger, resentment and white-hot revolutionary rhetoric--isn't that
someone."</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
<div class="crd clln--it" data-type="text">
<div class="crd--cnt">
</div>
</div>
Boston Globe, 3 April: "<a href="https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/04/03/opinion/dear-bernie-sanders-enough-already/">Dear Bernie Sanders: Enough Already</a>."<br />
<br />
And so on.<br />
<br />
On 8 April, Sanders left the presidential race.<br />
<br />
<br />
The format for this timeline is one I've used before. The articles referenced here come from a wide range of sources, from the biggest news outlets in the U.S. to local papers to various interest-groups. When I've done this in the past, I've gotten some cries of "foul" for including editorials, which are intended to express an opinion, alongside straight news stories but as I hope this has made clear, there is no real division in <i>this</i> coverage between news and editorial. It's <i>all</i> editorial. This is what the press was choosing to put before the public day after day. Everyone from Clintonite-right outlets like MSNBC to the white nationalists of Breitbart were, throughout these months, telling exactly the <i>same</i> story. As in any political campaign, Sanders' opponents wanted to defeat him but here, there was no daylight between what they were saying about him in their self-concerned efforts to take him out and what the press was "reporting."<br /><br />And it is "reporting," not reporting. Note that nothing covered here is about policy, that thing that is theoretically supposed to be a (if not the) central focus of political reporting. Sanders <i>was</i> subject to press criticism based on policy, some of it serious, much of it outlandish, but it was never more than a drop in the bucket of the total coverage and I've excluded it, on the principle that even if individual critiques of a certain policy are wrong, stupid or indefensible, policy critiques are appropriate in a political contest. The 2020 primary coverage wasn't about policy; it was just the press coming up with one story after another aimed at attacking, dismissing, diminishing, demonizing, belittling, sidelining--defeating--Sanders, day after days, month after month (while promoting--or covering for--the more conservative candidates).<br /><br />
While they were repeated into infinity, none of the premises of the major anti-Sanders/anti-progressive narratives covered here were ever seriously interrogated in any sustained way, nor could they withstand that scrutiny had they ever been subjected to it.<br />
<br />
The Broockman/Kalla paper purporting to
show Sanders is virtually unelectable, for example, traveled far and wide but Jim Naureckas of Fairness &
Accuracy In Reporting showed that, in reality, youth turnout has, in
recent elections, regularly jumped by larger margins than those the
paper's authors presented as extremely unlikely--that particular "extremely unlikely" being the basis for their headline conclusion. Writing in Jacobin, Seth
Ackerman later offered a more detailed dissection of the
paper ("<a href="https://jacobinmag.com/2020/03/young-voters-bernie-electablility">A Study Last Week Claimed to Prove That Bernie Is Unelectable. It Turns Out the Study Is Bunk</a>."), showing its headline conclusion was built on a string of basic errors and completely unsupportable assumptions.<br />
<br />
The "Bernie Bros" narrative was a smear-campaign launched during the
2016 cycle by Hillary Clinton supporters. It wasn't original to that
campaign; it was simply a repackaging of a smear from 2008. When, that year, Barack
Obama had challenged Hillary Clinton for the Democratic presidential
nomination, the Clintonites tarred Obama's supporters as "<a href="https://www.salon.com/control/2008/04/14/obama_supporters/">Obama Boys</a>,"
attributing to them all of the same negative characteristics they'd later attribute to Sanders' supporters. Given
that one of the key claims of those pimping the "Bernie Bros" line is
that Sanders' supporters are uniquely toxic, one would think the press
commentary on it would be informed by the fact that it was really just a
recycled version of a cynical libel of supporters of an entirely different candidate from a few years earlier. Outside
left outlets who debunk the notion though, it never has been. "Bernie Bros"
is just an empty, bad-faith smear offered to try to harm Sanders and
silence his supporters, and that's all it has ever been. The Intercept's
Glenn Greenwald <a href="https://theintercept.com/2016/01/31/the-bernie-bros-narrative-a-cheap-false-campaign-tactic-masquerading-as-journalism-and-social-activism/">rather brutally dismantled</a>
it back in early 2016 and that should have been the end of the matter.
Instead, it was lovingly nurtured by the Clinton personality cult
and their Cult Queen in the years since and, of course, roared back to
life with a vengeance during the current cycle.<br />
<br />
Keith Spencer, writing in Salon, was virtually alone in seriously examining this narrative during the months covered here. "<a href="https://www.salon.com/2020/02/09/the-berniebro-myth-persists-because-pundits-dont-understand-how-the-internet-works/">Why does the 'Bernie Bro' myth persist?</a>", Spencer asked (9 Feb.). "Because pundits don't understand how the internet works." His premise: "A misunderstanding of social media is driving media elites to keep pushing an easily disprovable stereotype." On 9 March, he returned with another, even more important piece, "<a href="https://www.salon.com/2020/03/09/there-is-hard-data-that-shows-bernie-bros-are-a-myth/">There is hard data that shows 'Bernie Bros' are a myth</a>":<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Jeff Winchell, a computational social scientist and graduate student
at Harvard University, crunched the numbers on tweet data and found that
Sanders' supporters online behave the same as everyone else.
Winchell used what is called a sentiment analysis, a technique used both
in the digital humanities and in e-commerce, to gauge emotional intent
from social media data.</blockquote>
<blockquote>
"'Bernie followers act pretty much the same on Twitter as any other
follower,' Winchell says of his results. 'There is one key difference
that Twitter users and media don't seem to be aware of.... Bernie has a
lot more Twitter followers than Twitter followers of other Democrat's
campaigns,' he added, noting that this may be partly what helps
perpetuate the myth."</blockquote>
In these months, this was the only hard data on this subject but while the press was turning out anti-"Bernie Bro" stories into infinity, it was, beyond Spencer's story, largely ignored.<br />
<br />
The "electability" narrative--both overtly stated and the implication at the heart of everything else covered here--<span class="css-901oao css-16my406 r-poiln3 r-bcqeeo r-qvutc0">was simply a manifestation of an ideological preference for the more conservative candidates, not any sort of reasoned argument. </span>When it was offered--and offered and offered and offered--it was spun as self-evidently true and implanted in media consumers by mere repetition, without reference to the extensive contemporaneous data on the question, which showed that, in reality, Sanders performed as well as or better than Biden against Trump. The even more extensive polling of public opinion, extending back several years, also disproves the oft-repeated notion that Sanders' progressive agenda is toxic to voters; most of his headline policy items have the support of a majority--often an overwhelming majority--of the public. Those policies are the substance of Sanders' democratic socialism, yet polls showing public distaste for "socialism"--polls that never asked about democratic socialism--were used to make Sanders appear a risky choice, without reference to what people think of Sanders' "socialist" policies. The "electability" case is also contradicted by much of the electoral history of the last few decades. <span class="css-901oao css-16my406 r-1qd0xha r-ad9z0x r-bcqeeo r-qvutc0">Bill
Clinton won the presidency in 1992 with 43% of the vote but his embrace
of Republican priorities was toxic to Democratic enthusiasm and the
party lost ground every cycle he was in office. In 2000, near the end of
Clinton's presidency, columnist Jeff Cohen <a href="https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2000-apr-09-op-17540-story.html">noted</a> the Democratic carnage Clinton's reign had left in its wake:</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"When Clinton entered the White House [in 1993], his party dominated the
U.S. Senate, 57–43; the U.S. House, 258–176; the country’s
governorships, 30–18, and a large majority of state legislatures. Today,
Republicans control the Senate, 55–45; the House, 222–211;
governorships, 30–18, and almost half of state legislatures."</blockquote>
<span class="css-901oao css-16my406 r-1qd0xha r-ad9z0x r-bcqeeo r-qvutc0">In
2000 and 2004, Democrats backed more conservative "moderate" presidential candidates Al
Gore and John Kerry and lost. In 2008, Barack Obama won the presidency
by running as an unabashed progressive and far from being wiped out, Democrats rode his coattails to massive
wins across the U.S.. Obama's shift to the
Clintonite right, which began shortly after his election, cost the
Democratic party over 1,000 offices nationwide, reducing
it to one of its weakest points in its long history. This was capped off
by the 2016 fiasco, when choosing a
weak, Clintonite-right candidate led directly to the election of
Trump. None of these facts were allowed to make a dent in the corporate
press "electability" narrative. The need to repeat 2016 and hope for a
different outcome was treated as wisdom.</span><br />
<br />
On 10 March, when it became a major theme to portray the race as already over, 26 states--most of the U.S. (and Guam, Puerto Rico, the Northern Mariana Islands, the U.S. Virgin Islands and Washington D.C., who also participate in primaries)--had yet to vote. Biden, who was treated as the inevitable nominee in those stories had, at that time, 983 delegates--less than half of the 1,991 delegates needed to win the nomination.<br />
<br />
And so on.<br />
<br />
The bases of these narratives--the narratives that cumulatively sank Sanders' campaign and made Joe Biden the Democratic nominee--are ideological, not factual. The narratives were editorial. The decision to so relentlessly drill them into voters' heads was editorial. The refusal, during all that drilling, to interrogate them was editorial. It's <i>all</i> editorial. And the exit-polling suggests it worked.<br />
<br />
Starting with those pre-post-mortems, major news media
outlets are now constructing a history of that period, from late January
forward, that significantly downplays or, more often, entirely excludes
their own contribution to what happened. In a jaw-dropping <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/15/politics/sanders-media-nomination/index.html">article from 15 April</a>, CNN's Chris Cillizza--one of the many persistent anti-Sanders pundits--allows that "there were, without doubt, opinion
commentators at some major media outlets who wrote pieces deeply
skeptical of Sanders' chances of beating President Donald Trump," but
insists "evidence of some sort of broad-scale effort by the media to
keep
Sanders from winning? There's not much of that to be had."[11]<br />
<br />
A correction is clearly needed. I submit this article as an effort to begin that process.<br />
<br />
--j.<br />
<br />
---<br />
<br /> [1] Biden's ability to even make an argument for his greater "electability" without being laughed off the stage was, from the beginning, entirely dependent upon the press refusing to report on who he is. As this author <a href="https://extranewsfeed.com/democratically-disconnected-democrats-an-editorial-759be3e5d0b2">has written</a> in the past,<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"From abortion to desegregation to trade to criminal justice issues to
putting the screws to creditors on behalf of the financial services
industry, Biden has, at some point in his career, been on the wrong side
of nearly every major issue near and dear to the progressive base of
the Democratic party. He is, for those seeking--or desperate for--policy
substance, essentially a blank, someone who publicly disdains policy,
who, historically, blows with the wind and who, in the present campaign,
offers for policy only a string of thin, half-baked and generally very
bad ideas slapped together by his underlings that he may say he has <i>something</i> and that are clearly as much a mystery to him as to everyone else. He is a half-wit, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jan/20/joe-biden-corruption-donald-trump">profoundly corrupt</a>,
a congenital liar whose big idea for ingratiating himself with black
voters in South Carolina was to fabricate a personal history wherein he
attended an historically black college (<a href="https://thefederalist.com/2019/10/28/joe-biden-claims-he-started-out-at-a-historically-black-college-he-didnt/">he never did</a>), was involved with the civil rights movement (<a href="https://shaunking.substack.com/p/2-truths-and-31-lies-joe-biden-has">he wasn't</a>) and claim he was arrested in the '70s while trying to see the then-imprisoned Nelson Mandela in Apartheid South Africa (<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/02/25/bidens-ridiculous-claim-he-was-arrested-trying-see-mandela/">he wasn't</a>).
He has, for both his own self-advancement and for the big checks given
to him over the decades by his well-heeled donors, spent his entire
career pushing government actions that harm wide swathes of his fellow
Americans, from gleefully helping generate the mass-incarceration
epidemic to helping create the student debt crisis to pimping Bush's
Iraq war. At the moment, he's suffering what appears to be <a href="https://extranewsfeed.com/bidens-brain-on-biden-cognitive-decline-in-press-coverage-5cdd99d3b3ba">significant cognitive impairment</a>. At his worst, he can barely form coherent words, can barely marshal the words he <i>can</i>
manage into coherent sentences and doesn't even seem to know where he
is. He can talk for extended periods without it being at all clear
what he's trying to say or even what he's even talking about. He's
thin-skinned and ill-tempered; in at least half a dozen incidents in the
last few months, he's blown his top in conversations with voters,
becoming instantly dismissive of their concerns, telling them to vote
for someone else, even physically invading their space and putting hands
on them. Earlier this week, he got into a confrontation with a Detroit
auto-worker; while visiting the man's place of employment, Biden said he
was 'full of shit,' a 'horse's ass' and threatened to <span class="st">'go outside with your ass</span>.'
Democratic voters haven't even been informed of most of this.
Neither has most of the wider public. Biden's record has plenty to turn
off wide swathes of the Democratic coalition, while, in a general, he'd
be taking on an incumbent president who has the fanatical support of his
own base. His policy-free campaign that merely opposes most of the
major items in the progressive agenda leaves him without anything
Democrats can positively support. At the same time, he nullifies most of
the big weapons Democrats could use against Trump; Joe Biden certainly
isn't someone who can trash Trump as a compulsive liar, a dimwit, an
authoritarian or a hundred other things policy-related and otherwise.
His cognitive impairment could potentially convince millions of people
who would ordinarily never consider voting for Trump that Trump was the
safer, even more responsible choice."</blockquote>
The press may have sufficiently covered for Biden to make him the nominee, but when it comes to addressing all of this, Trump and the Republicans will not exercise such forbearance.<br />
<br /> [2] Even that polling was corrupted by the anti-progressive premises of
the press. Throughout the campaign, press outlets have ubiquitously
commissioned polls in
which respondents are asked if they prefer a candidate (like Sanders)
who agrees with
them on the issues or one who can beat Donald Trump, as if the two are
self-evidently irreconcilable polar opposites. This is
push-polling--"polling" aimed at generating a particular result rather
than gauging public opinion.<br />
<br /> [3] While Biden and his surrogates were, on a daily basis, hitting those notes, Sanders himself insisted on calling Biden "my friend" and <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/06/us/politics/bernie-sanders-democratic-primary.html">repeatedly</a> <a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2020/03/12/bernie_sanders_i_think_biden_can_beat_trump_but_were_the_stronger_campaign_to_do_that.html">saying</a> he thought Biden could defeat Trump. Given Trump's persistent unpopularity, it's impossible to say with 100% certainty that Biden--or <i>anyone</i>--couldn't beat him and Sanders was, in that respect, being entirely reasonable but in an election in which voters are prioritizing defeating Trump and in which his headline opponent, who presents <i>him</i> as unelectable, is, in fact, a weak candidate far less likely to accomplish that end, Sanders declined to forcefully make a case that he was a winner.<br />
<br /> [4] Stories that pushed back against this narrative were all but non-existent. Only three significant examples turned up in the research for this article one from USA Today ("<a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/02/20/bloomberg-only-looks-electable-bernie-sanders-really-is-column/4812232002/">Face Facts, Bernie Sanders Is Electable</a>"), a second from the Hill ("<a href="https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/484355-why-bernie-sanders-is-electable">Why Bernie Sanders Is Electable</a>") and a third in the New York Times ("<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/28/opinion/bernie-sanders-polls.html">Bernie Sanders Can Beat Trump. Here's the Math</a>").<br /><br /> [5] This author has addressed the libel that Sanders was responsible for Clinton's loss at some length ("<a href="https://extranewsfeed.com/setting-the-record-straight-on-sanders-voters-elected-trump-1d6876e0ce73">Setting the Record Straight on 'Sanders Voters Elected Trump!'</a>"). Given that the Clintons <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2016/11/08/how-bill-house-hillary-clinton-made-240-million-how-much-earnings-rich-white/#7c1f54587a16" href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2016/11/08/how-bill-house-hillary-clinton-made-240-million-how-much-earnings-rich-white/#7c1f54587a16" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">made $240 million</a> in 15 years and have been <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/23/hillary-clintons-extravagant-lifestyle/" href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/23/hillary-clintons-extravagant-lifestyle/" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">living fat</a> from <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="http://fortune.com/2016/02/15/hillary-clinton-net-worth-finances/" href="http://fortune.com/2016/02/15/hillary-clinton-net-worth-finances/" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">cashing in</a> on their pubic service at every opportunity (Hillary's <a href="https://money.cnn.com/2016/04/20/news/economy/hillary-clinton-goldman-sachs/">speaking-fee</a>, by 2016, was $225,000), treating Sanders as responsible for the perception of Hillary as an "elitist" is, well, you get the idea.<br />
<br /> <span class="css-901oao css-16my406 r-1qd0xha r-ad9z0x r-bcqeeo r-qvutc0">[6] All of the non-Sanders name-brand candidates went through periods in which they were heavily promoted by the press, many of them more than once. The immediate aftermath of New Hampshire wasn't Klobuchar's first. The Kamala Harris and, in particular, Beto O'Rourke campaigns were virutally press inventions. O'Rourke was practically dragged into a race he definitely didn't seem to want to enter by fawning press outlets talking him up as the next JFK. His potential candidacy was so hyped that it managed, in Dec. 2018, to spark a <i>very</i> fierce progressive-vs.-Clintonite battle, the progressives critically examining O'Rourke's record, the Clintonites raging against them. When he threw his hat into the ring though, the press just seemed to lose interest in him and he never gained any traction. Corporate press outlets have tried to make Harris a thing since 2017 and were still hyping her as a top contender until Dec., when she dropped out two months before a single contest, by then in 7th place and <a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.html">averaging</a> 3.4% support. This writer covered all of this, plus the negative reaction to Sanders' entrance into the race and a lot more in <a href="https://corporatenewsreviews.blogspot.com/2019/02/stupid-press-tricks-1.html">a pair</a> <a href="https://extranewsfeed.com/stupid-press-tricks-2-chillin-the-bern-5d981df4d92">of articles</a> last year.</span><br /><br /> [7] In "Shattered," Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes--two journalists sympathetic to Hillary Clinton--write about what became the origin of the Russia hysteria in the years that followed:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"In other calls with advisers and political surrogates in the days after the election, Hillary declined to take responsibility for her own loss. 'She’s not being particularly self-reflective,' said one longtime ally who was on calls with her shortly after the election. Instead, Hillary kept pointing her finger at Comey and Russia. 'She wants to make sure all these narratives get spun the right way,' this person said."</blockquote>
Clinton's communications team assembled within hours of her concession to Trump to cook up the spin they'd put on the election outcome. The "centerpiece" of their everyone's-fault-but-hers narrative was Russian interference.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Hillary wasn't in the room that day. But in private conversations with top aides in the immediate days following her loss, she struggled with the question of why Obama hadn't done more to apprise the public that the Russians had gone way beyond what had been reported. She wondered why the president hadn't leaned harder into making the case that Vladimir Putin was specifically targeting her and trying to throw the election to Trump."</blockquote> [8] Some press outlets--and many Dem Establishment demagogues--chose to focus on Biden's win among black voters in the state, wallowing in the traditional Clintonite-right slanders about Sanders' base of support being mostly white and pretending as if non-white voters in conservative South Carolina were representative of non-white voters everywhere, but, in a fact, Sanders had, by then, <a href="https://morningconsult.com/2020/02/28/bernie-sanders-polling-black-voters/">taken the lead</a> among black voters nationally, something the press treatment of South Carolina then Super Tuesday would quickly reverse.<br />
<br /> [9] Though taking a <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/470757-obama-cautions-2020-hopefuls-against-going-too-far-left">passive-aggressive swipe</a>
at Sanders back in November, former president Obama had publicly
maintained neutrality in the Democratic contest, saying he'd endorse and
work to elect whomever the party nominated. Privately, though, he <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/472090-obama-privately-said-he-would-speak-up-to-stop-sanders-report">reportedly said</a>
that if it looked like Sanders was going to win, he'd step in and stop
it. At some point, Obama began working behind the scenes on Biden's
behalf. The dimensions of this, <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/looking-obama-s-hidden-hand-candidate-coalescing-around-biden-n1147471">as</a> <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/01/us/politics/pete-buttigieg-drops-out.html">reported</a>, are sketchy.
After South Carolina, Obama called Biden, Biden called Buttigieg and
asked for his endorsement, Obama then called Buttigieg to advise the
former mayor on the matter. There's probably plenty more, and we may
never know all of it. In April, the New York Times <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/14/us/politics/obama-biden-democratic-primary.html">reported</a> that Obama had been "considerably more engaged" in bringing the primaries to a close than was publicly known, and ran through some details, including the fact that Obama had repeatedly called Sanders toward the end and tried to push him out of the race.<br /><br />[10] This author wrote an article in March--referenced a few times already--that covers this phenomenon and considered its implications, "<a href="https://extranewsfeed.com/democratically-disconnected-democrats-an-editorial-759be3e5d0b2">Democratically Disconnected Democrats: An Editorial</a>." Data developed after that article further bolsters this case. At the end of March, ABC News released <a href="https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/biden-consolidates-support-trails-badly-enthusiasm-poll/story">a poll showing that</a> "strong enthusiasm for Biden among his
supporters--at just
24%--is the lowest on record for a Democratic presidential candidate in
20
years of ABC/Post polls. More than twice as many of Trump's supporters
were highly enthusiastic about supporting him, 53%." A larger slice of
Biden's supporters--26%--say they have no real enthusiasm at all for him than
say they are very enthusiastic about him. This is worse than even Hillary Clinton, whose enthusiasm low-point was 32% very enthusiastic. The only candidates whose numbers have matched or been worse than Biden's were Republicans, all of whom went on to lose in the general election. Even after much of the press spent the month of March declaring the Democratic contest at an end and Biden the candidate, <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/490519-just-over-half-of-biden-supporters-say-their-minds-are-made-up-poll">the Hill reported</a> in early April:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"A Grinnell College national poll released Wednesday morning showed
that 55 percent of likely voters who said they would back Biden say
their minds are made up, while 43 percent said they could be persuaded
to support a different candidate."</blockquote>
On 10 April, two days after Sanders exited the race, <a href="https://nypost.com/2020/04/10/democrats-want-to-drop-joe-biden-for-andrew-cuomo-poll-finds/">another new poll</a> found that, even with Biden as the nominee, most Democrats preferred to dump him in favor of the unspeakably corrupt governor of New York:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"A majority of Democrats want to nominate New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo
for president instead of Joe Biden, according to poll results shared
exclusively with The Post.<br />
<br />
"The national poll found 56 percent of Democrats prefer Cuomo, with 44
percent wanting to stick with presumptive nominee Biden--a 12-point
margin well outside the 4.8 percent margin of error for the Democratic
sample."</blockquote>
And so on. From all appearances, Biden won because people were convinced to vote for a lackluster candidate a lot of them didn't really want because they were told--and told and told and told--that other people <i>will</i> want him. Doesn't exactly sound like a recipe for success in a general election.<br />
<br />
[11] Biden barely even had a campaign by Super Tuesday but Cillizza also writes that "by blaming
the media for his defeat, Sanders takes credit away from the remarkable
comeback that Joe Biden, the presumptive nominee, who he formally
endorsed just this week, engineered."</div>cinemarchaeologisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13507603255666191405noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6321344375544728027.post-80154337502626851182020-03-06T22:08:00.002-08:002023-10-18T18:20:18.026-07:00Biden's Brain On Biden: Cognitive Decline In Press CoverageBack in August, Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden appeared at Living History Farms in Urbandale, Iowa and reminisced about "when Bobby Kennedy and Dr. King had been assassinated in the '70s, late seventies." King and Kennedy had been in the ground for a decade by the late '70s and as stupid things Joe Biden says go, this was a very minor example but I made note of something that, at the time, was becoming as much of a pattern as those stupidities. On Facebook, I <a href="https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=435734563694817&id=417321995536074&__tn__=-R">wrote</a><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"This happened on Tuesday but playing with Google a bit, the story has
been covered by Fox News, the Washington Free Beacon, the Washington
Examiner, the Daily Caller, Breitbart, the Western Journalism
Center--all hard-right outlets that would be expected to hype any bad
news about some Democrat. From my Google searches, which used keywords
then the exact Biden quote, it looks like almost no one else has covered
it."</blockquote>
A <a href="https://www.mediaite.com/news/joe-biden-misspeaks-says-bobby-kennedy-and-mlk-were-assassinated-in-the-seventies/?fbclid=IwAR0pLlo7tS5fHfYYy3u_MBByyavMtS65JLNnkoOlxmgKX6XzShmo16SWLQk">Mediaite article</a> was the only coverage I found from a non-hard-right outlet.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"This isn't a new phenomenon. The same thing initially
happened when Biden recently described having given a speech in
Burlington, Vermont when, in fact, he'd given it only a few days earlier
in Burlington, Iowa. The corporate press is covering for Biden... The press does the public a grave
disservice when it behaves in this way. But that, which is really obvious, doesn't even begin to cover this problem of multinationals manipulating public opinion."</blockquote>
The evidence that Biden has suffered serious cognitive impairment has been quite abundant since he entered the presidential race last year. In a <a href="http://stuffdept.blogspot.com/2019/08/give-me-break-sad-sorry-spectacle-of.html">lengthy article</a> in August about Biden's history, I described him as "a real mess--confused, forgetful,
stumbling over words and slurring them like a drunk, displaying lots of
arrogance and bluster but no command of basic facts, including those
regarding 'his' proposals, which are clearly as much a mystery to him as
to everyone else..." The January introduction to the <a href="https://extranewsfeed.com/give-me-a-break-the-sad-sorry-spectacle-of-joe-biden-de866498eac9">Extra Newsfeed version</a> of that article focused on only a few weeks of Biden's constant blunders. By no means comprehensive even within its limited timeframe, it ran long enough that it was almost an article unto itself. Biden can sometimes appear relatively lucid when tightly scripted and well-rehearsed but get him speaking off the top of his head and he loses names, events, can't correctly remember even relatively recent things. At his worst--which, disturbingly, is where one finds him as often as not--he can barely form coherent words, can barely marshal the words he <i>can</i> manage into coherent sentences and doesn't even seem to know where he is; he can talk for minutes at a time without it being at all clear
what he's trying to say or what he's even talking about. His habit in recent months of trying to speak at a faster clip and often yelling--a poor effort to simulate Bernie Sanders' passionate delivery--have made it even worse.<br />
<br />
Compounding this further still is the fact that Biden, even back when he was firing on all cylinders, was both an imbecile and an inveterate liar, in the habit of regularly saying mindnumbingly stupid things and fond of concocting elaborate, dramatic--or melodramatic--fictions, often casting himself in an heroic or visionary role. For example, right-wing writer Byron York was only exaggerating a little when he wrote in February that Biden has, throughout the campaign, "tried to take credit for virtually every other candidates' initiatives,
which he claimed to have accomplished himself at some distant point
during his 40-plus year career in government." Sometimes, it's hard to know which of these dynamics are in play or to what extent.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhHaSKDVv17Pmu42-QjX7-r0xvi2K7c8eByNS-RKoWK_glE0VhXJazIuGRkfxc7BCE3REnAE7EkURneetuxC9r1Drj7db9RDBpF2YKky55c-aABA5uldv3eDgpPRQzXl8Q1tdlmSdsxIw/s1600/biden_brainfry.PNG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="593" data-original-width="900" height="420" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhHaSKDVv17Pmu42-QjX7-r0xvi2K7c8eByNS-RKoWK_glE0VhXJazIuGRkfxc7BCE3REnAE7EkURneetuxC9r1Drj7db9RDBpF2YKky55c-aABA5uldv3eDgpPRQzXl8Q1tdlmSdsxIw/s640/biden_brainfry.PNG" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
The corporate press has reacted to all of this in a few ways. The first and most common is to simply ignore it. Biden says these things and most of them either aren't covered at all or receive so little coverage they may as well not have even been mentioned. The next is occasionally covering them but presenting them as merely "gaffes," like some perhaps charming
personality quirk rather than a sign of a serious problem. Still another, a subset of that last, is going "horserace" on this, presenting Biden "gaffes" as something that is only of concern in that it could potentially hinder Biden's efforts to defeat Trump. Sometimes, press figures concede there may be a problem but, in the end, make nothing of it--the thought just comes, goes and is gone. Perhaps the most disturbing press reaction has involved attacking those who raise questions about Biden's cognitive abilities. That isn't just covering for Biden; that's actively trying to suppress discussion of the matter. This isn't a story of anecdotes about Biden fumbles though; there's an ongoing narrative in this, Biden's apparently significant cognitive decline. That would be a major recurring theme in any responsible press coverage of Biden's campaign, the thing that, if treated seriously, would overwhelm everything else. Something on which Democrats, Republicans, third-party supporters, liberals conservatives, radicals, reactionaries, even people completely indifferent to politics--<i>everyone</i>--can agree is that "President of the United States" isn't a job for a congenitally dishonest half-wit with a broken brain. Yet that ongoing narrative, looking at this as a serious matter, is completely absent from the corporate press. It hasn't appeared in a single major outlet.<br />
<br />
On 24 February, only days before the South Carolina primary, Biden appeared at the Democratic party's First in the South Dinner and boldly declared<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span class="css-901oao css-16my406 r-1qd0xha r-ad9z0x r-bcqeeo r-qvutc0">"My name is Joe Biden. I'm a Democratic candidate for the United States Senate! Look me over. If you like what you see, help out. If not, vote for the other Biden! Give me a look tough."</span></blockquote>
<span class="css-901oao css-16my406 r-1qd0xha r-ad9z0x r-bcqeeo r-qvutc0">This is the sort of thing that could end a campaign, particularly coming after nearly a year of constant comments like that from Biden, but the press hasn't told the public that story and it didn't tell the public this one either. A Google search for the quote turns up articles in a wide range of noxious right-wing outlets--</span><span class="css-901oao css-16my406 r-1qd0xha r-ad9z0x r-bcqeeo r-qvutc0">the <a href="https://nypost.com/2020/02/25/joe-biden-says-hes-a-candidate-for-us-senate-in-latest-gaffe/">New York Post</a>, the <a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/watch-joe-biden-says-hes-a-candidate-for-united-states-senate">Washington Examiner</a>, <a href="https://hannity.com/media-room/biden-in-carolina-my-name-is-joe-biden-im-a-democratic-candidate-for-the-united-states-senate/">Sean Hannity's site</a>, <a href="https://thefederalist.com/2020/02/25/joe-biden-says-hes-running-for-the-senate-dont-like-me-vote-for-the-other-biden/">the Federalist</a>, <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/joe-biden-might-need-same-cognitive-test-that-trump-aced-former-wh-doctor-ronny-jackson-says">Fox News</a>, the <a href="https://dailycaller.com/2020/02/25/joe-biden-tells-crowd-candidate-united-states-senate/">Daily Caller</a>, <a href="https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/02/25/brain-freeze-joe-biden-says-hes-candidate-for-the-united-states-senate/">Breitbart</a>, etc.--but the "mainstream" press mostly just sat on it. As usual.[1] Biden the "candidate for the United States Senate," went on to win the South Carolina primary on Saturday.</span><br />
<br />
<span class="css-901oao css-16my406 r-1qd0xha r-ad9z0x r-bcqeeo r-qvutc0">In the course of his victory speech, Biden
was trying to promote the state's Democratic U.S. Senate candidate and <a href="https://www.theamericanmirror.com/2020/02/biden-confusion-calls-senate-candidate-next-president/">said</a>, "Folks, now we need to stand behind Jaime Harrison, the next President of the United--," then caught himself and fell back to "next senator." At the <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/full-transcript-democratic-debate-houston-n1053926">Democratic debate</a> in Houston in September, Biden referred to his rival Sen. Bernie Sanders as "the president." In that same debate, he declared, </span>"I'm the Vice President of the United States." Mike Pence is still laughing over that one.[2] In the <a href="https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/november-democratic-debate-transcript-atlanta-debate-transcript">November Democratic debate</a>, Biden <a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/joe-biden-calls-cory-booker-president-and-future-president">referred to</a> Cory Booker as "the president, excuse me, the future president" before settling on "the senator."<br />
<span class="css-901oao css-16my406 r-1qd0xha r-ad9z0x r-bcqeeo r-qvutc0"><br /></span>
<span class="css-901oao css-16my406 r-1qd0xha r-ad9z0x r-bcqeeo r-qvutc0">At that September debate--5 months into the campaign--Biden forgot the names of both Elizabeth Warren and Pete Buttigieg, then two of his major rivals. In October in South Carolina, Biden <a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/joe-biden-mistakenly-refers-to-julian-castro-as-cisneros">renamed</a> rival Julian Castro:</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span class="css-901oao css-16my406 r-1qd0xha r-ad9z0x r-bcqeeo r-qvutc0">"...even though that I’m the only campaign that I’m aware of--maybe, maybe
Cisneros's campaign is doing it, I’m not sur--but, um, or Castro's
campaign is doing it... The, um, fact is that we have reached out
extensively into the African-- excuse me, into the Hispanic community
and the Latino community over my entire career."</span></blockquote>
<span class="css-901oao css-16my406 r-1qd0xha r-ad9z0x r-bcqeeo r-qvutc0">Last Spring, Biden <a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/biden-mixes-up-british-pm-theresa-may-with-margaret-thatcher-who-left-office-in-1990">referred to</a> </span><span class="css-901oao css-16my406 r-1qd0xha r-ad9z0x r-bcqeeo r-qvutc0">British Prime Minister Theresa May as "Margaret Thatcher." Thatcher hasn't been the Prime Minister for 30 years and hadn't been alive for over six. In August, he was talking about how European leaders had spoken out against Donald Trump's comments that there were "very fine people" participating in a neo-Nazi parade in Virginia and <a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/mix-up-biden-confuses-theresa-may-with-margaret-thatcher-for-second-time">named Thatcher</a> as doing so.[3] In September, he <a href="https://www.inquisitr.com/5620932/biden-trump-freudian-slip/">referred to</a> Donald Trump as "Donald Hump." The day after his South Carolina victory, he appeared on Fox News and, in an interview in which he mocked Donald Trump's assertion that he was senile, he <a href="https://freebeacon.com/politics/biden-calls-interviewer-wrong-name-after-mocking-trumps-sleepy-nickname-for-him/">referred to</a> interviewer Chris Wallace as "Chuck," an apparent reference to Meet the Press host Chuck Todd. On 24 February, Biden was <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-says-he-negotiated-climate-deal-with-long-dead-chinese-leader-deng-xiaoping">telling</a> an audience at the College of Charleston in South Carolina about his role in helping negotiate the Paris Climate Agreement:</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span class="css-901oao css-16my406 r-1qd0xha r-ad9z0x r-bcqeeo r-qvutc0">"One of the things I'm proudest of is getting passed, getting moved, get- getting control of the Paris Climate Accord. I'm the guy that came back after meeting with Deng Xiaoping and making
the case that I believe China would join if we put pressure on them."</span></blockquote>
<span class="css-901oao css-16my406 r-1qd0xha r-ad9z0x r-bcqeeo r-qvutc0">The Paris Agreement was drafted in 2015; </span><span class="css-901oao css-16my406 r-1qd0xha r-ad9z0x r-bcqeeo r-qvutc0">Deng Xiaoping retired as the Chinese head of state in 1992 and had been dead for nearly 20 years by the time of the Paris Agreement.[4] Biden has made Obama nostalgia the major selling-point of his campaign but in an appearance in August, he <a href="https://video.foxnews.com/v/6079949740001">forgot</a> even Obama's name.</span><br />
<br />
At a Monday rally in Houston on the verge of Super Tuesday, Biden <a href="https://www.mediaite.com/politics/watch-biden-makes-two-hilarious-wtf-gaffes-in-the-very-first-speech-after-dems-fall-in-line-behind-him/">said</a>, "Look, tomorrow's Super Thurs... Tuesday." He also began to quote the Declaration of Independence and forgot the words.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"We hold these truths to be self-evident. All men and women created by the, y'know, you know the thing."</blockquote>
While the press ignored this, Twitter <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/media/twitter-suspends-jordan-chariton-biden">suspended</a> progressive journalist Jordan Chariton's account for accurately quoting Biden's "Super Thursday" line, asserting that Chariton had violated Twitter's rules by posting "false information about voting or registering to vote." Chariton's suspension, which was lifted after a furor by Twitter users, didn't make any big headlines either.<br />
<br />
Early August saw two mass shootings in the U.S.. A day after the 2nd one, Biden was speaking at one of his endless fundraisers--this one in San Diego--and <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/456160-biden-misstates-location-of-mass-shootings-before-correcting-himself">referred to</a> "the tragic events in Houston today and also in Michigan the day before." But the shootings happened in El Paso, Texas and Dayton, Ohio. Biden <a class="bf cn hp hq hr hs" href="https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/11/politics/joe-biden-parkland-victims/index.html" rel="noopener" target="_blank">described</a>
how the survivors of the Parkland massacre had come to see him when he
was Vice President but that shooting happened over a year after Biden
had left office. <span class="css-901oao css-16my406 r-1qd0xha r-ad9z0x r-bcqeeo r-qvutc0">At the Democrats' South Carolina debate last week, Biden
attempted to attack Bernie Sanders on the question of gun control. This
is <a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/despite-another-big-gaffe-biden-survives-debate-with-no-winners">what came out</a>:</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"One hundred and fifty million people have been killed since 2007, when
Bernie voted to exempt the gun manufacturers from liability. More than
all the wars, including Vietnam, from that point on."</blockquote>
<span class="css-901oao css-16my406 r-1qd0xha r-ad9z0x r-bcqeeo r-qvutc0">That would be nearly half the population of the United States. No one corrected him.</span><br />
<br />
<span class="css-901oao css-16my406 r-1qd0xha r-ad9z0x r-bcqeeo r-qvutc0">In August, Biden <a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/biden-says-40-were-shot-at-kent-state-in-1970-when-four-students-were-killed">recalled</a> the 1970 Kent State massacre: "</span>You had over 40 kids shot at Kent State on a beautiful lawn by the National Guard." Only 13 kids were shot at Kent State. <span class="css-901oao css-16my406 r-1qd0xha r-ad9z0x r-bcqeeo r-qvutc0">At the Worker's Presidential Summit in Philadelphia in September, Biden <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-gaffe-put-720-million-women-in-workforce">said</a>:</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"You get a tax break for a racehorse, why in God's name couldn't we
provide an $8,000 tax credit for everybody who has childcare costs? It would put 720 million women back in the
workforce."</blockquote>
There <a href="https://www.statista.com/statistics/737923/us-population-by-gender/">are only</a> 165.92 million women in the United States and only 327 million people.<br />
<br />
<div class="gx gy bx ar gz b ha hb hc hd he hf hg hh hi hj hk ew" id="d501">
Biden opposes the Medicare For All healthcare plan and has, in fact, employed the same rhetoric against it as Donald Trump but during the September debate, Biden described "his" healthcare plan: "[T]he option I’m proposing is Medicare For All"
before catching and correcting himself and retreating to "Medicare For
Choice." This is how he described it:</div>
<blockquote class="hl hm hn">
<div class="gx gy bx ho gz b ha hb hc hd he hf hg hh hi hj hk ew" id="7f94">
<span class="ar">"If
you want Medicare, if you lose the job from your insurance-- from your
employer, you automatically can buy into this. You don't have-- no
pre-existing condition can stop you from buying in. You get covered,
period."</span></div>
</blockquote>
<div class="gx gy bx ar gz b ha hb hc hd he hf hg hh hi hj hk ew" id="65f6">
Minutes
later, Julian Castro noted that his own plan doesn’t require a buy-in
and contrasted this unfavorably with Biden's, at which point the former
Vice President insisted the Biden plan, contrary to his own clear words
only minutes earlier, didn't require a buy-in either. It led to a testy
exchange in which Castro challenged, "Are you forgetting what you said
two minutes ago?"<br />
<br />
The
allusion to Biden’s obviously impaired cognitive state brought gasps
from the audience. In a gruesome twist, it also netted Castro a few days of negative press. Former Clintonite-right Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel immediately declared Castro "mean and vindictive" and his comments "disqualifying." Democratic contender Amy Klobuchar wagged her finger at Castro on CNN:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="gx gy bx ar gz b ha hb hc hd he hf hg hh hi hj hk ew" id="99e7">
"I just thought this was not cool. I thought that was so personal and so unnecessary."</div>
</blockquote>
<div class="gx gy bx ar gz b ha hb hc hd he hf hg hh hi hj hk ew" id="99e7">
Former Michigan governor Jennifer Granholm, also appearing on CNN, called Castro's comments "a low blow." It gets worse. Though Castro was entirely correct about what Biden had said, the press began insisting he'd been wrong. Politifact ran a story that confirmed Biden's plan was an "opt-in" plan, completely ignored the fact that Biden had repeatedly said people had to "buy in" to it (even while quoting Biden as doing so) and ruled Castro's comments "<a href="https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2019/sep/13/julian-castro/julian-castro-attack-joe-bidens-health-plan-falls-/">Mostly False</a>." Along similar lines, USA Today said, "<a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2019/09/12/democratic-debate-julian-castro-makes-jab-joe-bidens-memory/2306860001/">Castro Appears To Misrepresent Biden's Health Care Plan During Debate</a>." The Washington Post's Jennifer Rubin <a href="https://twitter.com/JRubinBlogger/status/1172333229254135808">tweeted</a> that "Castro was wrong AND nasty." The Post ran an analysis similar to that of Politifact wherein Amber Phillips <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/09/13/castro-goes-there-joe-bidens-age-are-you-forgetting-what-you-said-two-minutes-ago/">noted</a> that Biden had said his plan required a buy-in but trashed Castro anyway because at a different point in the debate, Biden had said people who qualified for his plan would be automatically enrolled in it.</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="gx gy bx ar gz b ha hb hc hd he hf hg hh hi hj hk ew" id="99e7">
"Biden didn’t actually forget anything... Castro might take issue with the fact some people do have to buy in.
(Biden said earlier that if you lose your job and need new insurance,
you could buy in to this.) But he was incorrect that Biden forgot
something about his own plan. It was Castro who forgot what Biden said."</div>
</blockquote>
If Phillips thought the fact that Biden had offered contradictory explanations of his own plan raised some legitimate questions, she didn't bother to share it with her readers.<br />
<br />
Biden's cognitive abilities had become a whale in the room by this point. The message from the press treatment of Castro was, "Don't even talk about it. Or else."<br />
<br />
In August, Biden recalled making a speech a few days earlier in Vermont, when he'd <a class="bf cn hp hq hr hs" href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/biden-confuses-burlington-iowa-with-burlington-vermont" rel="noopener" target="_blank">actually</a> made the speech in question in Iowa. Ten days later, Biden was in Keene, New Hampshire <a href="https://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/news/2019/08/26/joe-biden-keeps-thinking-hes-vermont/2118505001/">and said</a>, "I love this place. Look, what’s not to like about Vermont in terms of the beauty of it?" In his speech in the aftermath of the New Hampshire primary, Biden <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/482691-biden-we-need-to-hear-from-nevada-and-south-carolina-in-democratic-primary">said</a>, "It is important that Iowa and Nevada have spoken," but it was New Hampshire that had just "spoken." The Nevada caucus was still several days away. Biden continued with, "But look, we need to
hear from Nevada and South Carolina and Super Tuesday and beyond."<br />
<br />
This is Biden from the November debate <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/biden-said-we-need-to-keep-punching-at-domestic-violence-2019-11">talking about</a> violence against women:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"No man has a right to raise a hand to a woman in anger... So we have to
just change the culture, period, and keep punching at it and punching
it and punching at it."</blockquote>
That's not from a Saturday Night Live skit, though it did get some uncomfortable laughs. Biden didn't even seem to realize he'd said anything inappropriate.<br />
<br />
At that same debate, Biden was asked how he would get intransigent Republicans to work with him and replied,<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"[L]ook, the next President of the United States is going to have to do two things. Defeat Donald Trump, that’s number one."</blockquote>
This echoed an answer Biden had given in the June debate, when Chuck Todd has asked the candidates what would be the first issue they pushed if elected; Biden replied, "the first thing I would do is make sure that we defeat Donald Trump." Presumably, Biden plans to win the presidency then, some time after the inauguration, drag Trump into some alley and beat him up.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiLQ3-33hyjQVyVAMW5qu4MIblzuo3ru1H1cB183RhZ3XXx7cCo_SUMt1oBzs_-kUW20erLVZeWYIssKc-3PtsKftNTm6B_W7mK6CWSSzGa_5olWoZnTf1-uZzrhYHe1zw-dvB8Wi3iwg/s1600/008j.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="1316" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiLQ3-33hyjQVyVAMW5qu4MIblzuo3ru1H1cB183RhZ3XXx7cCo_SUMt1oBzs_-kUW20erLVZeWYIssKc-3PtsKftNTm6B_W7mK6CWSSzGa_5olWoZnTf1-uZzrhYHe1zw-dvB8Wi3iwg/s640/008j.JPG" width="524" /></a></div>
<br />
In a CNN interview in July, Biden offered <a href="https://pjmedia.com/trending/biden-claims-no-russian-election-interference-under-my-watch/">some comments</a> on Russian interference in elections:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Look at what's happening with
Putin. While he-- while Putin is trying to undo our elections, he <i>is</i> undoing elections
in-- in Europe. Look at what's happened in Hungary; look what's happened
in Poland; look what's happened to Moldova. Look what's happening.
You think that would have happened under my watch or Barack’s watch? You can’t answer that but I promise you it wouldn't have and it didn't."</blockquote>
Does it really need to be pointed out that any Russian interference that happened in the 2016 presidential race in the U.S.--the interference over which Clintonite-right figures like Biden spent years publicly obsessing--happened entirely under the Obama/Biden administration?<br />
<br />
When speaking without a strict script, Biden veers from unfocused, inarticulate, contradictory and chronically dishonest to outright bizarre, ludicrous and almost entirely incomprehensible. Grabien put together <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRrBZzShTus">a series</a> of quick clips of Biden from the January debate that helps illustrate what a chore it can be to even listen to him. In December, the New York Times <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/30/us/politics/joe-biden-debate-gaffes.html">reported</a> of Biden,<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"He takes circuitous routes to the ends of sentences, if he finishes them
at all. He sometimes says the opposite of what he means ('I would
eliminate the capital gains tax--I would raise the capital gains tax'
he said in this month’s debate). He has mixed up countries, cities and
dates, embarked on off-message asides and sometimes he simply cuts
himself off."</blockquote>
The Times presents this as merely a "style" of speaking and as something that could hinder Biden's campaign, instead of really glaring signs of an obvious problem.[5] And it's quite a problem. Biden doesn't just make the occasional hash of things. He can--and regularly does--ramble on for extended periods without ever making any clear point about the subject on which he theoretically began to speak. Or about any other. For all of Biden's many preexisting faults, this is something that has only emerged during the presidential campaign. Watching video of him from only 6 years ago, when he used clear words to speak in complete sentences, offered complete thoughts in ordinary tones, makes for a remarkable contrast.[6]<br />
<br />
Most experienced politicians know what to do when confronted with a skeptical but non-hostile voter. Be friendly, address their concerns as best you can, tell them you hope you can win their vote and wish them well. When, during the present presidential campaign, Biden deals meets such voters, he becomes standoffish, belligerent, dismissive, blowing off their concerns and telling them to vote for someone else, sometimes putting his hands on them in an aggressive manner. During a November appearance by Biden in South Carolina, a member of an immigrant support network, <a href="https://www.inquirer.com/politics/election/joe-biden-protester-carlos-rojas-20191125.html">asked</a> Biden a question of suspending deportations of undocumented immigrants; Biden shot back, Well, you should vote for Trump. You should vote for Trump." As a December event in Iowa, a voter <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/dec/05/joe-biden-iowa-voter-fat">questioned</a> Biden's age and about the propriety of his son Hunter's work in Ukraine. Biden exploded. "You're a damn liar, man." Biden called the fellow old and fat and challenged him to both a push-up contest, a running contest and an IQ test. When video of the incident emerged, it managed to get some negative press. The Biden campaign later denied Biden had called the fellow "fat"--though it was clear from the video Biden did that very thing--and claimed he had said "facts" (he hadn't). That same month, Biden was asked by an environmental activist about one of his climate policy advisers, who has taken millions from the fossil fuel industry. Biden's <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3dqR9oQ9pE">response</a> (grabbing the man's shoulders and getting in his face): "If you looked at my record and you still doubt about my commitment, then you should vote for somebody else." In Des Moines in January, Biden became angry with a man who had some questions about environmental policy; Biden poked his finger in the man's chest, grabbed the man by the jacket, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HHqcr43qr0">told him</a> "you have to go vote for someone else."<br />
<br />
After the December "fat" confrontation, Biden adviser Symone Sanders tried to put a <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2019/12/22/symone-sanders-bernie-to-biden-088264">positive spin</a> on it:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"If anybody's wondering if Joe Biden can take on Donald Trump and is ready for a fight, I'd point you to the video in Iowa."</blockquote>
Yes, a thin-skinned candidate is definitely who should take on Trump, an opponent who will never mock or rib him. And Biden is so thoughtful, articulate and well-spoken, it's clear those who argue Trump would chop him up for dog-food on a debate stage are just a bunch of silly-billys.<br />
<br />
Biden's efforts to ingratiate himself with black voters have taken cynicism to an all-new level, even for American politics, but like everything else, they've also raised serious questions about his cognitive abilities.<br />
<br />
Biden staked his presidential campaign on a big win in South Carolina, where the population is disproportionately elderly, conservative and black. On 28 February, Biden <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/media/joe-biden-baffles-with-promise-to-appoint-first-african-american-woman-to-u-s-senate">told</a> a crowd of supporters in the state that "I'm looking forward to
appointing the first African-American woman to the United States
Senate!" Presidents don't appoint senators though, and two black women have already served in the body anyway. At the November debate, Biden bragged about his black support. "I have more people supporting me in the black community that have
vouched for me because they know who I am... The only blafrican-American [sic]
woman who's ever been elected to the United States Senate." Kamala Harris, a black woman elected to the Senate who had, by then, been running against Biden for 7 months, who certainly hadn't endorsed him and who was, in fact, standing on the same stage as he, was amused.<br />
<br />
At an October townhall event in South Carolina, Biden <a href="https://thefederalist.com/2019/10/28/joe-biden-claims-he-started-out-at-a-historically-black-college-he-didnt/">told</a> a crowd of black students that he attended an historically black college.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"I got started out at an HBCU, Delaware State. Now I don’t want to hear
anything negative about Delaware State here. They’re my folks."</blockquote>
Biden never attended Delaware State.<br />
<br />
On 11 February, he told another South Carolina crowd that in the 1970s, he "had the great honor of being arrested with our U.N. ambassador" in apartheid South Africa while trying to get to see the imprisoned Nelson Mandela. Five days later, Biden told another crowd,<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"After [Mandela] got free and became president [of South Africa], he came to Washington and came to my office. He threw his arms around me and said, 'I want to say thank you.' I said, 'What are you thanking me for, Mr. President?' He said: 'You tried to see me. You got arrested trying to see me.'"</blockquote>
Every part of this story turned out to be a lie. Biden had never been arrested. Andrew Young, the then-Ambassador to South Africa, said it never happened. Soweto, where Biden claimed he was arrested, is nearly 900 miles from Robben Island, where Mandela was held. Biden had never mentioned any such arrest in any of his recollections of that trip. By the end of February, Biden had admitted it never happened but claimed he was referring to an incident in Lesotho in which<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"They had me get off a plane--the Afrikaners got on in the short pants
and their guns. Lead me off first and moved me in a direction totally
different. I turned around and everybody, the entire black delegation,
was going another way. I said, 'I'm not going to go in that door that
says white only. I’m going with them.' They said, 'You're not, you can't
move, you can't go with them.' And they kept me there until finally I
decided that it was clear I wasn’t going to move."</blockquote>
The Washington Post contacted Don Bonker, who had, at the time, been a congressman who was with Biden on the trip in question. Bonker says he "strongly supports" Biden's current presidential race but he also refuted this new claim, saying "We had no problem with airports at any of the countries we visited." Lesotho is an independent nation and wasn't an apartheid state. Even the Post's Clintonite-right "fact-checker" Glenn Kessler <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/02/25/bidens-ridiculous-claim-he-was-arrested-trying-see-mandela/">had to concede</a> Biden's claims were "ridiculous."<br />
<br />
A fact that was sent down the media Memory Hole decades ago was that, for many years, Biden <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/03/us/politics/biden-1988-presidential-campaign.html">falsely claimed</a> to have been an activist involved in the civil rights movement.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"'When I marched in the civil rights movement, I did not march with a
12-point program,' Mr. Biden thundered, testing his presidential message
in February 1987 before a New Hampshire audience. 'I marched with tens
of thousands of others to change attitudes. And we changed attitudes.'<br />
<br />
"More than once, advisers had gently reminded Mr. Biden of the problem
with this formulation: He had not actually marched during the civil
rights movement. And more than once, Mr. Biden assured them he
understood--and kept telling the story anyway."</blockquote>
This blew up in his face during his first presidential campaign that year, when it was revealed he'd been plagiarizing speeches for years, lifting dramatic biographical details from the lives of others and presenting them as his own, lying about his poor, sometimes scandalous academic record and <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/1987/09/18/us/biden-admits-plagiarism-in-school-but-says-it-was-not-malevolent.html">he admitted</a> he'd had no involvement at all in civil rights.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="css-exrw3m evys1bk0">
"''During the 60's, I was, in fact, very
concerned about the civil rights movement,' he said. But at another
point he said, 'I was not an activist,' adding:</div>
<div class="css-exrw3m evys1bk0">
<br /></div>
<div class="css-exrw3m evys1bk0">
"'I
worked at an all-black swimming pool in the east side of Wilmington,
Del. I was involved in what they were thinking, what they were feeling.
But I was not out marching. I was not down in not out marching. I was
not down in Selma. I was not anywhere else. I was a suburbanite kid who
got a dose of exposure to what was happening to black Americans.'"</div>
</blockquote>
Biden's first campaign ended in scandal over these issues. Fast-forward to 2014: Biden gives a speech to a King Day breakfast for the National Action Network and revives his old lies, presenting himself as a civil rights activist again, telling tales he'd never told in his life:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"I got involved in desegregating movie theaters and helping, you may
remember, Reverend Moyer in Delaware and Herman Holloway, organized
voter registration drives--coming out of Black churches on Sunday--figuring how we were going to move."</blockquote>
Fast-forward again to December 2019: Biden is embroiled in a primary battle against Bernie Sanders, who actually did participate in the civil rights struggle. This was probably regarded as problematic, particularly given the fact that Biden spent much of the 1970s as a segregationist, a fact his rival Kamala Harris <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/31/us/politics/kamala-harris-biden-busing.html">publicly noted</a> in July, and his decades pushing for right-wing "tough on crime" policies that devastated communities of color. Not a good look for someone trying to enlist communities of color to support his candidacy. Whatever the thinking, Biden revived this nonsense, claiming he'd become a part of the civil rights movement when he was 17 and telling tales of having gotten up for early Mass then going to a black church to discuss what kind of anti-segregation actions he and his companions were going to undertake. The black church in which he says this took place has changed with different tellings and all of the other details Biden has offered are wrong. Bernie Sanders surrogate Shaun King deserves the credit for exposing this and resurrecting Biden's history of false claims in this matter, which, King documents, go back to at least 1975. His article, "<a href="https://shaunking.substack.com/p/2-truths-and-31-lies-joe-biden-has">2 Truths & 31 Lies Joe Biden Has Told About His Work in the Civil Rights Movement</a>" is, one must concede, a bit sloppily written but is full of details, videos, old press clippings documenting this appalling story, which should have caused a major scandal and killed Biden's campaign in its tracks. Instead, the press sat on it. It was barely reported at all.<br />
<br />
How much of this sordid faux-history can one attribute to Biden's various shortcomings? The decade-plus of lies Biden told about being involved in the civil rights movement are products of both his penchant for manufacturing dramatic narratives in which he is the hero and his idiocy but eventually, in 1987, he fessed up and walked away from the false narrative. He stayed away from it for decades. Then, during the present campaign, he returns to and expands upon it. Idiocy, or a sign of his mental decline?<br />
<br />
When considering Biden for the presidency, does it really matter which of these three traits are at work here and in everything else I've just outlined and to what degrees? Are <i>any</i> of them desirable in a president? Is it wise to elect someone to be President of the United States who so prominently displays all three? Because if it is, the current occupant of the White House has that on his side too.<br />
<br />
Those around Biden understand these problems. From the beginning,
they've mostly kept him off the campaign trail. The lack of enthusiasm
for his campaign <a href="https://www.politico.com/interactives/2019/joe-biden-online-fundraising-actblue/">killed</a>
his grassroots fundraising efforts months ago. From early on, his
campaign has been dependent on a relative handful of big-money donors
and Biden was holding <a href="https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/6/24/18693433/joe-biden-presidential-campaign-fundraisers-donors">more fundraisers</a>
than campaign events. In October, as his campaign funds dwindled,
Biden, who had been publicly discouraging assistance from super PACs in an effort to attract some of those populist Bernie vibes, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/24/us/politics/joe-biden-super-pac.html">dropped</a>
even that show of opposition. A string of Biden "gaffes" in August that
managed to get some coverage sharpened fears among his allies that
these, if ever given the proper attention by the press, could develop into a narrative about his cognitive state. Their
solution wasn't to find a better candidate who didn't raise those
concerns but to <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/457486-biden-allies-float-scaling-back-events-to-limit-gaffes">cynically suggest</a> further limiting Biden's campaigning.<br />
<br />
The corporate press has helped. The phenomenon outlined here offers a preview of any general election campaign featuring Biden. An inarticulate Biden says ridiculous, contradictory, insane, mind-melting things, much of major media ignores it or exercises comically undue restraint in reporting it, while overt rightist and far-right publications absolutely marinate in it. Except during a general election, Trump, the Republicans and their supporters wouldn't allow this to be swept under the rug. It is, in fact, reasonable to assume they'll do everything they can to make sure every news cycle is dominated by some new brain-breaking thing Biden has said. The past 11 months have made clear that Biden will provide a steady supply.[7] Consider this: Biden is the only Democratic candidate who, after months of this, could eventually convince millions of reasonable people who outright despise Trump and wouldn't ordinarily even think of voting for him that Trump is actually the safe, responsible choice.<br />
<br />
South Carolina was 4 contests into Joe Biden's third presidential run over a 32-year period but it was the first time he'd won a single state (and he was 3 contests into the current race before he'd ever won a single delegate). In none of his previous efforts was he brought down by any opponent; in both, he buried himself. Prior to South Carolina, it looked as if Biden was on his way out, falling before progressive rival Bernie Sanders. He took South Carolina because while the press sits on much of what has been covered here--and <a href="https://extranewsfeed.com/give-me-a-break-the-sad-sorry-spectacle-of-joe-biden-de866498eac9">so, so much more</a>--it despises Sanders and tried to bury him. While Sanders was winning contests, <span class="css-901oao css-16my406 r-1qd0xha r-ad9z0x r-bcqeeo r-qvutc0">his lack of "electability" and the idea that he would cost Democrats the congress were presented, hour after hour across national media outlets, as givens. M</span><span class="css-901oao css-16my406 r-1qd0xha r-ad9z0x r-bcqeeo r-qvutc0">ajor media figures felt entirely comfortable repeatedly comparing the Jewish candidate to the <a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2020/02/10/chuck_todd_cites_quote_calling_sanders_supporters_digital_brownshirt_brigade.html">rise of</a> <a href="https://www.mediaite.com/tv/chris-matthews-compares-bernie-sanders-winning-nevada-to-france-falling-to-germany-in-1940/">Nazism</a>. Then, with no sense of self-awareness, they also compared him to <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/views/2020/03/01/plutocracy-strikes-back-cnn-compares-bernie-sanders-coronavirus">plagues</a>, disasters, etc. A major theme was to portray Sanders as an apologist for Marxist dictatorships, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/24/us/bernie-sanders-fidel-castro-florida.html">particularly</a> the former Castro regime in Cuba. It was suggested that if Sanders the socialist won, there may be <a href="https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/chris-matthews-bernie-sanders-public-executions-949802/">executions</a> of dissidents in New York's Central Park. And so on. This endless campaign of defamation was the dominant news media narrative for three weeks, then, once this helped Biden to victory in South Carolina,[8] the press held a triumph and treated the former Vice President as the Comeback Kid and conquering hero for 3 days. By <a href="https://twitter.com/KevinCate/status/1235040804722233345">one estimate</a>, Biden, within that time, was given </span><span class="css-901oao css-16my406 r-1qd0xha r-ad9z0x r-bcqeeo r-qvutc0">$71,992,629 in almost entirely positive media coverage.[9] Throw in local media in the Super Tuesday markets and this goes over $100 million.[10]</span> Until his South Carolina win, Biden hadn't <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/26/us/politics/joe-biden-california-super-tuesday.html">campaigned</a> in a single Super Tuesday state for over a month. When he won big on Super Tuesday, MSNBC's Brian Williams, again without any self-awareness, marveled that Biden could do so well in so many states in which he didn't even have a campaign office.[11]<br />
<br />
Multinational media corporations with an ideological animosity toward progressives are once again working to foist on the public another weak, loser candidate, in this case one whose candidacy would be regarded in any sane media environment as, at best, a tragic farce. The likely reelection of Trump if they succeed isn't remotely the biggest challenge posed to liberal democracy by the constant efforts by a handful of powerful companies to manipulate public opinion but so much of the press not only refusing to inform the public about Biden but throwing its weight behind such a candidacy represents a fundamental breakdown of journalism.<br />
<br />
--j.<br />
<br />
<span class="css-901oao css-16my406 r-1qd0xha r-ad9z0x r-bcqeeo r-qvutc0">---</span><br />
<span class="css-901oao css-16my406 r-1qd0xha r-ad9z0x r-bcqeeo r-qvutc0"><br /></span>
<span class="css-901oao css-16my406 r-1qd0xha r-ad9z0x r-bcqeeo r-qvutc0">[1] <a href="https://www.reuters.com/video/watch/idOVC249M8V">Reuters</a> circulated the video of the incident. Newsweek <a href="https://www.newsweek.com/joe-biden-says-hes-running-united-states-senate-while-south-carolina-supporters-say-its-1489034">reported it</a> but attempted a bizarre defense of Biden, saying some journalists and Biden supporters had argued that his remark "</span>has been taken out of context. They say he is
simply offering a rhetorical comparison to voters--between his decades as
a U.S. senator versus the presidential candidate he is today."<br />
<br />
Yeah, it's <i>that</i> bad.<br />
<br />
[2] In Iowa in November, Biden <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7640737/Joe-Biden-boasts-Iowa-tax-credits-president-want-suggests-hes-VP.html">said</a> a series of green initiatives are "what the president and I" are proposing, as if he thought he was still in office.<br />
<br />
[3] At the same event at which Biden did this the second time, he talked about using biofuels to power "steamships" and <a class="bf cn hp hq hr hs" href="https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2019/08/09/joe-biden-poor-kids-bright-white-kids-newday-berman-vpx.cnn" rel="noopener" target="_blank">proclaimed</a> "poor kids are just as bright and just as talented as white kids!"<br />
<br />
[4] At a campaign event in October, Biden was apparently trying to reference the Paris Climate Agreement when he <a href="https://www.theamericanmirror.com/2019/11/confusion-biden-promises-to-rejoin-paris-peace-accord-on-day-one/">said</a>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"I'm going to make sure we rejoin the Paris Peace Accord on day one and
I’m going to announce within the first 100 days, those 173 nations are
going to come and meet in Washington, D.C. to up the ante."</blockquote>
The Paris Peace Accord was the agreement that ended the Vietnam War in 1973.<br />
<br />
[5] The Times also made an error regarding the Biden comment it quoted; it happened at the October debate, not in December. Biden said,<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"I would eliminate the capital gains tax
that-- I would raise the capital gains tax to the highest rate of
39.5%... Why in God’s name should someone who’s clipping coupons in the stock
market make… in fact, pay a lower tax rate than someone who, in fact,
is… like I said, a school teacher and a firefighter?"</blockquote>
Those high-powered Wall Street traders are real coupon-clippers, aren't they?<br />
<br />
[6] For a really sharp contrast, watch any one of Biden's dreary debate performances of this cycle and <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXvwumYE7_s">compare them</a> to Biden's 2012 debate with then-Republican Vice Presidential candidate Paul Ryan, which is <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05VnURkqjXs">available on Youtube</a>.<br />
<br />
[7] While Sanders has a large, active, enthusiastic movement behind him, Biden has nothing of the sort. Nominating him would alienate the activist base of the party that has worked for years to elect a progressive and while Trump and the Republicans would be promoting every Biden brain-breaker, they'd also be forcing into public light Biden's long, conservative record, which the press has also mostly swept under the rug during the primaries. Trump can actually run to Biden's left on issues like trade, just as he did with Clinton, but the real damage done by forcing disclosure of Biden's anti-progressive history is to further suppress the vote among an already-demoralized progressive base.<br />
<br />
[8] Biden held a huge lead in South Carolina for months but prior to the worst of this slander, Sanders had been catching him. Concurrent with the attacks on Sanders in the week leading into the vote, Biden experienced a massive burst of support. By 22 February, Sanders' <a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/sc/south_carolina_democratic_presidential_primary-6824.html">polling average</a> in the state sat at 21% vs. Biden at 23.3%. Between then and 29 February, Sanders flat-lined and Biden skyrocketed to 39.7%.<br />
<br />
[9] The Super Tuesday exit-polling showed what has become a trend. "Late deciders"--low-information voters who are most susceptible to these media narratives--broke heavily for Biden. The Washington Post <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/exit-polls-2020-super-tuesday-primary/">reports</a> that<br />
<div class="block" data-block-type="text">
<div class="pg-skinny">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="pg-bodyCopy">
"Late deciders heavily backed Biden, according to exit poll results, an
indication of how much he was boosted by his resounding South Carolina
victory and late endorsements by Klobuchar and Buttigieg.</div>
<div class="pg-bodyCopy">
<br /></div>
<div class="pg-bodyCopy">
"Exit
polls showed Biden won roughly 6 in 10 primary voters who decided in
the last few days in Virginia, Tennessee and Alabama, and won about half
of this group in Maine, Texas and Minnesota. Sanders won no more than 3
in 10 late deciders in any state except his home state of Vermont,
where Sanders and Biden ran about even."</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
This accounted for Biden's margin of victory in those states--most of the states he won.<br />
<br />
[10] To put that $100 million+ in perspective, <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/summ.php?chrt=V&type=S">that's more</a>, in only 3 days, than the combination of all super PACs have spent in the entire 2020 cycle to date:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjejWmFtlmtMxUsU8Xq-ZrCfIlp3yBAS5LiFaCGaWwW5dGcXGuN0rSE5Utpn0a5rehscGwT7PVQf4RBawpxRfheiksCx-BvUiN1ucCa5A7_9RPEmpQrA09reFBRPeJ656dp5lul0ylznw/s1600/2020_superpacs.PNG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="239" data-original-width="555" height="273" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjejWmFtlmtMxUsU8Xq-ZrCfIlp3yBAS5LiFaCGaWwW5dGcXGuN0rSE5Utpn0a5rehscGwT7PVQf4RBawpxRfheiksCx-BvUiN1ucCa5A7_9RPEmpQrA09reFBRPeJ656dp5lul0ylznw/s640/2020_superpacs.PNG" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
[11] In most of the commentary on this, it's assumed that Biden's lack of campaign appearances is because of a lack of money but it's also part of the same effort to hide Biden from the public that we've seen all along. Even in the early stages of the campaign when he had money, he'd never done many campaign appearances, never many interviews; in the debates so far, he's been just one candidate on a crowded stage and only has to speak for, cumulatively, a few minutes. He's kept away from the public because of how badly he comes off when he's put before it. His campaign is banking on his being able to skate through the primaries on name-recognition/Obama nostalgia and just want to keep him from torpedoing himself. His Super Tuesday victories will bring in a fresh wave of money from well-heeled donors but his campaign schedule is likely to remain as nearly non-existent as possible.<br />
<br />
---<br />
<br />
ADDENDUM<br />
Some who, on social media, comment on Biden's cognitive problems have called them "dementia" or have suggested Alzheimer's or some other disorder may be in play. I'm not qualified to render any such diagnosis and neither are most of them. In my view, they do their concerns an unnecessary disservice by playing amateur physician. Biden's problems are quite obvious to anyone who listens to him and will harm him without regard for what what medicine may call them.<br />
<br />
At the same time, Biden's supporters have sometimes tried to deflect concerns over this matter by labeling those who raise them "ableist," based on the fact that when young, Biden had a stuttering problem. But a stutter doesn't cause his<span class="css-901oao css-16my406 r-1qd0xha r-ad9z0x r-bcqeeo r-qvutc0"> regular habit of crafting complex but entirely false narratives, it doesn't give him his thin skin or generate his hostile attitude toward skeptical voters, it isn't the culprit behind his inability to properly recall even very recent events or to complete sentences or not to contradict himself within the same sentence. It isn't what makes him go off on tangents unrelated to the subject he's supposed to be discussing until that subject is long lost. It doesn't make his English so often seem like a badly-learned second language. It can't make him forget Obama's name. It doesn't explain anything covered here. And in any event, stuttering hasn't been an issue for Biden since long before most people reading these words today were alive. Biden himself has <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4TqVdODCmk">specifically denied</a> any of this is because of a stutter.</span><br />
<br />
Finally, some have suggested compassion for Biden and a sense of moral outrage at elements of the press and Democratic Establishment for exploiting him, an obviously unsuitable candidate for the presidency, to try to defeat a progressive challenge. The moral outrage is certainly appropriate but while I'd never want to discourage compassion--something of which the world could use a lot more--I would argue there really isn't any grounds for feeling bad for Biden. He isn't a victim here. He's a deplorable person who, for personal advancement and the checks from his well-heeled donors, has devoted his life to pushing policies that harmed his fellow Americans. His present campaign is par for the course. cinemarchaeologisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13507603255666191405noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6321344375544728027.post-55451233792158015852020-01-13T20:44:00.001-08:002021-10-28T23:56:57.772-07:00Politico Slams Sanders Campaign As Participating in 2020 Primaries (Updated Below)Regular readers of this blog will have no doubt noted this author's rather profound disdain for Politico's treatment of Bernie Sanders. In the publication's "coverage" of the Vermont senator, every journalistic standard is routinely disregarded in what appears to any reasonable observer to be little more than a recurring effort to craft the crassest anti-Sanders propaganda and pass it off as "news."<br />
<br />
They're at it again. Their latest anti-Bernie Sanders "scoop" landed this week, "<a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/11/bernie-quietly-goes-negative-on-warren-097594">Bernie Campaign Slams Warren As Candidate of the Elite</a>."<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUqwmGVdZnjT2fQGkNsb6lJuyvUqke0GxZl6CSvMAbvH2SF_Ih_6yhQOFx8MYPB198Mrk-kW67bTMG9ENnAQ68FmVJfEI_mNzpOItrvCwT_WKbnRPXJHRg6SXAXCE5urWmJ7gOkJNs5w/s1600/politico_Sanders_slams_Warren.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="595" data-original-width="647" height="587" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUqwmGVdZnjT2fQGkNsb6lJuyvUqke0GxZl6CSvMAbvH2SF_Ih_6yhQOFx8MYPB198Mrk-kW67bTMG9ENnAQ68FmVJfEI_mNzpOItrvCwT_WKbnRPXJHRg6SXAXCE5urWmJ7gOkJNs5w/w640-h587/politico_Sanders_slams_Warren.JPG" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
Throughout the present presidential campaign, Sanders has refused to
attack rival Elizabeth Warren. Even when repeatedly prompted to do so by "journalists," his answer was always the same: No. Warren, he said, is his
longtime friend and political ally and he's not going to do that. He has even defended
her. Warren has embraced the same policy toward Sanders.<br />
<br />
Enter Politico's Alex Thompson and Holly Otterbein:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Sanders' campaign has begun stealthily attacking Warren as a candidate
of the upper crust who could not expand the Democratic base in a general
election, according to talking points his campaign is using to sway
voters and obtained by POLITICO."</blockquote>
At issue is this script allegedly provided by the Sanders campaign to its volunteers:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"The script instructs Sanders volunteers to tell voters leaning toward
the Massachusetts senator that the 'people who support her are
highly-educated, more affluent people who are going to show up and vote
Democratic no matter what' and that 'she's bringing no new bases into
the Democratic Party.'"</blockquote>
Right off the bat, it should be noted that, based on the description of the script provided by Thompson/Otterbein, the characterization of it as an attack is strictly
tendentious. The script is complimentary toward Warren ("'I like Elizabeth Warren. [optional]' the script begins. 'In fact, she’s my second choice...'"). Polling extending back several months establishes that Warren supporters are all of the things it says. There have been a large volume of articles written on the subject. Back in July, Politico itself <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/12/sanders-warren-voters-2020-1408548">produced one of them</a>. Its author was--wait for it--Holly Otterbein. The script accurately describes the following Warren has drawn. The data are entirely uncontroversial, the concerns they raise perfectly legitimate. In a sane world, drawing such contrasts would be seen as what it is: the entire point of a political primary.<br />
<br />
Incredibly, at no point do Thompson and Otterbein offer any information on the
provenance of the alleged script, not even to cite an anonymous source. From whence did it come? Was there any vetting of this source and if so, what was it? The article is silent. Which volunteers were supposed to be getting and using the script? Where is it being used? How widespread is its use? Not only does the article fail to address any of these questions--the script, in its telling, is just something from somewhere--it suggests that the authors don't even know.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"It is unclear whether the script is being used for phone calls or door knocking or both, or in which locations." </blockquote>
Throughout their piece, Thompson and Otterbein flat-out say this entirely unsourced script is being used by the Sanders campaign but can't actually document its use <i>anywhere</i>, and aren't even sure what it is! Then, there's this nugget:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"'We were told never to go negative or contrast with other candidates,' a
person close to Sanders' campaign told POLITICO. 'Bernie would let us
know when it was O.K.. So if that’s happening, he's aware.'"</blockquote>
That this source is apparently in a position to know about any such a script but clearly has no knowledge of it--if he did, that's what would be quoted--should have inspired a pause. If volunteers were told not to do what the alleged script instructs them to do, that should immediately raise a range of questions about that document. Instead, the writers simply use the latter assertion, which may or may not be based on anything, to treat information that potentially refutes their story into something damning that feeds it. A big portion of the article is devoted to asserting the script represents a significant shift in the race--the end of the non-aggression pact between Sanders and Warren--and teasing out implications from that, but the script itself is, as described, simply too innocuous to bear this interpretation and the extended punditry based on it is built on nothing.<br />
<br />
Did the "journalists" try to contact any Sanders volunteers and ask about this? Their story gives no indication of any such thing but in its aftermath, scores of Sanders volunteers have hit Twitter, asserting that they'd never gotten anything like the alleged script and that it contradicted the instructions they had been given. ABC News <a href="https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/warren-jabs-sanders-purported-attacks-volunteer-talking-points/story?id=68242935">reported</a> that "several Sanders volunteers contacted by ABC News about the script said that they did not recognize such talking points." In a series of tweets, Eric
Isaac of the Kings County Democratic Committee in New York--and a
Sanders volunteer--offered <a href="https://twitter.com/ericisaac/status/1216445568148480002">an explanation</a> of the origin of the document:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"A random user who's only ever posted once before posted that document
in the Sanders volunteer Slack group. A moderator promptly removed it
and stated that it was NOT a campaign source."</blockquote>
<div class="css-901oao r-hkyrab r-1qd0xha r-a023e6 r-16dba41 r-ad9z0x r-bcqeeo r-bnwqim r-qvutc0" dir="auto" id="tweet-text" lang="en">
<span class="css-901oao css-16my406 r-1qd0xha r-ad9z0x r-bcqeeo r-qvutc0">Issac writes that "Bernie is not sending his volunteers out to trash ANY candidate. We have a very strict code of conduct on how we MUST interact with voters if we want to be part of the campaign."</span></div>
<div class="css-901oao r-hkyrab r-1qd0xha r-a023e6 r-16dba41 r-ad9z0x r-bcqeeo r-bnwqim r-qvutc0" dir="auto" id="tweet-text" lang="en">
<span class="css-901oao css-16my406 r-1qd0xha r-ad9z0x r-bcqeeo r-qvutc0"><br /></span></div>
<div class="css-901oao r-hkyrab r-1qd0xha r-a023e6 r-16dba41 r-ad9z0x r-bcqeeo r-bnwqim r-qvutc0" dir="auto" id="tweet-text" lang="en">
<span class="css-901oao css-16my406 r-1qd0xha r-ad9z0x r-bcqeeo r-qvutc0">Issac's thread was widely circulated and Alex Thompson eventually responded to it, <a href="https://twitter.com/AlxThomp/status/1216475193549508608">tweeting</a> "</span><span class="css-901oao css-16my406 r-1qd0xha r-ad9z0x r-bcqeeo r-qvutc0">Fwiw, this popular thread is not true. Attacking reporting and pushing misinformation is not just a right-wing phenomenon." Not a good look, nor was his trashing "<a href="https://twitter.com/AlxThomp/status/1216393827986169866">Bernie trolls</a>." In none of his tweets does Thompson establish any provenance for the alleged script--they're as blank on that as his article--and his defense of his story is just astonishing:</span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="css-901oao r-hkyrab r-1qd0xha r-a023e6 r-16dba41 r-ad9z0x r-bcqeeo r-bnwqim r-qvutc0" dir="auto" id="tweet-text" lang="en">
<span class="css-901oao css-16my406 r-1qd0xha r-ad9z0x r-bcqeeo r-qvutc0">"I provided all the info to Bernie's camp before publishing & they didn't deny its authenticity. The doc had 'Paid for by Bernie 2020'"</span></div>
</blockquote>
Well, I guess that settles <i>that</i>, doesn't it?<br />
<br />
PAID FOR BY BERNIE 2020.<br />
<br />
See? This article was produced by the Sanders campaign too! For something Thompson now seems to think is critically important in establishing the origin of the document--it's the only piece of information to that end he's offered--he and Otterbein had failed to provide even that tidbit in their article.<br />
<br />
Here's something that shouldn't have to be explained: regardless of what Politico "journalists" think, it isn't up to Sanders to prove he didn't kill Cock Robin.<br />
<br />
Things That Shouldn't Have To Be Explained #2: The Sanders campaign can't deny a story if they've been given no story to deny. A nationwide presidential campaign is a vast enterprise involving hundreds of people. If Sanders says his campaign isn't using any such document then it turns out some low-level volunteer has been passing the script around the half-dozen members of the Northeast Bainbridge For Bernie group, Sanders is the one who ends up with egg on his face (and, per usual, days of negative press). Sanders alluded to this himself in Iowa City, Iowa on Sunday:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Look, I just read about it. We have over 500 people on our campaign.
People do certain things. I'm sure that in Elizabeth’s campaign, people
do certain things as well. But you have heard me for
months. I have never said a negative word about Elizabeth Warren, who is
a friend of mine. We have differences of issues, that's what the
campaign is about. But no one is going to be attacking Elizabeth."</blockquote>Sanders reiterated that "Elizabeth Warren is a very good friend of mine... We will debate the issues. No one is going to trash Elizabeth." He called the whole matter "a bit of a media blow-up," and given the available facts, that's impossible to dispute. Nothing about the document except what it says has been established by the reporting--it's a scandal that the story was published in this form--and even if it turned out to be real Sanders campaign material, it's utterly innocuous.<br /><br />Elizabeth Warren's immediate reaction to the original article was unfortunate; she embraced Politico's tendentious characterization and immediately went negative on Sanders:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"I was disappointed to hear that Bernie is sending his volunteers out to
trash me. Bernie knows me, and has known me for a long
time... Democrats want to win in 2020. We all saw the impact of the factionalism in 2016, and we can’t have a repeat of that. Democrats need to unite our party. We cannot nominate someone who takes big chunks of the Democratic Coalition for granted. We need someone who will bring our party together. We need someone who will excite every part of the Democratic Party, someone who will be there. Someone that every Democrat can believe in. I hope Bernie reconsiders and turns his campaign in a different direction."</blockquote>
This "unity" talk, of course, rings rather hollow in the face of the ugly invocation of the (<a href="http://stuffdept.blogspot.com/2019/12/sanders-trump-voters.html">false</a>) Clinton cult narrative that Sanders was responsible for Donald Trump's election. That is, in fact, the most inflammatory charge in Democratic politics for the last few years and while no one should begrudge Warren the right to a reasoned defense of the campaign she's trying to build, this doesn't qualify, and by immediately going nuclear, she probably did herself a lot of harm. She then made things worse by sending out a <a href="https://milled.com/elizabeth-warren-2020/a-note-about-recent-news-IIgk_DfFiK5iJ2FW">fundraising letter</a> repeating it: "Let’s be clear: As a party, and as a country, we can’t afford to repeat the factionalism of the 2016 primary." Other Warren surrogates poured on the flames as well. The New York Times <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/12/us/politics/warren-sanders.html">reported</a> that "a top Warren supporter in Iowa, State
Senator Claire Celsi... said she was unsurprised that the Sanders
campaign was leveling it. 'Doesn't surprise me about Bernie,' she said.
'He went straight to the gutter with Hillary. More of the same.'" Julian Castro, who recently dropped out of the presidential race and is now acting as a Warren surrogate, told Politico he was "disappointed that Bernie would go negative on somebody that he’s known
for a long time, and worked with, and whose character he must certainly
know is good."<br />
<br />
Thompson/Otterbeing reported that Castro comment in <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/12/warren-disappointed-bernie-volunteers-097984">their follow-up article</a>, devoted to Warren's response to the initial controversy. It's another gratuitously combative piece. Sanders, the authors write, "seemed to attribute the script, which read 'PAID FOR BY BERNIE 2020,' to a rogue employee"--the first appearance in a formal article of that "paid for" line. They quote Sanders saying "[n]o one is going to be attacking Elizabeth," then counter it with "Not everyone on Sanders’ campaign staff fell in line, however," and quote remarks by national press secretary Briahna Joy Gray in which she <i>wasn't</i> attacking Warren, merely pointing out the hazards of nominating, in the face of Trump, a "candidate who people don't feel so strongly abt," which not only seems an obvious concern for those who want to defeat Trump but one it would be irresponsible <i>not</i> to consider. Making these arguments, evaluating them and picking a strong candidate is supposed to be the point of a primary.<br />
<br />
The press loves conflict--it's what sells--but artificially manufacturing conflict isn't journalism. However problematic it may be, it is the right of Politico to be editorially hostile to Sanders and to progressives in general. Crafting what are supposed to be straight news reports around that hostility is much more problematic, and the kind of <a href="http://corporatenewsreviews.blogspot.com/2018/02/in-effort-to-mangle-bernie-on-russia.html">journalistic misbehavior</a> <a href="http://corporatenewsreviews.blogspot.com/2018/02/politico-promotes-another-false-anti.html">that has</a> <a href="http://corporatenewsreviews.blogspot.com/2019/03/politicos-flight-of-fancy.html">so often</a> <a href="http://corporatenewsreviews.blogspot.com/2019/11/sanders-crisis.html">entailed</a> is certainly something that should be called out. Add this one to the pile.<br />
<br />
--j.<br />
<br />
---<br />
<br />
UPDATE (14 Jan., 2019) - Today, Thompson/Otterbein are <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/14/sanders-admits-anti-warren-script-early-states-098786">reporting</a> in Politico that "the controversial talking points attacking Elizabeth Warren that Bernie
Sanders' campaign deployed were given to teams in at least two early
voting states on Friday, three Sanders campaign officials confirmed."<br />
<br />
That's the sort of thing that should have been established before the original story was ever published. Having finally gotten this confirmation, the authors write that "some Sanders’ supporters claimed over the weekend that the campaign script wasn't genuine and that the story was false," which doesn't address any of the legitimate problems with their initial story or acknowledge that those problems generated legitimate skepticism.<br />
<br />
Moreover, the vagueness that plagued their earlier work continues.
"Volunteers and staffers used the script on Saturday while canvassing
for votes, meaning the talking points were more official than what
Sanders previously suggested after POLITICO reported on the language."
They hadn't previously established it <i>was</i> official, only asserted it. Their new
report is that the script was used by canvassers in two states--they
provide no information on how extensively--and that it was sent out on Friday night, used for one
day, Saturday, then discontinued that night. Does use of the script extend beyond that
one day? Who knows? Not, apparently, Thompson/Otterbein. They say the script was issued by "the
Sanders campaign" but don't get any more specific than that, then, according to two Sanders officials, it was withdrawn and replaced--more specific. The vagueness here is perhaps less important; Sanders is the candidate and
he's ultimately responsible for his campaign, whether he knew what was up at the time or not. The new narrative, that the script was used for one day in two--or parts of two--states, takes an <i>awfully</i> small original tale and makes it even smaller. It could be that the script was more widely used and Thompson/Otterbein only went with this because that's the information they were able to dig up but the fact that the small scale of this usage is all they have even days later suggests that the authors, at the time of their original piece, didn't report on it being used anywhere because they didn't actually know it was being used anywhere.<br />
<br />
The tendentiousness of the original piece is still firmly in place. The
script is still described as "controversial," as "attacking Elizabeth Warren" and containing "attacks on the electability of Warren." The piece says the
script "described Warren's appeal as limited to the highly educated and
financially well off," when the script had only actually noted that this
was the following Warren had drawn--again, an entirely uncontroversial
fact--and expressed concern based on this.cinemarchaeologisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13507603255666191405noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6321344375544728027.post-78075256359516346532019-11-07T20:59:00.002-08:002022-06-22T20:22:20.572-07:00Fading, Failing, In Trouble: Bernie Sanders' American CrisisIn the relentlessly negative corporate press treatment of Bernie Sanders' presidential campaign, there has developed a number of genres. One consists of stories on the campaign that ignore the fact that Sanders exists--the Bernie Blackout redux. Another prolific one is stories that downplay or dismiss Sanders' chances. Still another is the one I'm going to highlight here: stories that portray Sanders as losing, as failing, as in disarray, as in trouble--Sanders in perpetual crisis.<br />
<br />
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).<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh7sHkolBz1teFabVqL6rfS5Sn9Q1_tfvmFB5fH63mxjuiGCSIMboSkaAWX2zqK85IUiOxibbJWehzz1I7Zq6ZbmnLQuP_H9WOl43i9eIE1_F9nrLkGxQc2RsN0OuXqnQs5KSIuFaVmUg/s1600/sanders_walking_dead_randy_bish_17June2016.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="529" data-original-width="750" height="281" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh7sHkolBz1teFabVqL6rfS5Sn9Q1_tfvmFB5fH63mxjuiGCSIMboSkaAWX2zqK85IUiOxibbJWehzz1I7Zq6ZbmnLQuP_H9WOl43i9eIE1_F9nrLkGxQc2RsN0OuXqnQs5KSIuFaVmUg/s400/sanders_walking_dead_randy_bish_17June2016.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Randy Bish cartoon, Westfield Free Press-Courier (17 June, 2016)</td><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><br /></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
After the end of Sanders' 2016 primary campaign, his supporters founded a new group, Our Revolution, which described its mission thusly:<br />
<br />
"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."<br />
<br />
Politico wasn't having <i>any</i> of that. On 23 Aug., 2016--the day before it officially launched--Politico responded with an article, "<a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/bernie-sanders-group-turmoil-227297">Bernie Sanders' New Group Is Already In Turmoil</a>."<br />
<br />
Politico returned for another round on 29 May, 2017,"<a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/29/bernie-sanders-ballot-losses-238889">Sanders Revolution Hits A Rough Patch</a>."<br />
<br />
On 21 May, 2018, as Our Revolution was endorsing progressive candidates around the U.S. for that year's elections, Politico struck again: "<a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2018/05/21/bernie-sanders-democrats-2018-599331">Bernie's Army In Disarray</a>." <br />
<br />
A few months later, on 8 Aug., 2018, more of the same: "<a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2018/08/08/bernie-sanders-endorsements-2018-elections-767403">Bernie and His Army Are Losing 2018</a>."<br /><br />Such headlines proliferated during the 2018 congressional cycle. At the time, Justin Anderson of Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting <a href="https://fair.org/home/media-writing-premature-obituaries-for-the-democratic-left/">covered the press proclivity</a> 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.<br /><br />
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, <a href="https://archive.org/details/MSNBCW_20190110_220000_MTP_Daily/start/3000/end/3060">offered this assessment</a>: "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."<br />
<br />
On 19 Feb., Bernie Sanders officially entered the presidential race. I <a href="http://corporatenewsreviews.blogspot.com/2019/02/stupid-press-tricks-2.html">wrote at the time</a> 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.<br />
<br />
On 21 Feb., in the middle of that incredible windfall, Clintonite-right columnist Froma Harrop boldly declared, "<a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/02/21/bernie_sanders_its_over_139527.html">Bernie Sanders, It's Over</a>."<br />
<br />
That day, execrable alt-right outlet Breitbart was barking up the same tree: "<a href="https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2016/02/21/3105236/">Donald Trump: 'Bernie's Going to Start to Fade'</a>."<br />
<br />
The Week, 11 March: "<a href="https://theweek.com/speedreads/828447/bernie-sanders-already-lost-more-than-half-2016-supporters">Bernie Sanders Has Already Lost More Than Half of His 2016 Supporters</a>."<br />
<br />
CNN, 20 March: "<a href="https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/20/politics/bernie-sanders-favorable-unfavorable-rating/index.html">Polls show Bernie Sanders Popularity Among All Voters Is Plummeting</a>."<br />
<br />
That was written by Clintonite-right pollster Harry Enten and was then picked up by delighted far-right outlets:<br />
<br />
Newmax, 20 March: "<a href="https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/polls-cnn-bernie-sanders/2019/03/20/id/907805/">CNN: Polls Show Bernie Sanders' Popularity Dropping</a>."<br />
<br />
The Daily Wire, 22 March: "<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/sad-socialist-new-presidential-polls-show-josh-hammer">Sad Socialist: New Presidential Polls Show Declining Support For Bernie Sanders</a>."<br />
<br />
On 16 April, the first-quarter fundraising numbers for the presidential candidates were released. Sanders led the pack with over $18 million.<br />
<br />
CNN, 29 May: "<a href="https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/29/politics/bernie-sanders-new-hampshire-2020-democrats/index.html">The Incredible Shrinking ... Bernie Sanders?</a>"<br />
<br />
The Washington Post, 29 May: "<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/revolution-stalled-bernie-sanders-struggles-against-a-double-bind/2019/05/29/e6d5acce-8179-11e9-95a9-e2c830afe24f_story.html">Bernie Sanders Revolution Stalls</a>."<br />
<br />
Bloomberg, 10 June: "<a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-06-10/bernie-sanders-might-not-be-a-viable-2020-contender">Is Bernie Sanders Finished?</a>"<br />
<br />
Harrop was back on 18 June: "<a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/06/18/many_democrats_happy_to_see_bernie_sanders_on_the_downward_slope_140581.html">Many Democrats Happy to See Bernie Sanders on the Downward Slope</a>."<br />
<br />
The same day, the New York Post approvingly editorialized and expanded on Harrop with "<a href="https://nypost.com/2019/06/18/why-so-many-democrats-are-glad-to-see-bernie-falling-and-other-commentary/">Why So Many Democrats Are Glad To See Bernie Falling and Other Commentary</a>."<br />
<br />
Fox News, 28 June: "<a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/democratic-debates-warren-sanders-2020-five">Juan Williams: Warren 'Rising' As Sanders 'Fades' In 2020 Field</a>." (28 June, 2019)<br />
<br />
The Hill, 3 July: "<a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/451449-sanders-slips-in-polls-raising-doubts-about-campaign">Sanders Slips In Polls, Raising Doubts About Campaign</a>."<br />
<br />
CNN, 3 July: "<a href="https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/02/politics/bernie-sanders-polls/index.html">Bernie Sanders 2020 Is In Big Trouble</a>."<br />
<br />
The Hill, 10 July: "<a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/452424-billionaire-dem-donor-bernie-sanders-is-a-disaster-zone">Billionaire Democratic Donor: Bernie Sanders Is A 'Disaster Zone</a>.'"<br />
<br />
On 20 July, Gallup <a href="https://www.newsweek.com/biden-sanders-gallup-favorability-democrats-2020-1450344">reported</a> that Sanders was the 2020 candidate most liked by the public. This did nothing to slow the roll of these articles.<br />
<br />
Politics USA, 8 Aug.: "<a href="https://www.politicususa.com/2019/08/08/democratic-iowa-polll.html">Joe Biden Leads, Elizabeth Warren Surges, And Bernie Sanders Fades In Iowa</a>."<br />
<br />
Liz Peek column at Fox News, 3 Sept.: "<a href="https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/liz-peek-bye-bye-bernie-dems-wont-nominate-socialist-senator-to-run-against-trump">Bye-Bye Bernie – Dems Won't Nominate Socialist Senator To Run Against Trump</a>."<br />
<br />
The Week, 5 Sept.: "<a href="https://theweek.com/articles/862766/why-bernie-stalled">Why Bernie Sanders Is Stalled</a>."<br />
<br />
Politico, 17 Sept.: "<a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/17/bernie-sanders-campaign-dissension-1500287">Sanders Campaign Wracked By Dissension</a>."<br />
<br />
A headline on Sean Hannity's site on 18 Sept. declares "<a href="https://hannity.com/media-room/add-it-to-the-list-fading-bernie-unveils-his-2-5-trillion-housing-for-all-plan-calls-for-tax-hikes/">Fading Bernie</a>."<br />
<br />
Vanity Fair, 18 Sept.: "<a href="https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/09/bernie-sanders-new-hamphshire-elizabeth-warren">Is Bernie Sanders Beginning To Flail?</a>"<br />
<br />
The next day, 19 Sept., Sanders became the first presidential campaign of the cycle to hit 1 million individual donors. That same day:<br />
<br />
CNN, 19 Sept.: "<a href="https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/18/politics/bernie-sanders-2020-elizabeth-warren-joe-biden/index.html">Why is Bernie Sanders Stuck in Neutral?</a>" 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, "<a href="https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2019/09/19/the-point-with-chris-cillizza-bernie-campaign-stalls.cnn">Has Bernie Sanders Run Out of Gas?</a>"<br />
<br />
The Columbus Dispatch, 19 Sept.: "<a href="https://www.dispatch.com/news/20190919/sanders-campaign-turmoil-as-iowa-political-director-out">Sanders Campaign Turmoil As Iowa Political Director Out</a>."<br />
<br />
National Review, 26 Sept.: "<a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/09/the-beginning-of-bernies-end/">The Beginning of Bernie's End</a>."<br />
<br />
Politico, 30 Sept.: "<a href="https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/09/30/bernie-sanders-2020-election-decline-228755">Bernie Sanders Is In Trouble</a>."<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjz3SscG-cNC6XAVERPK3cPD8HAFt9my-ZOUhuSYfLuYkdVM53w2mwplJ61k515Cfq16eVv7MloW2lYyBtoQ5YeZhjQp7mkwIgsVuAYa4WZN9oYrIuS2Gt5IB5VfPdCJRkmT8yaOBDDYw/s1600/sanders_trouble.PNG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="696" data-original-width="1003" height="277" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjz3SscG-cNC6XAVERPK3cPD8HAFt9my-ZOUhuSYfLuYkdVM53w2mwplJ61k515Cfq16eVv7MloW2lYyBtoQ5YeZhjQp7mkwIgsVuAYa4WZN9oYrIuS2Gt5IB5VfPdCJRkmT8yaOBDDYw/s400/sanders_trouble.PNG" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
The Washington Free Beacon, echoing Politico, 20 Sept.: "<a href="https://freebeacon.com/politics/politico-sanders-campaign-in-disarray-struggling-to-escape-warrens-shadow/">Sanders Campaign in Disarray as Warren Rises</a>." <br />
<br />
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: "<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/is-bernie-over-sanders-campaign-might-be-nearing-its-end">Is Bernie Over? Sanders Campaign Might Be Nearing Its End</a>."<br />
<br />
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, "<a href="https://noqreport.com/2019/10/02/bernie-sanders-done/">Bernie Sanders Is Done</a>."<br />
<br />
Sanders rebounded quickly, saying he "was back." On 10 Oct., CNN wrote, "<a href="https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/10/politics/bernie-sanders-heart-attack-2020/index.html">Bernie Sanders Says He's Back. Is He?</a>"<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
And the next day, NBC was back to the usual: "<a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/bernie-sanders-struggles-rebound-staffing-strategy-health-n1068571">Bernie Sanders Struggles To Rebound: Staffing, Strategy, Health</a>."<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
That needs to change.<br />
<br />
--j.<br />
<br />
---<br />
<br />
APPENDIX<br />
<br />
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):<br />
<br />
A few years ago in Harper's, Thomas Frank <a href="https://harpers.org/archive/2016/11/swat-team-2/">documented</a>
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:<br />
<br />
"<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2019/02/19/daily-202-the-biggest-challenges-facing-bernie-sanders-2-0/5c6afee71b326b71858c6bbd/">The Daily 202: The Biggest Challenge Facing Bernie Sanders 2.0</a>,"
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 <i>overwhelmingly</i>
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 <a href="https://votesmart.org/elections/voter-registration/VT">doesn't have party registration</a>.
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 <a href="https://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Jan2019_HHP_registeredvoters_xtabs.pdf">most recent Harvard/Harris poll</a>).<br />
<br />
Eugene Scott does the same thing in "<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/02/19/bernie-sanders-struggled-win-black-voters-it-could-be-even-more-difficult/">Bernie Sanders Struggled To Win Black Voters. It Could Be Even More Difficult In 2020</a>."<br />
<br />
Then, there's "<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/bernie-sanders-has-one-big-problem-eugene-mccarthy/2019/02/19/f2c90cd4-347f-11e9-af5b-b51b7ff322e9_story.html">Bernie, Your Moment Has Come--And Gone</a>,"
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."<br />
<br />
"<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/02/19/bernie-sanders-is-probably-just-another-one-hit-wonder/?utm_term=.94c0f5218bc2">Bernie Sanders Is Probably Just Another One-Hit Wonder</a>,"
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.<br />
<br />
"<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/02/19/bernie-sanders-is-no-big-deal-second-time-around/">Bernie Sanders Is No Big Deal the Second Time Around</a>,"
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.<br />
<br />
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 <a href="https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/02/bernie-sanders-24-hour-record-2020.html">promptly buried that record</a>,
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.<br />
<br />
Yeah, right.<br />
<br />
Jennifer Rubin was right back with another cooler-full with "<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/02/20/why-sanderss-money-haul-doesnt-mean-very-much/?utm_term=.9558a7ddb8fa">Why Sanders Money Haul Doesn't Mean Very Much</a>,"
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:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"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."</blockquote>
And...<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"(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.)"</blockquote>
...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.cinemarchaeologisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13507603255666191405noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6321344375544728027.post-69539547505178102362019-09-16T06:35:00.000-07:002019-09-16T18:41:24.885-07:00On Medicare For All, CNN's Enten Is Ridin' With Biden<div data-contents="true">
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="8ppp3" data-offset-key="61tpt-0-0">
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="61tpt-0-0">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjxn9tGtJvhNw0FYLRIucotGAL9ws6pGl7T8TREdpBRdTLszYYm-upnDplxu0oa0rz4jOUMoI8WzKZKbpp1Y21aEM9lk8vCN2huUHa8v7-6mmdtp6NmSFEPiPJ0a-rHbj0MfWh9ntGDTQ/s1600/enten_4_biden.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="600" data-original-width="580" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjxn9tGtJvhNw0FYLRIucotGAL9ws6pGl7T8TREdpBRdTLszYYm-upnDplxu0oa0rz4jOUMoI8WzKZKbpp1Y21aEM9lk8vCN2huUHa8v7-6mmdtp6NmSFEPiPJ0a-rHbj0MfWh9ntGDTQ/s400/enten_4_biden.PNG" width="386" /></a></div>
<span data-offset-key="61tpt-0-0"><span data-text="true">Corporate press hostility to the Medicare For All healthcare plan favored by progressives--and to pretty much everything else favored by progressives--is as inevitable as death and taxes, and on Saturday, Harry Enten ground out a tendentious CNN article that makes a complete hash of the issue at every turn. At this week's Democratic presidential debate, candidates Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders pointed out that people like their doctors, not their insurance companies.</span></span><span data-offset-key="61tpt-0-0"><span data-text="true"> Enten sets out to "correct" this under the headline, "<a href="https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/09/14/politics/poll-warren-sanders-health-insurance/index.html?fbclid=IwAR0P1qMoPM2A-MB3VoBnL6szjA_HJLqgmkbKZ_Xv6KpkR_HNyEqOD-jbPLw">Warren and Sanders Say Americans Don't Like Their Health Insurance. Polls Don't Back That Up</a>."</span></span></div>
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="61tpt-0-0">
<span data-offset-key="61tpt-0-0"><span data-text="true"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="61tpt-0-0">
<span data-offset-key="61tpt-0-0"><span data-text="true">Some background
here: As
part of his presidential campaign, former Vice President Joe Biden has
been attempting to counter calls for M4A by propagating a "healthcare
plan" that merely tinkers around the edges of the Affordable Care Act
(and like the ACA, leaves millions of Americans with nothing). Biden has embraced Donald Trump's Orwellian mischaracterization of M4A as a thing that <i>takes away</i> health coverage from millions of people (because private insurance for the services covered by the program would be eliminated). Perhaps most egregiously, he's been falsely insisting that progressives want
to repeal the ACA and leave people with nothing while
they spend years trying, with a questionable chance of success, to pass a
M4A plan. In this way, he equates the advocacy for M4A with Republican
efforts to simply do away with the ACA. He presents himself as the
defender of the ACA and Obama's legacy and says <i>he</i> prefers to build on the ACA instead.</span></span></div>
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="61tpt-0-0">
<span data-offset-key="61tpt-0-0"><span data-text="true"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="61tpt-0-0">
<span data-offset-key="61tpt-0-0"><span data-text="true">M4A doesn't take away anyone's coverage, of course; it extends coverage to everyone. No one has even suggested the course
of action re:passing M4A that Biden describes. M4A is meant to succeed the ACA and,
progressives have argued, build on it, and it provides health coverage for everyone. The ACA's supporters don't see this sharp dichotomy Biden has tried to foster; m</span></span><span data-offset-key="61tpt-0-0"><span data-text="true"><span data-offset-key="61tpt-0-0"><span data-text="true">ore than 2/3rds of the ACA's co-sponsors in congress <a href="https://maplight.org/story/more-than-two-thirds-of-obamacare-cosponsors-now-backing-medicare-for-all-proposal/">are now supporting</a> M4A and Barack Obama himself <a href="https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/405597-obama-calls-medicare-for-all-a-good-idea">has said</a> M4A is a "good, new idea."[1]</span></span></span></span><br />
<br />
<span data-offset-key="61tpt-0-0"><span data-text="true">Biden's entire narrative is just a politically-motivated fiction.</span></span></div>
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="61tpt-0-0">
<span data-offset-key="61tpt-0-0"><span data-text="true"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="61tpt-0-0">
<span data-offset-key="61tpt-0-0"><span data-text="true">That brings us to Enten, who isn't interested in details like this. Rather, he seems to see his job as merely being to sell that Biden narrative. He leads by focusing on an awful question Kaiser asked in a new poll</span></span></div>
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="61tpt-0-0">
<span data-offset-key="61tpt-0-0"><span data-text="true"></span></span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="61tpt-0-0">
"A new <a href="http://redirect.viglink.com/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.kff.org%2Fhealth-reform%2Fpress-release%2Fpoll-most-democrats-prefer-a-presidential-candidate-who-wants-to-build-on-the-affordable-care-act%2F&key=15785bf48552a1cdfab425661118986f" target="_blank">Kaiser Family Foundation</a>
poll finds that when it comes to expanding coverage and lowering health
care costs 55% of Democrats and Democratic leaning independents prefer
to vote for a candidate who does so by building on the Affordable Care
Act. Only 40% want do so by voting for voting for a candidate who
replaces the ACA with Medicare for All."[2]</div>
</blockquote>
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="61tpt-0-0">
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="61tpt-0-0">
<span data-offset-key="61tpt-0-0"><span data-text="true"><span data-offset-key="61tpt-0-0"><span data-text="true">Using</span></span></span></span><span data-offset-key="61tpt-0-0"><span data-text="true"> the completely dishonest Biden framing of the issue, the only thing this question's responses revealed is the reason Biden is peddling that false narrative in the first place: if he can get people to believe it, more of them side with him. As progressives see it, they <i>are</i> building on the ACA with M4A. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren have explicitly said so. One can certainly debate the soundness of that proposition--there are arguments to be made on both sides--but the decision to represent the issue in the way Kaiser did is strictly ideological. It's choosing a side and pretending as if the other doesn't exist. Besides being so problematic in itself, this also makes mincemeat out of the results. Those who don't see their advocacy of M4A as some effort to do away with the ACA--at a time when the ACA is at the height of its popularity--will be resistant to characterizing their own view as doing so. </span></span><span data-offset-key="61tpt-0-0"><span data-text="true"><span data-offset-key="61tpt-0-0"><span data-text="true"><span data-offset-key="61tpt-0-0"><span data-text="true">Kaiser generally does excellent work when it comes to the polling on these matters. That question was definitely an exception. </span></span></span></span> Enten, who never does excellent work on anything, understands all of this. He's a pollster. He doesn't question the reasonableness of framing the issue in this way though, merely goes with it as if it's a legitimate measure of what people think. It reaches the conclusion he prefers.</span></span></div>
</div>
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="61tpt-0-0">
<span data-offset-key="61tpt-0-0"><span data-text="true"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="61tpt-0-0">
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="61tpt-0-0">
<span data-offset-key="61tpt-0-0"><span data-text="true">Though Enten's headline sounds rather immediate, he primarily relies, for its conclusion, on
a Kaiser poll from over 6 years ago:</span></span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="61tpt-0-0">
"It turns out that <a href="http://redirect.viglink.com/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.kff.org%2Fhealth-reform%2Fpoll-finding%2Fkaiser-health-tracking-poll-august-2013%2F&key=15785bf48552a1cdfab425661118986f" target="_blank">Kaiser posed this question</a>
to Americans back in 2013 'Do you have a generally favorable or
generally unfavorable opinion of your own health insurance company?'<br />
<br />
"In that poll, 72% of Democrats they
had a favorable view of their health insurance company. That's triple
the 24% who said they had an unfavorable view."</div>
</blockquote>
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="61tpt-0-0">
<span data-offset-key="61tpt-0-0"><span data-text="true">Some points:</span></span><br />
<br />
<span data-offset-key="61tpt-0-0"><span data-text="true">--That same poll found that a plurality of respondents--49%--had a
negative opinion of health insurance companies in general, with only 43%
saying they had a positive view of them.</span></span><br />
<br />
<span data-offset-key="61tpt-0-0"><span data-text="true">--Significantly, the poll also suggests that opinions about insurance
companies are tied to the extent to which
people have to deal with them. Among those who had tried to purchase
insurance in the three years previous to the poll, 59% expressed an
unfavorable opinion of the companies.</span></span><br />
<br />
<span data-offset-key="61tpt-0-0"><span data-text="true">--Enten misrepresents the finding
about those who have a favorable opinion of their health insurance; that
question was asked of the insured, not of "Democrats."</span></span><br />
<br />
<span data-offset-key="61tpt-0-0"><span data-text="true">--Maybe most importantly, while that
overwhelming majority did say they had a favorable view of their own
insurance company, the same poll also asked respondents what was most
important to them in an insurance plan, and at the top of the responses
sits choice of doctors, coverage for a wide range of services, being
able to go to the hospital you prefer without paying more, etc.--all things also provided by M4A. Progressives have argued that when people say they like their insurance
coverage, this is what they're actually valuing, not their insurance
company itself--they like <i>having health care</i>, not necessarily private insurance--and this data suggests that is correct. Enten never outlines any of this, the very argument advanced by Warren and Sanders; he just represents the poll as refuting Warren and Sanders!</span></span></div>
</div>
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="61tpt-0-0">
<span data-offset-key="61tpt-0-0"><span data-text="true"><br /></span></span>
<span data-offset-key="61tpt-0-0"><span data-text="true">It gets worse:</span></span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Polls like the one I just cited indicate that the candidates who
favor a public option hold the majority opinion within the Democratic
Party."</blockquote>
Though Enten forgets to mention it while making that kind of sweeping statement, the same Kaiser poll with which he began asked about this and found that very large majorities of Democrats support <i>both</i> "Medicare For All" <i>and</i> the "public option" approach, and by lopsided margins.:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgHrx9GaIzFejj8ARPZVMgnoTs8GXhEFSswAPwCLNgB4yhBdFQBsiglapqmwGuHdp_owUJGPxCG1muOxjgiaovRlAJ9xzXN3Jqzfb0KHn6vLGsfkbohEJQPg0KPer6TkcIE2P6EUv7lsw/s1600/9347-Figure-8.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="450" data-original-width="800" height="360" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgHrx9GaIzFejj8ARPZVMgnoTs8GXhEFSswAPwCLNgB4yhBdFQBsiglapqmwGuHdp_owUJGPxCG1muOxjgiaovRlAJ9xzXN3Jqzfb0KHn6vLGsfkbohEJQPg0KPer6TkcIE2P6EUv7lsw/s640/9347-Figure-8.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
To note the obvious, that's going to be mostly the same people supporting both. Most Democratic respondents don't see them as either/or. They see both as policies that would improve healthcare. The public option performs slightly better among them because it also draws in some people who aren't comfortable with M4A and is probably seen as more immediately doable, as that's how it's rather relentlessly sold to the public. That puts the ball in the court of M4A advocates to explain their idea and make a case for it being the best. Most Americans have already <a href="https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/62-percent-u-s-want-federal-government-ensure-health-care-poll-says">accepted the premise</a> of the policy, that health care is a human right and that it is the responsibility of the government to ensure people have it.<br />
<br />
Enten never acknowledges that. He never acknowledges M4A's overwhelming popularity among Democrats either, though he does try to undermine it and suggest it--whatever it is--is all a mirage:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Our <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/27/politics/poll-of-the-week-health-care/index.html" target="_blank">CNN poll</a>
from late June directly posed the question to potential Democratic
primary voters. We asked whether there should be a national health care
plan and whether it should replace private insurance. The plurality,
49%, said there should be a government health care plan but it shouldn't
eliminate private insurance. Just 30% said there should be a national
health care plan and it should eliminate private insurance. A mere 13%
didn't want a government run health care plan."[3]</blockquote>
<span data-offset-key="61tpt-0-0"><span data-text="true"><span data-offset-key="61tpt-0-0"><span data-text="true">To elicit those responses, that CNN
poll specifically asked, "if the government instituted a national health insurance
program for all Americans, do you think that program should or should
not completely replace private health insurance?" But Medicare For All <a href="https://theweek.com/articles/850638/no-really-wants-ban-all-private-insurance-not-even-bernie-sanders"><i>doesn't</i> "completely replace private health insurance"</a>; it replaces private health insurance that duplicates coverage provided by the M4A program. Insurance companies could continue to offer coverage for services outside those covered by M4A. "Completely replace" misrepresents the policy in a prejudicial way and is also very strong language, both of which queer results--again, all things Enten, as a pollster, knows. If--perish the thought--one suspected Enten was dishonest, one may even suspect he left that "completely" out of his recitation of the results on purpose.</span></span></span></span><br />
<br />
<span data-offset-key="61tpt-0-0"><span data-text="true">Medicare
For All has enjoyed majority public support for years now and
Democratic support for it is staggering. That CNN poll also asked, "Do
you think the government should provide a national health insurance
program for all Americans, even if this would require higher taxes?"
Even with that "taxes" language, 56% of respondents, 87% of Democrats
and 85% of Democratic leaners answered in the affirmative. What people
mean when they say they support "Medicare For All" is obviously a
legitimate question. It just isn't one with which Enten, while pretending to address the matter, ever properly engages.</span></span><br />
<br />
<span data-offset-key="61tpt-0-0"><span data-text="true">In July, Morning Consult released <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/07/02/people-dont-insurance-companies-they-their-doctors-poll-shows-majority-voters?fbclid=IwAR0BhnHCzm1ZmEF5j85WG21rBBJfa2BXDbcvnDBqSISxMQ7fdQTuk2vqo5A">the best recent poll</a> we have on this. It asked respondents if they would support a Medicare For All system, a M4A system that diminishes the role of private insurance and a M4A system that diminishes the role of private insurance but allowed you to keep your doctor and hospital. The results:</span></span></div>
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="61tpt-0-0">
<span data-offset-key="61tpt-0-0"><span data-text="true"><br /></span></span>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj2yrFawCo2meto-2JWOGySgZyvA79L5Gf05cQiYK5pfarHZYKcz8UnthFtZW9YjhfyE1viD59G3vW1vfmKwYb7sFbK9o_2OjOBuz10IgNfn5-qFVFKEr9_GX9px_ybTF0oJYT1C-C52w/s1600/Morning_Consult_M4A_July_2019.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="1245" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj2yrFawCo2meto-2JWOGySgZyvA79L5Gf05cQiYK5pfarHZYKcz8UnthFtZW9YjhfyE1viD59G3vW1vfmKwYb7sFbK9o_2OjOBuz10IgNfn5-qFVFKEr9_GX9px_ybTF0oJYT1C-C52w/s640/Morning_Consult_M4A_July_2019.png" width="497" /></a></div>
<span data-offset-key="61tpt-0-0"><span data-text="true"><br /></span></span>
<span data-offset-key="61tpt-0-0"><span data-text="true">The third option, which is the most accurate and detailed description, polls the strongest across the board, and the results add weight to that progressive argument around which Entent attempted an end-run, that when people say they like their insurance company, they're really just saying they like their doctors, hospitals, etc. Enten doesn't reference the Morning Consult poll.</span></span><br />
<br />
Enten wears his purpose on his sleeve perhaps most prominently in his big finale:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"This polling ... might also explain why Biden continues to lead the
Democratic race. He's closer to the median voter on the marquee issue
this primary season than either his two leading competitors Sanders or
Warren.<br />
<br />
"If Sanders or Warren win the nomination, it will be in spite of their health care positions, not because of them... Perhaps the best hope for Sanders and Warren is to not make health
care personal... But when you propose eliminating private insurance, it's pretty hard not to make it personal to the many voters who rely on it."</blockquote>
</div>
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="61tpt-0-0">
<span data-offset-key="9tr59-0-0"><span data-text="true">Enten sells himself as a "data journalist" but while that label conjures images of some disinterested scientist who carefully crunches numbers and draws conclusions from them, Enten is selective in his use of numbers, outright terrible in his analysis, sloppy in his writing and what he's peddling under that "data journalist" label is, more often than not, just unacknowledged ideology.</span></span><br />
<br />
--j.<br />
<br />
<span data-offset-key="9tr59-0-0"><span data-text="true">---</span></span></div>
</div>
</div>
<div data-contents="true">
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="41ih6" data-offset-key="9tr59-0-0">
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="9tr59-0-0">
<span data-offset-key="9tr59-0-0"><span data-text="true"><br /></span></span>
<span data-offset-key="9tr59-0-0"><span data-text="true">[1] It isn't really a new idea--such systems first began appearing in the 19th century. It isn't new for Obama either. In 2003, before he was elected to the U.S. Senate, <a href="https://www.healthcare-now.org/blog/obama-for-single-payer-before-he-was-against-it/">Obama himself supported it</a>.</span></span><br />
<span data-offset-key="9tr59-0-0"><span data-text="true"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="9tr59-0-0">
<span data-offset-key="61tpt-0-0"><span data-text="true">[2] All the weird errors there--duplicating words, leaving out words--are in the original.</span></span><br />
<br />
<span data-offset-key="61tpt-0-0"><span data-text="true"><span data-offset-key="61tpt-0-0"><span data-text="true">[3] By the way, the CNN poll in question is located <a href="http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2019/images/07/01/rel8a.-.democrats.and.healthcare.pdf">here</a>; the link Enten erroneously provides goes to a story written months before the poll had even been conducted.</span></span></span></span></div>
</div>
</div>
cinemarchaeologisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13507603255666191405noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6321344375544728027.post-18164098942451317282019-03-02T12:40:00.001-08:002023-06-30T15:39:45.352-07:00Politico's Latest Anti-Sanders Flight of FancyPolitico, one of the many corporate media mouthpieces for the Clintonite right, has fired off its umpteenth hit-piece against progressive senator and presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, a toxic treatise entitled, "<a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/25/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-private-jet-flights-1182793">Ex-Clinton Staffers Slam Sanders Over Private Jet Flights</a>." The thrust of the piece, by Daniel Lippman, is that while Sanders crisscrossed the U.S. on behalf of Hillary Clinton in 2016 and other Democratic candidates and causes in the years since, he's displayed an enthusiasm for chartering private jets, characterized by "journalist" Lippman as "carbon-spewing" in a bid to portray Sanders as hypocritical based on the senator's criticism of the fossil-fuel industry. But if Lippman made any effort to either get these Clinton staffers to document their charges or to investigate them himself, he gives no indication. Former Sanders staffers quoted in the article offer a reasonable and entirely plausible explanation for Sanders' use of private jets but Lippman runs with the Clinton staffers' entirely unsubstantiated charges and characterization.<br />
<br />
Lippman writes that, in his 2020 bid for the presidency, Sanders faces<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"hard feelings that remain to this day after the contentious 2016
Democratic primary. Many in the party continue to believe the Vermont
senator played a role in contributing to Clinton's defeat in November
because of his criticisms of her prior to the general election, and his
refusal to concede earlier when it appeared he had little mathematical
chance of securing the party nomination."</blockquote>
Is this true, or is this merely a view held by a relative handful of extreme Clinton partisans like the Clinton personality-cult that hangs out on Twitter and obsessively repeat such claims? Sanders' favorability polling over the last two years has shown that he is overwhelmingly popular with Democrats--around 80%--while Dems with a "very unfavorable" view of Sanders have hovered between only 3-7%. The <a href="https://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Jan2019_HHP_registeredvoters_xtabs.pdf">latest Harvard/Harris poll</a> from the end of January puts that number at 6%, with an additional 10% expressing only an "unfavorable" view, while 76% of Dems viewed Sanders favorably. Via his set-up, Lippman arguably both misrepresents this state of affairs and privileges a view held by what is, in reality, an extreme minority. This "many in the party," he writes, "are eager to point out Sanders' flaws and examples of what
they perceive to be examples of hypocrisy now that the one-time underdog
rates as one of the front-runners in the crowded Democratic field."<br />
<br />
And Lippman is apparently eager to assist them. Lippman uses this remarkable comment:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"'I'm not shocked that while thousands of volunteers braved the heat and
cold to knock on doors until their fingers bled in a desperate effort to
stop Donald Trump, his Royal Majesty King Bernie Sanders would only
deign to leave his plush D.C. office or his brand new <a href="https://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/news/local/vermont/2016/08/13/bernie-buys-lake-home-igniting-twitter-snark/88535972/" target="_blank"><u>second home</u></a>
on the lake if he was flown around on a cushy private jet like a
billionaire master of the universe,' said Zac Petkanas, who was the
director of rapid response for the Clinton campaign."</blockquote>
If one didn't know anything else, that seems like the sort of thing that may force a journalist to consider the possibility that this is just some hack with an axe to grind who may just be crooking him, eh? Lippman instead uses it to establish the tone of his piece. Petkanas' characterization is, of course, entirely at odds with Sanders' persona. Indeed, while the Clintons, who have made <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2016/11/08/how-bill-house-hillary-clinton-made-240-million-how-much-earnings-rich-white/#1613c4027a16https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/apr/14/bernie-sanders/bernie-sanders-says-hes-one-poorer-members-united-/">hundreds of millions of dollars</a> over the years, have an <a href="https://www.forbes.com/pictures/56d73afde4b0c144a7f69f9d/2-hillary-clinton/#35958b51560e">estimated net worth</a> of $45 million, fly cushy private jets <i>everywhere</i> and live a lavish lifestyle of which most Americans can only dream, Sanders was one of the <a href="https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/apr/14/bernie-sanders/bernie-sanders-says-hes-one-poorer-members-united-/">least wealthy senators</a>--hardly some Master of the Universe. Eleven days before this Politico piece ran, Petkanas himself had authored <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/bernie-sanders-2020-presidential-campaign-will-face-scrutiny-clinton-got-ncna973136">an op-ed for NBC</a> in which he'd rather laughably suggested that Sanders had faced no serious criticism during the 2016 primary campaign--a favorite chestnut of the Clinton personality cult--and gloated at the idea that now, Sanders will face the same scrutiny as Clinton.[1] All things that should give a journalist pause.<br />
<br />
After Sanders dropped out of the 2016 race and endorsed Clinton, he went to work as a surrogate for her campaign, traveling the U.S. in an effort to drum up the vote for her. The tale peddled by the Clinton staffers who talked to Lippman is that Sanders insisted on chartering expensive private jets as his "preferred mode of travel," causing tension with the Clinton campaign that preferred Sanders to travel on cheaper commercial flights. "We would try to fight it as much as possible because of cost and
availability of planes, but they would request [a jet] every time," said one of Lippman's sources. "To the Clinton staff," Lippman writes, "the issue of the senator and the private
jets became so cumbersome that it turned into 'a running joke in the
office,' said one former Clinton staffer."<br />
<br />
The story told Lippman by Sanders' staffers is straightforward:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Sanders spokesperson Arianna Jones said it was physically impossible
to get to all of the event locations in such a short period of time
without chartered flights, especially since the senator was traveling to
many smaller markets with limited commercial air travel options.<br />
<br />
"'That’s why chartered flights were used: to make sure Sen. Sanders
could get to as many locations as quickly as possible in the effort to
help the Democratic ticket defeat Donald Trump,' she said. 'Sen. Sanders
campaigned so aggressively for Secretary Clinton, at such a grueling
pace, it became a story unto itself, setting the model for how a former
opponent can support a nominee in a general election.'<br />
<br />
"In the final three months before Election Day 2016, Sanders held 39
rallies in 13 states on behalf of Clinton’s campaign, according to
Jones, including 17 events in 11 states in the last week alone."</blockquote>
That's entirely plausible (and the undeniably grueling pace of it speaks to Petkanas' characterization of these events as well).<br />
<br />
All of this air travel was to meet a schedule set by <i>the Clinton campaign itself</i>. Was Sanders gratuitously requesting private jets to meet it or was he only making such requests when commercial flights wouldn't cover it? That's not an unknowable question. Commercial flight schedules can be checked against the campaign schedule easily enough.<br />
<br />
More to the point, if the Clinton staffers' allegations are true, they should be able to produce documentation to show where Sanders was insisting on private jets when commercial flights were available.<br />
<br />
The credibility of their entire story hinges on this, but if Lippman ever even requested such documentation, he gives no indication of doing so. If he ever investigated the matter himself, he gives no indication of doing so. Lippman provides no documentation whatsoever for the Clinton staffers' claims. Without this, there <i>is</i> no story. But <i>Politico ran Lippman's article anyway</i>, smearing Sanders without a shred of evidence that this tale being pitched to its "journalist" was anything more than a bunch of bullshit being spun by rabid Clinton partisans with an axe to grind. That they may have coordinated this narrative would be a story in itself--former Clinton staffers conspiring to smear the current Sanders campaign--but that apparently isn't a story in which Politico is interested.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhpX2oMeWVy7WHSBxP7_qTbR8OMw6TlMDQ6zaBiquz0fAyzvEbRT6WEhg1TbPEa-JF06zzUAKdkojNgMHFc84crUfzuKbZtroTZPHYgkN_qVMj1xklewQLJtOkYP_ZBcpXMyoOdqIRbiw/s1600/lippman_with_her.PNG" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="720" data-original-width="1280" height="360" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhpX2oMeWVy7WHSBxP7_qTbR8OMw6TlMDQ6zaBiquz0fAyzvEbRT6WEhg1TbPEa-JF06zzUAKdkojNgMHFc84crUfzuKbZtroTZPHYgkN_qVMj1xklewQLJtOkYP_ZBcpXMyoOdqIRbiw/s640/lippman_with_her.PNG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Politico's Daniel Lippman, #stillwithering</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
Here's something else to make you smile: Petkanas is the only Clinton staffer willing to go on the record with these allegations. The only other Clinton staffer willing to put his name anywhere near Lippman's article was former Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook, who apparently wanted no part of the Sanders-bashing. "We needed all hands on deck, including Bernie," Mook said in his only statement on the matter, "and we were grateful for
his support and the generous amount of time he gave the campaign." All of the Clinton staffers making these allegations would only do so only behind the cloak of anonymity. By contrast, all of the Sanders staffers quoted by Lippman were willing to go on the record.<br />
<br />
Why would the Clinton staffers be granted anonymity in this matter in the first place? They aren't deep government operatives discussing national security secrets and in fear of legal retribution should they affix their names to any of this. The inflammatory nature of their charges and the fact that they're completely unsubstantiated makes the grant of anonymity even more inappropriate.<br />
<br />
The hapless reader has to dig 30 paragraphs into the story before encountering this:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Private jet travel on the campaign trail is not uncommon--either for
candidates like Clinton or a top surrogate tasked with stumping for
them. Often it is the most efficient mode of transportation,
particularly when events are in locations where commercial air travel
options are limited.<br />
<br />
"One veteran Democratic operative who oversaw surrogates for past
presidential campaigns said providing private planes is standard
practice for the most important surrogate of a presidential campaign in
the general election.<br />
<br />
"In addition to Sanders, the Clinton campaign footed the private plane bill on occasion for several<b> </b>top
celebrities, among them Beyonce, Jay Z and Katy Perry. But as a rule,
when political surrogates made requests for private jets, the campaign’s
answer was no--except when it came to Sanders, said one former Clinton
staffer."</blockquote>
The cost of Sanders' private flights during the 2016 campaign is pegged in the article at $100,000. To put that in perspective:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"The Clinton campaign itself spent a total of $15.9 million on jet
charter company Executive Flightways in the 2016 campaign, according to a
review of FEC records. That money was used to ferry Hillary Clinton,
former President Bill Clinton, vice presidential nominee Tim Kaine,
Sanders, major celebrities, and Clinton’s traveling press corps."</blockquote>
Unmentioned in the article, though <a href="https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-clinton-trump-travel-20161013-snap-story.html">reported during the campaign</a>, is the fact that Clinton insisted on flying back home every night while "on" the campaign trail--sleeping in her own bed in her Westchester County, N.Y. mansion then starting over the next day.<br />
<br />
Toward the end, Lippman, writing in his own voice, returns to the charge of hypocrisy against Sanders, now treating the entirely unsubstantiated claim that Sanders has a "penchant for private jet travel" as an established fact:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"The revelation of Sanders’ penchant for private jet travel, both in 2016
and in the subsequent years, could surface as an issue for him since he
often demands the U.S. do its part to fight global climate change--to
which CO2 emissions from aviation<b> </b>is a contributor."</blockquote>
The notion that Sanders--or anyone concerned about climate change--is somehow hypocritical if they don't take a vow of poverty and walk across the country, eschewing all modern means of travel, is unworthy of the the bandwidth wasted to transmit it. Hillary Clinton herself <a href="https://www.vox.com/2016/5/9/11548354/hillary-clintons-climate-and-energy-policies-explained">has discussed</a> the dangers of climate change (though <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/sep/20/hillary-clinton-dropped-climate-change-from-speeches-after-bernie-sanders-endorsement">she dropped such talk</a> as soon as Sanders dropped out, so as not to offend the big donors on which she depends), but her air-travel doesn't get this scrutiny nor her any empty accusations of hypocrisy for it, even as her own underlings act as the source for this "story." Lippman reports that last year, Sanders spent "$342,000 on Apollo Jets, a private jet service," money that "was used primarily to pay for a nine-day, nine-state tour to support Democratic candidates across the country" (Sanders spokesman Arianna Jones says "the campaign purchased carbon offsets to zero out the emissions produced on the trip."). He also notes Sanders' 2017 participation in the DNC-organized "unity tour" across 8 states, for which Sanders paid the bulk of the cost.<br />
<br />
Though Lippman doesn't make note of it, Sanders has, in fact, spent the last 2 1/2 years on constant tours across the U.S. on behalf of Democratic causes and candidates--those that will confront the threat of climate change. It's been an extraordinary effort unmatched by anyone in politics. But in politics, it seems--at least when it comes to certain Democratic insiders--no good deed goes unpunished.<br />
<br />
It's a matter of public record that Sanders campaigned for Hillary Clinton in 2016 much harder than Clinton ever campaigned for Obama in 2008 and delivered a larger share of his voters to her than she did her own to Obama. For his troubles, Sanders has gotten little more than grief. If one discusses public affairs on Twitter, it's a regular occurrence to encounter Clinton cultists who insist Sanders did next to nothing to assist in Clinton's election. This fiction has been fed by Clinton herself, who goes around in the press <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=csWcVWZYJeo">saying things like this</a>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"When I lost to Barack Obama, I immediately turned around, I endorsed him, I worked for him, I convinced my supporters to vote for him. I didn't get the same respect from my primary opponent."</blockquote>
The press has refused to scandalize such comments and Sanders has done little to respond to them, so it's appropriate to end on the words of Sanders' 2016 spokesman Michael Briggs, quoted by Lippman. He says some things that have needed to be said for a long time now, describing Clinton and her staff as "total ingrates":<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"'You can see why she’s one of the most disliked politicians in
America. She’s not nice. Her people are not nice,' he said. '[Sanders]
busted his tail to fly all over the country to talk about why it made
sense to elect Hillary Clinton and the thanks that [we] get is this kind
of petty stupid sniping a couple years after the fact.'<br />
<br />
"'It doesn’t make me feel good to feel this way but they’re some of the biggest assholes in American politics,' he added."</blockquote>
To that, one should add press outlets who, in their fervor to tear down a progressive presidential challenger, uncritically parrot those same assholes.<br />
<br />
--j.<br />
<br />
---<br />
<br />
[1] In the real world, Sanders was subjected to an endless barrage of negative--and typically scurrilous--attacks by the press throughout 2016 (as soon as the "Bernie Blackout" of 2015 began to life). The idea that he faced no criticism <a href="https://fair.org/home/the-myth-that-sanders-hasnt-been-criticized-wont-go-away/">was debunked at the time</a>, but has taken on a life of its own as an ubiquitous talking-point among the Clinton personality cult on Twitter. In his article, Petkanas offered "here's what voters missed" about Sanders, then went on to cover a handful of issues, mostly Sanders' votes against a handful of gun-control measures, that were, in fact, extensively covered throughout 2016. Petkanas also writes of Sanders' "relentless attacks on Clinton... over the 1994 Crime Bill"; in reality, Sanders never attacked Clinton for that bill, for which he, himself, voted.cinemarchaeologisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13507603255666191405noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6321344375544728027.post-46428215668978742272019-02-24T04:11:00.001-08:002021-06-17T19:45:43.105-07:00Stupid Press Tricks 2: Chillin' the BernThis is my 2nd "Stupid Press Tricks" piece, intended to offer a collection of short-takes on examples of press misbehavior that, individually, don't require or merit longer-form examination. Sort of an ongoing notebook...<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhiUQORlWiwlc6nuSZi2J0AT1lcEiU7_DoYOWtzjQfdyhj8Puj2uhZkhHnF7Nq8K8ktP4St7Glu3Qn5uCucRwF_tLaFqrKzPJFTBc490yxm2k7zEeuEUjeUGwVor49cCyo52YIfg33FYg/s1600/bernie_cold_water.PNG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="997" data-original-width="1048" height="608" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhiUQORlWiwlc6nuSZi2J0AT1lcEiU7_DoYOWtzjQfdyhj8Puj2uhZkhHnF7Nq8K8ktP4St7Glu3Qn5uCucRwF_tLaFqrKzPJFTBc490yxm2k7zEeuEUjeUGwVor49cCyo52YIfg33FYg/s640/bernie_cold_water.PNG" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
For the last few years, Sen. Bernie Sanders has made it a point to deliver his own response to the State of the Union Address. Just last month, when Donald Trump used a televised address to the nation as an effort to foment the false notion that there existed a "crisis" at the U.S. Southern border, Sanders followed the official Democratic response with one of his own. Sanders' fiery, no-nonsense, take-no-prisoners dissections of Trumpian lies and nonsense and forceful defense of progressive values have stood in sharp contrast to the limp, pathetic, empty-platitude-packed official Democratic responses. Handling these responses is considered a thankless job and when it comes to doing so, Democrats, for whatever reason, just haven't been able to get it together. Sanders' are the real Democratic responses from the real leader of the Democratic party.<br />
<br />
This year, when Dems announced they'd chosen former Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams to handle their official response, it was hoped this would lead to a presentation more worthy of the time expended to broadcast it. Abrams is certainly far more formidable than the unfortunates chosen by Dems in both of the prior two years. Sanders, who had endorsed and campaigned for Abrams last year, praised her as "a great choice. I'm very much looking forward to her speech." For the third year in a row, Sanders planned to internet-broadcast his own response to the State of the Union Address following the official Dem response.<br />
<br />
That's when the trouble started.<br />
<br />
In my first "<a href="http://corporatenewsreviews.blogspot.com/2019/02/stupid-press-tricks-1.html">Stupid Press Tricks</a>," I wrote about how part of the toxic legacy of Hillary Clinton is the weaponization of "identity" to attack progressives and how the Clinton cult "portrayed up as down, in as out and Sanders--a lifelong feminist and
civil rights advocate--as a misogynist and a racist. Everything Sanders
says or does regarding race or gender--and even a lot of things <i>unrelated</i> to them--is interpreted, usually ripped from vital context, through this lens and in a negative way," and--wouldn't you know it?--that happened again here. Clinton-cult Twitter jumped all over Sanders' announcement of his SOTU response to suggest he was trying to steal the spotlight from Abrams, upstage Abrams, slight Abrams, disrespect Abrams, and all of the above is used to continue the tired narratives about how Sanders has a "blind spot" regarding race and gender, "downplays" race and gender, is "insensitive" and/or "tone deaf" when it comes to race and gender, is a racist and sexist, full stop. Shane Ryan collected some of the early "greatest hits" of this latest leg of the cult's Slander Sanders Forever campaign and assembled them into an article at Paste, "<a href="https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2019/02/the-bad-faith-bernie-sanders-attack-of-the-day-ber.html#">The Bad Faith Bernie Sanders Attack of the Day: Bernie Is Racist Because He's Responding To the SOTU</a>."<br />
<br />
Twitter is, unfortunately, a sewer of Clinton cultism and veteran users have come to expect this kind of response to pretty much <i>anything</i> having to do with Sanders. It's a daily drumbeat as relentless as it is transparent in its naked bad faith, carried out by people who despise Sanders for having the audacity to have stood in the way of their Queen's coronation in 2016. Theirs is a milieu that relishes absolutely wallowing in anti-Sanders lies and misinformation and as any veteran of exchanges with them can attest, debunking this rubbish only makes them wallow in it more enthusiastically. In this case (as is so often the case), their feigned outrage at Sanders was entirely selective. Along with Sanders, California Sen. Kamala Harris, Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy, New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Washington Gov. Jay Inslee and others issued their own responses to the State of the Union Address via social media or in press appearances after the event, but not one of these others faced so much as a word of criticism from those who so feverishly raged against Sanders. There wouldn't be any need to say much more about it than that except in this case--as often happens with anti-Sanders slanders--numerous major press outlets decided to pick up on and amplify the "controversy."<br />
<br />
Vox's Zack Beauchamp set about trying to untangle the matter in "<a href="https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/2/5/18212254/stacey-abrams-bernie-sanders-state-of-the-union-response">The Controversy Over Bernie Sanders' State of the Union Response, Explained</a>." He gets it basically right when he writes, "this has become just another opportunity to relitigate the 2016 primary." Unfortunately, he goes out of his way to privilege, rather than question, the bad-faith attacks on Sanders and to grossly elevate those slinging them. He calls the matter "a petty fight... but it’s a revealing petty fight that shows just how deep the wounds
from the 2016 primary remain in the Democratic Party--and how likely
those divisions are to come back up if Sanders does, in fact, mount a
2020 run." But is it? Beauchamp gives that question a bit of a kick in the teeth when he writes that Sanders "remains a controversial figure in the party." Is this remotely true? One need only consult the polling regarding Sanders' favorability among Democrats; it has hovered around 80% for over 2 years now. The <a href="https://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Jan2019_HHP_registeredvoters_xtabs.pdf">January Harvard/Harris poll</a> has Sanders' favorability among Dems at 76%. At the same time, Democrats with a "very unfavorable" view of Sanders--that is, the ones who use these ginned-up "controversies" to obsessively rage against him--have only measured out between 3-7%. In that H/H poll, they're at 6% (with another 10% expressing merely an "unfavorable" view). Sanders is, in fact, largely <i>beloved</i> within the Democratic party and Beauchamp's assertion only leads one to question what he thinks is a reasonable threshold for "controversial" within the party.<br />
<br />
Beauchamp, like pretty much everyone else who covered this, presents this controversy as representative of a serious divide in the party, as if there are large factions on both sides of it, which is a complete misrepresentation. That Sanders' rabid Dem critics, for all their noise, amount to little more than a margin-of-error faction--a lunatic fringe within the party--simply <i>must</i> inform any and all such assessments. If their rage against Sanders is even judged worthy of <i>any</i> coverage--and in most cases (like this one), it probably <i>shouldn't</i> be--that fact should inform the framing of the coverage. They're not representative of anything so profound as "how deep the wounds from the 2016 primary remain in the Democratic Party"; they're just a marginal faction that doesn't speak for anyone.<br />
<br />
To put in perspective <i>how</i> marginal, 19% of Democrats <a href="http://www.people-press.org/2017/06/26/support-for-same-sex-marriage-grows-even-among-groups-that-had-been-skeptical/">oppose same-sex marriage</a>,[1] several times that 3-7% and, in fact, more than the total 16% who express <i>any</i> unfavorable opinion of Sanders. For the party, repealing same-sex marriage would be as unthinkable as repealing the right of women to vote but there's stronger support for doing so than there are unfavorable feelings for Sanders. There are an endless array of other such tiny factions within the party--and <i>every</i> party--holding fringe, crank and/or marginal views. Now, of course, just because a view is fringe doesn't mean it's wrong but in this particular matter, the overwhelming and defining characteristic of these attacks on Sanders is their utter bad faith. Beauchamp's failure to properly contextualize the attacks while treating them as something far more significant than they are is a pretty striking journalistic failing, one repeated by every press outlet that picked up on this "story."<br />
<br />
Near the end (and feeling an awful lot like an afterthought), Beauchamp does acknowledge the existence of those who see the<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"criticisms of [Sanders'] record on
identity issues as a cynical ploy from Democratic loyalists, who were
willing to forgive Hillary Clinton for her comments about black youth
and 'superpredators' in the '90s and overlook Joe Biden’s support for
policies that have increased America’s mass incarceration problem, but
turn readily to identity-based critiques of Sanders. It's bad faith all the way down,
in their view: The critics just don't like him, either because he's an
outsider or because he's a democratic socialist, and are looking for any
excuse to discredit him."</blockquote>
But while providing plenty of room for the anti-Sanders attacks, Beauchamp attributes this view only to "Sanders supporters" and makes no effort to unpack it. He reproduces a Sanders tweet in which Sanders notes this will be his 3rd State of the Union response but takes no further notice of this, despite its direct bearing on the good faith of Sanders' attackers. He never mentions the lack of criticism of the other Democrats who delivered responses to the SOTU. He doesn't even acknowledge there <i>were</i> any other Democratic responses. Exasperatingly, he concludes by putting the attacks and defenses of Sanders on equal footing:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Sanders critics see it as proof that Bernie hasn't really learned his
lesson on race and gender; Sanders defenders see the critics as once
again ginning up faux-outrage about something unimportant to discredit
their guy."</blockquote>
Still, Beauchamp's very flawed work looks positively golden compared to others who wrote about the mater.<br />
<br />
Joseph P. Williams of U.S. News & World Report certainly fails <i>much</i> more spectacularly with, "<a href="https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2019-02-05/is-bernie-stealing-the-post-state-of-the-union-spotlight-from-stacey-abrams">Is Bernie Sanders Stealing the Post-State of the Union Spotlight From Stacey Abrams?</a>" (5 Feb.). Williams mostly just concerns himself with repeating the attacks on Sanders, which he does even when allegedly presenting the other side of the story:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Political analysts, however, point out that this is Sanders' third
independent State of the Union rebuttal, and deciding to give it is
Bernie being typically Bernie: a little selfish, perhaps tone deaf,
uncompromising when it comes to his political vision. His rebuttal to
Abrams' rebuttal may not be a good look, but it's definitely on brand."</blockquote>
That's Sanders: Selfish, Tone-Deaf, Uncompromising Bad Looks R Us. Offering a "rebuttal to Abrams' rebuttal," instead of what he was actually offering: a rebuttal of Trump. The only two Sanders "defenders" Williams quotes are from conservative outlets, which he misidentifies (he describes the center-right Brookings Institution as "a center-left think-tank" and the <i>very</i> conservative Reason magazine as "centrist") and--wait for it--both <i>also</i> repeat the attacks on Sanders.<br />
<br />
Aki Soga, writing in USA Today, repeats them as well and adds another layer of awfulness by portraying them as coming not from a fringe but from "progressives": "<a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/02/06/bernie-sanders-backlash-state-union-response/2790717002/">Bernie Sanders Faces Progressive Backlash Over State of the Union Response</a>" (6 Feb.). Compounding this, Soga declines to quote any progressive defenders of Sanders, choosing, instead, to quote only conservatives, who weren't really defending Sanders but merely throwing elbows as the "progressives' attacking him. Soga <i>does</i>, at least, identify them as conservative.<br />
<br />
The Root's Stephen Crockett Jr. provides only a somewhat extended treatment of the attacks on Sanders with, "<a href="https://www.theroot.com/hey-bernie-sanders-can-you-stfu-after-the-sotu-and-let-1832372100">Hey, Bernie Sanders Can You STFU After the SOTU and Let Stacey Abrams Shine?</a>" (5 Feb.). He begins with an off-the-scale lie:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"I thought after the 'Bernie Bros.' reportedly ditched their liberal
persona and voted for Donald Trump in an effort to 'bern' Hillary
Clinton that everyone had learned their lesson and informally agreed to
play nice."</blockquote>
In every survey, even the flawed one favored by the Clinton cult, 3/4 or more of Sanders supporters voted for Hillary Clinton in the general. Crockett never gets any better.[2]<br />
<br />
In the Washington Post, Eugene Scott writes, "<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/02/05/stacey-abrams-will-give-response-state-union-bernie-sanders-wants-last-word/?utm_term=.31661fa6593b">Stacey Abrams Will Give the Response To the State of the Union. But Bernie Sanders Wants the Last Word</a>" (5 Feb.), in which he says, "Sen. Bernie Sanders’s plan to deliver his own response was not well received, especially among people of color"--again, suggesting absent any evidence whatsoever that this is a very widespread furor. Even the anecdotal evidence of the anti-Sanders Twitter ranters won't back that dog--they're overwhelmingly white. Scott's conclusion is just as ill-considered:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"The current class of congressional Democrats is one of the most diverse
in history in terms of gender, ethnicity and sexual orientation. The
selection of Abrams as rebuttal speaker seems designed to honor and
highlight that diversity. While it is understandable that many people
want to push back on Trump’s ideas, Sanders’s effort to get the last
word undermines that message."</blockquote>
Bernie Sanders is Jewish, part of one of the smallest minorities in the U.S., equaling only 1.4% of the population. When it comes to the warriors of weaponized "identity," that's a demographic that apparently doesn't matter.[3] Sanders is also one of only a handful of democratic socialists in congress, three of which were only just elected in 2018. Substantive political, rather than superficial, diversity doesn't seem to score very high with the identitarians either.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjqoDoKSv4pp-CI6JSf5523XYOLIHNAnHG6jIJ8ezJPHL6irgShIhJimdOn-xxeYOa_TpCRggxkSIFRAXBnt1VoUcVeYlEeT3yKPNsoJKiHlN3mKPCuC0Ipx-5ez1pZ49j4KbV2d-CiPQ/s1600/children_damned_not_even_a_demo.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="240" data-original-width="478" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjqoDoKSv4pp-CI6JSf5523XYOLIHNAnHG6jIJ8ezJPHL6irgShIhJimdOn-xxeYOa_TpCRggxkSIFRAXBnt1VoUcVeYlEeT3yKPNsoJKiHlN3mKPCuC0Ipx-5ez1pZ49j4KbV2d-CiPQ/s400/children_damned_not_even_a_demo.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
Chris Cillizza, one of CNN's regular Bernie-bashers, had to get in his own licks. In trying to talk down Sanders' presidential chances, "<a href="https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/05/politics/bernie-sanders-state-of-the-union/index.html">Why Bernie Sanders Isn't Helping His 2020 Prospects with His Own SOTU Response</a>" (5 Feb.) takes a slightly different, though also excruciatingly tired, tack, basically a column-length version of the worn-out Clinton cult line re:Sanders, "He's not a Democrat!", Cillizza tries to Other-ize Sanders and make it seem as if the senator, by responding to Trump, is setting himself apart as "different" and "special" from the party. Like everyone else, Cillizza misrepresents the scale of the discontent with Sanders:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Within a not-insignificant chunk of the Democratic Party, there is some
leftover ill will toward Sanders for his role in the 2016 campaign and
lingering doubts as to the firmness of his commitment to the Democratic
Party."</blockquote>
Like Hillary Clinton, Cillizza suggests an electorate far more concerned with the superficial matter of what party-label a pol slaps on himself than the policies he advocates.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Democratic voters in 2020 will have candidates who not only represent
their own liberal views but also have aligned themselves with the
Democratic Party their entire lives. And that may leave Sanders on the
outside looking in."</blockquote>
Or maybe it won't.<br />
<br />
In one cackle-inducing parenthetical moment, Cillizza acknowledges that Kamala Harris was also giving a response to Trump and tries to exempt her from the criticism of Sanders he's laying down.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"(Sidebar: Yes, I know California Sen. Kamala Harris, who is also
running for president in 2020, is set to deliver a SOTU pre-buttal
before Trump speaks tonight. But Harris isn't dealing with the same
is-she-really-a-true-blue-Democrat that Sanders is. No one has--or
will--question Harris' commitment to the Democratic Party and its
principles. She's always been a Democrat. Sanders, well, hasn't.)"</blockquote>
Uh huh. Cillizza has pushed Harris' candidacy for months now.<br />
<br />
The concluding irony of all of this huff and bluster is that Stacey Abrams, despite her obvious advantages over the other Dems recently assigned Trump-reply duty, went on to fail in her presentation, turning out yet <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ycbj3NVtvbY">another uninspiring platitude-filled dud</a> to add to the pile, while <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xc5fD_t1ObQ">Sanders' own response</a> again proved the spectacularly effective counter.<br />
<br />
As I covered in my previous article, CNN's ongoing "power rankings" of Democratic candidates have proven a farcical effort to manipulate public perceptions of the race. Allegedly a survey "of Democrats most likely to get their party's presidential nomination in 2020," the top-10 "rankings," prepared by Chris Cillizza and "data journalist" Harry Enten, are entirely untethered from any actual data on the state of the race. They're just a vehicle for Cillizza and Enten--and CNN--to promote their favored candidates, talk down the ones they don't like and, by doing both, try to make both a reality.<br />
<br />
Thus while Kamala Harris is polling at 10% in a recent <a href="https://morningconsult.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/190156_crosstabs_POLITICO_RVs_v1_ML.pdf">Morning Consult poll</a> I'll use for comparisons here, Cillizza/Enten have yet again placed her at #1 in <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/14/politics/2020-rankings-democrats-february/index.html">their rankings for February</a>, a slot they've given her for months. Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders continue to dominate the top of the polls, with Sanders clearly the stronger candidate, yet Sanders is consigned to #6, sandwiched between Cory Booker and Amy Klobuchar, both of whom finish with, respectively, 3% and 1% in that Morning Consult poll, while the uber-conservative Biden is ranked #2.<br />
<br />
The arguments Cillizza/Enten offer for Sanders' poor standing are so nonsensical, it leaves the reader with the impression that they're just playing to hardcore anti-Sanders Dem Establishment partisans and don't even care that they're not making any real case.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"It's not clear, however, that Sanders can pick up support beyond his
base."</blockquote>
In a race that may include as many as 30 or more candidates, that, it would seem, would be more than sufficient to <i>win</i> (and that's setting aside questions about the authors' notion of what constitutes Sanders' "base").<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"He continues to poll well behind his 2016 primary showing despite
having high name recognition."</blockquote>
It's impossible to believe that any serious analyst--or anyone who, say, dabbles in <i>math</i>--would be surprised by the fact that in a race crowded with so many candidates, Sanders isn't polling as high as he did back when he was one candidate in a two-candidate race. It's also impossible to believe anyone would think that necessarily pointed to any sort of serious problem for that candidate.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Sanders is an independent running in a
Democratic Party with other actual Democrats who are also very liberal.
Finally, many Clinton fans still have ill will toward him after 2016."</blockquote>
As covered earlier, Sanders' favorability among Democrats is overwhelming. Democrats simply don't share the Clinton cult's obsession with Sanders' independent status when not running for president or its hatred of him. And a "data journalist" like Enten is certainly well aware of this.<br />
<br />
Cillizza/Enten have been part of the vast corporate press chorus trying to goad former Texas congressman Beto O'Rourke into joining the presidential race. This extraordinary effort has continued for months despite O'Rourke himself expressing virtually no interest in the prospect. Cillizza/Enten devote a significant chunk of their February rankings article to continuing this crusade. "If and when--and it feels more like a question of when than if at this
point--O'Rourke decides to get into the 2020 race, he will
fundamentally alter the contest in ways big and small." If O'Rourke throws his hat in the ring, he "will become the central mover of the contest." O'Rourke "has star power and a grassroots backing that is the envy of the Democratic Party" (Sanders' much more impressive grassroots backing doesn't merit so much as a mention). O'Rourke's support as measured by Morning Consult is at 6%; Cillizza/Enten rank him the #3 Dem contender.[4]<br />
<br />
Other press promotion of Harris' candidacy continues.[5]<br />
<br />
Amie Parnes of the Hill offers a great example of an Echo Chamber Story, which she headlines "<a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/430298-harris-off-to-best-start-among-dems-in-race-say-strategists-donors">Harris Off To Best Start Among Dems In Race, Say Strategists, Donors</a>" (17 Feb.), because calling it something like "Dem Establishment Likes Dem Establishment Candidate" would lay the entire enterprise a bit too bare. There's no actual news in the piece; it's just Dem Establishment insiders praising all things Harris (and throwing shade on her opponents) as Parnes acts as their stenographer.<br />
<br />
The next day, Newsweek turned up with a rather surprising headline, "<a href="https://www.newsweek.com/kamala-harris-2020-election-democratic-candidates-1334461">Kamala Harris Surges Into Lead Among Democratic Party Candidates</a>" (18 Feb.). Given that Kamala Harris has, up to then, never led the Democratic race in a single poll, that would be some big news indeed. Katherine Hignett's lede only gives a hint of her game: "Kamala Harris has leaped to the front of an already-packed Democratic
2020 race, recent polls, political strategists and party donors have
suggest." But then, things fall apart.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Although recent polls show Harris lagging behind former <a href="https://www.newsweek.com/joe-biden-immigration-europe-nato-donald-trump-1334094"> Vice President Joe Biden</a>
and Senator Bernie Sanders, the California senator is first among
Democrats who have announced their bids for the 2020 nomination in
recent polls..."</blockquote>
Yep, no poll had actually shown Harris ahead. Rather, Hignett had just taken several polls that included a wide array of candidates, both announced and not, and ignored the results for those who hadn't yet officially entered the race. Among those who had entered, Harris was first. Polling, of course, doesn't work that way; if those other not-yet-announced candidates weren't in the theoretical race being surveyed, their support would have gone elsewhere. The rest of Hignett's piece is just an Echo Chamber rehash of both the Parnes piece from the Hill and the most recent Cillizza/Enten "power rankings" article.<br />
<br />
In October, the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/08/global-warming-must-not-exceed-15c-warns-landmark-un-report">reported</a> that the world has only 12 years to contain climate change or face potentially devastating--and escalating--consequences. To address this crisis, progressives have called for a "Green New Deal"--a major government push to develop and convert to clean, renewable energy. On 7 February, freshman New York congresswoman (and Democratic rock-star) Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez teamed with Massachusetts Sen. Ed Markey to introduce an outline of this Green New Deal.<br />
<br />
The reaction of the evening newscasts of the three major networks that night? The Green New Deal went uncovered and, in fact, <i>entirely unmentioned</i>. That "liberal media" at work.[6]<br />
<br />
Last year was a bad one for conservative "Democratic" senators. Voters given a choice between Republican and Republican Lite sent several incumbent species of the latter packing. One was Claire McCaskill in Missouri, who, playing up how much she agrees with Trump and running against "crazy Democrats" (progressives), was defeated by Republican Josh Hawley. McCaskill spent a lot of December on a sort of Sour Grapes Tour. As Christina Cauterucci <a href="https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/12/claire-mccaskill-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-interviews-abortion.html">summarized in Slate</a> (27 Dec.),<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="slate-paragraph" data-editable="text" data-uri="slate.com/_components/slate-paragraph/instances/cjq7ck9d900193g5vfcwouvzj@published" data-word-count="73">
"Since she lost her bid for a third term as a U.S. senator from
Missouri, Claire McCaskill has been trashing the left to anyone who'll
listen. She's insulted Democrats who wanted her to be a more vocal
critic of the president, Senate colleagues who questioned her opposition
to banking regulations, and progressives who try to push their more
moderate representatives to the left. In recent days, she’s expressed
even more pointed ire for young women, abortion-rights activists, and
voters excited by upstarts like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. 'She's now
talked about a lot,' McCaskill said of the 29-year-old incoming
congresswoman from New York in <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/24/politics/mccaskill-exit-interview/index.html">a CNN interview</a> that ran on Monday. 'I'm not sure what she's done yet to generate that kind of enthusiasm.'</div>
<div class="slate-paragraph" data-editable="text" data-uri="slate.com/_components/slate-paragraph/instances/cjq7ck9d900193g5vfcwouvzj@published" data-word-count="73">
<br /></div>
<div class="slate-paragraph" data-editable="text" data-uri="slate.com/_components/slate-paragraph/instances/cjq7ck9q6001h3g5vwtfc5zhx@published" data-word-count="107">
"Calling Ocasio-Cortez a 'bright shiny new object,' McCaskill
told CNN that Ocasio-Cortez, a democratic socialist who ousted a
long-seated congressman in a primary upset, should pay attention to the
'whole lot of white working-class voters' who 'need to hear about how
their work is going to be respected, and the dignity of their jobs.' She
boiled down Ocasio-Cortez’s appeal to her 'cheap … rhetoric,' then
remarked that 'getting results is a lot harder.'</div>
<div class="slate-paragraph" data-editable="text" data-uri="slate.com/_components/slate-paragraph/instances/cjq7ck9q6001h3g5vwtfc5zhx@published" data-word-count="107">
<br /></div>
<div class="slate-paragraph" data-editable="text" data-uri="slate.com/_components/slate-paragraph/instances/cjq7ck9q6001h3g5vwtfc5zhx@published" data-word-count="107">
"This potshot at a young woman of color who’d already become <a href="https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/11/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-republicans-obsessed.html">a favorite target of the right</a> came just a few days after McCaskill <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/20/podcasts/the-daily/senator-claire-mccaskill-missouri-interview.html">told <i>The Daily</i></a>
that she wished pro-choice activists who pressed her to be more vocal
on abortion rights would 'shut up.'... 'Shame on them that they’re not working as hard as they
can for me.'</div>
</blockquote>
<div class="slate-paragraph" data-editable="text" data-uri="slate.com/_components/slate-paragraph/instances/cjq7ck9q6001h3g5vwtfc5zhx@published" data-word-count="107">
Having lost, McCaskill was just full of terrible advice for Democrats on how to win. It was essential, she told the New York Times podcast, that Democrats <a href="https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-claire-mccaskill-shiny-object_us_5c27f909e4b05c88b700f9da">not nominate</a> a presidential candidate "so far to the left." Of the progressive practice of challenging conservative "Democrats," she was huffy (and taking another swipe at Ocasio-Cortez): "[I]t’s the people who defeated Republicans, in this election, that we need
to be emulating, not the people who defeated Democrats in primaries."</div>
<div class="slate-paragraph" data-editable="text" data-uri="slate.com/_components/slate-paragraph/instances/cjq7ck9q6001h3g5vwtfc5zhx@published" data-word-count="107">
<br /></div>
<div class="slate-paragraph" data-editable="text" data-uri="slate.com/_components/slate-paragraph/instances/cjq7ck9q6001h3g5vwtfc5zhx@published" data-word-count="107">
Cauterucci, perhaps somewhat naively, writes, "It's anyone's guess what McCaskill expects to gain from this
bridge-burning farewell tour, especially since she hasn't divulged any
definitive post-Senate plans." But while most reasonable observers will see in McCaskilll's graceless sore-loser riot confirmation that both Senate Democrats and America is better off without her, it plays, in the current media environment, more like a job interview. Having shown herself willing to relentlessly trash the entire progressive project, <a href="https://www.ksdk.com/article/news/politics/claire-mccaskill-joins-nbc-msnbc-as-political-analyst/63-1ed4c485-553e-494e-a2c8-11cd1834d790">McCaskill was promptly hired</a> by "liberal" MSNBC as an on-air political analyst, where she'll be able to offer her insightful commentary on the coming presidential campaign.<br />
<br />
CNN just made an effort to top even that, <a href="https://www.thedailybeast.com/cnn-staffers-demoralized-by-hiring-of-gop-operative-sarah-isgur-to-oversee-2020-coverage">hiring Sarah Isgur</a>, a longtime Republican operative. Not, as is usually the case, as an on-air pundit but as its politics editor, to helm CNN's coverage of the 2020 presidential campaign. While any news organization should place great value on a little thing called the truth, Isgur is a partisan hack whose demonstrated disregard for the entire concept
couldn't be more complete. She <a href="https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a26423976/cnn-hire-sarah-isgur-trump-justice-department/">has</a> "pushed <a class="body-link" data-vars-ga-outbound-link="https://twitter.com/whignewtons/status/644620977880625152" href="https://twitter.com/whignewtons/status/644620977880625152" target="_blank">conspiracy theories about Planned Parenthood</a>, <a class="body-link" data-vars-ga-outbound-link="https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/seth-rich-case-fox-news-made-fake-news-protect-trump-n788541" href="https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/seth-rich-case-fox-news-made-fake-news-protect-trump-n788541" target="_blank">was "in regular contact" with the guy</a> pushing the Seth Rich conspiracy theory, <a class="body-link" data-vars-ga-outbound-link="https://twitter.com/whignewtons/status/659539643285635072" href="https://twitter.com/whignewtons/status/659539643285635072" target="_blank">peddled the <i>intriguing </i>statistic</a> that '92
percent of jobs lost in Obama's first term belonged to women'," etc.
Isgur regularly attacks the media in terms resembling Donald Trump. Media
Matters has <a href="https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2019/02/20/cnn-s-new-political-editor-has-history-spreading-anti-abortion-misinformation/222922">collected</a> some of the anti-abortion misinformation she has spread over the years, as well as examples of some of <a href="https://www.mediamatters.org/research/2019/02/21/Here-are-the-lies-and-partisanship-CNNs-new-political-editor-has-pushed-in-cable-news-appe/222933">her other lies and demagoguery</a>. Isgur has worked for, among others, Ted Cruz, Carly Fiorina, Mitt Romney, the Republican National Committee and, most recently, Trump himself, as the spokesman for Trump's Attorney General Jeff Sessions. To get that last job, Isgur reportedly had to <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ready-shoot-aim-president-trumps-loyalty-tests-cause-hiring-headaches/2018/04/29/7756ec9c-4a33-11e8-827e-190efaf1f1ee_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.1d3546f0a018">swear a loyalty-oath</a> to Trump, whose reelection campaign she'll now be charged with overseeing. The one item not on her resume is <i>anything</i> having to do with journalism. As the Daily Beast <a href="https://www.thedailybeast.com/cnn-staffers-demoralized-by-hiring-of-gop-operative-sarah-isgur-to-oversee-2020-coverage">noted</a>, "it is almost unheard of for a high-profile operative with zero
journalistic experience to land a top editorial role at a major news
organization."</div>
<br />
While dishing out lumps to CNN for its rather blatant promotion of Kamala Harris, one of the items I covered in my previous piece was the news network's decision, only days after Harris officially entered the race, to grant the candidate a solo townhall event from Iowa, the first contest on the Democratic calendar. For those who are into liberal democracy, the chance to hear from candidates in a longer form like that is, in the abstract, a <i>good</i> thing and something other press outlets should emulate. It was the context of that particular event that made it so snipe-worthy. In the aftermath of the event, CNN immediately made that context even worse, by offering <a href="http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2019/01/29/cnns-town-hall-with-sen-kamala-harris-was-most-watched-cable-news-single-candidate-town-hall-ever/">a press release</a> that claimed the show had been "the most watched cable news single candidate townhall ever." Go, Kamala, eh? Except this turned out not to be true; while the event set a record for CNN, the real record for such events is held by Donald Trump in 2016. Further, the Harris event finished in third place for even its own evening, behind both MSNBC's regular programming and that of Fox News.<br />
<br />
Since Harris, CNN has continued its series of townhalls featuring presidential candidates.<br />
<br />
The next featured former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz, an utterly baffling choice in that, other than being a billionaire who can pay his own way through a campaign, he's someone without any national profile or measurable public support and has done absolutely nothing to merit this kind of attention. No one knows him and the few who do don't really seem to care but he <i>is</i> a very conservative fellow. He hasn't officially entered the race. He's presenting himself as an independent while staking out ground on the Clintonite right and selling himself via Clintonian triangulation tactics, slamming "extremists" from both the right and the left--especially the left--to position himself as the candidate of his own artificially-manufactured sensible center. His event was mostly notable for its unintentional comedy, as Schultz, obviously totally unprepared, spent a lot of the evening ducking and dodging direct answers to questions. The event was, predictably, <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/markjoyella/2019/02/13/cnns-controversial-howard-schultz-town-hall-proves-a-ratings-loser/#44e8c1cb3ec1">a ratings flop</a>.<br />
<br />
Next up was Democratic Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar, an event in New Hampshire, the first primary state on the Dem calendar. Her event showcased one of her long-running problems: she's dull as dishwater. Not only aggressively uninspiring, she tends, when asked a question and given the space to do so, to drone on and on without really saying anything--basically filibustering, as if trying to wear down the questioner. Klobuchar presented herself as the candidate to merely restore the pre-Trump status quo. Asked about the Green New Deal, she doesn't express support for it and instead launches into a long litany of pre-Trump environmental measures that Trump ended and that she says she will restore. Asked about Medicare For All, she doesn't dare outright dismiss it because of its popularity among Dems but brushes it off as something that could perhaps be done in the far future while presenting, as her alternative, technocratic tinkering with Obamacare, such as adding the public option Obama initially wanted, as more pragmatic things that could be done more immediately. Asked if she supports tuition-free higher education at public colleges and universities, she's a "no" on that one too; in the midst of a major student debt crisis, she merely suggests minor tinkering to try to lighten that load, backs an Obama plan, abandoned when Trump was elected, to provide for 2 years of community college and, perhaps most egregiously, presents the tuition-free 4-year plan favored by progressives as fairy dust and unicorns. "If I was a magic genie and could give that to everyone and we could afford it, I would." To unpack that, the federal portion of Bernie Sanders' College For All act comes with a price-tag of $47 billion/year. Less than a year ago, Klobuchar apparently had custody of that magic genie; she <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2018/08/02/40-senate-democrats-join-gop-send-717-billion-military-spending-bill-trumps-desk">voted to expand</a> the already obscenely bloated U.S. military budget by $82 billion--more than even Trump had requested.<br />
<br />
For anyone entertaining any doubts, Klobuchar's townhall confirmed she's an instant also-ran who will probably wash out early. It <a href="https://www.mediaite.com/tv/amy-klobuchar-town-hall-ratings-tank-as-cnn-finishes-third-overall-and-in-key-demo/">bombed with viewers</a> as well.<br />
<br />
Soon, however, CNN goes for some real ratings. Its next townhall event will feature Bernie Sanders.<br />
<br />
Four years ago, in April 2015, when Bernie Sanders entered his first presidential contest, the corporate press barely bothered to tell the public. As I <a href="http://corporatenewsreviews.blogspot.com/2015/04/networks-barely-mention-sanders.html">wrote at the time</a>, "if, while watching either the CBS Evening News or ABC’s World News Tonight, you’d sneezed, you could have missed their only mentions of Sanders’ announcement." ABC dispensed with it in 20 seconds, part of even <i>that</i> devoted to Hillary Clinton's reaction to the development. CBS correspondent Nancy Cordes threw in the only CBS mention of it during her wrap-up to an unrelated story about Clinton Foundation controversies. "The NBC Nightly News wasn’t much better," I wrote then. "Sanders' announcement was contextualized as a potential problem for Hillary Clinton on her road to the Democratic nomination. Correspondent Andrea Mitchell shoehorned a few words about Sanders and a pair of soundbites from the candidate into her report about Clinton’s political chameleonism over the years." For the evening newscasts of the three major networks, that was it--not a single segment dedicated to the subject. Every Republican campaign up to then, even the ridiculous long-shot ones, had been treated more extensively. It was the beginning of a phenomenon that would come to be known, as 2015 unfolded, as the "Bernie Blackout."<br />
<br />
When Sanders formally entered the 2020 race on 19 Feb., the press had been trying to talk down his prospects for months. The reception he was given by the networks this time around wasn't exactly warm but it <i>was</i> a reception; 2015 barely qualified. Sanders gave a launch-day interview with CBS and the CBS Evening News <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-y8n-WCkvnY">led the broadcast</a> that night with Sanders' announcement, the only one of the Big Three newscasts to do so. Correspondent Nancy Cordes' report was also the best of the three. ABC's World News Tonight, which had the worst record of the three when it came to 2016 cycle coverage of Sanders, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5YJ2QdZkik">offered</a> a meandering hodgepodge report by Mary Bruce that began with Sanders, showed him talking about how his ideas are increasingly mainstream then suddenly veered off into mention of Elizabeth Warren's just-announced childcare proposal only to circle back around with, "but other Democratic candidates are blunt about some of these progressive promises" and show a clip of Amy Klobuchar's "magic genie" comment (CBS had used that clip as well). Bruce says Sanders calls himself a democratic socialist then says Kamala Harris "wants no part of that label." She points out that Sanders significantly outraised Harris on his first day but can't resist a parting cheap-shot:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Still, this year, Sanders faces another hurdle; he's up against six female Democratic candidates while facing accusations from women who worked on his 2016 campaign about sexual harassment by male staffers. The senator has publicly apologized."</blockquote>
When made aware of that problem, Sanders acknowledged it, apologized, put in place protocols it's hoped will prevent any such things from ever happening again and there's no indication that any of those female candidates, many of whom are friends of Sanders, are going to try to weaponize it into an issue to use against him. The story was, by that point, over a month old, with no new developments. Bruce devoted most of her wrap-up to speculation about whether Joe Biden will run for president. A poor showing by ABC. The NBC Nightly News pretty much replicated its 2015 performance; feeling a lot like an afterthought, correspondent Hallie Jackson shoehorned a brief mention of the Sanders news into <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-AxgHG2TfQ">an unrelated report</a> about the controversy over Donald Trump's efforts to construct a wall on the Southern U.S. border.<br />
<br />
Almost immediately after Sanders' announcement, CNN's Chris Cillizza unleashed a new article attempting to talk down his prospects, "<a href="https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/19/politics/bernie-sanders-2020-campaign-donald-trump/index.html?fbclid=IwAR0xmcqg_KljntqdL1t9IGOHe8KoLJ2pT161j46IIWDsX5ZfjO83tCJfDoQ">5 Reasons To Be Skeptical of Bernie Sanders' 2020 Bid</a>." Among other things, Cillizza relies on some worn-out Clinton cult talking-points. The notion that Sanders was never "vetted" during the 2016 race, for example, was spawned during that campaign (<a href="https://fair.org/home/the-myth-that-sanders-hasnt-been-criticized-wont-go-away/">and refuted then as well</a>) and has been obsessively repeated on a daily basis by cultists on Twitter to this day. Cillizza:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"One of the secrets to Sanders' success in 2016 was that no one--most
especially Clinton--thought he had any chance of going anywhere in the
race. Clinton largely ignored him for the better part of 2015, allowing
some problematic parts of Sanders' record for Democrats--most notably
his voting record on guns--to go unnoticed."</blockquote>
The weasel-wording here is terrible. It's true that while the "Bernie Blackout" was underway, there wasn't a lot being reported about Sanders but Sanders' "voting record on guns" is ground that was <i>very</i> thoroughly covered in the latter part of 2015, as the blackout began to fade, and throughout the 2016 primary season after it had ended. By calling that "one of the secrets to Sanders' success in 2016," Cillizza is trying to delete that, as if it wasn't very loudly made a part of the public record, doing whatever damage to Sanders it could. He's also trying to delete Clinton's criticism of Sanders on the issue, which, contrary to Cillizza's account, <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/hillary-clinton-2016-proxies-attack-bernie-sanders-213359">began</a> at least as early as August 2015, <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34519331">continued</a> throughout that year and <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdU2aVcWOu0">never abated</a> until the primary season was over. Clinton's attacks were sometimes incredibly savage; she once asserted that Sanders cared more about gun manufacturers than the victims of the Sandy Hook massacre. Cillizza tries to send this down the Memory Hole as well, writing that "When the race began to
tighten, Clinton gently prodded Sanders on guns and health care."[7] Cillizza asserts that Sanders also "largely flew under the radar of investigative reporters for major news outlets," but the press was <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/05/13/why-the-most-liberal-candidate-for-president-opposes-strict-gun-control/">criticizing Sanders</a> on the issue of gun control <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/bernie-sanders-awkward-history-with-guns-in-america-119185">before even the</a> <a href="http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/the-issue-which-bernie-sanders-aims-the-middle">Clinton campaign</a>.<br />
<br />
Cillizza seems giddy at the prospect of Sanders being criticized and investigated but he's proceeding from an utterly false premise that this hasn't already happened. His implication is that there must be all sorts of bad things in Sanders' record that will be brought to light but the only specific things he mentions are Sanders' record on guns, which, in reality, has been examined to death, and how <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/13/politics/jane-sanders-burlington-college/index.html" target="_blank">[Sanders'] wife's time as president of Burlington College</a> could well come up." The link there is the one provided by Cillizza himself--it goes to a
story reporting that Jane Sanders was cleared of all wrongdoing in that matter. Further, the effort to turn it into a scandal was the work of a Republican hack with <a href="https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2017/07/10/lawyer-behind-sanders-allegations-has-history-of-complaints">a long history</a> of making such big allegations against Dem figures that, upon examination, go nowhere.<br />
<br />
Probably the most repeated Clinton cult talking-point is Cillizza's next--pointing out that Sanders isn't a Democrat. "[W]hy," he writes, "does Sanders feel the need to be an independent and describe himself
as a democratic socialist? And in a field in which there will be lots
and lots (and lots) of options for liberal voters, will they really
choose someone who has spent almost his entire adult life as something
other than a Democrat?" In a world in which over 40% of Democrats--defined as those who always support Democrats--are independents, is there a shred of evidence that this is any sort of liability?<br />
<br />
Next, there's a variant on the "victim of his own success" trope so fashionable in Sanders stories this season:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Sanders won't have the liberal lane to himself in this race like he did
in 2016. In fact, the liberal lane is stuffed full of candidates--all
of whom sound a hell of a lot like Sanders on policy. (This is not an
accident.) Can Sanders win on a well-yeah-but-I-was-here-first argument?
Or does he need something more, something beyond the ideas that
energized his 2016 campaign?"</blockquote>
Another--clearer--way of looking at this: why would voters prefer one of the Bernie Lite candidates when the real deal is available? And, of course, no one ever asks the Bernie Lite candidates what it is <i>they</i> can contribute to a race in which they're copying bits of Bernie but Bernie himself is running.<br />
<br />
Cillizza concludes by turning to identity":<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="zn-body__paragraph">
"In the 2018 midterm elections, the
increasing diversity of the Democratic Party was on full display. From
the bevy of women elected to the House to the history making victories
for two Muslim women and two Native American women to the candidacies of
people like Stacey Abrams and Andrew Gillum, the message was clear: The
Democratic Party's base is getting more female, more liberal, less
white and younger.</div>
<div class="zn-body__paragraph">
<br /></div>
<div class="zn-body__paragraph">
"Aside from the
'more liberal' thing, Sanders doesn't fit any of those categories. At
77, he will be the oldest candidate in the field on either side. (Biden
is 76.) Sanders simply doesn't look like the Democratic Party that
scored across-the-board victories in 2018. What he does look like--demographically speaking--is the current occupant of the White House.
Do Democrats want to nominate an older white man to run against an older
white man in 2020?"</div>
</blockquote>
A few things to note: White men are the 2nd-largest demographic in the Democratic party, second only to white women. Once again, we get the "diversity" calculus that puts no value on Jews. No Jewish person has ever been nominated as the presidential candidate of one of the major parties, while 70-79% of American Jews vote Democratic in every election. The first Jewish candidate to win a presidential primary in U.S. history was--wait for it--Bernie Sanders, when he defeated Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire in 2016. Most of the new elected Democrats that Cillizza uses as his examples--Abrams, Gillum, Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar (the two Muslim women) and Deb Haaland, one of the Native American women--were elected with the support of the Sanders-affiliated Our Revolution. How much sense does it make to wave the youth card at Sanders when, in 2016, <i>vastly</i> more young voters <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/06/20/more-young-people-voted-for-bernie-sanders-than-trump-and-clinton-combined-by-a-lot/?utm_term=.ad9cee07cc1b">cast their ballot for him</a> than for Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump combined? Sanders dominated the youth vote across every other demographic. And is there a cheaper shot than rhetorically tying Sanders to Donald Trump?<br />
<br />
A few years ago in Harper's, Thomas Frank <a href="https://harpers.org/archive/2016/11/swat-team-2/">documented</a> 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:<br />
<br />
"<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2019/02/19/daily-202-the-biggest-challenges-facing-bernie-sanders-2-0/5c6afee71b326b71858c6bbd/">The Daily 202: The Biggest Challenge Facing Bernie Sanders 2.0</a>," 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 <i>overwhelmingly</i> 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 <a href="https://votesmart.org/elections/voter-registration/VT">doesn't have party registration</a>. 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 <a href="https://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Jan2019_HHP_registeredvoters_xtabs.pdf">most recent Harvard/Harris poll</a>).<br />
<br />
Eugene Scott does the same thing in "<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/02/19/bernie-sanders-struggled-win-black-voters-it-could-be-even-more-difficult/">Bernie Sanders Struggled To Win Black Voters. It Could Be Even More Difficult In 2020</a>."<br />
<br />
Then, there's "<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/bernie-sanders-has-one-big-problem-eugene-mccarthy/2019/02/19/f2c90cd4-347f-11e9-af5b-b51b7ff322e9_story.html">Bernie, Your Moment Has Come--And Gone</a>," 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."<br />
<br />
"<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/02/19/bernie-sanders-is-probably-just-another-one-hit-wonder/?utm_term=.94c0f5218bc2">Bernie Sanders Is Probably Just Another One-Hit Wonder</a>," 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.<br />
<br />
"<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/02/19/bernie-sanders-is-no-big-deal-second-time-around/">Bernie Sanders Is No Big Deal the Second Time Around</a>," 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.<br />
<br />
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 <a href="https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/02/bernie-sanders-24-hour-record-2020.html">promptly buried that record</a>, 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.<br />
<br />
Yeah, right.<br />
<br />
Jennifer Rubin was right back with another cooler-full with "<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/02/20/why-sanderss-money-haul-doesnt-mean-very-much/?utm_term=.9558a7ddb8fa">Why Sanders Money Haul Doesn't Mean Very Much</a>," 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:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"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."</blockquote>
And...<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"(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.)"</blockquote>
...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.<br />
<br />
While cable news discussed Sanders' entry into the race on the day, it was a different story when it came to the much-higher-rated primetime shows, where, in a potentially quite troubling development, it seemed as if the "Bernie Blackout" may be back on again. In the three hours of CNN primetime from 8-11 p.m., the only mention of Sanders was in a brief parlay between Chris Cuomo and Don Lemon as the former handed off the evening to the latter. On MSNBC in the same timeslot, Chris Hayes did a segment on the news featuring two commentators who spent their time talking down his campaign (one of them, Michelle Goldberg, was a Hillary girl who, in 2016, <a href="https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2016/05/bernie-sanders-electability-argument-is-still-a-myth.html">published slimy anti-Sanders oppo research</a> in Slate).[8] Rachel Maddow offered the latest look at the ongoing tragedy of what was once often a good show, spending her entire hour on Trump conspiracies and never even mentioning Sanders' name. Lawrence O'Donnell--never mentioned Sanders' name.<br />
<br />
--j.<br />
<br />
---<br />
<br />
[1] Caveat: The poll on which I'm relying there is from mid-2017. A bit out-of-date, perhaps, but the most recent I found with a full demographic breakdown of Democratic yeas and nays.<br />
<br />
[2] Seemingly aware of the disruptive effect on his own narrative of the fact that Sanders has delivered these responses for years, Crockett limply tries to dismiss this with a wave of the hand: "Sure, America’s favorite disheveled math teacher has always given his
own response on Facebook Live since Trump’s been in office, but this
year should be different."<br />
<br />
[3] When Kamala Harris launched her presidential campaign in January, some press outlets used the identity card to declare her candidacy "historic." CNBC: "<a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/22/kamala-harris-presidential-bid-marks-a-historic-moment-for-us-politics.html">Kamala Harris 2020 Presidential Bid Marks An Historic Moment For American Politics</a>." Bloomberg: "<a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-01-21/kamala-harris-seeks-to-make-history-with-2020-presidential-bid">Kamala Harris Seeks To Make Historic 2020 Presidential Run</a>." <a href="https://www.vox.com/2019/1/21/18175628/kamala-harris-2020-campaign-president">Vox</a> described it thusly:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Harris would be the first African-American woman and the first
Asian-American woman to be a major-party nominee for president if she
ultimately secures the Democratic nomination. With her announcement, she
joins trailblazers including Shirley Chisholm and Carol Moseley Braun,
two African-American women who previously vied for the Democratic
ticket."</blockquote>
Were Sanders to win the Democratic nomination, he would become the first Jewish person to get the nomination of either major party but no one describes his candidacy in those terms.<br />
<br />
[4] Cillizza/Enten strike their most amusing note with their declaration that Cory Booker "is--with the possible exception of O'Rourke--the most naturally gifted candidate in the field." For those who actually follow public affairs, of course, Booker is known primarily as a serial phony, a guy who habitually grandstands as a public spectacle, staging emotional, headline-grabbing stunts that inevitably blow up in his face as the cynical calculation behind them comes to light.<br />
<br />
During the confirmation hearings for Brett Kavanagh's nomination to the Supreme Court, Booker, in perhaps the most notorious example of this, made a public show of releasing documents related to the nominee, which he asserted the committee was keeping secret. He boldly declared that by releasing them, he was violating committee rules and understood that he could be disciplined for this, even expelled from the Senate, but he was releasing them anyway, because he just thought they were too important to conceal from the American public. Clips of this show went all over the internet. A few hours later, it was revealed the the documents in question had been cleared for public release the night before and that Booker was well aware of this--his staff had helped clear them.<br />
<br />
Only a few days ago, a Monmouth University poll <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/429961-more-nj-residents-say-booker-would-not-make-a-good-president-poll">asked residents</a> in Booker's native New Jersey if he would make a good president. 42% said he wouldn't; only 37% said he would.<br />
<br />
[5] In one particularly embarrassing piece of business, reporters assigned to cover Kamala Harris <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/430359-kamala-harris-shopping-trip-stirs-twitter-controversy">went on a shopping excursion with her</a> in South Carolina, helping dress the senator then writing glowing tweets about it. Guess the outlet for which the journalist who recommended the "awesome oversized rainbow sequin jacket" worked?<br />
<br />
[6] As a bit of a cherry on top, the always-kooky Newsbusters <a href="https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/business/julia-seymour/2019/02/08/evening-news-shows-ignore-crazy-socialist-green-new-deal">tried to spin this</a>--the press ignoring the roll-out of a major progressive priority to address a major crisis--as an example of "liberal media."<br />
<br />
[7] The Clinton camp's "gentle prodding" of Sanders on healthcare was <a href="https://www.factcheck.org/2016/01/clintons-attack-on-sanders-health-plan/">the assertion</a> that Sanders wanted to completely repeal Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare--everything--and leave those affected with <i>nothing</i> while he tried to pass Medicare For All, an absolutely outrageous lie that even some of Clinton's staunchest allies in the press felt compelled to condemn. Clinton's subtle take on Medicare For All was that it was something that will "NEVER, EVER COME TO PASS!!!"<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgh00o-5hRyJCm3eSBJu_6SAGipN4K_gEyyW2_teqNnwVl_Pd7fwnAgehq4NurKCEAEpxODFte3pum4DA0o8l7lvWKhH1LJB8BSeEk2TgXKdLOxNnF8ZyqVt6zuBP0ri0PRJ-4-KyCtdg/s1600/clinton_never.PNG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="339" data-original-width="747" height="181" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgh00o-5hRyJCm3eSBJu_6SAGipN4K_gEyyW2_teqNnwVl_Pd7fwnAgehq4NurKCEAEpxODFte3pum4DA0o8l7lvWKhH1LJB8BSeEk2TgXKdLOxNnF8ZyqVt6zuBP0ri0PRJ-4-KyCtdg/s400/clinton_never.PNG" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
[8] In Hayes' defense though, he landed <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFfZl6HKScs">an interview with Sanders</a> on a subsequent night.cinemarchaeologisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13507603255666191405noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6321344375544728027.post-18847337085278982242019-02-04T11:19:00.002-08:002021-10-03T20:32:17.822-07:00Stupid Press Tricks: Up the ProgressivesCorporate news media don't like progressives. They don't like progressive politicians. They don't like people who support progressive politicians. They don't like progressive movements. They don't like progressives.[1] The reasons for this are sometimes complex, other times much more simple and straightforward and they aren't always clear but as a truism, this ranks somewhere between "the sun will rise tomorrow" and the inevitability of death: corporate news media do not like progressives.<br />
<br />
This dislike takes two general forms. In the first, the press will attempt to ignore progressives to death, simply refusing to acknowledge their existence beyond, perhaps, an occasional dismissive gibe. What a public doesn't know can't influence it. The second, which usually only comes into play when the progressive threatens to gain some traction with the broader public, is search-and-destroy mode: try to render the progressive toxic to that broader public via a withering blitzkrieg of relentlessly negative coverage.<br />
<br />
In general, even the most basic journalistic standards are rather aggressively set aside when dealing with progressives. During the 2016 election cycle, the presidential campaign of progressive champion Bernie Sanders was initially subjected to what became known as the "Bernie Blackout," wherein the first 9 months of his campaign received only 20 minutes of cumulative coverage on the evening newscasts of the three major American networks. When the campaign refused to die from this neglect, it became the subject of a daily bombardment of slights and slanders, creating a surreal circus atmosphere wherein the New York Times "journalist" who, at one point, asked Sanders if he was a "sexist" for remaining in the race and, by doing so, potentially denying Hillary Clinton the opportunity of becoming the first female president probably thought her question was entirely reasonable. It certainly wasn't out of step with what nearly all of her peers had been doing to Sanders for months by then. Their hatred of Sanders was visceral and it was naked. For the most part, it continues to this day.<br />
<br />
In the just-concluded 2018 cycle, it was the same story. The Sanders presidential campaign inspired thousands of ordinary people to jump into political races at all levels of government, running progressive populist campaigns on Sanders' anti-corruption crowdfunding model. Districts wherein Democrats hadn't even bothered to field candidates for years suddenly had multiple candidates competing for the Democratic nomination there. More conservative "Democratic" incumbents who had never faced serious primary challengers suddenly had progressives presenting themselves as an alternative. An array of new
organizations, many of them founded by veterans of Sanders 2016, sprang up, devoted to cultivating and supporting these new candidates, while some already-established orgs of similar mission were reinvigorated. These were <i>extraordinary</i> developments, collectively <i>the</i> political story of 2018. But if a tree falls in the forest and no journalist covers it... This story went largely unreported by the press. Under cover of that blackout, the Democratic party Establishment was able to move in and pour millions of dirty dollars into recruiting more conservative, pro-corporate candidates to try to defeat many of these upstart progressives. You could read about this in the left press like the Intercept, the Real News Network, etc., but the major outlets mostly just ignored it.[2] But whenever progressive candidates <i>lost</i> to this juggernaut, news media was all over <i>that</i>. As Justin Anderson of Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting <a href="https://fair.org/home/media-writing-premature-obituaries-for-the-democratic-left/">documented</a>, the press is very enthusiastic about writing the obituary for the progressive populist uprising it otherwise largely ignores.<br />
<br />
That, the All Things Progressive Are Dead (ATPAD) article, has, from the Sanders presidential campaign forward, become a rather prolific genre in corporate news media, with Sanders, as the fellow who brought all of these to a head, usually treated as the personification of the movement. Stories in this genre treat progressives as bitter, disorganized failures and freely attribute to them every imaginable negative characteristic. Politico, whom I'm going to give a lot of grief here, writes the same ATPAD story pretty regularly:<br />
<br />
"<a href="https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/04/bernie-sanders-democratic-party-new-york-primary-213829">Bernie's Failed Revolution</a>" - "How Sanders fell short of changing the Democratic party." (20 April, 2016)<br />
<br />
"<a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/bernie-sanders-campaign-last-days-224041">Inside the Bitter Last Days of Bernie's Revolution</a>" (7 June, 2016)<br />
<br />
"<a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/29/bernie-sanders-ballot-losses-238889">Sanders' Revolution Hits A Rough Patch</a>" (29 May, 2017)<br />
<br />
"<a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2018/05/21/bernie-sanders-democrats-2018-599331">Bernie's Army In Disarray</a>" - "The Sanders-inspired grass-roots group 'Our Revolution' is flailing, an
extensive review by POLITICO shows, fueling concerns about a potential
2020 bid." (21 May, 2018)<br />
<br />
"<a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2018/08/08/bernie-sanders-endorsements-2018-elections-767403">Bernie And His Army Are Losing 2018</a>" - "Sanders missed the boat on Ocasio-Cortez, then watched his endorsed
candidates fall on Tuesday--a sign that his sway is limited heading
into 2020." (8 Aug., 2018)<br />
<br />
Those last two introduce
another popular theme in anti-progressive/anti-Sanders stories, how
everything bad these outlets report endangers or calls into question any
potential 2020 presidential bid by the senator or by progressives in
general. More a hope than any sort of serious analysis.<br />
<br />
With the 2020 season rapidly approaching (the first Democratic debates only a few months away), the press is presently producing a deluge of content trashing progressives and trashing Bernie Sanders, as he considers another presidential bid. Those elements of the press aligned with the Dem party Establishment are openly promoting more conservative corporate "Democratic" candidates and acting as the mouthpiece for and propaganda arm of the Establishment's complaints against progressives. Its more than this lone, humble press critic can possibly properly address, particularly given the rapid-fire pace of the news cycle at the moment, but it's also something that should at least be taken down for the record--as much as can be managed. It's an effort to influence and direct the course of the republic by largely unaccountable centers of power, centers of power <i>not</i> charged with that duty and that are carrying it out via often outlandishly unethical means while projecting the usual veneer of objectivity and fairness. This is the first of what's intended as a recurring series aimed at at least quick-take spotlighting some of this material. With so much ground to cover, it may seem a bit scattershot. Hopefully, I can still make it worth a read though.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjzTNgzey13XI0Z__IQzD1lA9_I51Zg_Q-mfY0CAVIGcU5fdNZ9X0bpO5AxZQ8FK27U-8PrCT2aXC3JP7f-VB9dp3sMtZENV3zqmj_IwoGWoPOKTp2_Xch1ZQUEUfQ8cgBf3KeXbX8PAg/s1600/Sanders_targeted.PNG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="804" data-original-width="1203" height="425" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjzTNgzey13XI0Z__IQzD1lA9_I51Zg_Q-mfY0CAVIGcU5fdNZ9X0bpO5AxZQ8FK27U-8PrCT2aXC3JP7f-VB9dp3sMtZENV3zqmj_IwoGWoPOKTp2_Xch1ZQUEUfQ8cgBf3KeXbX8PAg/s640/Sanders_targeted.PNG" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
When it comes to presidential races, former Vice President Joe Biden
isn't an unknown quantity. He ran for president in both 1988 and 2008.
He proved to be an absolutely abysmal campaigner, a walking
gaffe-machine who, with depressing regularity, says breathtakingly
stupid things and he's a Clintonite who has spent his entire career corruptly prostituting his offices to financial and business interests and accumulating a long record in congress that is
largely indistinguishable from that of a conservative Republican. Both of his previous presidential campaigns ended quickly in low-single-digit humiliation and there's no reason to believe a 2020 Biden bid has any better chance of success once a campaign begins. Of all the name-brands among the likely Dem contenders, Biden is the most conservative. An increasingly progressive Democratic electorate certainly isn't going to have <i>any</i> use for his record but it seems to make him exactly the sort of man various press outlets want. At the very least, these outlets don't see his record--or any of the rest of this--as any basis for skepticism while actively promoting him as a top prospect.<br />
<br />
Biden has spent decades as an open enthusiast for Clintonite "Third Way"-ism, rejecting traditional Democratic pro-working-class politics,
embracing, in their place, the bribery-and-donor-service system, positioning oneself to
the right--and ever rightward--to attract donations from Big Business and Big Finance and
selling all of the above via Dick Morrisean triangulation--rejecting "class warfare
and populism" and throwing one's own base under the bus in order to
artificially position oneself as a "sensible center" between the
"extremes" of left and right. His view is that Bill Clinton saved the
Democratic party in 1992 by embracing this course.[3] It's a popular one indeed among ossified Dem elites, and the decades of history that have completely discredited it have done little to burn it out of them. A little over a year ago, Politico Magazine ran a piece by Bill Scher, "<a href="https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/09/23/joe-biden-president-2020-anti-populism-215638">Joe Biden's Platform For 2020: Anti-Populism</a>" (23 Sept., 2017). Whereas any reasonable analysis would see Biden's decades-out-of-date views in this vein as fundamentally out of step with the increasingly progressive public--at best, a non-starter, at worst, outright politically suicidal--Scher raves about them as Biden "sculpting a role for the 2020 presidential campaign" as "the voice of anti-populism." Scher's tone is beaming, worshipful:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"By criticizing the views of both Berniecrats and Bannonites--and by
making a full-throated, clear-eyed declaration of what the alternative
should be--Biden is positioning himself as the antidote to populism in
all its forms and flavors... If you’re looking for someone who can simultaneously persuade the angry
mobs to put away the pitchforks and still bring white working-class
voters back into the Democratic fold, perhaps you’ve found your answer
in the Pride of Scranton."</blockquote>
Employing the same gooey language throughout, Scher celebrates Biden's Third Way-ism, presents the pol's perpetual triangulation as a virtue. This is how he breezily dismisses the obvious critique of Biden:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"You might think Biden’s dualities--a guy from the working class who’s
spent nearly his entire adult life among the global elite; a champion of
liberal values who can be found on the side of corporations--make him an
easy mark for the populists. They could cut him down to size as yet
another neoliberal corporatist shill who talks pretty while he rigs the
rules for the rich.<br />
<br />
"A cynic might look at Biden’s long career and see a consummate B.S.
artist. Then you have to remind yourself: A lot of B.S. artists make it
to the White House."</blockquote>
Well, ok, then! Scher's conclusion is as hopelessly lost in 1992 as it is in hero-worship:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"If nothing else, Biden has a path. It’s a path that diverges from
left-wing and right-wing populism; a path that seeks partnership between
workers and corporations, unity across racial and gender lines, and
reverence for higher education and the idea that you can work your way
to a better life if given the right tools. <br />
<br />
"But walking that path will require a few more signature policy ideas,
and a whole lot of Scranton charm. If anyone can make everyone believe
he’s on their side--and in turn, erase many of the divides wracking the
American electorate--it may well be the fast-talkin’, back-slappin’,
gaffe-makin’ God-love-him Uncle Joe."</blockquote>
The full article is even worse. Points to ponder: Would an article written by a draft-Biden-for-2020 campaign have sounded <i>any</i> different? And while this certainly isn't Politico's only contribution to this genre, would Politico or any other major press outlet <i>ever</i> publish an article as openly celebratory, worshipful and uncritical of <i>any</i> progressive candidate?<br />
<br />
Politico was back to Biden-promotion again a few months ago with a Stephanie Murray story, "<a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2018/08/01/biden-trump-2020-elections-752979">Poll: Biden Leads Trump in Early 2020 Match-Up</a>" (1 Aug., 2018). Given Trump's perpetually basement-liner approval, one suspects any number of Democratic candidates could defeat him in such a hypothetical match-up but Politico didn't want any other contenders crowding Biden's spotlight, so when it commissioned the Morning Consult poll on which this story was based, <i>it declined to have the pollsters ask about any other candidate vs. Trump</i>! Thus while the poll gave Biden a headline as the guy who can beat Trump (in an election in which that's going to be a significant priority), it's otherwise worthless and entirely uninformative. If Biden had officially entered the race, the thousands spent on it could probably be treated as a contribution to his campaign.<br />
<br />
It should be noted--and any serious pollster will readily concede--that <i>all</i> head-to-head polling at so early a date, long before any campaign has even started, before most people have even given the next presidential race so much as a thought and before they've even been given any real information regarding it, represents little more than name-recognition on the part of the respondents. Biden presently does well in early Democratic head-to-head polling
because of his association with Obama--the only thing most people know about him--and the fact that he's been largely out of sight and mind for years. If one is going to report on the state of the 2020 race at so early a date, that's what data are available but it's always advisable to take it with a grain of salt.<br />
<br />
In what appears to be a zeal to promote a particular candidate--and maybe downplay others less favored candidates' chances--some outlets go squishy on accurately representing the results of their polls. A few weeks after matching only Biden against Trump, Politico offered an example of this with a Steven Shepard piece headlined, "<a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2018/08/22/trump-2020-democrats-matchup-790890">Poll: Trump Trails Several Democratic Prospects in 2020 Match-Up</a>" (22 Aug. 2018). No Dem candidate in the headline but Politico couldn't resist using the story to promote Biden again, using him as its topline image, with a caption noting that Biden " leads President Donald Trump in a hypothetical 2020 match-up, 43
percent to 31 percent, according to a new POLITICO/Morning Consult poll."<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjvaJYL1BxqpVYQM4vFWDL0Ep3La3zBslFLZvxlo17S30qVgyspqTbzn7TIp0MY2zjO0mlCAMH8navuFPIAAqkUfJbfeLW_9tmQUHBZcOoQvTu-GeOcWpVH6A89Q4k6rxQ1zGeIB7cH1g/s1600/politico_biden.PNG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="416" data-original-width="666" height="399" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjvaJYL1BxqpVYQM4vFWDL0Ep3La3zBslFLZvxlo17S30qVgyspqTbzn7TIp0MY2zjO0mlCAMH8navuFPIAAqkUfJbfeLW_9tmQUHBZcOoQvTu-GeOcWpVH6A89Q4k6rxQ1zGeIB7cH1g/s640/politico_biden.PNG" width="640" /></a></div>
But when one reads the story, it turns out both Biden and Bernie Sanders are beating Trump by identical 12% margins, with Sanders actually scoring slightly higher overall than Biden (44% to Biden's 43%).[4]<br /><br />The same day as that Politico piece, the Hill ran an editorial by former congressman Steve Israel, "<a href="https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/402987-joe-biden-is-best-hope-for-democratic-party-in-2020">Joe Biden is Best Hope For Democratic Party in 2020</a>"<br />
<br />And so on.<br /><br />
Biden has been pursuing the presidency for over 30 years but other potential 2020 candidacies are just inventions by the press, working in collaboration with the Democratic Establishment. In July 2017, the then-newly-elected California Sen. Kamala Harris made <a href="https://pagesix.com/2017/07/19/sen-kamala-harris-continues-on-hamptons-power-circuit/">a series of trips to the Hamptons</a> for several get-togethers with Democratic donors, lobbyists, Clintonite insiders--the corrupt power-players who, in recent years, had overseen the near-complete collapse of the Democratic party, culminating in the disastrous 2016 loss of the presidency. Harris had only just taken office a few months earlier. She had virtually no national name-recognition and no real legislative record of which to speak. Outside of an appalling history as a prosecutor in California--one that wasn't going to win her any fans among progressives--she was a nobody. There was certainly no public clamor for her to launch a presidential campaign but when, via those trips to the Hamptons, she signaled her willingness to bow down and kiss the ring--and other extremities--of the donor class and the Democratic elite, she was very suddenly <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jul/22/kamala-harris-democratic-candidate-for-2020">being promoted</a> <a href="https://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/national-party-news/343224-dems-need-a-fresh-face-for-2020-try-kamala-harris">all over the press</a> <a href="https://www.essence.com/news/politics/why-not-kamala-harris-election-2020/">as the top</a> <a href="https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/dont-tell-kamala-harris-to-wait-her-turn_us_5978b8a6e4b0940189700e40">2020 Democratic contender</a>. When some name-brand progressive writers and activists expressed <a href="https://mic.com/articles/183105/democratic-rising-star-kamala-harris-has-a-bernie-sanders-problem#.FjpNiMfGj">some mild skepticism</a> of the prospect--mostly of the "Kamala who?" variety--they were subject to a fusillade of scurrilous attacks by Clintonite loyalists, portrayed as <a href="https://mic.com/articles/183105/democratic-rising-star-kamala-harris-has-a-bernie-sanders-problem#.FjpNiMfGj">unreasonable "purists,"</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/JoyAnnReid/status/892213755328811010">smeared as "alt-left"</a>--a designation meant to equate progressive to the white nationalists and Nazis of the alt-right--and, of course, hit with the Clintonites' favorite: weaponized "identity" attacks. If you aren't entirely uncritical of Harris, you're <a href="https://twitter.com/vabvox/status/892278844115255296?lang=en">a sexist</a> and <a href="https://twitter.com/neeratanden/status/892133260498796544">a racist</a>. That nearly all of the Harris skeptics publicly dragged into the matter were women and at least one of them a woman of color did nothing to slow this roll. The self-parody this immediately achieved was formally canonized by a Daily Banter article, "<a href="https://thedailybanter.com/2017/08/02/left-needs-to-acknowledge-its-sexism-kamala-harris/">The Left Needs To Acknowledge Its Sexism Problem, Part 2: Kamala Harris Edition</a>", in which a male writer attacked as "sexists" four progressives--all four of them women.<br />
<br />
Harris, who has since launched a presidential campaign, at least seems to have been complicit in this effort to draft her. The same can't necessarily be said for another more recent press-invented presidential campaign, that of Texas congressman Beto O'Rourke.<br />
<br />
O'Rourke just ran a spirited campaign against Ted Cruz and came within a few points of unseating the obnoxious Republican senator. Impressively, he'd managed this feat while running a more-or-less progressive campaign that those more enamored of Conventional Wisdom than wisdom thought would prove fatal in red Texas. He'd eschewed corporate PAC money, Bernie-style (and with some veteran Bernie organizers on staff), but still managed to raise a healthy war-chest, and if he waffled on some important progressive priorities like Medicare For All, tuition-free higher education, etc., shied away from being overly aggressive in promoting others and his record didn't always match his rhetoric, well, it was Ted Cruz and it was Texas. In the course of that campaign, some of O'Rourke's more enthusiastic fans suggested he should run for president. Asked about this at a CNN townhall event in October, <a href="https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/beto-orourke-presidential-run-donald-trump_us_5bc91cf1e4b0d38b587667ef">O'Rourke said</a> "The answer is no... It's a definite no." On 5 Nov., the day before the senate election, MSNBC correspondent Garrett Haig <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrdWUMXRjvQ">asked him again</a>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Congressman, can you say definitively that no matter what happens tomorrow, you will not be a candidate for president in 2020?"<br />
<br />
"I will not be a candidate for president in 2020. That's, I think, as definitive as those sentences get."</blockquote>
But two days later, after Cruz defeated O'Rourke, Politico did its best to give birth to such a campaign anyway with an article by Ben Schreckinger entitled, "<a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2018/11/07/beto-orourke-2020-elections-iowa-new-hampshire-973419">Beto's Consolation Prize: Running For President</a>." O'Rourke, wrote, Schreckinger, had "dodged a bullet" in losing that race and now, instead of getting bogged down in the "drudge-work of a freshman senator," his loss to Cruz "sets him up to run full time for
president" and allows him to "jump immediately into the top tier of Democratic
contenders." The article, which uncritically sells O'Rourke as "progressive," is nothing more than a fan-letter to O'Rourke dressed up as a news item. It quotes Cruz's chief strategist Jeff Roe raving about O'Rourke:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"The Democrats don't have anybody like him... They don't have anyone of his caliber on the national stage. I pray for the soul of anyone who has to run against him in Iowa in 453 days."</blockquote>
At his worst point, Schreckinger attempts to counter the perception that losing a high-profile senate race isn't really a proper launching-pad for a presidential campaign by comparing O'Rourke to a certain ol' rail-splitter:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Another tall and lanky politician, Abraham Lincoln, ran for president and won after losing two campaigns for Senate."</blockquote>
No, really--he actually wrote that. Apparently having paid little attention to O'Rourke's definitive statements on the prospect of a presidential run--or just not caring about them--Schreckinger writes that "O’Rourke has not yet indicated his intentions" regarding 2020.<br />
<br />
O'Rourke became the corporate media Flavor of the Month (for about 2 months, actually) and there came a flood of articles harping on O'Rourke's youth, his charisma, his fundraising prowess, comparing him to JFK, calling him, more often, the new Obama and so on, promoting him as a contender and seemingly trying to create, by repetition alone, an O'Rourke presidential campaign. Some examples:<br />
<br />
--USA Today picked up on a few celebrities on Twitter <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/people/2018/11/07/election-results-celebrities-call-beto-orourke-run-president/1917490002/">who were suggesting</a> such a campaign. Those celebs <a href="https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a24785988/beto-orourke-2020-presidential-bid/">also made it into Esquire</a>.<br />
<br />
--On 8 Nov., CNN ran a piece, "<a href="https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/08/politics/beto-orourke-2020-democratic-presidential-race/index.html">Democrats Nudge Beto O'Rourke Toward 2020 Run After Closer-Than-Expected Texas Race</a>," which, while generously promoting O'Rourke and the idea of a campaign, only quoted a single Democrat doing any such thing--Cristóbal Alex, the president of the Latino Victory Fund. Not exactly a name-brand. It noted O'Rourke has shot down the idea.<br />
<br />
--On 11 Nov., the Hill ran "<a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/416018-Beto-2020-calls-multiply-among-Dems">Beto 2020 Calls Multiply Among Dems</a>." They had multiplied, by that point, to three Democratic strategists--the full compliment quoted in the piece. Amie Parnes, author of the Hill piece, gets credit for quoting a professor of political science expressing some skepticism about O'Rourke's ability to transform a senate loss into a successful presidential bid, and she also notes that O'Rourke has shot down any suggestion of running for president.<br />
<br />
--By 12 Nov., Politico had already included O'Rourke in a Morning Consult poll of 2020 hopefuls it had commissioned. The <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2018/11/12/poll-biden-bernie-beto-lead-2020-dems-983995">article on the poll</a> quoted Morning Consult's vice president Tyler Sinclair: "Beto O’Rourke is emerging to be an outside contender for the 2020
Democratic nomination, outpacing other potential nominees." O'Rourke had drawn only 8% support in the poll.<br />
<br />
--On 19 Nov., Politico was back with "<a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2018/11/19/beto-orourke-2020-democratic-primary-995353">Beto O'Rourke Blows Up The 2020 Democratic Primary</a>," which quotes Democratic donors and fundraisers--key players in the corrupt bribery-and-donor-service system that dominates American politics--as being very excited about the prospect of an O'Rourke run and being hesitant to commit to other candidates until they know if he's going to join the race. In the course of it, David Siders, its author, doesn't subject these piratical rogues to any of the criticism I've just offered.<br />
<br />
And so on. After three weeks of this, "<a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/beto-o-rourke-changes-his-answer-2020-presidential-run-n940511">Beto O'Rourke Changes His Answer On 2020 Presidential Run</a>" (Associated Press, 27 Nov.):<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Democrat Beto O'Rourke said Monday he isn't ruling out a potential 2020
presidential run, walking back earlier pronouncements that he wouldn't
seek the White House regardless of the outcome of his Senate campaign in
Texas."</blockquote>
Having ruled out his earlier ruling out of a presidential run, the Beto promotion continued. The same day O'Rourke changed his tune, CNN's Chris Cillizza chimed in with "<a href="https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/27/politics/beto-orourke-2020/index.html">Why Beto O'Rourke Should Run For President in 2020</a>," wherein Cillizza argued that Beto could lose his chance in the sun if he waits to run for another statewide office in Texas: "Today, Beto O'Rourke is the hottest thing in Democratic politics. He's touched a nerve among Democrats in a way that <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/20/politics/barack-obama-nancy-pelosi-axe-files-podcast/index.html" target="_blank">evokes Barack Obama circa 2006-2007</a>... In four or even eight years? There will be a new hottest thing... If O'Rourke runs for president in 2020, he is, I think, a top-five contender for the nomination." Cillizza would later try to self-fulfill this as a prophecy (more on that later). On 3 Dec., the Hill reported on a new poll with the headline, "<a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/419455-beto-orourke-seen-as-top-contender-in-2020-race-for-white-house-poll">Beto O'Rourke Seen As A Top Contender in 2020: Poll</a>." Actually, Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders finished at the top of that poll with, respectively,
28% and 21% support. O'Rourke drew only 7% support. On 14 Dec., CNN: "<a href="https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/14/politics/cnn-poll-2020-democrats-beto-orourke-rising/index.html">CNN Poll: Looking to 2020, Beto O'Rourke On the Horizon</a>"--in the poll the formed the basis for that headline, O'Rourke drew only 9% support. And so on.<br />
<br />
Weeks of this sort of thing eventually prompted progressives to begin to more closely scrutinize O'Rourke's record, and just as happened with Harris, the Clintonites of the Democratic Establishment have proven unwilling to tolerate even the mildest criticism of what they clearly saw as a new Golden Boy in the making.<br />
<br />
Zaid Jilani in Current Affairs asked, "<a href="https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/12/what-does-beto-orourke-actually-stand-for?">What Does Beto O'Rourke Actually Stand For?</a>, (4 Dec.), a piece that argued O'Rourke was "neither a bold progressive nor a distinguished legislator" but instead aligned with conservative "Democrats," was overly deferential to the party Establishment and squishy on--when not outright hostile to--many progressive priorities. While most progressive criticism of O'Rourke came from such small left outlets, Elizabeth Bruenig wrote a much higher-profile editorial in the Washington Post, "<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-this-progressive-texan-cant-get-excited-about-beto-orourke/2018/12/05/641c7f0e-f8b9-11e8-8c9a-860ce2a8148f_story.html">Why This Progressive Texan Can't Get Excited About Beto O'Rourke</a>" (5 Dec.) in which she praised O'Rourke's efforts against Cruz but reiterated some of the same criticism as Jilani. "I think the times both call for and allow for a left-populist candidate
with uncompromising progressive principles," she wrote. "I don’t see that in
O’Rourke." In Jacobin, Branko Marcetic argued that "<a href="https://jacobinmag.com/2018/12/beto-orourke-president-2020-senate-race">Beto O'Rourke Should Not Run For President</a>," a piece in which he praised O'Rourke as fairly progressive for Texas but suggested it would be far better if O'Rourke continued to operate within that milieu. He suggests the sudden mania for an O'Rourke presidential campaign is fundamentally misguided, a product of liberals' need "to find someone, anyone, charismatic and likable enough to beat Trump." Marcetic points to some truly horrendous votes O'Rourke has cast. "O’Rourke is a decent, progressive candidate in slowly purpling Texas," he writes, "but when you put him on the national stage and drill down on his record, he becomes just another flawed Democrat."<br />
<br />
When investigative journalist David Sirota <a href="https://twitter.com/davidsirota/status/1069264575202189313">tweeted</a> that O'Rourke "is the #2 recipient of oil/gas industry campaign cash in the entire Congress," he wasn't necessarily trying to criticize O'Rourke. As he described it, he just came across that factoid while working on a completely unrelated story, was surprised by it and fired off a tweet about it. When she saw the tweet over a day later, hardcore Clintonite Neera Tanden, president of the Center for American Progress, became absolutely hysterical, <a href="https://twitter.com/neeratanden/status/1069753110778781698">counter-tweeting</a> that Sirota was "a supporter of Bernie Sanders attacking a Democrat"--the "attacking" in this case being merely pointing out O'Rourke's oil and gas industry contributions, which were a matter of public record. "This is seriously dangerous," Tanden raved. "We know Trump is in the White House and attacking Dems is doing Trump's bidding." Democrats are on the verge of a presidential primary contest in which there may be as many as 30 competitors; it hardly needs said that characterizing any examination of their respective records as "attacking" them and insisting this not be done would leave Dems with no means whatsoever of sorting them out but it's also the case that Tanden herself doesn't believe in this ridiculous principle and, in fact, attacks progressives as a matter of routine (which is exactly what she was doing here). "I hope Senator Sanders repudiates these attacks in 2019."<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgANpthfp1Mm0VBO0KjGLFFbmbFxFxsbMUs8eC0ahhZIwahpLkn2-ivZbL8MO6c0ntG5zRVaeLFUzurtrVkYbJlJFsTa9xPSQUws95alzB98o2lBNjjEdeuVVp6983TjcesdL8ujRQrzQ/s1600/neera_tanden_sirota_attack_beto.PNG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="607" data-original-width="592" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgANpthfp1Mm0VBO0KjGLFFbmbFxFxsbMUs8eC0ahhZIwahpLkn2-ivZbL8MO6c0ntG5zRVaeLFUzurtrVkYbJlJFsTa9xPSQUws95alzB98o2lBNjjEdeuVVp6983TjcesdL8ujRQrzQ/w624-h640/neera_tanden_sirota_attack_beto.PNG" width="624" /></a></div>
<br />
This exchange ignited a Twitter war that raged for days.[5] Tanden <a href="https://twitter.com/neeratanden/status/1070707516697403399">further escalated the matter</a>, suggesting all of the progressives' rather measured criticism of O'Rourke--which she continued to characterize as an "attack"--was part of a conspiracy by "worried" Sanders supporters:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiDWTQM6JUjiVzVAaNGuxhW34s7TlDeh0E-QUo0-nAt6C5PoY7N9gVCDqpJ52JsklOX-XwH6SllvXq8xfmKABjgaEWklkbNTCs2RqqPoAVWw8HF1hdfbSOkuvsdQT_eGxp7AQzEreaW1Q/s1600/neera_tanden_attack_conspiracy.PNG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="399" data-original-width="635" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiDWTQM6JUjiVzVAaNGuxhW34s7TlDeh0E-QUo0-nAt6C5PoY7N9gVCDqpJ52JsklOX-XwH6SllvXq8xfmKABjgaEWklkbNTCs2RqqPoAVWw8HF1hdfbSOkuvsdQT_eGxp7AQzEreaW1Q/w640-h400/neera_tanden_attack_conspiracy.PNG" width="640" /></a></div>
Alex Kotch, writing in Sludge, <a href="https://readsludge.com/2018/12/10/beto-orourke-oil-and-gas-contributions-2018/">recounts</a> part of what followed:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Others such as Tanden’s colleague <a href="https://readsludge.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2018/12/Topher-Spiro-tweet.png" rel="noreferrer noopener" target="_blank">Topher Spiro</a> and <a href="https://twitter.com/DanteAtkins/status/1071046421179179008" rel="noreferrer noopener" target="_blank">Dante Atkins</a>,
communications director for Rep. John Garamendi (D-Calif.), who was
deputy secretary of the Interior under President Bill Clinton, also
joined the conspiracy chorus. (Spiro has since deleted his conspiracy
tweet after I and others publicly criticized him for it.) Tanden and
Spiro were both sure to claim they haven’t decided on a 2020 favorite.<br />
<br />
"More accounts with large followings offered additional false takes. Writer <a href="https://twitter.com/marcushjohnson/status/1070722813273759744" rel="noreferrer noopener" target="_blank">Marcus H. Johnson</a> was convinced it was a coordinated plot by 'Bernie's people.' Clinton diehard <a href="https://twitter.com/tomwatson/status/1070710022705954816" rel="noreferrer noopener" target="_blank">Tom Watson</a> said it was 'so transparent' that 'Sanders Central' was attacking O’Rourke.<br />
<br />
"Perhaps most surprising to me, Esquire writer Charles Pierce got in on the action, too, posting a blog with <a href="https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a25424052/2020-democrats-bernie-sanders-beto-orourke-media-elizabeth-warren/" rel="noreferrer noopener" target="_blank">wild, evidence-free claims</a>
including, 'There appears to be a concerted effort from the Bernie
Sanders camp to paint O'Rourke as a tool of the oil and gas industry'
and, 'There is an obvious effort by those folks to clear the progressive
side of the field as cleanly as Hillary Rodham Clinton attempted to
clear the field in 2016.'"</blockquote>
It wasn't pretty. And it wasn't over.<br />
<br />
During a townhall event in El Paso on 14 Dec., O'Rourke was asked if he was a progressive. "I don’t know," he replied. "I'm not big on labels. I don't get all fired up about
party or classifying or defining people based on a label or a group. I'm
for everyone." Asked why he didn't join the Progressive Caucus, he said, "I don’t know that it was much of a conscious decision," and said he would advise congressmen, "Don't join any of the caucuses. Just be there and be open to working with and getting stuff done with anyone." Both comments bear rather heavily on the criticism of O'Rourke.<br />
<br />
Faced with that criticism--that O'Rourke isn't sufficiently progressive--and an O'Rourke himself who just repeatedly shied away from calling himself progressive, how did Politico's David Siders decide to write up the situation? "<a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2018/12/14/beto-orourke-progressive-democrat-1065590">The Left Blindsides Beto</a>." Siders, whose editor had apparently been asleep that day, baselessly contextualizes the criticism of O'Rourke with the language of political conspiracy:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Now that Beto O’Rourke is looking at a presidential campaign, he is coming in for a flurry of hits from the left. <br />
<br />
"The criticism... has so far been confined largely to social media,
newspaper opinion pages and online message boards. But as O’Rourke
considers running for president in 2020, his potential opponents are
quietly taking stock, plotting lines of attack they believe could weaken
the Texas congressman in a crowded primary field.<br />
<br />
"Surveying the likely skirmish awaiting O’Rourke, one Democratic
strategist working with a rival campaign told POLITICO, 'Trotsky got
killed with an ice pick.'"</blockquote>
Implanting the image of a shadowy cabal waiting to knife O'Rourke in the night, Siders goes on to defend O'Rourke's progressive credentials--something O'Rourke himself had just declined to do:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"...in a through-the-looking-glass experience, supporters of O’Rourke have
been pressed to reiterate the progressive credentials of a Democrat who,
in his Senate campaign, was chiefly criticized for being too
progressive and not diluting his positions to account for the state’s
conservative tint. They point to his support for Medicare for All and
for leftist drug, military and immigration policies... In response to a constituent on Friday, O’Rourke reiterated his support
for background checks and a ban on the sale of assault-style weapons.<br />
...<br />
<br />
"O’Rourke’s allies here have met the criticism from progressive activists
with incredulity. Veronica Escobar, the Democrat elected to succeed
O’Rourke in the House, told POLITICO that 'the proof is in the pudding.'<br />
<br />
"'I see him as a progressive Democrat,' she said..."</blockquote>
Siders ends by noting that when O'Rourke was asked at that townhall event if he was running for president, he replied, "I'm no closer to deciding": "He said he has 'no hard date' on making a decision about entering the race."<br />
<br />
A few days later, David Sirota returned to the subject of O'Rourke with a more detailed examination of the congressman's record simultaneously published by <a href="https://capitalandmain.com/beto-vs-democrats-texas-lawmaker-frequently-voted-to-help-trump-and-gop-1220">Capital & Main</a>, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/dec/20/beto-orourke-congressional-votes-analysis-capital-and-main">the Guardian</a> and <a href="https://www.newsweek.com/beto-trump-orourke-2020-democrats-republicans-1266938">Newsweek</a> (20 Dec.).<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"...a Capital & Main review of congressional votes shows that even as O'Rourke has represented <a href="https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2018-midterm-election-forecast/house/texas/16/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank" title="one of the most Democratic congressional districts">one of the most Democratic congressional districts</a> <a href="https://www.docdroid.net/JZXMmxl/arranged-by-pvi-rank-1.pdf#page=5" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank" title="in the entire country">in the entire country</a>,
he has in many instances undermined his own party's efforts to halt the
GOP agenda, frequently voting against the majority of House Democrats
in support of Republican bills and <a href="https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/congress-trump-score/beto-orourke/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank" title="Trump administration positions">Trump administration positions</a>.<br />
<br />
"Capital & Main reviewed <a href="https://projects.propublica.org/represent/members/O000170/votes-against-party/115" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank" title="the">the</a> <a href="https://projects.propublica.org/represent/members/O000170/votes-against-party/114" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank" title="167">167</a> <a href="https://projects.propublica.org/represent/members/O000170/votes-against-party/113" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank" title="votes">votes</a>
O'Rourke has cast in opposition to the majority of his own party in the
House during his six-year tenure in Congress. Many of those votes were
not progressive dissents alongside other left-leaning lawmakers but were
instead votes to help pass Republican-sponsored legislation. In many
cases, Democratic lawmakers said that those measures were designed to
help corporate interests dismantle Obama administration programs and
regulations.<br />
<br />
"Amid persistently high economic inequality and a climate change
crisis, O'Rourke has voted for GOP bills that his fellow Democratic
lawmakers said reinforced Republicans' tax agenda, chipped away at the
Affordable Care Act, weakened Wall Street regulations, boosted the
fossil fuel industry and bolstered Trump's immigration policy. Consumer,
environmental, public health and civil rights organizations have cast
legislation backed by O'Rourke as aiding big banks, undermining the
fight against climate change and supporting Trump's anti-immigrant
program. During the previous administration, President Barack Obama's
White House issued statements slamming two GOP bills backed by the
46-year-old Democratic legislator.<br />
<br />
"O'Rourke's votes for Republican tax, trade, health care, criminal
justice and immigration-related legislation not only defied his national
party, but also at times put him at odds even with a majority of Texas
Democratic lawmakers in Congress. Such votes underscore his membership
in the <a href="https://newdemocratcoalition-himes.house.gov/members" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank" title="New Democrat Coalition">New Democrat Coalition</a>, the faction of House Democrats most closely aligned with business interests..."</blockquote>
Sirota's article was detailed, meticulously researched and devastating.<br />
<br />
It infuriated the Clintonite elements in the Democratic party that had been hopefully promoting O'Rourke as the Second Coming of Obama but apparently incapable of identifying a single factual error in the report, they turned, once again, to raging against Sirota, portraying him as merely a front for Bernie Sanders and, by extension, his "attack" on O'Rourke--again, nothing more than detailing O'Rourke's public record--as a Sanders attack on the congressman. Thus attacking Sanders.<br />
<br />
NBC ran an article on the situation in which those "attacks" had suddenly become a full-blown "war." Entitled "<a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/inside-bernie-world-s-war-beto-o-rourke-n951016">Inside Bernie-World's War On Beto O'Rourke</a>" (23 Dec.), it reduces O'Rourke critics to merely their previous support for Sanders and implies conspiracy:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Forces loyal to Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders are waging an
increasingly public war against Texas Rep. Beto O'Rourke, the new
darling of Democratic activists, <a class="vilynx_listened" href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/bernie-sanders-address-2020-speculation-says-it-s-not-easy-n947691" target="_blank">as the two men weigh</a> whether to <a class="vilynx_listened" href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/beto-o-rourke-changes-his-answer-2020-presidential-run-n940511" target="_blank">seek the party's presidential nomination in 2020</a>.<br />
<br />
<div>
"The
main line of attack against O'Rourke is that he isn't progressive
enough--that he's been too close to Republicans in Congress, too close
to corporate donors and not willing enough to use his star power to help
fellow Democrats--and it is being pushed almost exclusively by Sanders
supporters online and in print..."</div>
</blockquote>
The article, by Jonathan Allen and Alex Seitz-Wald, fails to provide any meaningful examination of those charges--they're just put down as an "attack" by "forces loyal to" Sanders. Except for Sirota's work, it doesn't even link to any of the substantive criticism of O'Rourke. It does, however, quote activist Nomiki Konst, who hadn't written any such extended criticism to which they could link. If it seems as if she was included because of this--or simply because, as a Sanders supporter in 2016, she fits the conspiracy being woven by the article--well, the reader gets the picture. Konst says progressives sat on their reservations about O'Rourke in the hope that he would beat Ted Cruz "but now, it's a different story." In addressing this, the article's authors dives right back into the conspiracy pool:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div>
"The biggest difference may be that O'Rourke is now a threat to Sanders
in the 2020 primary. Though neither man has announced whether he will
run, O'Rourke captured the hearts and dollars of veteran Democratic
activists, donors of all ages and millennial political newcomers across
Texas and the nation in his Senate run... O'Rourke's ability to connect with younger and progressive white voters--Sanders' source of strength in his losing 2016 primary against Hillary
Clinton--puts him in direct competition with the Vermont senator... And while the vast majority of Democrats have an opinion about
Sanders, that's not true of O'Rourke yet... That explains the rush to define him in negative terms."</div>
</blockquote>
Allen and Seitz-Wald even try to bulletproof their conspiracy narrative. "Sanders supporters insist there's nothing coordinated about the attacks
on O'Rourke," they write, as if their own suggestion, absent <i>any</i> evidence, that there <i>is</i> anything coordinated about it was anything other than completely irresponsible, baseless, politically-motivated garbage. Sanders supporters, they continue, "note Sanders himself and his top allies have said
nothing about O'Rourke. Sanders' is an unusually decentralized political
world, with a loose collection of activists and operatives who often
take actions without direction or approval from any central authority." So if they've all been coordinating their stories, it's a Bernie conspiracy and even if they haven't, it's <i>still</i> a Bernie conspiracy.<br />
<br />
The authors try to refute David Sirota's initial tweet regarding O'Rourke--the only time they touch any of the specific criticism of O'Rourke. "In a long tweetstorm," they write, "Sirota noted that O'Rourke had received more
donations from the oil and gas industry than any candidate in the 2018
cycle other than Cruz." This is inaccurate; Sirota didn't author "a long tweetstorm" on this subject. As anyone checking the timestamps on the tweets can see, he wrote a single tweet about it on the morning of Sunday, 2 Dec. at 11:18 a.m., a tweet that drew almost no notice for a day-and-a-half. When it began to get attention--and criticism--he returned and wrote a few more follow-up tweets. Given the specifics of the authors' effort to refute Sirota, their positing "a long tweetstorm" doesn't seem like an innocent error:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"The missing context: O'Rourke didn't take money from corporate political
action committees, and the donations attributed to the oil and gas
business <a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" target="_blank">include both a handful from executives and many others from lower-level employees</a>
of his home state's flagship industry."</blockquote>
Obviously, it would be absurd to expect Sirota to cover all that ground in a single tweet limited to only a few characters, and the idea of "a long tweetstorm" seems to have been introduced solely to make it seem as if Sirota had devoted far more space and time to the subject than he, in fact, initially had. That a lot of the money in question came from lower-level employees of the industry instead of executives would be a legitimate criticism except that Sirota's <a href="https://twitter.com/davidsirota/status/1069800442803044352">2nd tweet on the subject</a>--written nearly 36 hours after the 1st but if what he wrote is characterized as a "tweetstorm," this was the 2nd in the run--provided <a href="https://www.followthemoney.org/show-me?dt=1&f-fc=1&c-t-eid=17658418&d-cci=33#[{1|gro=d-eid,d-empl,d-occupation,y">a link to a list of O'Rourke's industry donors</a>, all identified, alongside the amounts they contributed. And that's the end of any suggestion that Sirota was "missing context" in the matter.<br />
<br />
An O'Rourke spokesman declined to comment on the story but Allen and Seitz-Wald took it upon themselves to defend O'Rourke's progressive credentials anyway, writing that the congressman "can point to positions he's taken that are popular
with progressives, including impeaching President Donald Trump and
legalizing marijuana at the federal level."[6]<br />
<br />
A particularly despicable aspect of the article is that, while the entire thing is nothing more than a political attack on Sanders, it repeatedly presents Clintonite Democrats like Jon Favreau and former Obama aide Ben LaBolt as the voice of reason, arguing for a positive approach to the coming Democratic primary contest and against getting into ugly fights that carve up the party. The Clintonite-aligned press, meanwhile, has been grinding out anti-Sanders and anti-progressive hit-pieces on an almost daily basis (more on that soon). While Allen and Seitz-Wald point out that Sirota "worked for Sanders many years ago," they fail to disclose some of their own (more recent) associations that may color how their readers receive <i>their</i> work. A few years ago, Allen was the <a href="https://www.rollcall.com/news/-41281-1.html">executive director</a> of Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz's DWS PAC. That's Dirty Debbie, who, in 2016, was forced from her leadership of the DNC when Democratic emails released by Wikileaks gave an ugly look at how the org had been inappropriately backing Hillary Clinton over Sanders during the Dem contests. Not necessarily any sort of discrediting association but something it wouldn't have hurt to mention after gratuitously bringing up Sirota's work for Sanders two decades ago in order to tie <i>him</i> to the senator. Seitz-Wald's problems, however, aren't so easy to dismiss. Those Democratic emails <a href="https://medium.com/mtracey/how-msnbcs-alex-seitz-wald-colluded-with-the-failed-clinton-campaign-5e051f1ce9db">revealed he'd been a stenographic conduit</a> for propaganda provided by the Clinton campaign throughout the 2016 cycle--basically just a journalistic front for whatever rubbish the Clinton camp wanted in the public eye without its own fingerprints on it.<br />
<br />
The day after this article appeared, the rightist press, which also hates Sanders and the progressives, picked up on it, offering their own often-thin rewrites:<br />
<br />
"<a href="https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/bernie-sanders-supporters-beto-orourke/2018/12/24/id/895687/">Bernie Sanders Backers Wage War Against Beto O'Rourke</a>," Newsmax (24 Dec.).<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
"<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/39642/bernie-sanders-supporters-wage-war-against-robert-joseph-curl">Bernie Sanders Supporters Wage War Against Robert 'Beto' O'Rourke</a>," Daily Wire (24 Dec.)</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
"<a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6526123/Bernie-Sanders-supporters-wage-war-against-comer-Beto-ORourke.html">Bernie Sanders Supporters Wage War Against Up-And-Comer Beto O'Rourke</a>," Daily Mail (24 Dec.)</div>
<br />
The Hill offered its own condensation under the headline, "<a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/422674-sanders-supporters-deny-coordinated-attacks-on-orourkes-progressive">Sanders Supporters Deny Coordinated Attacks On O'Rourke's Progressive Credentials</a>." But the near-ubiquitous claims of conspiracy in the matter--claims privileged in headlines like that--have absolutely no basis in fact. While such rot is par for the course in the overtly rightist press, it's astonishing that any responsible editor would even allow it into print, particularly in so privileged a manner. The fact that Clintonite Dems were so prolifically advancing a ridiculous, Trump-style conspiracy theory in this matter is, itself, very newsworthy but if any major news outlets sat down and wrote a story about it from that angle (rather than treating the conspiracy as if it was true or may be), this press critic has yet to see it.<br />
<br />
In the 2016 cycle, the entire Democratic party apparatus and the Dem Establishment-aligned press lined up early behind a more conservative (and weak) Establishment pol as the frontrunner and ruthlessly attempted to push aside, run over, bury her progressive challenger to clear the field for her, with ultimately disastrous results. Progressives who experienced this are obviously going to be vigilant for any sign--such as the sudden, massive press promotion of candidates like Harris and O'Rourke--that this may be happening again and are going to push back against it. Some of them take offense at efforts by powerful actors like corporate media to manipulate the process. The politically engaged ones just want a fair shot for their contenders. This isn't rocket science. Most people won't find it unreasonable either. The progressives' shared need to challenge a retread of that 2016 horror show doesn't involve any sort clandestine meetings by shadowy operatives in smoke-filled back rooms.<br />
<br />
"Data journalists" eschew the typewriter-and-a-good-pair-o-walkin'-shoes approach of of traditional journalism and just work with cold, hard numbers. For a time, this reliance on pure data cloaked this breed of journalist, exemplified by Nate Silver's FiveThirtyEight, in <a href="https://www.cjr.org/special_report/harry_enten_fivethirtyeight_nate_silver_election.php/">a certain mystique</a>. Harry Enten is a data journalist. He spent 2016 at FiveThirtyEight. During that cycle, he <a href="http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/why-donald-trump-isnt-a-real-candidate-in-one-chart/" target="_blank">boldly declared</a>--among other things--that "[Donald] Trump has a better chance of... playing in the NBA
Finals... than winning the Republican nomination." At one point, he created a theoretical Democratic primary contest
using all open primaries, all closed primaries and all caucuses and insisted his model
accurately reflected how such campaigns would have played
out in the real world and that it proved that Bernie Sanders would have lost under all of those
circumstances and thus wasn't being rooked by the Dem Establishment. Those who paid attention suspected Enten was concocting a <a href="https://corporatenewsreviews.blogspot.com/2016/05/harry-enten-continues-538s-descent-into.html">ludicrous fantasy</a> to trade on his "data journalist" mystique in order to provide propaganda for a favored candidate and wasn't letting the available data--or logic--<a href="https://joftius.wordpress.com/2016/05/29/statistical-malpractice-at-fivethirtyeight/">get in the way</a> of this project.<br />
<br />
Enten works for CNN now. On 14 Dec., he wrote, "<a href="https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/14/politics/bernie-sanders-beto-orourke-supporters-2020/index.html">Bernie Sanders Supporters Should Worry About Beto O'Rourke</a>," a major trainwreck of an article in which he theoretically sets out to make a case that O'Rourke could attract Sanders' voters. Up front, this runs into an obvious problem; O'Rourke is significantly more conservative. Enten outlines this:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"O'Rourke has voted more
often with Trump than 80% of House Democrats. Only three senators have
voted with Trump less often than Sanders."</blockquote>
Doesn't exactly sound like the two would attract the same voters, right? Enten has a novel, if bizarre, way around this predicament though; he attempts to drain the Sanders movement of its substance. Sanders has
significant political gifts. He's a straight-talker, an outsider when
people are angry at the political Establishment and so on but central to
his 2016 appeal was that he ran a principled issues campaign, advancing
a slate of progressive issues that, though overwhelmingly popular,
weren't being given <i>any</i> real representation in the political process. Sanders kept those issues front-and-center at all times. In purporting to explain "what drove people to" Sanders in 2016, Enten tries to prove that Sanders' policy agenda--the core of Sanders campaign--was virtually irrelevant to his
support:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Sanders' appeal in 2016... was mostly not based on ideology. You can see this best by looking at the 27 states with <a href="https://www.cnn.com/election/2016/primaries/polls" target="_blank">an entrance or exit poll</a>.
Among the approximately 25% of the electorate who identified as 'very
liberal', Clinton and Sanders won about an equal share of voters. That
means Sanders only did slightly better among very liberal voters than he
did among all voters."</blockquote>
But even setting aside the fact that those 27 states are disproportionately pro-Clinton states (thus hopelessly distorting any overall data), the kind of ideological self-identification polling on which Enten is resting his entire premise here is essentially worthless when it comes to this sort of evaluation. Most Americans aren't ideologues. They do, however, hold definite opinions on public affairs. Those opinions are rather extensively catalogued by the extraordinary amount of polling to which they're subjected. And in all of that polling, one is hard-pressed to find a single major issue on which Americans don't, by overwhelming numbers, hold a liberal view. It has been this way for decades, and the issues polling shows that Americans have only gotten more liberal with time but whenever Gallup conducts its ideological self-identification surveys, only a minor fraction of respondents--26% in <a href="https://news.gallup.com/poll/225074/conservative-lead-ideology-down-single-digits.aspx">the last poll</a>--describe themselves as "liberal"; they're outnumbered every year by those who describe themselves as "moderate" and--the largest group--"conservative." Respondents in self-identification polls aren't offering any sort of accurate characterization of their own views; they're simply reacting to those words (with "liberal" being a word that has been publicly demonized for decades). Not being ideologues, most probably couldn't even describe with any precision what those words mean, but their views are overwhelmingly liberal, regardless of what word they use to describe themselves. None of what I've just outlined here is particularly controversial; political science <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/01/opinion/democrats-economic-policy.html">has known it for more than half a century</a>.<br />
<br />
Harry Enten knows it as well. He just disregards it and proceeds along his merry way anyway, using "ideology" as his measure of support for the Sanders policy agenda:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Among those under the age of 40, identifying as a Democrat or independent was <a href="https://i.imgur.com/4o4J46Z.png" target="_blank">nearly three times more important</a>
in explaining a person's 2016 primary vote choice than where they
placed on the left-right spectrum. That is, young voter identifying as
an independent was far more telling of their vote than how liberal they
were.<br />
<div class="zn-body__paragraph">
<br /></div>
<div class="zn-body__paragraph">
"Looking at all Democratic primary voters, <a href="https://i.imgur.com/882NqjN.png" target="_blank">I examined</a>
a person's age, race, ideology and whether they identified as a
Democrat or independent in trying to explain vote choice. Ideology was
the least important of these four variables in 2016. Age and party
identification were by far the two most important."</div>
</blockquote>
When Enten is measuring things like voters' age and their party affiliation against ideological self-identification polling, he's comparing solid data to phantoms (that he knows are phantoms). At a time when Sanders' agenda is becoming the Democratic default and every Dem 2020 hopeful is trying to ape major portions of it, Enten is trying to erase the central role of policy in the success of the Sanders movement.<br />
<br />
And that appears to be the only point of his article. While Enten opens by suggesting "O'Rourke or really any other candidate with outsider appeal could eat into Sanders' base of young, independent-leaning voters," he never references a shred of data to show that O'Rourke--so entangled with the Dem Establishment as to have associated himself with the conservative New Democrat Caucus--could be seen to possess <i>any</i> "outsider appeal." He doesn't even make any argument for it. He just focuses on trying to hollow out Sanders' following. At one point, he suddenly seems to remember the proposition with which he began and writes:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"It's not difficult to imagine an under-50 former member of Congress who
spent just three terms in the House like O'Rourke being able to sell
himself to young independent voters."</blockquote>
How? How is a New Democrat who votes more often with Trump than 80% of House Democrats going to have any "outsider appeal"? Dems <i>despise</i> Trump. And Enten has no answers.<br />
<br />
Jonathan Chait wrote a piece in New York Magazine, "<a href="http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/12/bernie-sanders-beto-orourke-feud-2020-campaign-democratic.html">Why the Bernie Sanders Movement Must Crush Beto O'Rourke</a>" (28 Dec.), that built on Enten's empty premise.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Among the minority of voters who identified as 'very liberal,' the most left-wing choice, Sanders and Clinton performed <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/14/politics/bernie-sanders-beto-orourke-supporters-2020/index.html">about equally</a>... Sanders built most of his support on personal contrasts rather than ideology... The rise of Beto O’Rourke poses an obvious threat. The Texas congressman
has replicated aspects of Sanders’s appeal--his positivity and refusal
to accept PAC money--while exceeding it in some ways. Sanders is
charismatic in an unconventional way, the slovenly and cranky but
somewhat lovable old uncle, while O’Rourke projects a classic handsome,
toothy, Kennedy-esque charm that reliably makes Democrats swoon."</blockquote>
Chait insists "hard-core [Sanders] loyalists find the contrast irksome," but isn't able to provide any real example of this (he offers only a Nomiki Konst quote that doesn't touch the matter). He writes of "the left's well-grounded fear that
Sanders’s hard-core ideological appeal can be easily disarmed with
personal charisma," which is his larger point, that progressive voters are just a bunch of superficial idiots who would vote for a more conservative candidate who didn't support their issues just because he's so handsome he makes them swoon.<br />
<br />
The Hill pulled a fast one similar to Enten's to create a story headlined, "<a href="https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/422768-new-poll-suggests-progressive-voters-arent-worried-that-biden">Progressives Prefer Biden To Sanders In Hypothetical 2020 Trump Matchup, New Poll Shows</a>." How did the Hill identify these "progressives" in that polling data? They used "registered voters who say they have a 'strong liberal' ideology"--more ideological self-identification nonsense. Matthew Sheffield does, however, concede that "name recognition is considered the predominant factor" in polls this early in the election cycle. Something all pollsters know but few stories on early head-to-head polling acknowledge.<br />
<br />
For months, Enten has been tag-teaming with Chris Cillizza and produce what the two modestly describe as their "definitive 2020 Democratic candidate power rankings" for CNN. Besides being a blatant effort to manipulate public perceptions of the race, the notable feature of these rankings is that, while Enten trades on his "data journalist" schtick to give them some appearance of legitimacy, he and Cillizza don't actually employ any of the available data to create them, and all of the available data contradict them. The rankings have been a <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgqtKUHPg5c&t=137s">running joke</a> <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3Cq4B6PGf0&t=237s">across</a> <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cfy8iJaxQlE&t=546s">news-talk Youtube</a> for months. Here's <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/12/politics/2020-rankings-democrats/index.html">their "definitive" rankings</a> from 12 Nov., the first one after the 2018 elections:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjLfj7o0xHfmlDa8ouGqDBdAPyPcKNzffuzHD9cn3q9AVHtAqVY2DfuberkY5k-J6ZGNiRAb7VFY9vZAvsvpmZppBxFEW_GYSYRF2RZ0M6yhuyhA9dgRPzU4GgOTo4_n-ri5Xg00XW9Qw/s1600/cnn_power_rankings_November_2018.PNG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="521" data-original-width="683" height="488" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjLfj7o0xHfmlDa8ouGqDBdAPyPcKNzffuzHD9cn3q9AVHtAqVY2DfuberkY5k-J6ZGNiRAb7VFY9vZAvsvpmZppBxFEW_GYSYRF2RZ0M6yhuyhA9dgRPzU4GgOTo4_n-ri5Xg00XW9Qw/w640-h488/cnn_power_rankings_November_2018.PNG" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
Compare this to any of the contemporaneous polling on the Democratic contest. A <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2018/11/12/poll-biden-bernie-beto-lead-2020-dems-983995">Politico/Morning Consult poll</a> released the same day, for example, has Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders in the top two slots, as, indeed, does <i>all</i> contemporaneous polling. Sanders, who already has a presidential campaign under his belt, near-universal name-recognition, a solid support-base--he's spent nearly 3 years as the most popular active politician in the U.S., an <i>extraordinary</i> record for a non-president--and comes in 2nd place in the poll, is here relegated to an also-ran at #6, behind both Amy Klobuchar and Cory Booker, who polled, respectively, only 1% and 3%, and just ahead of Julian Castro, who polls at only 1%. Cillizza and Enten clearly <i>want</i> Kamala Harris to be perceived as
being at the top of the pile and that seems to be the point of their exercise, but in the poll, she finished in a distant
5th place with only 4% support.<br />
<br />
For her campaign to get anywhere, Harris is going to need this sort of press promotion. In <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/28/politics/kamala-harris-polling-2020-campaign/index.html">a CNN poll</a> from December, "41% of Americans said they had never heard of her and 19% didn't know enough to have an opinion." The same poll showed that Beto O'Rourke, if he should launch a presidential campaign, faces "38% who have never heard of him and 20% who don't have an opinion."<br />
<br />
Even as her polls <i>continue</i> to be terrible, Cillizza and Enten have left Harris in their #1 slot through both <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/13/politics/2020-rankings-presidential/index.html">December</a> and <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/17/politics/2020-democrats/index.html">January</a>. As mentioned earlier, Cillizza wrote on 27 Nov., "If O'Rourke runs for president in 2020, he is, I think, a top-five contender for the nomination." So a few days later, in December, while O'Rourke was polling at only about 7%, Cillizza tried to make this come true by putting the congressman at #2 in the power rankings, where he also left O'Rourke in January. Sanders, meanwhile, continues to be a top-2 candidate in all polling but by January, Cillizza/Enten had dropped him down to #7.<br />
<br />
Despite the relentless press hype, the hapless O'Rourke, as late as 25 Jan., was saying any decision he might make to run for president <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2019/01/25/orourke-2020-decision-months-away-1126571">could be months away</a>, he didn't want to "raise expectations" and if he didn't run, he may take a nice teaching job.<br />
<br />
At the end of December, Enten took a swipe at Elizabeth Warren, insisting her 2018 win in Massachusetts--a one-sided massacre in which she defeated her Republican opponent by a 24% margin--was "one of the weakest for a Democratic Senate candidate." <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgaChWygbAs">Appearing on CNN</a>, Enten was asked about this. His reply:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"The fact is Massachusetts is a very blue state. Hillary Clinton won there by 27 points; Liz Warren only won there by 24... [T]he fact that Liz Warren did worse than Hillary Clinton in Massachusetts suggests that perhaps she's a below-par candidate."</blockquote>
Another very blue state is California. Hillary Clinton <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_election_in_California">won it by over 30%</a>. Kamala Harris, on the other hand, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_Senate_election_in_California">won it by only 23%</a>. Not only does Enten not consider Harris "a below-par candidate" based on this, he's kept her at the top of his Democratic power rankings for months, while placing Warren, most recently, at #4 and #5.<br />
<br />
But CNN clearly loves Kamala Harris. She has a problem with high unknowns? Hey, CNN is there! Only a week after Harris <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/kamala-harris-enters-2020-presidential-race/2019/01/21/d68d15b2-0a20-11e9-a3f0-71c95106d96a_story.html">officially entered</a> the presidential race, CNN organized and heavily promoted <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/29/politics/kamala-harris-defines-fight-town-hall/index.html">a solo townhall event</a> with her in Iowa, the first state on the Democratic calendar.<br />
<br />
Now <i>THAT'S</i> service! Service not extended to any other candidate who has so far entered the race.<br />
<br />
The open promotion and positive--sometimes worshipful--treatment so often doled out to Harris, O'Rourke, Biden and the defensive reaction when such candidates face criticism from progressives is certainly a <i>very</i> sharp contrast to what's been meted out to Bernie Sanders' potential 2020 campaign.<br />
<br />
In 2015, when Sanders jumped into the last presidential contest, the press instantly assigned to him also-ran status, just as CNN has done with its present run of "power rankings." What little news media conversation occurred regarding his campaign poured cold water on the very idea of it, talked it down, told the public over and over again "it ain't happenin'."[7] And in its current coverage of Sanders' potential 2020 campaign, the press is doing exactly the same thing. Despite his standing as an obvious frontrunner with lots of juice, Sanders doesn't get the respectful profiles and helpful headlines of the more conservative candidates.[8] He doesn't even get many serious and grounded analyses. Instead, he gets story after story about how a 2020 bid just seems impossible, how his supporters may all be deserting him, how his success in moving Democrats leftward has rendered him obsolete.<br />
<br />
The latter gets at how the stated rationale for this maltreatment has shifted, which is a bit of a spectacle in itself. In 2015, Sanders' progressive politics were regarded as "essentially a non-starter in national elections," <a href="http://corporatenewsreviews.blogspot.com/2015/05/left-wing-press-only-treats-left-wing.html">as Jose Diaz Balart said</a> on the Rundown at the time. Sanders was treated as if he held utterly fringe views the public would never support. Extensive polling at the time conducted by the same news orgs who were dismissing Sanders on these grounds <a href="http://corporatenewsreviews.blogspot.com/2016/01/bernie-sanders-unelectable-bolshevik-or.html">pretty spectacularly refuted this</a>--much of Sanders' agenda was, in fact, overwhelmingly popular and had been for years--but when it came to opposing progressive policies, facts simply weren't a factor. Now, the same press outlets that ran this game in 2015 are taking note of nearly every Dem hopeful adopting portions of that same agenda and suggesting this has left no place for Sanders himself.[9]<br />
<br />
<div class="css-1ygdjhk evys1bk0">
That's the tale told by Jonathan Martin and Sydney Ember in the New York Times, "<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/27/us/politics/bernie-sanders-president-2020.html">For Bernie Sanders, Holding Onto Support May Be Hard In A 2020 Bid</a>" (27 Dec.). Their lede is all gloom and doom:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Some of his top congressional supporters
won’t commit to backing him if he runs for president again--and two
may join the 2020 race themselves. A handful of former aides might work
for other candidates. And Bernie Sanders’s <a class="css-1g7m0tk" href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/16/us/politics/iowa-poll-2020-presidential.html?module=inline" title="">initial standing in Iowa polls is well below</a> the 49.6 percent he captured in nearly defeating Hillary Clinton there in 2016.</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<div class="css-1ygdjhk evys1bk0">
"Mr.
Sanders may have been the runner-up in the last Democratic primary, but
instead of expanding his nucleus of support, in the fashion of most
repeat candidates, the Vermont senator is struggling to retain even what
he garnered two years ago, when he was far less of a political star
than he is today..."</div>
</blockquote>
Eight paragraphs in, Martin and Ember do pull back to note some really huge facts, that if Sanders does run, he "would be one of the most formidable contenders... No other potential candidate would
start with the foundation of a 50-state organization, a small-dollar
fund-raising list that delivered $230 million and undying devotion from a
core group of backers." But then, it's right back to talking down a campaign.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"...there has been no rush of new support to Mr. Sanders ahead of his
formal announcement. Instead, the early maneuvering is striking for the
large numbers of officeholders, activists and voters who want to wait to
see how the Democratic race develops."</blockquote>
Sanders "is something of a victim of his own success," as other candidates have moved to embrace his progressive agenda. Those candidates pose a "practical threat to Mr. Sanders: They may also absorb some of his former campaign aides... Mr. Sanders may suffer defections among some key staffers who worked for him in 2016."[10] And "it is not just lawmakers, strategists and potential staff members who
are hanging back from Mr. Sanders: Some of his supporters in early
nominating states are doing the same, in part because they do not want
to litigate the divisive 2016 primary again," with more brooding on <i>that</i> nonsense. Organized labor "is unlikely to rally around Mr. Sanders should another populist like Mr.
[Sherrod] Brown enter the race, according to multiple union officials." Sanders "does still enjoy some bedrock support" in some states, "but the first surveys of Iowa caucusgoers indicate he has lost some of
his less-ardent backers. He is polling in the teens there even though he
has universal name recognition and won nearly half the state’s vote in
the Democratic caucuses in 2016."<br />
<br />
It shouldn't exactly be shocking to anyone, even New York Times reporters, that a single candidate in a race that may feature 30 or more--<i>any</i> single candidate--probably isn't going to poll as well as he did in the previous contest when it was essentially just a two-candidate race. The larger context of 2020, which is entirely absent from the Martin/Ember piece,[11] is that there is currently a joke of a "president" who is perceived, largely correctly, as a Win the Presidency For Free card yielding an abundant field of Democratic challengers in the midst of an ongoing interparty power-struggle between grassroots progressives and corporate- and finance-backed rightists for the future of the Democratic party. This, in fact, explains everything Martin and Ember identify as big problems for Sanders, to the point that one could plug any other candidate into their piece and most of it would be just as true. In this maelstrom, Sanders is the candidate with a big head <i>up</i> on all of the others, not the one uniquely plagued by the environment. "In Turbulent Democratic Contest, Sanders' Campaign Formidable." But Martin/Ember don't write <i>that</i> story.<br />
<br />
Neither, for the most part, does anyone else in the corporate press. Instead, they produce lots of work like Ed Kilgore's "<a href="http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/12/six-reasons-bernie-sanders-has-lost-his-2016-mojo.html">6 Reasons Bernie Sanders Has Lost His 2016 Mojo</a>" from New York Magazine (27 Dec.):<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"...as the 2020 presidential contest begins to unfold, Bernie Sanders is
something of an afterthought, if not quite a has-been. Instead of
initially clearing the field of major rivals like Hillary Clinton did in
her return to the campaign trail after finishing second to Barack Obama
in 2008, Sanders faces a historically large list of competitors if he
runs. In scattered<a href="http://www.pollingreport.com/2020.htm"> national polling</a>,
he’s mired in the teens, well below Joe Biden and barely leading Beto
O’Rourke. He’s not doing much better in the early states of <a href="https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/iowa-poll/2018/12/16/iowa-poll-caucuses-2020-joe-biden-bernie-sanders-beto-orourke-elizabeth-warren-register-cnn-democrat/2312541002/">Iowa</a> and <a href="https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/iowa-poll/2018/12/16/iowa-poll-caucuses-2020-joe-biden-bernie-sanders-beto-orourke-elizabeth-warren-register-cnn-democrat/2312541002/">New Hampshire</a>,
where he invested so much time and so many resources in 2016. The
candidates that he and his Our Revolution organization backed in the
2018 midterms had a <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2018/08/08/bernie-sanders-endorsements-2018-elections-767403">mixed record at best</a>."</blockquote>
Kilgore rehashes other bits of Martin/Ember; other candidates have adopted parts of Sanders' agenda, some of his supporters are going to run rival campaigns, etc. He writes that some of Sanders' former supporters were motivated by "the perception that a corrupt 'Establishment' was forcing the
front-runner on voters. He’s lost all that energy, at least until such
time as an 'Establishment' favorite emerges and dominates the field." Of course, there's no reason to believe the latter won't quickly happen again, or that numerous Establishment candidates being favored over numerous progressives won't aid Sanders. Sanders, writes Kilgore, is "mighty old." Kilgore tries to slip one past his readers, writing this is "a problem he shares with Joe Biden, though even the former vice-president is younger than Bernie." Biden is only a year younger than Sanders. It's to Sanders' disadvantage, writes Kilgore, that "he's a white man in a party increasingly dominated by women and people of color... Democratic primary voters may prefer someone who is not only younger,
but is more representative of the Democratic electorate itself"--a common cliche that is never unpacked. In reality, white people are, by far, the single largest demographic in the Democratic party, white men specifically the 2nd-largest, and Sanders' strongest demographic is young people across every other demographic.<br />
<br />
Kilgore presents Sanders as Moses being eclipsed by younger Joshuas and wraps with the same doom-and-gloom with which he started:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Given his other issues, it wouldn’t take too many false steps or
setbacks to send a 2020 Sanders candidacy into a quick oblivion... Political history is littered with ideological prophets who were
eventually dishonored in their own political homes. If Bernie Sanders
has to fight to hold onto the mantle of progressive leadership, his time
has surely past."</blockquote>
The Boston Globe offered up "<a href="https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2019/01/14/has-democratic-party-moved-beyond-bernie-sanders/Fm6lz4E58TpynZ6MXxqppM/story.html">Has the Democratic Party Moved Beyond Bernie Sanders?</a>" (14 Jan.), and if that title leads one to suspect its author Michael Levenson was on a questionable path, he quickly removes all doubt, charging boldly over a cliff:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"...as Sanders weighs another campaign, some say that even as he has moved the Democratic Party ideologically--pushing issues such as Medicare for all, free college tuition, and a $15 minimum wage into the mainstream--the party has moved past him personally.<br />
<br />
"'I don't see a lot of lasting energy for Bernie,' said Markos Moulitsas, the founder and publisher of Daily Kos.<br />
<br />
"The popular liberal website published an online poll last week of 35,000 users showing Sanders fifth and Senator Elizabeth Warren first among potential 2020 contenders. That was a shift from 2016, when Sanders was the consistent favorite in head-to-head matchups with Hillary Clinton.<br />
<br />
"'It's different from last time when he was the alternative to an unfortunately flawed front-runner, and there were just two of them,' Moulitsas said. 'Right now, the mantle of "progressive" can be carried by any number of candidates and potential candidates,' including Senator Kamala Harris and former representative Beto O’Rourke.<br />
<br />
"With Sanders, Moulitsas said, 'people have mostly moved on.'"</blockquote>
Unmentioned by Levenson is the fact that Moulitsas, long aligned with the Dem Establishment right, <a href="https://emptylighthouse.com/hear-markos-moulitsas-absurd-hatchet-job-bernie-sanders-and-supporters-734456364">openly despises</a> Sanders and Sanders' supporters. Moulitsas has been publicly declaring that Sanders' time has past since <a href="https://thehill.com/opinion/markos-moulitsas/273972-markos-moulitsas-sanders-time-to-bow-out">relatively early</a> in the 2016 process. While presenting that survey of DailyKOS users as some sort of barometer of liberal sentiment, Levenson fails to note that Sanders' supporters were purged from the site at Moulitsas' order way back in March 2016.[12]<br />
<br />
Levenson repeats some of the bad habits of most of these articles, digging up and giving undue focus to supporters of Sanders' 2016 campaign who question a 2020 run. Sanders managed an historically big win in New Hampshire but Levenson manages to find Kathy Sullivan, a DNC hack there who backed Hillary Clinton, who carps about how the Democratic party is a diverse coalition and how "I don’t think we can have two white guys representing us on the ticket." It's unclear who the second of those "white guys" would be. Even more appalling are the comments of Bill Shaheen, another DNC hack of the "politics aren't about anything but power" school:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Other party leaders say they are looking for the candidate who stands the best chance of defeating President Trump, not the one with the strongest progressive policy positions.<br />
<br />
"'It's important to have issues, but I think they pale in terms of what’s in front of us,' said Bill Shaheen, a Democratic National Committee member from New Hampshire who also backed Clinton in the 2016 primary. 'Free college tuition means nothing to a guy like Trump. It’s never going to happen. So that’s the No. 1 issue: taking Trump out.'"</blockquote>
Having, at that point, hit rock-bottom, Levenson notes that Sanders' supporters say it's precisely because of Sanders' progressive policy views "that the senator stands the best chance of ousting Trump," and the final stretch of Levenson's article sees him quoting some positive sentiment by progressives and Sanders backers and isn't bad, insofar as that goes. It's just buried under all the relentless talking down of a new Sanders campaign.<br />
<br />
The tricks have become quite familiar before NPR offers,"<a href="https://www.npr.org/2019/01/30/689742354/run-bernie-run-n-h-progressives-divided-by-another-bernie-sanders-bid?fbclid=IwAR1Cre_9oApnD3OSPRHrsWk179SstzZXdmfb-jzxj83qdyD-VFmsfLfeN8c">'Does It Have To Be Him?' N.H. Progressives Split By Another Bernie Sanders Bid</a>" (30 Jan.), another dreary compendium of carefully selected 2016 Sanders supporters--the ones who aren't immediately jumping on to a 2020 run.<br />
<br />
And so on.<br />
<br />
Part of the toxic legacy of Hillary Clinton is the weaponization of "identity" to attack progressives. Don't like Hillary Clinton? It's just because you're a sexist. Criticize Hillary Clinton's policies? You're a mansplaining sexist. Don't want to vote for Clinton? Sexist. This expanded throughout the 2016 cycle. Bernie Sanders was said to be merely the candidate of white males, who were said to be sexist "Bernie Bros," <a href="https://theintercept.com/2016/01/31/the-bernie-bros-narrative-a-cheap-false-campaign-tactic-masquerading-as-journalism-and-social-activism/">a piece of cynically manufactured tripe</a> ported over from Clinton's 2008 campaign (when Obama's supporters were similarly slandered and slapped with the moniker "Obama boys"). Sanders failure to attract a large percentage of black voters was perpetually hyped, his policy agenda attacked as everything from racially inadequate to flat-out racist.[13] All of this accumulated into a crescendo that, at the extremes of the Clinton cult, portrayed up as down, in as out and Sanders--a lifelong feminist and civil rights advocate--as a misogynist and a racist. Everything Sanders says or does regarding race or gender--and even a lot of things <i>unrelated</i> to them--is interpreted, usually ripped from vital context, through this lens and in a negative way (something which continues to this day). Sanders sometimes wags his finger when he talks; <a href="http://msmagazine.com/blog/2016/03/09/why-bernies-finger-wagging-matters/">this means</a> he's a sexist.<br />
<br />
In reality, Sanders' supporters were more women than men. There was no racial divide in his support but rather one of age; Sanders captured most young black voters, just as he did young voters across every demographic, while Clinton took most of the votes of old people. Unfortunately for Sanders, young black voters don't reliably turn out, and that's a problem with young voters across <i>every</i> demographic.<br />
<br />
These "identity" attacks are born of the peculiar politics of the Clintonite/Democratic right, which are conservative--or, more precisely, slavishly devoted to the donor class--on the big issues that affect everyone. There's no significant popular support within the Democratic base for things like deregulating Big Finance to run roughshod over the public or cutting Social Security or preserving the corrupt bribery-and-donor-service campaign finance system at the heart of American politics. A Democratic candidate can't win by advocating the granting of superpowers to multinationals for the purpose of deindustrializing the U.S. in the name of "free trade," so the Clintonite right has to sell its program in other ways.<br />
<br />
Among other things, they often advocate liberal social policies--we support abortion rights, we like gay people, we don't like racists and so on--while downplaying the major elements of their program, the things that would be very unpopular if placed front-and-center. Often, they endorse reformist measures, measures they either have absolutely no intention of ever implementing or that aren't real reforms at all. Hillary Clinton spent years advocating campaign finance reform
while sucking up millions from every corporate and financial interest
willing to buy a piece of her. When Sanders attacked the bribery-and-donor-service system, Clinton's response was to try to deflect away from such thoughts by presenting it as a personal attack on <i>her</i> character and repeatedly insisting that money had no influence on politics, thus undermining the entire premise of campaign finance reform... while continuing to advocate campaign finance reform. After Wall Street crashed the economy in 2008, the Clintonites and Republicans created Dodd-Frank, a laughably weak law intended, primarily, to mollify public anger and give the impression that they were doing something about Wall Street abuse without actually doing much of anything. In the years since, they've quietly eviscerated even those limp regulations.<br />
<br />
But then, those pesky progressives come along and start pointing out the Clintonites' real program, their corruption, their subservience to their donors at the expense of the public. Worse, they begin pushing for popular reforms that seriously challenge the prerogatives of the powerful. The Clintonite right can't defend the major elements of its program, the things the progressives are challenging, but it has to respond in <i>some</i> way. The weaponized "identity" attacks are one of those ways. Hillary Clinton couldn't defend blatantly prostituting her potential future administration to Wall Street but she <i>could</i> call the fellow who was bringing attention to that kind of corruption a "sexist" and try to get a liberal constituency to reject him on those grounds. If a liberal constituency can be indoctrinated in the notion that progressive candidates are "sexists" and "racists," they won't vote for them and the threat to the powerful posed by those progressives can be neutralized.<br />
<br />
For some observers--and this author is one of them--these weaponized "identity" attacks seemed destined to rapidly collapse under their own absurdity. Women and minorities make up a disproportionate share of American progressives. During the 2018 cycle, that <a href="http://stuffdept.blogspot.com/2018/02/2018-progressive-candidates.html">massive movement of Sanders-inspired progressives</a> was disproportionately women and minorities. Far from celebrating this, the Clintonite right opposed them and did everything it could to defeat them. When Cynthia Nixon mounted a spectacular challenge to New York's corrupt governor Andrew Cuomo, Hillary Clinton turned up to endorse Cuomo over the queer progressive woman. The state's Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, now a presidential hopeful, dove into the identity stew so deeply she's started an org allegedly devoted to electing women to office but, disgracefully, she endorsed Cuomo too. She went one better by <i>also</i> endorsing corrupt congressman Joe Crowley over his progressive challenger Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. AOC took out Crowley, won the seat and is now a rock-star on the Democratic left. In Illinois, conservative incumbent "Democrat" Dan Lipinski was challenged by a progressive woman, Marie Newman. Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the Dem Establishment lined up behind Lipinski (who, with their backing, eventually won). Meanwhile, Bernie Sanders was subjected to "identity" attacks by Clintonite Twitter for endorsing Kansas progressive congressional candidate Brent Welder instead of Welder's more conservative opponent Sharice Davids--Welder was a white guy while Davids was a Native American lesbian (recruited by the Dem Establishment in the final months of the campaign to prevent the progressive from winning). It was like that all over the U.S., and that just reinforces what has been obvious from the beginning: the Clintonite right doesn't care about identity, it cares about what policies a given candidate supports. They haul out the "identity" attacks when those attacks can be useful and put away when they aren't. It's cynical idiocy, and it's hard to believe it could have any real shelf-life in an America where the progressive base is disproportionately women and minorities.<br />
<br />
Still, it continues.<br />
<br />
Clara Jeffery, the sociopathic Clintonite shitbag who serves as editor-in-chief of Mother Jones, <a href="https://twitter.com/ClaraJeffery/status/1072608838141050881">tweets</a> about "the fact that Bernie has no real purchase among the POC base of the
Democratic party. And that problem has not improved for him, if anything
it seems larger..." (11 Dec.). When people object to this, she <a href="https://twitter.com/ClaraJeffery/status/1072611912276414473">replies</a>, "Yell at me, fine, but discounting of his failure to connect with that base is not helping him, quite the contrary." Jonathan Martin, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/13/us/politics/elizabeth-warren-bernie-sanders-2020.html">writing in the New York Times</a> (13 Dec.) about a meeting between Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, can't resist adding this:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Since running an unexpectedly competitive race against Mrs. Clinton, and
becoming a global sensation on the political left, Mr. Sanders has
exulted as the Democratic mainstream embraced central elements of his
message, including his call for universal health care. But he has done
little to broaden his political circle and has struggled to expand his
appeal beyond his base of primarily white supporters."</blockquote>
Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas--yeah, <i>him</i> again--shows up on MSNBC (11 Jan.) <a href="https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/since-2016-sanders-has-failed-to-%E2%80%98grow-his-base-of-support%E2%80%99-of-minorities-women-daily-kos-founder-says/vp-BBS7MMF">with this</a>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"I don't think that Bernie Sanders has done a good job over the last couple of years of growing his base of support, of addressing the shortcomings he had with people of color and women."</blockquote>
Fortunately, in evaluating these comments, we don't have to guess where Sanders stands with women and people of color today; we have 2 years of ongoing polling data. To cite a few, here's <a href="https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2513">a Quinnipiac poll</a> from January 2018:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj3ZU9MRUrs8q0odjbeNOXB5LtNdh5SohFzBjttfYboy8MMkFj1m2dh0jgwDD43yehPbNuiF3Vzoioxb_1wu_hHK-cxEeDeRm3irASd_w0yQ0cub1_PDQN7SzRi9WvxSmBEfdtVOE3IZQ/s1600/Qunnipiac_Jan_2018_1.PNG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="321" data-original-width="727" height="281" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj3ZU9MRUrs8q0odjbeNOXB5LtNdh5SohFzBjttfYboy8MMkFj1m2dh0jgwDD43yehPbNuiF3Vzoioxb_1wu_hHK-cxEeDeRm3irASd_w0yQ0cub1_PDQN7SzRi9WvxSmBEfdtVOE3IZQ/s640/Qunnipiac_Jan_2018_1.PNG" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
Here's <a href="https://news.gallup.com/poll/243539/americans-maintain-positive-view-bernie-sanders.aspx">a Gallup poll</a> from Sept. 2018:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjifzSvSe5W2txTkV8GrdCRf8a-YeOnO7h3vw5XAoD5K5dSpVRHhlrccYPFro0GUTOFd7upCQrv-rH5NMukswdSTgg3NBe1vKZUTj0KYEGLcHYLD1ojvj3vGqPgArrxo1p5XY7SJg9Zog/s1600/gallup_sept_2018.PNG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="401" data-original-width="883" height="289" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjifzSvSe5W2txTkV8GrdCRf8a-YeOnO7h3vw5XAoD5K5dSpVRHhlrccYPFro0GUTOFd7upCQrv-rH5NMukswdSTgg3NBe1vKZUTj0KYEGLcHYLD1ojvj3vGqPgArrxo1p5XY7SJg9Zog/s640/gallup_sept_2018.PNG" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
Here's a <a href="https://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/HHP_November2018_RegisteredVoters-Crosstabs.pdf">Harvard/Harris poll</a> from last Nov. 2018:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhIu4rqC7dAiptHUgkm4rb3IIbqvT1IoK6Y9ERqfnpIZKbxW0wTBFUEVq4E59xTmVMMz2yJi3p9-TPb8LtivsrwNFzpVajBPgpvP2aXw5ZUb1h3mFOwHlUv_38bgsUy2qaeI1hcuf8qEw/s1600/bernie_sanders_Harvard_Harris_Nov_2018_2.PNG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1439" data-original-width="1600" height="572" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhIu4rqC7dAiptHUgkm4rb3IIbqvT1IoK6Y9ERqfnpIZKbxW0wTBFUEVq4E59xTmVMMz2yJi3p9-TPb8LtivsrwNFzpVajBPgpvP2aXw5ZUb1h3mFOwHlUv_38bgsUy2qaeI1hcuf8qEw/s640/bernie_sanders_Harvard_Harris_Nov_2018_2.PNG" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
Sanders' favorability among this-or-that group changes with time, margins of error vary, etc. but whatever the poll, <i>these</i> results are always the same: Sanders is overwhelmingly popular with people of color, far more popular with people of color than with white people, more popular with women than men. Sanders has taken the political "revolution" for which he called very seriously; he's been touring the U.S. almost constantly for 2 1/2 years on behalf of progressive causes and candidates, work that has seen he and the Our Revolution group he founded campaigning for large numbers of women and minority candidates. Among so many others, they threw their weight behind Randall Woodfin's ultimately successful "Putting People First" campaign for mayor of Birmingham, Chokwe Antar Lumumba also-successful bid for mayor of Jackson, Mississippi, Stacey Abrams' gubernatorial effort in Georgia (she won the Democratic nomination but was narrowly defeated in the general after Republicans pulled all kinds of shady fuckery), Andrew Gillum's campaign for Florida governor (Gillum went from 4th place in a 5-way race to a win the Dem primary after Sanders endorsed him, then narrowly lose the general), Rashida Tlaib's successful run for the U.S. House from Michigan--<a href="https://ourrevolution.com/results/">many, many others</a>. Sanders <i>has</i> improved his standings, particularly from the days
when he entered the last presidential race as a virtual unknown; it's there in all the polling data. Too many Clintonite commentators remain stuck in stale "identity"
slanders.<br />
<br />
A few days after her "Bernie has no real purchase" tweets (18 Dec.), Clara Jeffery was at it again, propagating <a href="https://twitter.com/ClaraJeffery/status/1075116858490011648">another anti-Sanders fraud</a>:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgr2TD9lyoZ4T-FwARcz415V6OHvswxrhESgES7lgJqu976D8zlv-R7UdxI7TnfnG2t-5ExOp-VHFML_cr6cy5MmDWPmu7C5b9lcB-BZiniGmXmAuXhROq8hYjf_Aex0z72-lOllrx70A/s1600/Jeffery_Sanders_blackwomen.PNG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1008" data-original-width="608" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgr2TD9lyoZ4T-FwARcz415V6OHvswxrhESgES7lgJqu976D8zlv-R7UdxI7TnfnG2t-5ExOp-VHFML_cr6cy5MmDWPmu7C5b9lcB-BZiniGmXmAuXhROq8hYjf_Aex0z72-lOllrx70A/s16000/Jeffery_Sanders_blackwomen.PNG" /></a></div>
<br />
But the survey wasn't of "black women," nor was it a scientific poll or something that said <i>anything</i> about Bernie Sanders' prospects. Rather, a group called She the People <a href="https://www.shethepeople.org/poll/">just called up</a> a few Democratic insiders who were women and asked for their opinions. Fewer than half of them were black. Nearly half of them (48.5%) were just big Dem donors, the people who corruptly purchase politicians and whom the progressives would put out of business. That a bunch of donors and Democratic insiders give Sanders poor marks is about as newsworthy a revelation as "water is wet." Jeffery's lies were corrected by multiple Twitter users almost as soon as she posted them but as of more than a month-and-a-half later, she has refused to take it down or correct it, while it is being shared thousands of times. The "journalist" that runs Mother Jones.<br />
<br />
In December, a group of Sanders 2016 alumni circulated a letter privately seeking a meeting with Sanders and his top aides to "discuss the issue of sexual violence and harassment on the 2016
campaign, for the purpose of planning to mitigate the issue in the
upcoming presidential cycle." Those great Bernie fans at Politico got their hands on it and published it under the headline, "<a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2018/12/30/bernie-sanders-campaign-harassment-1077014">Bernie Alumni Seek Meeting To Address 'Sexual Violence' on '16 Campaign</a>" (30 Dec.) The letter was never meant to be made public. Some of the signatories were hopelessly naive:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Several people who signed the letter said that their effort is not just
about Sanders' 2016 or 2020 presidential campaigns, but rather about
what they called a pervasive culture of toxic masculinity in the
campaign world. They stressed that they hoped their letter would not be
reduced to reinforcing the 'Bernie Bro' caricature, but rather would be
part of a larger reckoning among people who run campaigns."</blockquote>
Politico's Alex Thompson, however, was hopeful:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Several<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2018/04/28/nine-members-of-congress-have-lost-their-job-over-sex-in-six-months/?utm_term=.e8fb83e26d88" target="_blank"> members of Congress</a>,
Democrats and Republicans alike, resigned or announced their retirement
in 2017 and 2018 in the wake of allegations about their own behavior or
conduct of their top aides."</blockquote>
Three days later, the New York Times picked up the story with a piece by Sydney Ember and Katie Benner, "<span data-offset-key="13bbq-0-0"><span data-text="true"><a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/02/us/politics/bernie-sanders-campaign-sexism.html">Sexism Claims From Bernie Sanders’s 2016 Run: Paid Less, Treated Worse</a>" (2 Jan.). The article reported there had been pay-disparities between men and women who worked on the campaign but said salaries were individually negotiated and that whenever any such disparities were brought to the attention of campaign higher-ups, they were corrected and the campaign then "</span></span>conducted a review to try to standardize pay across the states and within headquarters." Other "women told of makeshift living accommodations on the road, where they
were asked to sleep in rooms along with male co-workers they didn’t
know." When this was "brought to the attention of senior leaders, including Mr. [Jeff] Weaver, the campaign manager, both Mr. Weaver and the chief operating officer 'ordered that staff never be housed in coed hotel rooms again.'" Really not much of a story there either. Much more serious are claims of some pretty outrageous sexual harassment that, unlike these other matters, weren't properly addressed.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"'I did experience sexual harassment during the campaign, and there was
no one who would or could help,' said Samantha Davis, the former
director of operations in Texas and New York, who also worked on the
campaign’s advance team. She said that her supervisor marginalized her
after she declined an invitation to his hotel room."</blockquote>
Most of the problems detailed by the Times seem to have been centered in Sanders' Latino outreach team. Giulianna Di Lauro, who worked on it, describes some very inappropriate behavior toward her by a Mexican game-show host who was, at the time, acting as a surrogate for the campaign.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"When she reported the incident to Bill Velazquez, a manager on the
Latino outreach team, he told her, 'I bet you would have liked it if he
were younger,' according to her account and another woman who witnessed
the exchange. Then he laughed."</blockquote>
Velazquez, for his part, denied remembering that reaction and said he took the complaint seriously, assigned two women to keep an eye on the gameshow host for any further problems and sent the matter up the chain. Masha Mendieta reported in 2017 that Arturo Carmona, a manager on the Latino outreach team, had demeaned women and treated female staffers "like his personal assistants fetching things for him and doing his errands." In an interview with the Times, Mendieta said she complained about Carmona to her superiors multiple times "and was repeatedly ignored, at one point being told by Mr. Velazquez
that she should forgive Mr. Carmona's behavior because he was 'macho.'"<br />
<br />
The overall portrait of the campaign is of a thing that grew explosively, was very disorganized, personnel were inexperienced, inadequately trained (or screened), there were some bad apples in the barrel and these sorts of problems sometimes weren't adequately addressed. The Sanders camp stressed that it improved on these matters as things went along and later instituted improved protocols for Sanders 2018 Senate race. Sanders himself said he was unaware, during the campaign, of any sexual harassment, telling Anderson Cooper, "I certainly apologize to any woman who felt she was not treated
appropriately, and of course if I run we will do better the next time." The Sanders camp made it clear no one involved in this sort of activity would be working for Sanders in the future.<br />
<br />
The press rode the story for nearly 3 weeks.<br />
<br />
Clara Jeffery reflected many an anti-Sanders pundits in <a href="https://twitter.com/ClaraJeffery/status/1080635148914151424">getting in her licks</a> over the matter, tweeting:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Who would have guessed that a campaign that did nothing to speak against
the sexist attacks of some of its most ardent/high profile
followers--except half-hearted DM apologies--had rampant internal sexual
discrimination problems as well?"</blockquote>
In reality, of course, Sanders, confronted in 2016 by the "Bernie Bros" narrative concocted by the pro-Clinton press, <a href="https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/sanders-condemns-bernie-bros_us_56b75a28e4b08069c7a79b1e">was unequivocal</a> on the matter of any sexist behavior:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"I have heard about it. It’s disgusting. Look, we don’t
want that crap... We will do everything we can and I think we have
tried. Look, anybody who is supporting me that is doing the sexist
things is--we don’t want them. I don’t want them. That is not what this
campaign is about."</blockquote>
It was in response to rubbish like Jeffery's that Giulianna Di Lauro Velez wrote a piece for the Intercept, "<a href="https://theintercept.com/2019/01/10/bernie-sanders-campaign-sexual-harassment-sexism/">I Was Sexually Harassed On Bernie Sanders's 2016 Campaign. I Will Not Be Weaponized Or Dismissed</a>" in which she complained about the press treatment of the matter. While, she says, she told her story to bring attention to the "sexist environment that is unfortunately endemic to most workspaces, including political campaigns," she was<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"<span style="font-weight: 400;">disheartened to discover
that the takeaway by many pundits was not that sexism and harassment is
pervasive, but that Sanders was somehow uniquely culpable... As was the case throughout the 2016
campaign season, my personal experiences as a woman of color were
sublimated to serve an establishment media narrative that pretends the
progressive movement is all white, all male, and runs counter to the
interests of women and people of color... [T]</span><span style="font-weight: 400;">he corporate media unfairly focused on
Sanders--casting the harassment that happened within his campaign much
differently than similar cases with other campaigns--implicating his
personal ethics in a way that they've declined to do with other
politicians."</span></blockquote>
She also wrote that some on the left had accused her and the other women who had spoken of sexual harassment on the campaign "of lying and wanting to purposefully attack the Vermont senator... Neoliberals and corporate media are unfair to Sanders and his supporters
because our movement threatens their supremacy. But to dismiss our
claims as mere bias is at best disingenuous and at worst cruel."<br />
<br />
While the press was feeding on the sexual harassment allegations, the Barre-Montpelier Times Argus, a small but long-running newspaper in Vermont, ran an editorial, "<a href="https://www.timesargus.com/opinion/perspective/don-t-run/article_290102b1-d007-5ef3-8342-8c132265f27d.html?fbclid=IwAR1nKZxtpeQf-QeLDmIX4L8hDHcMkuEoQ4Ir_yQbMSsjKZcjTp7T4n_n0kY">Don't Run</a>," which argued, "Bernie Sanders should not run for president. In fact, we beg him not to." Some of the highlights:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"We fear a Sanders run risks dividing the well-fractured Democratic
Party, and could lead to another split in the 2020 presidential vote... As a candidate, Sanders is exhausting... [H]is personality is abrasive. He is known to be difficult to work with.
The 77-year-old can be bombastic and prickly. He can be dismissive and
rude in his arrogance."</blockquote>
So a small paper in Sanders' own Vermont, one that endorsed Hillary Clinton over Sanders, trashes the senator. Big deal, right? Except--shocker of shockers!--it <i>was</i> treated as a big deal by a lot of the national corporate press, which, as it tends to do with anti-Sanders stories, picked up this one--if it can even be called a "story"--and amplified it a millionfold.<br />
<br />
"<a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/424095-vermont-newspaper-editorial-board-we-beg-bernie-sanders-not-to-run-in-2020">Vermont Newspaper Editorial Board: 'We Beg' Bernie Sanders Not To Run In 2020</a>", the Hill (6 Jan.)<br />
<br />
"<a href="https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-2020_us_5c32923ce4b0d75a9831f27e">Editorial Board of Vermont Paper Begs Bernie Sanders Not To Run In 2020</a>," Huffington Post (6 Jan.)<br />
<br />
"<a href="https://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/dont-run-bernie-sanders-hometown-paper-begs">Bernie Sanders Home State Paper Begs Him Not To Run For President</a>," Roll Call (7 Jan.)<br />
<br />
"<a href="https://www.apnews.com/8eab1a96f16de3a3610e436d71a11d7a">Bernie Sanders Told Not To Run For President By Local Vermont Paper</a>," Associated Press (7 Jan.)<br />
<br />
"<a href="https://www.newsweek.com/bernie-sanders-asked-not-run-2020-vermont-newspaper-you-need-know-when-step-1281233">Bernie Sanders Asked Not To Run In 2020 By Vermont Newspaper, 'You Need To Know When To Step Out of the Way'</a>," Newsweek (7 Jan.)<br />
<br />
"<a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/vermont-newspaper-begs-bernie-sanders-dont-run">Vermont Newspaper Begs Bernie Sanders 'Don't Run'</a>," Washington Examiner (7 Jan.)<br />
<br />
"<a href="https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/jan/7/bernie-sanders-told-not-to-run-for-president-by-lo/">Sen. Bernie Sanders Told By Local Paper Not To Run For President,</a>" Washington Times (7 Jan.)<br />
<br />
"<a href="https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2019/01/07/bernie-sanders-shouldn-run-for-president/RgOn6EepyxduOoXE2qP6KM/story.html">Bernie Sanders Shouldn't Run For President</a>," Boston Globe (7 Jan.)<br />
<br />And on and on.<br />
<br />
<div class="text_exposed_show">
Years ago, David Brock was a major scumbag--as he described it, a hatchet-man for the right, a man who very sleazily dealt in sleaze for right-wing sleazeballs. He underwent a political awakening, became a liberal and launched Media Matters For America, a liberal watchdog devoted to correcting right-wing misinformation in media. For a few years, his became a story of an effort at redemption. Unfortunately, all his old, bad habits eventually crept back in, and he descended right back into the same sewer as before, except this time on behalf of Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Establishment. Among other things, he ran a network of online trolls in 2016 that attacked Clinton critics and openly coordinated with the Clinton campaign in the effort, in defiance of campaign finance laws.<br />
<br />
It's absolutely astonishing--and a journalistic scandal--that any major news outlet would hire such a slimy, unethical bottom-feeder to author a prominent editorial--or anything else--but that's exactly what NBC did in January. The results are just as one would imagine. "<a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/bernie-sanders-fans-can-t-be-allowed-poison-another-democratic-ncna953976">Bernie Sanders Fans Can't Be Allowed To Poison Another Democratic Primary With Personal Attacks</a>" (3 Jan.):<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"I'm hardly the only political observer who blames Hillary Clinton's
general election defeat to Donald Trump in part on personal attacks on
Clinton first made by Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and his backers. Those
attacks from her left laid the groundwork for copycat attacks lobbed by
Donald Trump..."</blockquote>
The first big problem: Sanders never lobbed any "personal attacks" at Clinton. The things Brock tries to pawn off as such are legitimate criticisms of Clinton's record.[14] That Trump picked up on some of them--and <i>did</i> turn them into personal attacks--is neither any reflection on Sanders not in any way relevant to any evaluation of him. Continuing, Brock says those same "long knives... are out for are out for outgoing Rep. Beto O'Rourke, D-Texas, charging that he is not a true progressive." But the question of the extent of O'Rourke's devotion to progressive principles is, likewise, a question about O'Rourke's record, not a personal attack. Like so many writers on this subject, Brock has no evidence of a Sanders conspiracy but posits one anyway:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"The reason for these pre-emptive attacks (which has the markings of a coordinated effort) in a spate of <a class="vilynx_listened" href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/inside-bernie-world-s-war-beto-o-rourke-n951016" target="_blank">news</a> and <a href="https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/12/what-does-beto-orourke-actually-stand-for?fbclid=IwAR2FHxrRRwDutVDwLC2vonerFhsTB76Zg1pzfXFW7OX55cqvVTdMH3aq7fo" target="_blank">opinion</a> articles in a <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-this-progressive-texan-cant-get-excited-about-beto-orourke/2018/12/05/641c7f0e-f8b9-11e8-8c9a-860ce2a8148f_story.html?utm_term=.b08463f7457c" target="_blank">variety</a> of <a href="https://jacobinmag.com/2018/12/beto-orourke-president-2020-senate-race" target="_blank">publications</a>, is obvious enough: After losing the Texas Senate race to incumbent Ted Cruz, O'Rourke nonetheless has <a class="vilynx_listened" href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/beto-o-rourke-narrowly-tops-moveon-2020-presidential-straw-poll-n946501" target="_blank">shot to the top</a>
in Democratic primary polls since Election Day, overshadowing both
Sanders and another left-wing favorite, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass."</blockquote>
In not a single Democratic primary poll--much less multiple polls--has O'Rourke ever finished at the top of the pack. He generally finishes in single digits. The "poll" to which Brock links to prove his assertion isn't a poll at all; it's an unscientific survey of MoveOn.org users. The only place O'Rourke was "overshadowing" Sanders and Warren was in press promotion.<br />
<br />
In Brock's presentation, everyone critical of O'Rourke is a "Berniecrat" or a "Bernie supporter." Brock tries and fails to present the criticism of O'Rourke as "flimsy and misleading" and asserts that, during his time in congress, "O'Rourke broke ranks with his party less than the average Democrat." Harry Enten, quoted earlier here, cites the reality of O'Rourke: "O'Rourke has voted more
often with Trump than 80% of House Democrats." Brock tries to defend O'Rourke as a progressive, though--as noted earlier--O'Rourke himself has declined to call himself that.<br />
<br />
"The real problem for Sanders' supporters," writes Brock, "seems to be that this 'Kennedyesque golden boy,' as <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/dec/19/why-bernie-sanders-is-still-the-most-progressive-choice-for-president" target="_blank">one has derided O'Rourke</a>,
seems perfectly poised to steal Sanders' thunder among millennials and
white liberals with his fresh energy and personal charisma." Another repetition of the "progressives are just a bunch of superficial idiots who will fall in behind a pol who doesn't share their views merely because he has a pretty smile" meme, but still nothing to support it. Brock says it's not enough for progressives "to disagree with O'Rourke; his persona and reputation must be
dragged through the mud." But the progressives aren't saying O'Rourke cheats at cards or fools around on his wife. He's being criticized for his record, specifically, the parts with which progressives disagree. There's no way to wall that up and pretend it can't be criticized, particularly in a process aimed at sorting out a variety candidates.<br />
<br />
Brock says Dems should view "this early maneuvering by Sanders supporters with alarm" and "ignore them at their own peril."<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Failing to end this internecine warfare will mean that all members of
the Democratic Party running for its presidential nomination will face
months of minuscule ideological litmus tests turned into character
assassinations."</blockquote>
What, exactly, is the Democratic party to do to prevent criticism of Democratic presidential candidates? Brock doesn't say. No authoritarian mechanism of the sort he implies exists to do this, nor should anyone want such a thing. Brock hilariously says criticism of Dem candidates "driven by the far left" will be "lapped up by the press." Back on Planet Earth, the press is hostile to pretty much anything the progressives advance; in the case of O'Rourke, as covered here already, the press jumped in to attack the progressives, not to lap up what they were saying.<br />
<br />
Brock offers this fanciful reimagining of the 2016 campaign:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"We've seen this movie before: Sanders' assault on Clinton's progressive
credentials were pernicious in large part because they were not about
policy disputes at all, but rather intended to falsely impugn Hillary's
character and integrity."</blockquote>
</div>
<div class="text_exposed_show">
</div>
<div class="text_exposed_show">
While Clinton certainly tried to portray Sanders' criticism of the bribery-and-donor-service system as efforts to impugn Clinton's own "character and integrity"--as if Clinton ever had any such things--that criticism remains exactly what it was. Brock has to pick up Clinton's own bullshit narrative because he can't cite any examples of inappropriate personal attacks made on Clinton by Sanders. There weren't any</div>
<div class="text_exposed_show">
</div>
<div class="text_exposed_show">
<br />
Brock writes, "the stakes are just too high to let bad faith actors--whose real aim is
to smear Democrats as no different than Republicans--stage inter-party
schisms." Again, the suggestion is that Dems should undertake some authoritarian effort to shut down criticism. Disingenuously, Brock writes that, "if Sanders decides to run again this time, he should focus on
policy and eschew character attacks on Democrats--and admonish his
supporters to do the same." With Brock pretending as if Sanders' policy focus in 2016 was really just character assassination, it's unclear what Sanders could do that <i>wouldn't</i> be so characterized by Brock.<br />
<br />
Perhaps the best approach for Sanders and his supporters is to fail to worry themselves over the ravings of David Brock, even if NBC's ethical shortcomings <i>do</i> give him a platform.<br />
<br />
--j.<br />
<br />
---<br />
<br />
[1] When it comes to individual progressive issues, that's more of a mixed bag. Media elites tend, for example, to be liberal on various social issues.<br />
<br />
[2] The New York Times mostly ignored it as well--certainly didn't scandalize it--but as soon as party interference in Democratic primaries became an issue thanks to coverage in the left press, the paper did solicit Clintonite Elaine Kamarck to write an editorial <i>defending</i> this interference: "<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/03/opinion/dccc-democratic-primaries-interference.html?fbclid=IwAR3Kxtdg0j75SpPkkRg6PvdJU5HTk0M4QQbC6wxpcEjNiTTOPhc-OOiXazI">Actually, National Democrats Should Interfere In Primaries</a>."<br />
<br />
[3] In one of Biden's regular themes, he also takes credit for it, insisting
he tried this first during his 1988 presidential campaign but was a bit
ahead of his time. Biden likes to do that. He crowed about how he had authored portions of the horrible Clinton crime bill long before it passed, and how he'd created big portions of Bush's USA PATRIOT Act--such a glowing piece of legislation for which to take credit, eh?--well before Bush came to advocate it.<br />
<br />
[4] Want to see a perhaps overly nitpicky but still on point
observation? Other outlets picking up on this poll did mention Sanders
and
sometimes Elizabeth Warren (who was also beating Trump) but still gave
Biden
top billing:<br />
<br />
--The Hill: "<a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign-polls/402960-poll-trump-trails-biden-sanders-warren-in-potential-2020-matchups">Poll: Trump Trails Biden, Sanders, Warren in Potential 2020 Matchups</a>."<br />
<br />
--The Washington Times: "<a href="https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/aug/22/voters-prefer-joe-biden-bernie-sanders-over-donald/">Voters Prefer Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders Over Donald Trump In Hypothetical Matchups: Poll</a>."<br />
<br />
--The Daily Caller: "<a href="https://dailycaller.com/2018/08/22/trump-biden-sanders-warren/">Poll Shows Trump Trails Biden, Sanders and Warren in Potential 2020 Match-Up</a>."<br />
<br />
[5] Sirota's colleague, Alex Kotch of Sludge, <a href="https://readsludge.com/2018/12/10/beto-orourke-oil-and-gas-contributions-2018/">followed up</a>,
offering a detailed breakdown of Beto O'Rourke's oil and gas industry
contributions. O'Rourke was a signatory of the No Fossil Fuel Money
pledge created by Oil Change USA and a coalition of environmental
groups; Kotch showed that he'd violated that pledge dozens of times and <a href="https://readsludge.com/2018/12/18/beto-orourke-removed-from-no-fossil-fuel-money-pledge-following-sludge-report/">the org removed him</a> from the list of signers. He also pointed out that Neera Tanden's Center for American Progress has also been financed by fossil fuel companies, which gives another perspective on her tantrum.<br />
<br />
[6] As if to cover the other end, Allen and Seitz-Wald include this amusing comment:<br /><blockquote>
"'Telling people that Beto O’Rouke is a moderate
candidate is not going to do the damage that it would have before,'
said one party elder who is not aligned with any of the candidates.
'They will strengthen him. They will make him into a bigger force than
he is.'"</blockquote>
Of course, if anyone actually believed that was remotely true, there wouldn't be the incredible fuss raised over criticism of O'Rourke; the Clintonites openly drooling over the prospect of an O'Rourke presidential campaign would just stand back, let the progressives say their peace and watch O'Rourke's stock rise. It's unclear why anyone would believe it's proper journalistic practice to grant anonymity to a source who is merely advancing a wholly ideological narrative then try to cover for him with the "not aligned with any of the candidates" line. He's clearly aligned with a particular species of candidate.<br />
<br />
[7] The "Bernie Blackout" was an extension of this same attitude, an
assertion that his campaign was so "not happenin'," it wasn't even worth
covering.<br />
<br />
[8] Except sometimes in the smaller left outlets.<br />
<br />
[9] Among other things, this sets up an interesting dynamic for the next
two years, as the corporate press, on the whole, remains just as
opposed to progressive policies as ever and won't tolerate their
propagation but, at the same time, the more conservative candidates the
Dem Establishment-aligned elements of the press support have endorsed
those same policies. Most of these candidates--let's just be honest--aren't at all
serious about their newfound devotion to progressive policies--they say
they back them merely to remain electorally viable--but what will CNN
do when Kamala Harris, its current thrall, begins advocating Medicare
For All healthcare reform, a policy against which CNN has crusaded for
some time now? And what will she do in reaction to theirs? Stay tuned! This little piece of 2020 may get very
interesting!<br />
<br />
[10] The big Bernie fans at Politico introduced this theme of people who worked on Sanders' 2016 campaign not necessarily returning for a follow-up. Alex Thompson's "<a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2018/10/18/bernie-sanders-2020-president-912082">Bernie 2016 Alums Wary of 2020 Sequel</a>" sought out as many people fitting that description as the journalist could find. His article touched on many of the other constant themes in the pour-cold-water-on-Sanders-2020 genre: he's a white guy and this is a problem, he's an old man and this is a problem, "Sanders is a victim of his own success"--an ubiquitous cliche in these stories--as all the other candidates have adopted parts of his agenda, and so on. "Enough fervent supporters... are wary of a 2020 run that it could be difficult to
reignite the 2016 movement."<br />
<br />
[11] Other than acknowledging 2020 "may be the most crowded, fractured and uncertain Democratic primary in the last quarter-century."<br />
<br />
[12] Elizabeth Warren won the first of those Daily Kos "straw polls" in early January but Salon used it to bash Sanders. Matthew Rozsa wrote "<a href="https://www.salon.com/2019/01/11/new-poll-provides-big-boost-for-elizabeth-warren/">New Poll Provides Big Boost For Elizabeth Warren</a>,"
but only two lines into it, Rozsa decides the real story isn't the
alleged good news for progressive Warren. Rather, "the most notable
detail here," he writes, "is Sanders' poor showing." Sanders finished in
a distant 5th place. "[A]s the runner up
to Hillary Clinton from the 2016 presidential primaries, and a man who
rejuvenated the Democratic Party's progressive base," Rozsa continues,
"Sanders would have
had good reason to anticipate dominating the Daily Kos poll." Good
reason, perhaps, except for the fact that--as noted earlier--Sanders'
supporters <a href="https://bennorton.com/daily-kos-bans-third-parties/">were purged</a> <a href="https://writerswithoutmoney.com/2016/03/07/on-the-purge-of-sanders-supporters-at-the-daily-kos/">from Daily Kos</a>
back in March 2016. This was done quite loudly and publicly and it
entirely torpedoes the narrative Rozsa is advancing. It's hardly
surprising Sanders doesn't do well in a survey of users of a site from
which his supporters were, in effect, banned nearly 3 years ago. While
Rozsa's comments may have just been a case of massive journalistic fail,
Daily Kos itself was being entirely disingenuous in its evaluation, which Rozsa quotes:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"So who on that list above can do that? Warren, O’Rourke, Sanders,
Booker, and Harris have already built that infrastructure. Bernie,
however, has a 'yesterday’s news' feel to him. He has universal ID and
the best he can manage is 11 percent on a site of Democratic activists?
He can’t play the 'I'm more progressive than thou' card in this field,
so he’s got nowhere to go but down, as other candidates become better
known."</blockquote>
Something else that's important: these aren't
scientific polls. They're just Daily Kos users expressing their
preference and have no more validity than the sort of
phone-in surveys conducted by the likes of Lou Dobbs on Fox Business.
Rozsa doesn't note this either.<br />
<br />
[13] Democratic operative Sally Albright, one of the cruder idiots on the Clintonite right, has written that tuition-free higher education was <a href="https://twitter.com/SallyAlbright/status/953434342331748353">racist</a> and <a href="https://twitter.com/sallyalbright/status/992520665570906112?lang=en">that</a> "History will view the Bernie Sanders phenomenon as the death rattle of
the last vestiges of white supremacy in the Democratic party." This was after 2016, so not strictly relevant to the strain of commentary of this breed that was going on at the time but Albright sucks and I just felt like throwing a spotlight on some of her idiocy.<br />
<br />
[14] Brock tries to pull a fast one by quoting Sanders as saying, "I don't think you are qualified if you get $15 million from Wall Street through your super PAC."After losing Wisconsin, the Clinton camp launched a new campaign aimed at portraying Sanders as unqualified to be president. Sanders replied by turning that attack back on Clinton, which is the context of the quote Brock uses. The press then sent Clinton's effort to disqualify Sanders down a Memory Hole and bombarded the public with days of stories about how <i>Sanders</i> had portrayed <i>Clinton</i> as unqualified to be president. The whole sorry story <a href="https://fair.org/home/an-unqualified-success-at-media-manipulation/">can be read here</a>.</div>
cinemarchaeologisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13507603255666191405noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6321344375544728027.post-23505604890552050332018-10-12T21:08:00.000-07:002019-01-19T06:48:29.384-08:00Loser SC Democrats Trash Sanders, AP Pretends It's News (Updated Below)No Good Deed Dept. - This week, some Democratic Establishment figures in South Carolina decided to bitch about a planned trip to their state by progressive Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), and Meg Kinnard of the Associated Press decided to pretend as if this was a real news story, write it up and send it out to the world.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgGBDQyhroVunuoMSDMCUaaHTMrlI3e2yTNLcWAS_E8wqUCy5IguTIB4kRdYkuYY4GjvkbML8aMimaQGDQvKIEyp92Mb4vE1QJbKuIHEI6CvSirwP6O0cqjULF7VMWIgJdAZFNt9siPRA/s1600/amanda_loveday.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="356" data-original-width="640" height="222" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgGBDQyhroVunuoMSDMCUaaHTMrlI3e2yTNLcWAS_E8wqUCy5IguTIB4kRdYkuYY4GjvkbML8aMimaQGDQvKIEyp92Mb4vE1QJbKuIHEI6CvSirwP6O0cqjULF7VMWIgJdAZFNt9siPRA/s400/amanda_loveday.PNG" width="400" /></a></div>
The tone of Kinnard's piece is reflected in its headline, "<a href="https://apnews.com/99afaea472f8482fa71ef025b764867f">South Carolina Democrats: Better If Sanders 'Got Lost'</a>". These Democrats "say [Sanders'] visit isn’t wanted or helpful to their candidates in advance of next month's election," that his "left-leaning, progressive message doesn't resonate" in the state. "I just think it's extremely selfish of Bernie Sanders to think he could
walk into South Carolina without an invitation from a candidate and
think he's going to be welcomed with open arms," sniped Amanda Loveday, who had served as executive director of the state Dem party. "It's
hard for me to think of an actual, legitimate Democratic candidate who
would stand on stage with him here." Former Democratic state representative Boyd Brown insisted, in the words of the article, that "Sanders' messaging is too extreme":<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"'Bernie does not resonate in South Carolina,' Brown said. 'He'd be doing us all a favor if he just got lost.'"</blockquote>
Charleston County Democratic Party Chairman Brady Quirk-Garvan characterized Sanders' appearance as, in the words of the AP, merely "a revival of Sanders' 2016 effort" that "does nothing to help voters who want to put the bruising primary process behind them":<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
'Even back then, most Democrats were not on board with what he was
pitching,' Quirk-Garvan said of Sanders’ primary campaign. 'For many,
even people who backed Sen. Sanders in the primary, they're looking for
some new ideas... If he comes to South Carolina, he'll have his 15 people will show up,'
Brown said. 'I hope it’s worth it to him, because he's doing greater
damage to the party overall.'"</blockquote>
And with that, Quirk-Garvan gets the article's last word.<br />
<br />
Kinnard notes that, according to a press release, the South Carolina chapter of Our Revolution had invited Sanders to speak at a rally on 20 Oct. in Columbia but she doesn't quote a single Sanders supporter. Her article is just stenography of these party insiders' bitching.<br />
<br />
It's no secret that the Democratic party Establishment doesn't like Bernie Sanders. Covering this--or at least just mentioning it--would have provided some vital context here. While bashing Sanders, Brady Quirk-Garvan pretty straightforwardly tries to promote other 2020 Democratic presidential candidates. As the article notes, several will be visiting the state around the same time as Sanders but the likelihood of the Associated Press deciding to hunt down those candidates' detractors and write a piece like this, wherein those candidates are portrayed as selfish bastards doing harm to the party and who should just go away, seems rather remote.<br />
<br />
While Kinnard offers the 2020 presidential race as the context for Sanders' visit, it's also the case that, for the last 2 1/2 years, Sanders has been
almost constantly touring the U.S. on behalf of Democratic causes and candidates. The senator has forcefully argued that it's foolish for Democrats to ignore what have traditionally been Republican strongholds. He's been <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/08/politics/bernie-sanders-trump-country/index.html">taking the progressive gospel to deep red states</a>
that are typically neglected by Democrats--taking on Trump on his own
turf and trying to revitalize the often moribund state parties
there. The other 2020 contenders only discover a few of these states when they're about to run for president (SC in particular is situated early in the Democratic primary process), whereas Sanders has been visiting them as part of this project for years. His appearance in Columbia is much more a part of this than of any potential presidential race; he's speaking at a rally in support of Medicare For All healthcare reform. Kinnard doesn't mention any of this.<br />
<br />
Most egregiously, in covering one state party insider after another pontificating on how Sanders isn't what's best for the party and harms the party, Kinnard never questions how qualified these insiders are to render such a judgment, though their record in this regard is as stark as it is unflattering. In South Carolina, Republicans control the governorship and both houses of the legislature. The Republican advantage in t<span class="text_exposed_show">he state House is nearly 2-to-1; they control over 60% of the Senate. In the 2016 election, the Republican contender defeated the Democratic candidate there by nearly 15 points. In short, the state
Democratic party is a complete joke, and these insiders trashing Sanders have demonstrated no competence whatsoever in estimating what South Carolinians want. They're perpetual losers who are content to sit on the ash-heap they've made of their party and repeat the same errors that got them there while expecting a different result and sniping at someone who suggests there may be a better way.</span><br />
<br />
Their record, alone, is enough to send this Associated Press article up in smoke. As it stands, it's just anti-Sanders propaganda, as worthless and inappropriate as it is ugly.<br />
<br />
--j.<br />
<br />
---<br />
<br />
UPDATE (Mon., 22 Oct., 2018) - In that AP smear-piece, Charleston County Democratic Party Chairman Brady Quirk-Garvan said Sanders will "have his 15 people will show up." Amanda Loveday, former executive director of the state Dem party, thought it ridiculous that Sanders could "think he's going to be welcomed with open arms." Former Democratic state representative Boyd Brown said "Bernie does not resonate in South Carolina." From the Columbia Free Times' <a href="https://www.free-times.com/news/local-and-state-news/sanders-talks-health-care-minimum-wage-in-columbia-stop/article_f0589b38-d5f5-11e8-878f-dbc81f6b5b33.html">coverage of Sanders' event</a>:<br />
<br />
"However, the Vermont senator seemed to resonate with those at the Koger
Center, receiving a thunderous standing ovation when he took the stage."<br />
<br />
The Free Times notes that the event drew a crowd of not 15 but about a thousand people.cinemarchaeologisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13507603255666191405noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6321344375544728027.post-55516560216922939302018-10-11T14:32:00.000-07:002018-10-20T22:50:28.426-07:00"Something Better": The Wall Street Journal Keeping It FashyAs fascism and protofascism continue to rise around the world, Brazil, the 4th largest democracy, now stands right on the brink of becoming the latest straight-up
casualty. In the first round of voting on 7 Oct., proto-Nazi Jair Bolsonaro, often called "the Brazilian Trump," came within a hair's breadth of winning the Brazilian presidency outright. Stopping him now is going to be very difficult. The Wall Street Journal has just offered an approving editorial on Bolsonaro. Though appalling, longtime observers of the paper won't really be surprised by this. Still, for the neophyte, comparing the real Bolsonaro to the version the Journal's editors have just offered their readers offers an eye-opening glimpse of the ethos of the largest circulation conservative newspaper in the U.S..<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgpLD1yBt9F98OuCwjFRhSdTus_A1WAeH-MQYIsdaXpVtaE3mB2eZj6At1FMOm0-HkWfGhlNPBxtyoGATGSAJdR1QzPKtFF_YA_Cfjtwcwfe_Q54-_l7xPC0nQyv9PtN0plpC7y-Wy_-A/s1600/jair-bolsonaro-racista-bweb.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="608" data-original-width="1080" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgpLD1yBt9F98OuCwjFRhSdTus_A1WAeH-MQYIsdaXpVtaE3mB2eZj6At1FMOm0-HkWfGhlNPBxtyoGATGSAJdR1QzPKtFF_YA_Cfjtwcwfe_Q54-_l7xPC0nQyv9PtN0plpC7y-Wy_-A/s400/jair-bolsonaro-racista-bweb.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Jair Bolsonaro</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
Historian and fascism expert Federico Finchelstein has just written a piece in Foreign Policy, "<a href="https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/10/05/bolsonaros-model-its-goebbels-fascism-nazism-brazil-latin-america-populism-argentina-venezuela/">Jair Bolsonaro's Model Isn't Burlusconi. It's Goebbels</a>." It offers a nice, compact profile:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"[Bolsonaro] combines
promises of austerity measures with prophesies of violence. His
campaign is a mix of racism, misogyny, and extreme law and order
positions.<br />
<br />
"He wants criminals to be summarily shot rather than face trial. He
presents indigenous people as 'parasites' and also advocates
for discriminatory, eugenically devised forms of birth
control. Bolsonaro has warned about the danger posed by refugees from
Haiti, Africa, and the Middle East, calling them '<a href="https://www.opendemocracy.net/democraciaabierta/pedro-henrique-leal/bolsonaro-and-brazilian-far-right">the scum of humanity</a>' and even argued that the army should take care of them.<br />
<br />
"He regularly makes racist and misogynistic statements. For example,
he accused Afro-Brazilians of being obese and lazy[1] and defended
physically punishing children to try to prevent them from being gay. He
has equated homosexuality with pedophilia and told a representative in
the Brazilian National Congress, 'I wouldn't rape you because you do not
deserve it."</blockquote>
Finchelstein notes that insofar as Bolsonaro hasn't rhetorically called for an end to democracy, he isn't quite at full Nazi stage yet:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"However, things could change quickly if he gains power. <span class="pull-quote has-quote" data-pullquote="Recently, Bolsonaro <a href="https://oglobo.globo.com/brasil/nao-aceito-resultado-diferente-da-minha-eleicao-diz-bolsonaro-23111947">argued</a> that he would never accept defeat in the election and suggested that the army might agree with his view. This is a clear threat to democracy.">Recently, Bolsonaro <a href="https://oglobo.globo.com/brasil/nao-aceito-resultado-diferente-da-minha-eleicao-diz-bolsonaro-23111947">argued</a>
that he would never accept defeat in the election and suggested that
the army might agree with his view. This is a clear threat to democracy.</span><br />
<br />
"He implied the possibility of a coup. He endorses the legacy of Latin
American dictatorships and their dirty wars and is an admirer of
Chilean Gen. Augusto Pinochet and other strongmen.<br />
<br />
"And like the Argentine Dirty War generals of the 1970s and Adolf
Hitler himself, Bolsonaro sees no legitimacy in the opposition, which
for him represents tyrannical powers. He said last month that his
political opponents, members of the Workers' Party, should be executed."</blockquote>
Bolsonaro is openly nostalgic for the military dictatorship that ruled Brazil from 1964 to 1985 (he was an army captain then)[2] and openly indulges in such political murder fantasies:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span class="pull-quote has-quote" data-pullquote="Bolsonaro famously <a href="https://elpais.com/internacional/2018/09/28/actualidad/1538153452_095290.html">declared</a> in 1999 that the Brazilian dictatorship also “should have killed 30,000 persons, starting with Congress as well as with President Fernando Henrique Cardoso.”">"Bolsonaro famously <a href="https://elpais.com/internacional/2018/09/28/actualidad/1538153452_095290.html">declared</a>
in 1999 that the Brazilian dictatorship also 'should have killed 30,000
persons, starting with Congress as well as with President Fernando
Henrique Cardoso [then the president of Brazil].'"</span></blockquote>
From <a href="https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ryanhatesthis/meet-jair-bolsonaro-the-evangelical-far-right-anti-gay">Buzzfeed</a>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"'I am in favor of a dictatorship,' he said in a speech in 1993. 'We
will never resolve serious national problems with this irresponsible
democracy.'<br />
<br />
"In 2015, he <a href="https://noticias.r7.com/brasil/bolsonaro-chama-ditadura-militar-brasileira-de-intervencao-democratica-31032015" target="_blank">was quoted</a> as saying the military rule of Brazil was 'glorious.' He's also said that if he ever became president he would <a href="https://www1.folha.uol.com.br/internacional/en/brazil/2018/06/1970871-congressman-bolsonaro-defended-new-military-coup-in-the-1990s.shtml" target="_blank">stage a military coup</a> on his first day."</blockquote>
<a href="https://www.vox.com/world/2018/10/10/17952948/jair-bolsonaro-brazil-elections-trump">Vox</a>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div id="e9wO0W">
"In 2016, Bolsonaro voted to <a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=impeachment+dilma+rouseff&rlz=1C5CHFA_enUS769US769&oq=impeachment+dilma+rouseff&aqs=chrome..69i57.5738j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8">impeach</a> then-President Dilma Rousseff, and <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-36093338">indicated he did so in honor</a>
of the then-deceased chief of the secret police in Sao Paulo, who
oversaw the torture of hundreds under military rule. It was a disturbing
act, as Rousseff herself had been imprisoned [Editorial note: and tortured] by the dictatorship.</div>
<div id="e9wO0W">
<br /></div>
<div id="bHckq6">
"For his presidential run, Bolsonaro chose <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-brazil-politics-bolsonaro/brazilian-right-wing-candidate-bolsonaro-picks-army-general-as-running-mate-idUSKBN1KQ0OU">a retired military general</a>
as his running mate who’s also made disconcerting statements about
military power, including that the return of military rule in Brazil <a href="https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/jair-bolsonaro-antonio-mourao-brazil-military-dictatorship_us_5b9836a7e4b0162f4731c0ba">could be justified</a> under some circumstances."</div>
</blockquote>
Progressive columnist Glenn Greenwald, who lives in Brazil, <a href="https://theintercept.com/2014/12/11/misogynistic-hateful-elected-official-democacratic-world-brazils-jair-bolsonaro/">has called</a> Bolsonaro "the most misogynistic, hateful elected official in the democratic world." His <a href="https://theintercept.com/2018/10/08/brazils-bolsonaro-led-far-right-wins-a-victory-far-more-sweeping-and-dangerous-than-anyone-predicted-its-lessons-are-global/">account</a> of the reactionary pol is equally grim:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"[Bolsonaro's] primary solution to the nation’s crime epidemic is to unleash the
military and police into the nation’s slums and give them what he calls
'carte blanche' to indiscriminately murder anyone they suspect to be
criminals, acknowledging many innocents will die in the process. He has
criticized monsters such as Chile's Pinochet and Peru's Fujimori--for
not slaughtering more domestic opponents. He has advocated that
mainstream Brazilian politicians be killed. He wants to chemically
castrate sex offenders. In all respects, the hideous Brazilian military
dictatorship that took over Brazil and ruled it for 21 years--torturing
and summarily executing dissidents, with the support of the US and UK
in the name of fighting Communists--is his model of governance."</blockquote>
This is the creature about whom the Wall Street Journal editors have just written that approving--even adoring--editorial. Under the headline--no kidding--"<a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/brazilian-swamp-drainer-1539039700">Brazilian Swamp Drainer</a>," the Journal editors present Bolsonaro as merely a "conservative presidential candidate." Here's how they summarize him:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Mr.
Bolsonaro, who has spent 27 years in Congress, is best understood as a
conservative populist who promises to make Brazil great for the first
time. The 63-year-old is running on traditional values and often says
politically incorrect things about identity politics that inflame his
opponents. Yet he has attracted support from the middle class by
pledging to reduce corruption, crack down on Brazil’s rampant crime and
liberate entrepreneurs from government control."</blockquote>
To offer this characterization, the editors decline to share with their readers <i>any</i> of the appalling facts outlined above. Of Bosonaro's call to free up police to indiscriminately murder suspected criminals,<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"On crime he has promised to restore a police presence in urban and rural areas that have become lawless."</blockquote>
The editors dismiss the notion that Bolsonaro is any sort of threat to democracy with a single line, insisting simply that "he isn’t proposing to change the constitution, which constrains the military at home." Well, that certainly settles <i>that</i>, doesn't it? Clearly uncomfortable with this line of thought, the piece immediately proceeds to attack Bolsonaro's Worker's Party opponent Fernando Haddad as working "from the Hugo Chavez playbook."<br />
<br />
The editorial mocks "global progressives," who, is says, "are having an anxiety attack" over Bolsonaro's near-win.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"After years of corruption and recession, apparently millions of
Brazilians think an outsider is exactly what the country needs. Maybe
they know more than the world’s scolds."</blockquote>
Its conclusion:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"After so much political turmoil and corruption, it’s hardly surprising
that Brazilians are responding to a candidate who promises something
better."</blockquote>
The Wall Street Journal has a decades-long history of backing fascist movements and dictatorships, acting, over the years, as apologists and propagandists for even the worst of the lot, and it isn't surprising that its editors think of such horror shows as "something better." But it <i>is</i> something to keep in mind.<br />
<br />
--j.<br />
<br />
---<br />
<br />
[1] From <a href="https://www.npr.org/2018/07/30/631952886/dictatorship-was-a-very-good-period-says-brazil-s-aspiring-president">NPR</a> (30 July, 2018): "Last year, he caused an outcry by <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdhUGgkdKFY">declaring that</a> in his view the inhabitants of Afro-Brazilian communities known as <em>quilombos</em> are 'not even good for breeding any more.'"<br />
<br />
[2] In the Summer, he <a href="https://www.npr.org/2018/07/30/631952886/dictatorship-was-a-very-good-period-says-brazil-s-aspiring-president">told NPR</a> that dictatorship was "a very good" time for Brazil.cinemarchaeologisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13507603255666191405noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6321344375544728027.post-9505410569224788992018-02-25T12:38:00.001-08:002022-02-25T14:03:42.094-08:00Politico Promotes Another False Anti-Sanders Story On Russian TrollsThursday, this writer <a href="http://corporatenewsreviews.blogspot.com/2018/02/in-effort-to-mangle-bernie-on-russia.html">performed an autopsy</a> on <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/21/bernie-sanders-trump-russia-interference-420528">Politico's latest hatchet-job</a> on Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, using its own cited sources to expose it as a fraud and a lie. On Saturday, Edward-Isaac Dovere, the unethical hack responsible for that atrocity--and Politico's chief Washington correspondent--returned for another round. Beneath another false, click-baity headline, "<a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/24/bernie-sanders-russian-trolls-false-story-423413">Bernie Sanders Promoted False Story On Reporting Russian Trolls</a>," he continued the fictional narrative from his first story while adding new misrepresentations.<br />
<br />
In an appearance on Vermont Public Radio, Sanders had related how, toward the end of the 2016 presidential race, John Mattes, a staffer on his campaign in California, noticed and began to investigate strange activity on pro-Sanders Facebook groups. Mattes came to believe it was being carried out by Russian trolls and took this information to the Clinton campaign. Sanders acknowledged he didn't personally know Mattes and former Sanders campaign manager Jeff Weaver later clarified that Sanders only knew of this incident via press reports, citing <a href="https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/Bernie-Sanders-HIllary-Clinton-Social-Media-Russian-Infiltration-Campaign-474369533.html" target="_blank">a piece</a> from NBC's San Diego affiliate, which had, in fact, reported that "Mattes said he took his findings to the
Clinton Campaign as well as the Obama Administration last September"--that being September 2016.<br />
<br />
To challenge this, Dovere edited out Sanders acknowledgement that he had no firsthand knowledge of Mattes and tried to make Weaver's later statement sound like Sanders had changed his story. Dovere then turned to an anonymous "former Clinton campaign staffer," who denied the incident had ever happened. Since Mattes had reportedly told that NBC affiliate it <i>had</i>,[1] the implication was that Mattes was a liar. If Dovere ever talked to Mattes himself--which would have been the <i>first</i> step for any competent journalist investigating this matter--he gave no indication of it.<br />
<br />
I talked to Mattes on Saturday--he's not hard to find--and he confirmed that Dovere had never contacted him prior to writing that first article. Dovere never contacted Mattes <i>at all</i>, in fact, until Mattes, who wasn't at all pleased with how he and his activities had been portrayed in that article, contacted Politico. "It's disheartening," Mattes told me, "to see inexperienced reporters peddling phony stories." Mattes sees the broad circulation of Dovere's article--it has gone all over the internet, its false narrative picked up by many other outlets hungry to bash progressives in general and Bernie Sanders in particular--as further cause for dismay. "It is even more distressing that a phony story is picked up and amplified by other so-called reporters who don't do the most basic thing in journalism: check your sources."<br />
<br />
Dovere's second article, which focuses much of its attention on Mattes, is a train-wreck from its opening:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Bernie Sanders is taking credit for action to combat the Russian
incursion into the 2016 election that he didn’t have anything to do with--and didn’t actually happen."</blockquote>
The "action" in question is Mattes' investigation into alleged Russian internet activities, which <i>did</i> actually happen, but while Dovere twice accuses Sanders of "taking credit" for this--later in the article, he gets ambitious and says Sanders is "taking all the credit"--Sanders hasn't, in fact, taken <i>any</i> credit for it in any venue at any time. In the <a href="http://digital.vpr.net/post/sen-bernie-sanders-gun-control-russian-meddling-and-congressional-dysfunction#stream/0">radio interview</a> that started all of this, in fact, Sanders described Mattes as "a guy on my staff who I don't know personally." Devore, who heard this comment but cut it from his own account of that interview (inserting ellipses at the break), continues to lie to his readers, pretending as if Sanders never said it. Even without Sanders' own words, Jeff Weaver pointed out, days ago, that Sanders' only knowledge of Mattes' activities re:the Russia business came from press reports and Devore knows this too, because he quoted Weaver on it in his previous story, yet he now pretends as if he's uncovered something new; "it turns out," he writes, "that the purported Sanders' staffer who said he tried to
sound the alarm was a campaign volunteer who acted on his own, without
any contact or direction from the Vermont senator or his staff." And then he quotes the <i>same</i> remarks from Weaver as before ("All [Sanders] knows is what was reported.").<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjlK0pJ_8BG31WVQ2JHL5uRC2vylwIIOtqvOoTNQshTW5eouH2loTCb4xK_jOewsAbdkWqAGCg408CLNV4DSsyb3-e5MW1pqG2s5RFeTJJbA2YwR56r7JHZtBii_G5ALZ1ALR0fjTlbJ-k-gw9AT5G-YXAKX8K1_a20KAylnedZMnEvKxkvyfdaCA=s711" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="419" data-original-width="711" height="236" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjlK0pJ_8BG31WVQ2JHL5uRC2vylwIIOtqvOoTNQshTW5eouH2loTCb4xK_jOewsAbdkWqAGCg408CLNV4DSsyb3-e5MW1pqG2s5RFeTJJbA2YwR56r7JHZtBii_G5ALZ1ALR0fjTlbJ-k-gw9AT5G-YXAKX8K1_a20KAylnedZMnEvKxkvyfdaCA=w400-h236" width="400" /></a></div>
Sanders definitely misspoke in saying Mattes was "on my staff"--Mattes jokes that "Bernie gave me a promotion"--but Devore can't resist belaboring even this utterly inconsequential error. In a Sunday <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/meet-press-february-18-2018-n849191">appearance on Meet the Press</a>, Sanders described Mattes as "one of our social media guys out in San Diego"--a more accurate description. Dovere compares this to Sanders' radio description of Mattes and writes that "Sanders told two versions of the false story." He writes about "a purported Sanders staffer" and continues to dwell on this until Sanders spokeswoman Arianna Jones "eventually acknowledged that Sanders 'misspoke' in calling Mattes a member of his staff."[2]<br />
<br />
Mattes <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Mattes">has been around</a>. Among other things, his distinguished career as
a litigator and investigative reporter has netted him a pile of awards
that would blot out the sun. Devore, whose career is unlikely to ever imperil his own sun-tan, makes Mattes sound like someone who just fell off the turnip truck, writing that when Mattes "said he communicated with
the Clinton campaign in local press accounts, he was confusing it for a
super PAC supportive of Clinton."<br />
<br />
"I guess I'm that clueless," Mattes told me, "and I'm glad that Politico pointed it out to me." But Mattes didn't sound particularly sincere on this point.<br />
<br />
Mattes' story is straightforward and he's been <a href="https://timesofsandiego.com/politics/2017/03/23/russia-duped-bernie-fans-via-facebook-san-diego-dems-told/">telling it for a year</a> now. Late in the 2016 campaign, he noticed a sudden influx of new people into the various Facebook groups that had grown up around the Sanders campaign, an odd development, as Sanders was long out of the race by then. He began to investigate and eventually came to believe this was the work of the Russians. "From September through the election, I shared what I was uncovering on a daily basis with the research arm of the Clinton organization," that being David Brock's American Bridge.<br />
<br />
It's on this last point--about which Mattes was never for a moment confused--that Dovere hangs his assertion that Mattes' story is false:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"[Mattes] said he never talked to anyone on the Clinton campaign
itself, though he believed that the researcher he spoke with at the
pro-Clinton American Bridge PAC, run by David Brock, was tantamount to
reaching the campaign... Mattes is adamant that anyone who claims that American
Bridge was not tantamount to the Clinton campaign is being naive, though
campaign finance laws prohibit interaction between entities such as
those."</blockquote>
Reading that, one wonders if Dovere is being really dishonest (again) or if he just slept through the entire 2016 campaign then couldn't be bothered to do basic research (again). While he's correct on the point of law, David Brock's operation <i>openly</i> flaunted that in order to coordinate directly with the Clinton campaign. American Bridge's specialty was opposition research. Shortly after Clinton entered the presidential race, one of its subsidiaries, the Correct the Record Project, made a show of breaking with the parent org, announcing it was "reorganizing so it can coordinate with Clinton’s campaign and devote all of its resources to her." That's as reported in--wait for it--<a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/hillary-clintons-damage-control-operation-gets-more-troops-117868">Politico</a>. The Washington Post <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/05/12/how-a-super-pac-plans-to-coordinate-directly-with-hillary-clintons-campaign/?utm_term=.9a82e0480db4">reported</a> that:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Hillary Clinton’s campaign plans to work in tight conjunction with an
independent rapid-response group financed by unlimited donations,
another novel form of political outsourcing that has emerged as <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/once-the-sideshows-super-pacs-now-at-the-forefront-of-presidential-runs/2015/03/12/516d371c-c777-11e4-a199-6cb5e63819d2_story.html" target="_blank">a dominant practice</a> in the 2016 presidential race.<br />
<br />
"On Tuesday,<a href="http://correctrecord.org/" target="_blank"> Correct the Record</a>,
a pro-Clinton rapid-response operation, announced it was splitting off
from its parent American Bridge and will work in coordination with the
Clinton campaign as a stand-alone super PAC. The group’s move was <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/05/12/hillary-clinton-aligned-group-gets-closer-to-her-campaign/?ref=politics" target="_blank">first reported</a> by the New York Times.<br />
<br />
"That
befuddled many campaign finance experts, who noted that super PACs, by
definition, are political committees that solely do independent
expenditures, which cannot be coordinated with a candidate or political
party. Several said the relationship between the campaign and the super
PAC would test the legal limits.<br />
<br />
"But Correct the Record believes
it can avoid the coordination ban by relying on a 2006 Federal Election
Commission regulation that declared that content posted online for free,
such as blogs, is off limits from regulation."</blockquote>
The "break" with American Bridge was essentially a paper separation; they remained, for all intents and purposes, the same org. They shared <a href="https://www.thecitizensaudit.com/2017/10/09/media-matters-shared-office-space/">the same address</a> in the Capitol--455 Massachusetts Ave. NW, the 6th floor--the same founder and, simultaneously, a lot of the <a href="http://onrabble.com/david-brock-scam-nexus/">same employees</a>. American Bridge and Correct The Record are both represented by <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/expends/vendor.php?year=2016&vendor=Perkins+Coie">the same law firm</a> (Perkins Coie), which also happens to be the firm that represented the 2016 Clinton campaign. In April 2016, the Center for Public Integrity <a href="https://www.publicintegrity.org/2016/04/07/19521/how-citizens-united-helping-hillary-clinton-win-white-house">noted</a> how CTR, Bridge and two other pro-Clinton PACs that were incestuously intertwined<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"regularly shuttle millions of dollars in cash and resources among
themselves. This means an initial, anonymous contribution to one super PAC can flow
through any of the rest before it’s finally used to help Clinton. Consider the $1 million Priorities USA Action <a href="http://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/forms/C00578997/1046461/sa/17">gave</a> Correct the Record in December. Correct the Record, in turn, <a href="http://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/forms/C00578997/1046461/sb/29">gave</a> American Bridge 21st Century $400,000 later that month."</blockquote>
The Clinton campaign worked openly with CTR, a fact that, yes, <i>Politico</i> <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/hillary-clinton-backers-defend-link-to-pac-118014">noted</a> <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/hillary-clinton-debate-democrats-image-214490">over</a> <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/undisclosed-dollars-dominate-campaign-spending-217599">and</a> <a href="https://www.politico.com/live-blog-updates/2016/10/john-podesta-hillary-clinton-emails-wikileaks-000011">over</a> <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/david-brock-trump-clinton-media-232562">again</a> throughout the 2016 cycle. The hacked John Podesta emails offered a <a href="https://theintercept.com/2016/10/18/hillary-superpac-coordination/">wealth of detail</a> on this coordination. On at least one occasion, the campaign <a href="https://www.thecitizensaudit.com/2016/09/06/clinton_campaign_illegally_purchased_research_from_superpac/">directly paid</a> American Bridge for some "research," something that only became public because of an apparent filing error.<br />
<br />
<div class="graf graf--p">
So when Mattes calls this "the research arm of the Clinton organization," he's not blowing smoke, talking smack or revealing state secrets. Clinton's open coordination with the Brock operation was, in real time, a significant and much-discussed controversy.</div>
<br />
Dovere writes that "Mattes shared with POLITICO email exchanges he had with an American
Bridge researcher, whom Federal Election Commission records show was on
staff through the end of 2016." Mattes describes his contacts with American Bridge on this issue as extensive, continuing on a daily basis for the last months of the campaign, "and at no point in time in the hundreds-plus conversations and the hundreds-plus emails did anyone say 'John, you've called the wrong place. Please contact the Clinton campaign.'" As Mattes told Dovere, "if they weren’t sharing it with Hillary, that is their responsibility."<br />
<br />
Mattes doesn't mince words on the sort of dope Dovere is peddling.[3] "It's fraud. It's journalistic malpractice, period." He feels strongly that Russian interference in the political process is a serious business that is done a serious disservice by this sort of nonsense, as is journalism itself. "If journalists can't be responsible with our own stories, then why would anybody depend on them for any factual analysis?"<br />
<br />
--j.<br />
<br />
---<br />
<br />
[1] Dovere also writes at one point that "Sanders and staffers offered numerous and conflicting answers in the
span of a few hours on Wednesday about what he did about Russian
meddling." This is a reference to Devore's own false narrative from his previous article. He digs in further, writing that "Sanders and his top aide were at turns defiant and defensive during and after his interview with a Vermont radio station, even initially disputing special counsel Robert Mueller's finding in his
indictment last week that the Russians backed his campaign." As I covered in my response to it, Sanders and co. have been telling the <i>same</i> story, and never disputed Robert Mueller's findings. Rather, Sanders pointed out that Mueller's indictment, which doesn't, in fact, substantiate <i>any</i> specific example of support for Sanders' campaign, outlined the goal of the Russian conspiracy as sowing chaos and discord, not "supporting" Bernie Sanders. Dovere tied himself in such a knot with his misrepresentations of Sanders that he was insisting Sanders, who has always strongly supported the Mueller investigation and insisted it must go forward, wherever it leads, was somehow echoing Donald Trump's efforts to undermine same.<br />
<br />
[2] It's completely ridiculous that Dovere would slam Sanders for accurately relaying a story that had been reported in the press and as Dovere pretended as if the Mattes story isn't true, Jones got in two good digs at him:<br />
<br />
"Asked to explain why Sanders would repeat a story he didn't know was
true and turned out not to be, Sanders spokesperson Arianna Jones said
he's 'not a great fan of reporters who try to provoke controversy where
none exists.'... Asked why the senator relayed the Mattes story without checking it,
Jones responded, 'It sounds as if you're suggesting that we should no
longer trust the reporting of outlets like NBC and that the information
they provide requires independent verification?'"<br />
<br />
[3] And Dovere's dismal work is only one of multiple egregious examples with which he's recently come face-to-face (and which may be covered here in the near future).cinemarchaeologisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13507603255666191405noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6321344375544728027.post-24134588525518059042018-02-22T22:44:00.001-08:002021-05-27T04:22:48.290-07:00In Effort To Mangle Bernie On Russia, Politico Mangles the FactsWhen it comes to life's inevitabilities, an item that seems to take its place beside death and taxes is corporate press hostility to progressives in general and Sen. Bernie Sanders in particular. Politico is becoming quite notorious for its stream of tendentious, anti-progressive and anti-Sanders editorials masquerading as news reports and Edward-Isaac Dovere, Politico's <i>chief Washington correspondent</i>, has just excreted another one. "<a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/21/bernie-sanders-trump-russia-interference-420528">Bernie Blames Hillary For Allowing Russian Interference</a>," screams his sensational headline. His opening is hard-hitting:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Bernie Sanders on Wednesday blamed Hillary Clinton for not doing more
to stop the Russian attack on the last presidential election. Then his
2016 campaign manager, in an interview with POLITICO, said he’s seen no
evidence to support special counsel Robert Mueller's assertion in an
indictment last week that the Russian operation had backed Sanders'
campaign.<br />
<br />
"The remarks showed Sanders, running for a third term and currently
considered a front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination in
2020, deeply defensive in response to questions posed to him about what
was laid out in the indictment. He attempted to thread a response that
blasts Donald Trump for refusing to acknowledge that Russians helped his
campaign--but then holds himself harmless for a nearly identical
denial.<br />
<br />
"In doing so, Sanders and his former campaign manager, Jeff Weaver,
presented a series of self-serving statements that were not accurate,
and that track with efforts by Trump and his supporters to undermine the
credibility of the Mueller probe."</blockquote>
But readers digging through Dovere's article and its source material will struggle in vain to find <i>anything</i> that supports Dovere's fuming assertions. Rather, the only story here is that an alleged "journalist" has decided to misrepresent the facts in order to libel the progressive senator. Again.<br />
<br />
The principal exhibit here is <a href="http://digital.vpr.net/post/sen-bernie-sanders-gun-control-russian-meddling-and-congressional-dysfunction#stream/0">an interview</a> Sanders had just given to Vermont Public Radio. At the 11:30 mark, Sanders begins fielding a series of questions about the Russia matter. Dovere distorts its content beyond recognition:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Sanders said that his campaign had shared information with the
Clinton campaign about suspected Russian anti-Clinton trolls on a
campaign Facebook page. But Weaver later acknowledged that the Vermont
senator had no firsthand knowledge that this had happened. Weaver said Sanders based his remark on <a href="https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/Bernie-Sanders-HIllary-Clinton-Social-Media-Russian-Infiltration-Campaign-474369533.html" target="_blank">an article</a>
published by NBC’s San Diego affiliate over the weekend about a
campaign volunteer who claimed to have conducted his own investigation
and brought the findings to the Clinton campaign in September--an
assertion flatly denied by a former Clinton campaign aide.<br />
<br />
"'A guy who was on my staff … checked it out and he went to the
Clinton campaign, and he said, "You know what? I think these guys are
Russians,"' Sanders said. Weaver said Sanders had not verified the
information in the article himself before stating it as fact."</blockquote>
In order to make Weaver's later comments look like after-the-fact dissembling, Dovere has edited out a portion of Sanders' own wherein Sanders conceded he had no firsthand knowledge of this; within those ellipses Dovere dropped in, Sanders actually described "a guy on my staff who I don't know personally, his name was John Mattes out in San Diego." Further, though Sanders didn't mention the NBC San Diego report, both he and Weaver accurately relayed its contents:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"After a lengthy investigation, Mattes said he took his findings to the
Clinton Campaign as well as the Obama Administration last September."</blockquote>
If this report turns out to be incorrect, it's hardly a mark against <i>them</i>. To refute it, Dovere turns to an anonymous Clintonite and acts as an uncritical stenographer:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"A former Clinton campaign staffer said it was nonsense that Sanders'
campaign had reached out to Clinton's about potential Russian
interference. 'No one from the Sanders campaign ever contacted us about
this'--not in September, and not in 'April and May.' Sanders said in
the radio interview that he noticed 'lots of strange things' during
those months in 2016."</blockquote>
So what do we have here? It may be that the NBC San Diego report didn't accurately relay what Mattes said. It may be that Mattes isn't telling the truth. Or it may be that this "former Clinton campaign staffer" is acting in the usual custom of that campaign, which rarely told the truth about <i>anything</i>. Dovere's project is falsely presenting Sanders and Weaver as offering a series of self-serving fictions, so he never ever tries to disentangle the matter. He never gives any indication of having tried to contact Mattes, which should have been any real journalist's <i>first</i> step and as if to intentionally obscure the matter, Dovere never even identifies Mattes by name.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh-waIb-2kIxFLo1nP0uMCwjClYE1UcEjT7vUJUuEryS_KdsqMT3kTyBK-g4rnxQDIddWurVwHYwvn1HjtUuivOQtGCZfme01JNBAnDTVSOAx8Y1i74H7KXN0R9hyO17AIihaAL5Oe2sg/s1600/dovere_still_with_her.PNG" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="569" data-original-width="737" height="308" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh-waIb-2kIxFLo1nP0uMCwjClYE1UcEjT7vUJUuEryS_KdsqMT3kTyBK-g4rnxQDIddWurVwHYwvn1HjtUuivOQtGCZfme01JNBAnDTVSOAx8Y1i74H7KXN0R9hyO17AIihaAL5Oe2sg/s400/dovere_still_with_her.PNG" width="400" /></a></div>
Worse, either Dovere or the staffer is flatly <i>lying</i> about Sanders' "April and May" comment. Not only did Sanders never say he "noticed" anything unusual in
those months, he specifically said he <i>didn't know anything</i> that early in the game. Sanders was describing Mattes noting strange activity on Facebook in September 2016, during the general-election campaign, and said "we did not know early on" about any Russian activity but subsequently, "what we found out was that in April and May, it appeared that there were lots of strange things happening attacking Hillary Clinton." Sanders never even claimed he knew in <i>September</i>; he was merely referencing that NBC San Diego story, an article that had appeared in the press a few days before his interview. Dovere's wording makes it unclear whether he or the anonymous staffer added the bit about "April and May" but it ran under his name and it's false.<br />
<br />
In the radio interview, Sanders repeatedly pointed out that the alleged
Russian activity wasn't aimed at supporting his candidacy but rather was
carried out with the goal of sowing chaos and discord in the electoral process, which is the position taken by <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/02/rosenstein-mueller-indictment-russia/553601/">the Mueller indictment</a>. The indictment offers a narrative wherein the Russian conspirators began putting in place the initial infrastructure for their eventual project as early as 2013, years before anyone even dreamed of a Sanders--or Trump--candidacy. The indictment repeatedly outlines the conspirators' goals: they "had a strategic goal to sow
discord in the U.S. political system, including the 2016 U.S.
presidential election," were "interfering with the U.S. political system," were "interfering with the 2016 U.S. presidential
election, with the stated
goal of 'spread[ing] distrust towards the candidates and the political
system in general.'" No one who has read it can miss this.<br />
<br />
Sanders echoes it. "[A]ll they want to do is sow division in this country, bring people against each other," he said. "This was not supporting me, any more than they were supporting groups
like Black Lives Matter that are fighting for social justice," a reference to the Russians targeting messaging toward BLM activists, another matter covered in the Mueller indictment. "Trust me,
that's not what they were doing--they were trying to cause division."<br />
<br />
In order to set up a false equivalence with Donald Trump's comments regarding this matter, Dovere omits <i>all</i> of this, quoting only Sanders' denial that the Russians were supporting him then engaging in further fabrication:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"The Vermont senator was adamant that he did not benefit from Russian bots urging voters to support him... Sanders has repeatedly condemned President Donald Trump for
not acknowledging the Russian attack on the 2016 election alleged in the
Mueller indictment and being investigated by congressional committees.
But he has refused to say that his campaign benefited from the
activities."</blockquote>
At no point in the interview did Sanders deny he benefited from Russian bots. He was, in fact, never even <i>asked</i> if his campaign benefited, nor, if he had been, would he even be able to say; the Mueller indictment's allegations of Russian activity during the Democratic primary are too nebulous and unspecific--barely even a blip. The indictment references a memo circulated among the Russian conspirators on 10 February, 2016, describing it as "an outline of themes for future content to be posted to ORGANIZATION-controlled social media accounts" in which "specialists were instructed to post content that focused on 'politics in
the USA' and to 'use any opportunity to criticize Hillary and the rest
(except Sanders and Trump--we support them).'" While concealing from his readers what the indictment says about the Russians' motives and how it relates to Sanders' comments, Dovere partially quotes <i>this</i> in an effort to refute Sanders but while the indictment covers an extensive range of specific activities carried out by the conspirators, nearly all of those activities occurred after Sanders had already lost the Democratic nomination in early June 2016. Sanders' name and campaign, in fact, are only even mentioned in the few lines regarding that memo; the indictment contains no other information on any support for him.<br />
<br />
Weaver is on top of this:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"'The factual underpinning of that in the indictment is what? Zero,'
Weaver said. 'I have not seen any evidence of support for Bernie
Sanders... Two dudes sitting in a hole somewhere support Bernie Sanders--tell me what they did to support Bernie Sanders,' Weaver added later."</blockquote>
Dovere can't tell Weaver that but instead of noting Weaver is correct, Dovere equates these remarks with Donald Trump's:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Sanders' and Weaver's argument mirrors that of Trump, who has argued in a
days-long series of tweets that the Russians were not supporting him."</blockquote>
But as gratifying as this anti-Sanders "journalist" no doubt found it to tie Sanders to the deplorable Trump, nowhere in this recent tweet-storm does Trump say the Russians weren't supporting him. Rather, he says his campaign didn't collude with the Russians and that their activities had no impact on the ultimate outcome of the election.[1] Neither Sanders nor Weaver have said anything of the sort. In the past, Trump has suggested the entire notion of a Russian conspiracy to interfere in the election was a hoax.[2]<br />
<br />
While the existence of an online Russian "troll army" that follows
Kremlin policy was a matter of public record well before 2016, it wasn't
particularly well-known in the U.S.. After allegations emerged that
Russians were behind the hacking of the John Podesta emails, which
Wikileaks began releasing shortly before the Democratic convention at the end of July 2016,
Russia became subject to more scrutiny but online activity attributed to Russia and aimed at
interfering in the presidential election only really came to be
scrutinized toward the end of the campaign and only became a major
story <i>after</i> the election. By the time this heightened scrutiny was brewing, Sanders was out of the race and working with the Clinton campaign, and it's to the Clinton campaign that Sanders deferred when asked, in that radio interview, why he didn't alert his supporters of these alleged Russian activities. "I would say the real question to be asked was 'what was the Clinton
campaign [doing]?' They had more information about this than we did and
at this point, we were working with them."<br />
<br />
Interviewer Jane Lindholm persisted: "So did the Clinton campaign
say 'don't talk about this'?<br />
<br />
"No, of course not, but who do you think
would be raising that issue?"<br />
<br />
Sanders was acting as a Clinton campaign surrogate and it isn't the place of a surrogate to go off-script with allegations that, at the time, could be perceived as crackpotism, thus harming the candidate. The candidate calls the script, and in such a situation, Sanders is right to defer. Lindholm didn't like that: "Why not take that directly to your supporters, many of whom really hung on your every word?" But, of course, what Sanders was saying at every stop during the timeframe in question was "vote for Hillary Clinton." If his supporters really hung on his "every word," why would words regarding Russia allegations carry more weight in the election than <i>those</i>? It's an utterly bizarre--and empty--criticism, Blame Bernie-ism run amok. If the campaign messaging on this subject is found to be wanting--and that's a dodgy proposition anyway[3]--it's the campaign that should be questioned.<br />
<br />
That's not, of course, a position that's going to find a warm reception among Clinton's personality cult, as one of its defining characteristics is an absolute conviction that Clinton is correct when she insists she has no real responsibility for <i>anything</i>.<br />
<br />
Dovere certainly doesn't like it. He roasts Sanders for failing to call out this Russian activity during the campaign and contrasts this with Clinton, writing "Clinton's campaign regularly raised
suspicions of Kremlin-backed activity during the home stretch of the
race." But Clinton's attacks on Russian interference during the campaign were directed toward the hacking and subsequent releases of Democratic emails. As far as I've been able to ascertain,[4] she never said <i>anything</i> about Russian-directed internet troll activity, which really only became a big story after--and because--she lost the election. General-election debates produce the single largest audience a presidential candidate will ever have but even during the <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/2016-presidential-debate-transcript-229519">2nd debate with Trump</a>, when Clinton went on an extended anti-Russia tear, she focused on human rights and the hacking and didn't raise the issue. Criticizing Sanders, a surrogate, for failing to speak out when the candidate herself remained silent is self-evidently absurd.[5]<br />
<br />
Dovere doesn't ask that "former Clinton campaign staffer" or anyone else from ClintonWorld about the campaign messaging. Instead, he uses Sanders' deference to Clinton as the basis for the charge in his lede that Sanders "blamed Hillary Clinton for not doing more
to stop the Russian attack on the last presidential election," which is entirely fictitious. Sanders has assigned no "blame" in this matter other than to
the Putin regime, nor, other than that, has he even said there's any
blame to be assigned. These alleged activities were carried out by a
foreign power, beyond the control of anyone in the U.S.. Dovere's truncated headline claim that Sanders has blamed Clinton for allowing Russian interference--the headline everyone on the internet will see--is a particularly egregious lie. This activity was based in Russia and there was never any question of "allowing" it to go forward or not.<br />
<br />
Though Dovere has done nothing to establish that these Russian activities benefited Sanders' campaign or made any case for why, beyond providing fodder for trolls, it would matter if they <i>had</i>, he writes that "Sanders has faced questions since Friday about why he has not more
strongly condemned the Russian actions that benefited his campaign." But Sanders has categorically condemned Russian interference and Dovere's only example of those with such "questions" is Joan Walsh, a positively rabid Clinton supporter/Sanders basher--no better a source on this matter than some random Twitter troll. Dovere identifies her only as a "liberal writer" and gives her space to assert that Sanders has made such a misstep that "this could be the end of Sanders 2020."<br />
<br />
Dovere ends on what he seems to think is a snarky "gotcha":<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"On Wednesday evening, Sanders took to Twitter with additional statements.<br />
<br />
"'Mueller's indictment provides further evidence that the
Russian government interfered in 2016. It also shows that they tried to
turn my supporters against Hillary Clinton in the primary and general
election. I unequivocally condemn such interference,' he wrote.<br />
<br />
"A Sanders spokesman declined to explain the senator's apparent change of heart over the course of the day."</blockquote>
But that statement merely reflects what Sanders has already said, no "change of heart." In that radio interview, in fact, Sanders said, "They were attacking Hillary Clinton's campaign and using my supporters against Hillary Clinton." Dovere knows this; he directly quotes it in his own article. And, of course, Sanders has condemned Russian efforts to interfere in the election from his earlier public comments on the subject.<br />
<br />
Dovere began by insisting Sanders and Weaver had "
presented a series of self-serving statements that were not accurate,
and that track with efforts by Trump and his supporters to undermine the
credibility of the Mueller probe," but the only thing that wasn't accurate was Dovere's own assertions and, in reality, Sanders has been a
stalwart defender of the Mueller probe. Sanders, in fact, <a href="http://digital.vpr.net/post/leahy-sanders-and-welch-call-investigations-trumps-russia-ties">repeatedly</a> <a href="https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2017/02/28/bernie-sanders-on-russia-investigation-ac-sot.cnn">called for</a> an independent inquiry into the Russian matter months before the independent counsel was appointed and has <a href="http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/334068-sanders-special-counsel-isnt-witch-hunt-its-the-right-thing-to-do">consistently defended</a> the Mueller probe against attacks by Trump and his allies, <a href="http://thehill.com/opinion/finance/366564-sanders-fiercely-defends-mueller-warns-of-constitutional-crisis">insisting it must continue</a>. To insinuate Sanders into the Trump camp of undermining Mueller, Dovere declines to share this with his readers.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
A few things on this issue beyond the immediate matter of Politco and its asshat "reporter": These are troubled times, and an entrenched political Establishment in such times will latch on to just about anything to keep people from catching on to the fact that it is part of what troubles them. "Russian interference" is its current shiny object. Those in the Democratic Establishment, using it to avoid any assessment of their own epic-scale failures in the last decade, have built it up into a scandal of monumental proportions.[6] The right has embraced it as well but insists the real makes-Watergate-look-like-stealing-a-Snickers outrage is a series of fake counter-scandals they've manufactured that blame the other side. For over a year now, both have insisted that, any moment now, the other shoe will drop and the resulting public outrage will forever wash away the opposition in a flood of ignominy. And here's one of the few guarantees in all of this: that's never going to happen. Further, here are some truths about this particular species of Russian "interference" that neither of these players want you to hear.<br />
<br />
--This sort of thing is the price of living in a free society. One can, of course, prosecute any crimes that occur and one should always try to expose sources that attempt to conceal their origins but when it comes to much of the activities with which these Russians were involved--setting up discussion-groups on the internet, commenting on social media, organizing rallies, etc.--there's little a <i>free</i> society can do about it.<br />
<br />
--The U.S. presidential electoral process is a multi-million-dollar behemoth. When standard operating procedure involves candidates trading their souls to Wall Street sharks, oil billionaires and the like for campaign contributions, worrying over a few dozen people buying Facebook ads from a warehouse on the other side of the world--or worse, presenting them as having <i>stolen</i> an election--is <i>completely ridiculous</i>. Which brings me to perhaps the most important item,<br />
<br />
--It doesn't even matter. Whether anyone wants to hear it or not, Hillary Clinton lost the election because she was astonishingly unpopular. Not unpopular as a consequence of a few foreign trolls on the internet but as a consequence of an entire lifetime of shiftiness, dishonesty and corruption. And the only reason Donald Trump, the most unpopular major-party candidate in the history of polling, won the election is because he was facing Hillary Clinton. Even in a worst-case scenario, any impact these activities alleged by Mueller may have had is microscopic.[7]<br />
<br />
In closing, here's some food for thought from just abut the most unlikely source imaginable:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiWwTP57SHsGYgQVH-j-hxtxm7w8Nho6kB5bHvgkrh57Of3dOomX9WUbOsNepyqRNCLgFrkLCAn4YgoojkCV3vd9AH4yMkzx0IQVl3_6oEdeYaUOs1ow0lxBr0YE058nOTgUCWJlg1QLQ/s1600/trump_russia_goal.PNG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="367" data-original-width="639" height="364" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiWwTP57SHsGYgQVH-j-hxtxm7w8Nho6kB5bHvgkrh57Of3dOomX9WUbOsNepyqRNCLgFrkLCAn4YgoojkCV3vd9AH4yMkzx0IQVl3_6oEdeYaUOs1ow0lxBr0YE058nOTgUCWJlg1QLQ/s640/trump_russia_goal.PNG" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
Chill out, folks.<br />
<br />
--j.<br />
<br />
---<br />
<br />
[1] The Tweet flurry in question:<br />
<a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/964594780088033282">https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/964594780088033282</a><br />
<a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/964944088696049666">https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/964944088696049666</a><br />
<a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/964946611502747649">https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/964946611502747649</a><br />
<a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/964949269374529538">https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/964949269374529538</a><br />
<a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/964955496137535488">https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/964955496137535488</a><br />
<a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/964956781670694912">https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/964956781670694912</a><br />
<a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/965075589274177536">https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/965075589274177536</a><br />
<a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/965079126829871104">https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/965079126829871104</a><br />
<a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/965199840471810049">https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/965199840471810049</a><br />
<a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/965202556204003328">https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/965202556204003328</a><br />
<a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/965205208191168512">https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/965205208191168512</a><br />
<a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/965212168449941505">https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/965212168449941505</a><br />
<a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/965676314576543744">https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/965676314576543744</a><br />
<a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/965930611272712192">https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/965930611272712192</a><br />
<br />
[2] It <i>is</i>, however, worth noting that according to
the theory advanced in the Mueller indictment, the Russian conspirators'
"support" for Trump, which is detailed at great length and with much
specificity, was a result of their (correctly) perceiving him as a chaos
figure who would serve their goal of disruption. After the election,
they organized both pro- and anti-Trump rallies. Chaos.<br />
<br />
[3] There's really no reason at all to question the campaign messaging on this; it's an entirely manufactured "controversy." If one just insists on charting the many problems the Clinton campaign needed to address and didn't (or couldn't), any perceived shortcoming on <i>this</i> matter would be so minor in comparison to the rest--both individually and in bulk--it would barely even register.<br />
<br />
[4] Clinton certainly never made a major issue of the troll activity. To ascertain whether she'd ever mentioned it, I went to Google news, set the search date parameters to cover the entire general election campaign then spent far too much time conducting a series of searches for every relevant word combination of which I could conceive. I found nothing in which Clinton addressed the troll activity.<br />
<br />
[5] It's entirely possible Clinton didn't know about these activities until after the election. If one wanted to make an ugly partisan dogfight about it, that report about John Mattes, who "said he took his findings to the
Clinton Campaign" in September--the report Dovere declined to properly examine--potentially looms large. But whatever the case may be, there really just isn't any "blame" to cast here; if Russians were carrying out these activities, it's beyond the control of anyone in the campaign.<br />
<br />
[6] The "Russiagate" scandal pimps have used this "interference" story
to insist on a needlessly belligerent posture toward Russia and to
attempt to scandalize any effort at a more reasoned approach. To the
extent that this has any impact, it's dangerous, and in recent days,
they've escalated their rhetoric into the realm of irresponsible by
insisting the "interference" amounts to "an act of war." It isn't, and
that's not something responsible people should even suggest.<br />
<br />
[7] The major activity attributed to Russia and that may have had an impact was the hacking and release of the Democratic emails but even there, the scandal was only a consequence of Democratic misbehavior; releasing those emails was much more akin to a public service than an offense meriting condemnation. The Mueller indictment doesn't deal with the matter of those emails.cinemarchaeologisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13507603255666191405noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6321344375544728027.post-25109491938822839332018-01-29T17:22:00.001-08:002018-01-29T19:46:01.260-08:00Correcting Korecki: Politico vs. ProgressivesPolitico's reactionary anti-progressivism was on ugly display in a recent article on the brewing Democratic primary fight in Illinois' 3rd District. Marie Newman, a marketing consultant running a crowdfunded campaign on a straightforward <a href="https://www.marienewmanforcongress.com/">progressive agenda</a>, is looking to unseat Dan Lipinski, a legacy incumbent of the Chicago machine
and one of the most conservative Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives. Progressive groups, weary of Lipinski's socially conservative views, have been lining up behind Newman and Reps. Luis Gutierrez and Jan Schakowsky have just endorsed her. In explaining all of this, senior Politico reporter Natasha Korecki leads with a tendentious headline--"<a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/18/dan-lipinski-luis-gutierrez-jan-schakowsky-chicago-346479">Chicago Democrats Throw Lipinski Under the Bus--And Blame Trump</a>"--and seems personally offended by the joint endorsement, describing it as "an unprecedented act... the unthinkable, plunging a knife into the back of a neighboring
Chicago-area congressman whom they'd served with in Congress for over a
decade."<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj6HYL8o5h7CkRPMPl0YIPPvfLPZmIrJ5TiGjQTaaVaxBhideip_M_J35xXYf5IeaIxkFYA2xiSGwpIkU2R7-zcpO8vFLCXTGK38osuytk1A4Fn_AtmNHL8e5lVUP7JelYfD-owHeeODA/s1600/lipinski.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="407" data-original-width="755" height="215" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj6HYL8o5h7CkRPMPl0YIPPvfLPZmIrJ5TiGjQTaaVaxBhideip_M_J35xXYf5IeaIxkFYA2xiSGwpIkU2R7-zcpO8vFLCXTGK38osuytk1A4Fn_AtmNHL8e5lVUP7JelYfD-owHeeODA/s400/lipinski.PNG" width="400" /></a></div>
In contextualizing the primary contest, Korecki immediately reaches for--and constructs her entire article around--the tired conservative Clintonite narrative about crusading progressives, unreasonably obsessed with ideological purity, branding "pragmatists", "moderates" and "centrists" as heretics and trying to drive them from the party. Her outrage obvious, Korecki doesn't spare the hyperbole--she describes this as a <i>violent</i> act:<br />
<br />
"The act of throwing Lipinski under the bus was an exercise in
bare-knuckled Chicago politics, and it was also a tale of a party that
is an increasingly awkward fit for centrists like Lipinski."<br />
<br />
With that "centrist" label in place, Korecki turns the floor over to Lipinski himself, who offers the usual progressive-trashing line:<br />
<br />
"'There's an effort that is very detrimental to the Democratic Party, in
that there's the Tea Party of the Left that some people said they wanted
to create. That's bad for the party. That's not going to be helpful in
growing our numbers,' said Lipinski, who noted that the Tea Party
movement was responsible for Trump's ascendance. 'I think we have to
acknowledge that the way to get back into the majority into the Congress
and pick up seats is to make sure we are a big-tent party and reaching
out to people are moderate and not just push to the left.'"<br />
<br />
While positioning Lipinski as a "centrist" is essential to this anti-progressive narrative, the 3rd District is strongly Democratic--over 60%--meaning it's
likely that Lipinski's conservative views are directly at odds with
those of most of his constituents.[1] This gives him no claim on the political "center" there.[2]
Korecki knows how to get around this problem; she attributes the view that
Lipinski is out of step with his district to Gutierrez and Schakowsky,
the people she describes as back-stabbers unconscionably putting
the knife to their colleague. Gutierrez is further besmirched when Korecki gratuitously suggests that his endorsement of Newman may be merely his "settling a score with the powerful state party chairman Mike Madigan, a longtime ally of the Lipinski family" (a few paragraphs are then devoted to this ad hominem rabbit-hole).<br />
<br />
Korecki also suggests that wanting a more reliable Democrat representing a reliably Democratic district isn't "pragmatic." The Newman endorsements, she writes, "put [Gutierrez and Schakowsky] at odds with a more pragmatic faction of Chicago Democrats," those being Lipinski's supporters, who, in Korecki's telling, get that "pragmatic" label merely by being Lipinski supporters. Korecki is beside herself over the fact that this race is happening and megaphones the views of this "pragmatic faction":<br />
<br />
"In other words: why is the party spending precious resources to oust an
incumbent from a safe Democratic seat? Especially when Democrats are
busy trying to oust a Republican governor from office and nearby GOP
congressmen from their seats?"<br />
<br />
Democracy, perhaps?<br />
<br />
Korecki turns the mechanics of the race on its head, writing that in endorsing Newman, "Schakowsky and Gutierrez joined powerful national groups that have
already coalesced behind the challenger, including NARAL, MoveOn.org,
Democracy for America, Progressive Change Campaign Committee and Human
Rights Campaign." How appropriate is Korecki's violent language and invocation of "bare-knuckled Chicago
politics" to describe Newman's support given the fact that
Lipinski, not Newman, is the candidate backed by the powerful Chicago
Democratic machine noted for its bare-knuckling tendencies? Dan Lipinski's father held this same seat for 22 years. In 2004, Daddy Bill ran for the
Democratic nomination for the 12th time, won it, then just gave it to
son Dan, who hadn't even regularly lived in the district for 15 years. In such a safely Democratic district, Dan didn't even have to compete for it.
He's held it ever since. Newman is a political novice who entered the race with very low name-recognition while Lipinski is a dynastic incumbent backed by the Chicago machine, with all the extraordinary advantages that confers, yet in Korecki's telling, the reader could be forgiven for believing Lipinski is the besieged underdog taking on the unscrupulous Establishment.[3] It's an inversion of reality that is simply impossible to justify.<br />
<br />
It's also worth noting that while Korecki ties this race to the larger ongoing conflict within the Democratic party, it's hardly representative of it. There are, this year, a quite large number of Bernie Sanders-inspired crowdfunded progressive candidates around the U.S., an army of them unlike anything this not-inexperienced writer has ever seen. They should make this political year very interesting. Newman is drawing
a lot of Democratic support in her race but the Democratic Establishment typically stands <i>against</i> these up-and-coming liberals, choosing, instead, to throw support behind conservative Clintonite figures. This---a problem for many years and a perpetual complaint among activists--is <a href="https://coloradopolitics.com/congressional-candidate-levi-tillemann-says-top-house-democrat-steny-hoyer-urged-end-primary-campaign/">finally beginning</a> <a href="http://therealnews.com/t2/story:20910:Democrats-Openly-Back-Establishment-Candidates-for-2018-Primaries">to get</a> <a href="https://theintercept.com/2018/01/23/dccc-democratic-primaries-congress-progressives/">some press</a>. Perhaps the spectacle of some prominent Democratic pols and groups backing Newman--a man-bites-dog story, really--is partly what draws Korecki's fury.<br />
<br />
That ongoing Democratic conflict is between progressives who are attempting to make the party better reflect the left views of its constituents and Clintonites who push a more conservative, business-friendly, war-hawkish line. While that conservative line attracts big-money donors (as it's intended), it's at odds with the views of the party's voters, and the Clintonites have attempted to obscure and avoid addressing this by, among other things, crafting the narrative Korecki has deployed here,[4] an indefensible narrative that amounts to an attack on not just liberals but liberal democracy itself. Its a gross misrepresentation of what's actually happening, its underlying assumption is that it's entirely unreasonable to want one's elected representatives to reflect one's own views and it heaps personal abuse on anyone who takes any real measures to make that the case,[5] all in the service of defending unrepresentative conservative pols in a progressive party and country. The great passion Korecki displays is offered in defense of an utterly disreputable cause and does a disservice to her readers.<br />
<br />
--j.<br />
<br />
---<br />
<br />
[1] That's what Newman's <a href="https://www.marienewmanforcongress.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Newman-IL-03-Brief-Poll-Memo.pdf">internal polling</a> from a few months ago suggested; support for Lipinski within the district begins to collapse when voters are informed of his conservative record. Take that for what it's worth.<br />
<br />
[2] Even looking at the race from the national perspective, Lipinski's views on, for example, abortion and gay rights--he's opposed to both--are wildly outside the broad American political center.<br />
<br />
[3] Though Korecki does note, almost in passing, that the AFL-CIO--hardly a bit player--has endorsed Lipinski.<br />
<br />
[4] Arguably, this race isn't even an example of this sort of
progressive-vs.-Clintonite fight that prefab narrative was meant to
cover and to obscure--Lipinski is a labor-backed candidate with
backwards social views, while Newman's commitment to progressive
policies has yet to be demonstrated.<br />
<br />
[5] It's worth noting that while progressives holding to any sort of minimal standards for an elected official are treated by the narrative as engaged in entirely unreasonable
purity politics, Clintonites exempt themselves from this when its their favored issues in question.cinemarchaeologisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13507603255666191405noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6321344375544728027.post-5840120323660053742017-09-21T07:11:00.001-07:002017-09-21T07:32:27.427-07:00Same As It Ever Was: Hillary Clinton's Bedtime Stories<div class="graf graf--p" name="efb1">
As Hillary Clinton's tour in promotion of her new book continues, Andrew Endymion has <a href="https://medium.com/@aendymion/hillary-clinton-and-msm-showing-why-theyre-in-bed-together-with-book-tour-35640b143170">offered a corrective</a> to some of the nonsense the former candidate is spewing all over her press appearances. "Despite the claims of Hillary's most brainwashed groupies," he writes, "the media was overwhelming in its support of her campaign," support, he documents, that has continued right through Clinton's current tour, where she's granting interviews to sympathetic press outlets that allow her to mouth outlandish comments about that campaign over and over again without any serious challenge. This blog covered the performance of the press throughout the Democratic primary campaign, work that buttresses Endymion's article.</div>
<div class="graf graf--p" name="efb1">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEijaO-i2c8hjFaJXo5Z1mWqsY4kpWd3cikzkMvzcXCO3QDh440J9cUkn5mvaVryDdiGii9nU6DafjdyDxiYdnBZQk1EaYJntcBlbVUYMnvL_q5HZG6ivnkFGg2sSfNjQaRQZxqXtwXSdA/s1600/clintoniwojimapng.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="455" data-original-width="503" height="361" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEijaO-i2c8hjFaJXo5Z1mWqsY4kpWd3cikzkMvzcXCO3QDh440J9cUkn5mvaVryDdiGii9nU6DafjdyDxiYdnBZQk1EaYJntcBlbVUYMnvL_q5HZG6ivnkFGg2sSfNjQaRQZxqXtwXSdA/s400/clintoniwojimapng.PNG" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="graf graf--p" name="efb1">
<br /></div>
<div class="graf graf--p" name="efb1">
</div>
<div class="graf graf--p" name="bb37">
Bernie Sanders, Clinton's chief rival for the Democratic nomination, began his campaign an almost complete unknown and much of the corporate press seemed determined to keep it that way, instituting what became known as the "Bernie Blackout."</div>
<div class="graf graf--p" name="bb37">
<br /></div>
<div class="graf graf--p" name="bb37">
When Sanders officially joined the race in April 2015, the evening newscasts of the three major networks <a href="http://corporatenewsreviews.blogspot.com/2015/04/networks-barely-mention-sanders.html">virtually ignored</a> the development. ABC’s World News Tonight disposed of it in less than 20 seconds, with half of <i class="markup--em markup--p-em">that</i> devoted to <i>Clinton's</i> reaction to it. The CBS Evening News gave it only a portion of a single sentence as an aside at the end of an unrelated report about the Clinton Foundation. The NBC Nightly News shoehorned a few seconds about it into a report about Hillary Clinton's political chameleonism over the years. Not a single newscast ran a full report on Sanders, despite all three having devoted full reports to the campaign launches of Clinton and every Republican who had, to that date, announced his candidacy.</div>
<div class="graf graf--p" name="bb37">
<br /></div>
<div class="graf graf--p" name="a559">
In May 2015, Steve Hendricks wrote <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.cjr.org/analysis/bernie_sanders_underdog.php" href="https://www.cjr.org/analysis/bernie_sanders_underdog.php" rel="noopener" target="_blank">a pretty good Columbia Journalism Review piece</a> on how the press was handling Sanders' candidacy:</div>
<div class="graf graf--p" name="a559">
<br /></div>
<div class="graf graf--p graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="913b">
"The [New York] Times, for example, buried <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/30/us/politics/bernie-sanders-campaign-for-president.html" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/30/us/politics/bernie-sanders-campaign-for-president.html" rel="noopener" target="_blank">his announcement</a> on page A21, even though every other candidate who had declared before then had been put on the front page above the fold. Sanders's straight-news story didn't even crack 700 words, compared to the 1,100 to 1,500 that <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/14/us/politics/marco-rubio-2016-presidential-campaign.html" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/14/us/politics/marco-rubio-2016-presidential-campaign.html" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Marco Rubio</a>, <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/08/us/politics/rand-paul-republican-presidential-nomination.html" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/08/us/politics/rand-paul-republican-presidential-nomination.html" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Rand Paul</a>, <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/24/us/politics/ted-cruz-2016-presidential-race.html?_r=0" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/24/us/politics/ted-cruz-2016-presidential-race.html?_r=0" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Ted Cruz</a>, and <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/13/us/politics/hillary-clinton-2016-presidential-campaign.html" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/13/us/politics/hillary-clinton-2016-presidential-campaign.html" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Hillary Clinton</a> got. As for the content, the <i class="markup--em markup--p-em">Times</i>' reporters declared high in Sanders's piece that he was a long shot for the Democratic nomination and that Clinton was all but a lock. None of the Republican entrants got the long-shot treatment, even though Paul, Rubio, and Cruz were generally polling fifth, seventh, and eighth among Republicans before they announced."</div>
<div class="graf graf--p graf--startsWithDoubleQuote" name="913b">
<br /></div>
<div class="graf graf--p" name="2cfb">
The Tyndall Report, which tracks the network evening newscasts, <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="http://tyndallreport.com/comment/20/5773/" href="http://tyndallreport.com/comment/20/5773/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">reported</a> that Bernie Sanders’ campaign received only 20 minutes of coverage in the entirety of 2015, compared to Clinton’s 121 minutes. Clinton's other Democratic rivals Martin O'Malley, Lincoln Chafee and
Jim Webb managed very little public support and were given even less
coverage. For comparison, even Jeb Bush and Ben Carson, whose campaigns were jokes, managed to draw 57 minutes in the same period.</div>
<div class="graf graf--p" name="2cfb">
<br /></div>
<div class="graf graf--p" name="2cfb">
When the corporate press wasn't trying to ignore Sanders to death, it was working to marginalize him, presenting him as a fringe candidate, an uber-longshot, a dealer in fairy-dust who advocated policies far too extreme to ever be taken seriously in American politics despite the fact that they <a href="http://corporatenewsreviews.blogspot.com/2016/01/bernie-sanders-unelectable-bolshevik-or.html">commanded the support of very broad majorities</a> of the public. When it was judged worthy of any mention, his campaign was analyzed primarily by how it would affect Clinton's candidacy, which supported Clinton's favored narrative of her own inevitability. After the first Democratic debate, which wasn't even held until October 2015, press pundits pretty much unanimously declared Clinton the winner by a blow-out, while every available metric suggested the viewing public <a href="http://fair.org/home/pundits-thought-clinton-beat-sanders-but-did-viewers/">thought Sanders had won</a>.</div>
<div class="graf graf--p" name="2cfb">
<br /></div>
<div class="graf graf--p" name="2cfb">
As the primary contests proceeded and Sanders gathered steam and couldn't be so easily ignored, press attacks on his campaign increased and became increasingly vicious and even less grounded in reality. Endymion mentions some notorious incidents, such as the Washington Post's decision to run no less than 16 anti-Sanders stories in the 16 hours leading into the critical Michigan primary and the time the editors of the New York Times pulled from the paper's website a positive story examining Sanders' legislative record, rewrote it into an anti-Sanders hit-piece then republished it without ever indicating any change had been made. After Sanders completely destroyed Clinton in Wisconsin, the frustrated Clintonites launched a campaign to present Sanders as unqualified to be president. Sanders responded to this attack by turning it back on itself and the press corps, at the urging of the Clinton campaign issued a collective gasp and <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/04/13/unqualified-success-media-manipulation">spent a week insisting</a> Sanders had said Clinton was unqualified to be president and trashing him for it. Sanders was interviewed by editors of the New York Daily News, a paper that endorsed Clinton and characterized Sanders as "a fantasist who's at passionate war with reality," and a question was raised about how Sanders would break up the big banks, a key Sanders issue but one the Daily News editors didn't understand--they <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-daily-news_us_5704779ce4b0a506064d8df5">completely bungled the facts</a> and made it sound as if Sanders didn't know what he was talking about. Much of the rest of the press spent the next few days (at the behest of the Clinton camp) pillorying Sanders as the candidate who can't explain how he'd break up the big banks. This, unlike most of the other examples of press malfeasance, <i>did</i> lead to a bit of a backlash, as people who did understand the matter <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/04/07/bernie-sanders-has-a-plan-to-break-up-the-big-banks/">began to</a> <a href="http://fair.org/home/dc-press-corps-spins-itself-silly-over-sanders-specifics/">come forward</a> and <a href="http://www.salon.com/2016/04/09/bernie_really_does_have_a_plan_to_break_up_the_banks_enough_with_the_handwringing_over_that_daily_news_interview_partner/">point out</a> Sanders had <a href="http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/robert-reich-sanders-knows-how-break-big-banks-thats-why-he-scares-establishment">gotten it right</a> but the damage had been done and that Sanders had made a mess of the issue is a bit of conventional wisdom repeated by Clintonites to this day.</div>
<div class="graf graf--p" name="2cfb">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiaKS8JKFu5i02uWmfUIFppIHgYgeg7fAg9eELNwHd0yPRMS7VVV5IBBeSpdBYeKJxGzjfvmvLAU7Wr9fICb2UHFuDjgVaOfFmdnkFZD3B2qwWTqXTcLEHLZD_GWkMAuFKOyy52DBQbLA/s1600/intank4clintonj.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1303" data-original-width="1600" height="260" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiaKS8JKFu5i02uWmfUIFppIHgYgeg7fAg9eELNwHd0yPRMS7VVV5IBBeSpdBYeKJxGzjfvmvLAU7Wr9fICb2UHFuDjgVaOfFmdnkFZD3B2qwWTqXTcLEHLZD_GWkMAuFKOyy52DBQbLA/s320/intank4clintonj.JPG" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="graf graf--p" name="2cfb">
ABC News' World News Tonight devoted only 4 minutes to coverage of Sanders in 2015, the lowest of any network (three of those minutes were in December). I wrote regularly about ABC News' horrible coverage of the Democratic race, which was almost entirely Clinton-centric, with Sanders only ever making brief cameo appearances as some odd outside force the heroine of the story had to overcome on her way to the presidency. Night after night, ABC's "reports" on the race couldn't have been more pro-Clinton if they'd been produced by the Clinton campaign itself. They, in fact, often looked like Clinton campaign ads. Clinton, for example, was notoriously incapable of drawing crowds. In what seemed a perfect metaphor for the campaign, she would routinely have to address audiences in which the reporters covering her outnumbered the spectators who had come to hear her, while Sanders was drawing the largest crowds of anyone on either side, a constant source of embarrassment for Clinton. In the final WNT report before the Iowa caucus, there was correspondent Cecilia Vega insisting, in an entirely gratuitous fashion, that a huge crowd had gathered to see Clinton and even showing footage of people allegedly waiting on line. "Look at how far back it stretches." I covered <a href="http://corporatenewsreviews.blogspot.com/2016/02/abclinton.html">example after example</a> of this sort of made-to-order pro-Clinton nonsense.</div>
<div class="graf graf--p" name="2cfb">
<br /></div>
<div class="graf graf--p" name="2cfb">
While Clinton's wins were trumpeted, Sanders' wins were regularly pooh-poohed, with some press outlets failing to mention them at all. In the aftermath of the Republican and Democratic contests of 5-6 March, correspondent Tom Llamas took to Good Morning America <a href="http://corporatenewsreviews.blogspot.com/2016/03/abc-news-plays-up-cruz-wins-disappears.html">to report</a> "<span data-offset-key="hmf2-0-0"><span data-text="true">a seismic weekend for the
Republican field, Sen. Ted Cruz having a super Saturday, winning two
states and taking the most delegates." Cruz had won 2 out of 5 contests. At the same time, Sanders took 3 of the weekend's 4 contests, including racking up <i>much</i> more impressive wins in <i>the same states</i> as Cruz plus Nebraska and also took the most delegates but while Cruz is covered as having had a "seismic weekend," Llamas doesn't even mention two of Sanders' three victories and dismisses the only one he opts to cover (</span></span><span data-offset-key="hmf2-0-0"><span data-text="true">"but Clinton [is] still way ahead when it comes to delegates."). On 26 March, Sanders completely destroyed Clinton in Hawaii, Washington and Alaska, the latest wins in a streak in which he'd taken 6 of the last 7 contests; instead of live election coverage, MSNBC and CNN <a href="http://fair.org/home/as-sanders-surges-cable-news-runs-prison-reality-show-jesus-documentary/">opted to show</a>, respectively, re-runs of a prison reality-show and a documentary about Jesus.</span></span></div>
<div class="graf graf--p" name="2cfb">
<span data-offset-key="hmf2-0-0"><span data-text="true"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="graf graf--p" name="2cfb">
<span data-offset-key="hmf2-0-0"><span data-text="true">The Democratic superdelegates are party insiders who, though not elected by anyone, are each granted the same standing at the party nominating convention as thousands of actual voters. A super doesn't vote until the convention and he's free to change his mind at any point up to then but press outlets insisted on ubiquitously including those supers who had expressed a preference in the various delegate counts. Hillary Clinton sewed up a massive portion of this Establishment good ol' boys club before any real voters had spoken and the improper inclusion of the supers in these counts made Clinton look unbeatable. Even DNC chief Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a Clinton partisan who collaborated with the Clinton campaign to tilt the primary process in Clinton's favor, publicly noted that the press was misrepresenting the race by this practice. <a href="http://corporatenewsreviews.blogspot.com/2016/03/super-misrepresentation-of.html">But it continued anyway</a> until, the day before the 2nd-biggest round of contests on the Democratic calendar, the press <a href="http://corporatenewsreviews.blogspot.com/2016/06/the-associated-press-tries-to-decide.html">used the supers to declare</a> the Democratic race closed and Clinton the nominee, one of the more brazen and outrageous media interventions in an electoral contests in memory.</span></span></div>
<div class="graf graf--p" name="2cfb">
<span data-offset-key="hmf2-0-0"><span data-text="true"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="graf graf--p" name="2cfb">
<span data-offset-key="hmf2-0-0"><span data-text="true">Clinton's only significant critical coverage throughout this process was over her private email server while she was Secretary of State but as Endymion notes, the reason this so persistently stayed in the news is because Clinton refused to be honest about it. Practically everything she said about the matter was a lie and with every new revelation proving the last lie, she'd simply introduce another that would then blow up in similar fashion.</span></span></div>
<div class="graf graf--p" name="2cfb">
<span data-offset-key="hmf2-0-0"><span data-text="true"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="graf graf--p" name="2cfb">
<span data-offset-key="hmf2-0-0"><span data-text="true">On her current book tour, Clinton is correct in her assertion that Trump was boosted by the press. From his entrance into the race, Trump was getting many times the coverage of anyone else. But as Endymion notes, it's hardly proper to let Clinton go from show to show complaining about this given that it was the official policy of her campaign right from the beginning <a href="http://www.salon.com/2016/11/09/the-hillary-clinton-campaign-intentionally-created-donald-trump-with-its-pied-piper-strategy/">to pump up Trump's candidacy</a>. The Clinton camp asked for this, the press, which had done everything to pump up her own weak, loser candidacy, was happy to oblige. And now, as the woman who is more responsible than anyone for inflicting Trump on the U.S., returns to the public eye to pimp a book of lies <a href="http://stuffdept.blogspot.com/2017/09/clinton-happened.html">aimed at absolving herself of any real responsibility</a> for anything that happened in the campaign, well, the press is happy to provide a friendly platform for that too.</span></span></div>
<div class="graf graf--p" name="2cfb">
<span data-offset-key="hmf2-0-0"><span data-text="true"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="graf graf--p" name="2cfb">
<span data-offset-key="hmf2-0-0"><span data-text="true">--j.</span></span></div>
cinemarchaeologisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13507603255666191405noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6321344375544728027.post-25403209898718429082017-07-07T19:54:00.000-07:002018-10-19T23:22:30.664-07:00IntoleranceThis is a popular internet meme:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjy39TF-6uYo98dpYlPKb3gX55QjCTofk9Zum85pW_mcCZZQ0P9SDficTZzzECcvO7WX0nefwxiQH8DVFQSu1ApTfvsvgGQ3n2xcpaMWHY4sXnq9F-3YfpC3OOGCtXxwA6jyFEPFw4lgQ/s1600/tolerant.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="360" data-original-width="346" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjy39TF-6uYo98dpYlPKb3gX55QjCTofk9Zum85pW_mcCZZQ0P9SDficTZzzECcvO7WX0nefwxiQH8DVFQSu1ApTfvsvgGQ3n2xcpaMWHY4sXnq9F-3YfpC3OOGCtXxwA6jyFEPFw4lgQ/s400/tolerant.png" width="382" /></a></div>
<br />
It's been around for years, one of these things that has become such a staple that no one even remembers where it started. If you've spent any time talking politics on Facebook, you've seen it a million times. A few years ago, I guess I saw it one too many times and opted to use it to turn the mirror on those who so ubiquitously posted it:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg8ht7pULcq4mM2s-oMDhDad05Xbysb0FB8FexccxTWJKYO42WiK74zRdQtx2nwIv219ApmI_xeldPhwWVjl7blSstu6nSzaB6lxZREOPDil_MSvo5hlLV0imK4AneM_fzWcSQoMUFFWA/s1600/tolerantconservative.TIF" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="717" data-original-width="553" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg8ht7pULcq4mM2s-oMDhDad05Xbysb0FB8FexccxTWJKYO42WiK74zRdQtx2nwIv219ApmI_xeldPhwWVjl7blSstu6nSzaB6lxZREOPDil_MSvo5hlLV0imK4AneM_fzWcSQoMUFFWA/s640/tolerantconservative.TIF" width="491" /></a></div>
<br />
A truism: Tolerance necessarily involves a disdain for intolerant points of view. That's baked into its basic premise. On the internet, though, where everyone's favorite charge against those with whom they disagree is "hypocrisy," this basic liberal virtue tends to be portrayed by conservatives and rightists as, in itself, intolerant. Everywhere, we see expressions of mindless hatred of Muslims, LGBT folks, immigrants, etc. and anyone who speaks against this and stands up for the pluralistic liberal society is, for doing so, tagged as intolerant and thus a hypocrite. Hating Nazis is the same as being a Nazi.<br />
<br />
The idea that standing against intolerance is, itself, intolerance is, of course, strictly Orwellian but it's a narrative the right-wing Rage Machine has peddled relentlessly. The Rage Machine--nearly every major rightist outlet in the U.S.--fosters a cult of aggrievement among its followers, relentlessly drilling into their heads that they're persecuted by the liberal society. The rise of Donald Trump, a protofascist who openly promotes hatred against Muslims, immigrants and other marginalized groups and who, as a presidential candidate, repeatedly encouraged violence against those who protested against him, didn't encourage any pause, any soul-searching; the Rage Machine simply doubled down on the doublethink. According to the Machine, it wasn't the orange clown on stage who was weaving vile hate-fantasies about thousands of American Muslims gleefully celebrating the 9/11 attacks or offering to pay the legal bills of his followers if they beat up anti-Trump demonstrators. He wasn't the one who was intolerant. Rather, it was those objecting to such things.<br />
<br />
Riding the Trump train, alt-right shitbag Milo Yiannopoulos became, for about 15 minutes, a major rock-star on the right. Yiannopoulos was a troll in the truest sense, a cynical purveyor of hatred whose celebrity was based solely on saying vile, outrageous things <a href="https://arcdigital.media/the-anti-pc-revolt-and-the-milo-problem-3111b6d63811">he, himself, didn't even believe</a> but that the right absolutely <i>loved</i> to hear. He barely even pretended to have any substantive message; he simply gamed the poisonous outrage culture on the right for fun and profit for as long as he could. He worked at alt-right sewer Breitbart, an outlet that loves to harp on "liberal intolerance" while <a href="http://fair.org/home/a-guided-tour-of-the-alt-right-by-the-trump-campaign-chiefs-website/">acting as a sympathetic platform</a> for white nationalists and other <i>actual</i> hatemongers. Breitbart had a great racket going with Yiannopoulos, a perfect feedback loop wherein it financed his "Dangerous Faggot" tour as it rolled through institutions of higher learning in 2016 and 2017 then used the outrage it provoked as examples of the "hate and intolerance" of liberals on college campuses, a theme that was then picked up across right-wing media.<br />
<br />
In these appearances, Yiannopoulos was as content-free as ever--in the name of "free speech," he simply attacked rape victims, Muslims, black activists, immigrants, transgendered people and anyone who objected to Milo Yiannopoulos, <a href="http://www.salon.com/2016/12/19/trolling-in-the-name-of-free-speech-how-milo-yiannopoulos-built-an-empire-off-violent-harassment/">including students on the campus</a>. He'd come to command an army of admiring trolls and took great relish in unleashing them to harass and bully his targets (in the midst of this, he'd been kicked from Twitter after promoting the ugly, racist harassment of actress Leslie Jones). In January, anti-Milo demonstrations at UC Davis convinced the campus College Republicans to cancel their scheduled event. Yannopoulos took to Facebook to assert it had been cancelled "after violence from left-wing protestors," but there had been no violence of any kind (presenting any protest as "violence" is a standard feature of this particular narrative). Shortly after that, a man was shot outside another of Milo's appearances, this time at the University of Washington. Inside, Yiannopoulos implied it was one of his fans who'd gotten plugged. "<span style="font-weight: 400;">If I stopped my event now," he told the assembled, "we are
sending a clear message that they can stop our events by killing people.
I am not prepared to do that." In reality, the victim was an anti-Milo protester;</span> a pair of Yiannopoulos fans took a gun to the event, bragging on social media about how they were looking for a fight, and shot the fellow in the stomach.<br />
<br />
T<span style="font-weight: 400;">he incident went virtually unreported in the corporate press (and Breitbart, following Yiannopoulos' lead, left readers with the impression it was a Milo fan who had been shot) but it seems to have become the straw that broke the camel's back. When, shortly after this, Yiannopoulos brought his shit-show to the University of California, Berkeley, there were the usual protests but after most of the demonstrators had left, masked anti-fascists descended on the site, destroyed some property and succeeded in getting the event cancelled.</span><br />
<span style="font-weight: 400;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-weight: 400;">For much of right-wing media, this was manna from Heaven and the incident was quickly fashioned into a bloody shirt that continues to be waved about today, even long after Yiannopoulos' downfall--the symbol of violent, intolerant liberals shutting down conservative speech. That fantasy runs all over any sort of reasoned evaluation of the incident. There's the usual insistence on portraying everyone from center-right Democrats to communist radicals as "liberals," the misrepresentation of property-damage as "violence," the deliberate refusal to distinguish between the great mass of regular demonstrators, with whom there was no issue, and the handful of radical anti-fascists who broke stuff and, of course, none of the context offered here re: Yiannopoulos, his tour, the shooting, etc. It was all about how Berkeley, the birthplace of the Free Speech Movement, now stood opposed to same. Donald Trump took to Twitter to threaten to cut off federal funding to the institution, one of the top research universities in the United States, over these incident, over which the university had no control at all. Yiannopoulos was elevated to the status of a free-speech martyr.[1]</span><br />
<span style="font-weight: 400;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-weight: 400;">Milo self-destructed shortly after this. A tape surfaced in which he made warm, jokey comments regarding pedophilia and he became instantly radioactive--fired from Breitbart, his six-figure book-contract cancelled and he's mercifully slunk back under whatever obscure rock from which he'd originally crawled out. The narrative he helped to build and feed, however, continues, aided by much of the regular corporate press, which followed the rightist media in taking the anti-fascist radicals to task for their alleged anti-free-speech attitudes.</span><br />
<span style="font-weight: 400;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-weight: 400;">The Trump regime has <a href="http://corporatenewsreviews.blogspot.com/2017/02/trump-fascism-appendices.html">emboldened the white supremacist/Nazi/fascist subculture</a>--what has now been rebranded the alt-right--to an extent that hasn't happened in the lifetime of most reading these words today. Radical anti-fascists--antifa--have long confronted such elements in the streets and the presence of this emboldened alt-right has led to greater antifa visibility. While the right-wing press has gleefully exploited this development to continue its ridiculous narrative about violent, intolerant liberals, much of the rest of the corporate press has, mostly through laziness, often aided that same narrative. When, in April, violence erupted at a pro-Trump "free speech" rally in Berkeley, for example, much of the press portrayed this as merely a clash between pro-Trump and anti-Trump demonstrators. An <a href="http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a54564/the-violent-clashes-in-berkeley-werent-pro-trump-versus-anti-trump/">important article in Esquire</a> took these outlets to task for failing to get at the real story: the rally had been organized by the alt-right, featured overt white nationalists as speakers and "</span>explicitly racist groups and individuals were present in force." Some of those racists had, for weeks in advance, <a href="https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/4/15/1653482/-Berkeley-Violence-Was-Pre-Planned-by-Deplorables">openly bragged</a> about planning to instigate violence at the event. Antifa counter-demonstrators showed up to oppose these elements, not to brawl with a bunch of ordinary Donald Trump fans.<br />
<br />
At the same time, liberals have, contrary to the Rage Machine's narrative, largely joined much of the corporate press in condemning antifa activists. Antifa activists seek, through direct action, to deny fascists any platform, noting--correctly--that fascism is, by its very nature, a direct threat to marginalized communities and to the freedom and safety of all. For ordinary American liberals, this simply cuts too sharply against the grain of their traditions of free speech as a thing that must be upheld for even the most deplorable elements, and the kind of street-brawling in which antifa activists sometimes engage is seen as an unacceptable breakdown of civil society (whereas hate and fascism apparently are not). The notion that hate isn't entitled to free speech protection is rarely given any serious consideration in the U.S. but it's actually a mainstream view in most of the rest of the advanced industrialized world. It's a legitimate position and an arguable case but, for reasons good and bad, not one most American liberals are presently willing to entertain.<br />
<br />
On the other hand, the Trumpanzee right's ubiquitous portrayal of antifa (and the "liberals" it ludicrously associates with same) as fascist brownshirts is a complete inversion of reality. Antifa battles--and, in fact, <i>exists</i> to battle--<i>actual</i> brownshirts, people who heil Hitler, wave swastikas and openly stand against every notion of freedom, democracy and basic human rights that civilized peoples hold dear, but for the Rage Machine, acknowledging this would mean sacrificing a narrative it has too successfully milked to simply abandon. It also runs counter to several other false but long-running Rage Machine narratives, like the notion that fascists are "leftists" and white supremacists "liberals." If antifa is acknowledged to battle such elements, it can no longer be made a stand-in for "liberals" in a tale in which violent liberals try to repress conservative speech and it would instead become necessary to explain why lefties are battling lefties and, by extension, how one of those groups, who are rightist Trump supporters, are still actually somehow "lefties" and... well, you get the picture. The Rage Machine's sole product is anti-rationality and hate designed to keep its audience worked up into a perpetual lather and after it has spent all these years explaining the world to its ill-informed followers by way of a series of fantasies, it becomes more and more difficult to ever tell the truth about anything.<br />
<br />
Donald Trump's hate-speech, his encouragement of violence during the
campaign, his protofascism energized a much broader movement of street protests
against his candidacy then against his regime and the Rage Machine has also used this as part of its ongoing narrative. Protests, which are exercises of free speech, are presented as attacks on free speech, demonstrations equated with violence and the kind of scuffles that often break out around the edges of such demonstrations are magnified a millionfold by the rightist echo-chamber, held up as outrageous examples of liberaldom's intolerance. Trump's tale, mentioned earlier, about thousands of American Muslims celebrating in the streets of Jersey City on 9/11 is devoid of any content; it's just a lie aimed at fostering hatred of a politically powerless minority--a fraction of 1% of the population--and justifying repressive government measures against them. The same is true, to cite another example, of Trump's lie about millions of illegal immigrants voting in the last presidential election. While elements of the Machine have acknowledged these are false, no weight it given to them or to the very negative consequences they could have for those targeted by them. To maintain the narrative about intolerant liberals, the Machine has to take the position that these sorts of monstrous lies, deliberately aimed at fostering intolerance, justify no significant reaction by people of good conscience, because if the liberals protesting Trump for such things have a legitimate beef, the wind goes out of the sails of that narrative. Trump's encouragement of violence against demonstrations sparked by his own misbehavior elicited no real condemnation either. The ugly truth is that the Machine itself has spent years
deploying similar lies aimed at demonizing Muslims, immigrants and the other groups targeted by Trump, including liberals. Trump is merely a reflection of this. In their condemnation of "liberal intolerance," the talking heads of the Machine appeal to a particular standard of civil behavior and attempt to apply it to counter-Trump liberals while refusing to apply it to either Trump or to themselves.<br />
<br />
There's that hypocrisy thing again. Hmm...<br />
<br />
--j.<br />
<br />
---<br />
<br />
Post Script - Anecdotal: This writer is all over Facebook in the last few
years. I run or admin many groups, participate in many others, and by
far the most persistent lament I've encountered from those who attempt
to recruit people for political discussion is that it's almost
impossible to find quality conservatives and rightists. Whether its a
consequence of very bad luck or something about the personalities of
righties drawn to discuss public affairs on the internet or on that
particular platform or whatever, n<span data-offset-key="fg115-0-0"><span data-text="true">early
all of them turn out to be angry reactionary demagogues who merely
parrot whatever nonsense they get from the Rage Machine that day and who
are as ill-informed as they are utterly hostile to the expression of
any other point of view. And they tend to author a whole lot of posts
about "liberal intolerance" too. It's relatively easy to find good
liberals and leftists (and, to be fair, easy to find bad ones too);
finding good righties is like finding unicorns.</span></span><br />
<br />
---<br />
<br />
[1] Though his legitimate free-speech rights were in no way violated. No one has a constitutional right to a platform; no provision of the Bill of Rights entitles one to speak at a school that doesn't want you. The Rage Machine's persistent misrepresentation on this point justifies more than just a footnote but that's where I'm putting it anyway, so there.cinemarchaeologisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13507603255666191405noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6321344375544728027.post-52901246834791543332017-03-16T00:08:00.001-07:002017-03-16T09:26:17.330-07:00Media Complicit In Trump's Terror Tall-TaleA major preoccupation of Donald Trump's protofascist project is to portray America as under siege by brown people from foreign shores, and among the many lies and misrepresentations offered by Trump in his February speech to congress, the "president" asserted,<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"According to data provided by the Department of Justice, the vast
majority of individuals convicted for terrorism-related offenses since
9/11 came here from outside of our country."</blockquote>
The Associated Press <a href="https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2017/02/28/fact-checking-president-trump-speech-congress/LzIQpLRmBzUkH1OOCXKAdJ/story.html">partially checked this claim</a>, concluding:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"It’s unclear what Justice Department data he’s citing, but the most
recent government information that has come out doesn’t back up his
claim. Just over half the people Trump talks about were actually born in
the United States, according to Homeland Security Department research
revealed last week. That report said of 82 people the government
determined were inspired by a foreign terrorist group to attempt or
carry out an attack in the U.S., just over half were native-born
citizens.<br />
<br />
"Even the attacks Trump singled out weren’t entirely the
work of foreigners. Syed Rizwan Farook, who along with his Pakistani
wife killed 14 people in the deadly 2015 attack in San Bernardino,
California, was born in Chicago."</blockquote>
As fact-checks go, this falls significantly short of exposing the enormity of this particular Trump lie. Trump's claim was about "those convicted for terrorism-related offenses" in general, not just terrorist acts committed by those "inspired by a foreign terrorist group." Beyond the fact-check, the false impression Trump is perpetually trying to create with these sorts of claims is an even bigger lie. Most terrorism in the U.S. isn't committed by foreigners. It isn't even committed by American-born Jihadist rightists. It's committed by domestic <i>non</i>-Jihadist rightists, who, since 9/11, have launched more terrorist attacks, have killed more people and have been involved in more plots that were broken up by law enforcement before they could come to fruition. Numbers differ, as different sources use different methodologies and definitions of terrorism, but that's the conclusion of <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/14/opinion/bergen-sterman-kansas-shooting/">those</a> <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/16/opinion/the-other-terror-threat.html">who have</a> <a href="http://www.newsweek.com/2016/02/12/right-wing-extremists-militants-bigger-threat-america-isis-jihadists-422743.html">studied</a> the matter.<br />
<br />
Earlier this month, a trio of academics released <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2928138">a new study</a> of media coverage of terror attacks that puts some hard numbers to some obvious media trends. Monday, its authors published <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/03/13/yes-the-media-do-underreport-some-terrorist-attacks-just-not-the-ones-most-people-think-of/?utm_term=.e693381909e3">an accompanying article in the Washington Post</a>. A few weeks ago, they write in the Post, Trump's administration "had provided a list of terrorist attacks it <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/02/06/president-trump-is-now-speculating-that-the-media-is-covering-up-terrorist-attacks/?utm_term=.b23ffe5a9113">claimed were underreported by the news media.</a> The list primarily included attacks by Muslim perpetrators." Trump furthering his false narrative. In their study, the academics explain, they examined coverage of terrorist attacks in the U.S. listed in the Global Terrorism Database over a five-year period and coverage of those attacks from American print sources in the LexisNexis database and CNN.com--nearly 2,500 articles in all. Their findings:<br />
<br />
--A whopping 87.6% of the terrorist attacks in the timeframe studied were carried out by non-Muslims (or by perpetrators unknown).<br />
<br />
--Muslims, on the other hand, perpetrated only 12.4% of the attacks. Foreign-born Muslims committed only 5% of total attacks.<br />
<br />
--Nevertheless, 32% of total news coverage was devoted to the 5% of attacks by foreign-born Muslims and overall, 44% of coverage was devoted to the 12.4% of attacks carried out by Muslims in general.<br />
<br />
--"In real numbers, the average attack with a Muslim perpetrator is covered
in 90.8 articles. Attacks with a Muslim, foreign-born perpetrator are
covered in 192.8 articles on average. Compare this with other attacks [by non-Muslims],
which received an average of 18.1 articles."<br />
<br />
--27% of attacks received no coverage at all in the sources studied.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi8vJkoScYAiWM2xftks9VoU50NAQnLXIVa4w5vqIxncXpLPSMzR1tPiA99VmX5xEWB3t6xYhZvqAIFafv4xhBNOluQjKqI-vRIO2GZ-Dip_DDbM3nOWr4CkT7pqSc8QYw5mCtgUEzsIg/s1600/washpostchart1.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="260" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi8vJkoScYAiWM2xftks9VoU50NAQnLXIVa4w5vqIxncXpLPSMzR1tPiA99VmX5xEWB3t6xYhZvqAIFafv4xhBNOluQjKqI-vRIO2GZ-Dip_DDbM3nOWr4CkT7pqSc8QYw5mCtgUEzsIg/s640/washpostchart1.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi7lsBKfDf-fuCN4YUWcDfTOFC9sB1tK6Zb3j97AkmOYDzFPBVmeHJGcDJt3doQaRs7ueQ0_kZTln93zs5eMvB00FRYwAxqU4B2abf6x7rDfNUfy2NTu8NHhJ9Uihrrs9G_iRUiygvyBg/s1600/washpostchart2.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="259" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi7lsBKfDf-fuCN4YUWcDfTOFC9sB1tK6Zb3j97AkmOYDzFPBVmeHJGcDJt3doQaRs7ueQ0_kZTln93zs5eMvB00FRYwAxqU4B2abf6x7rDfNUfy2NTu8NHhJ9Uihrrs9G_iRUiygvyBg/s640/washpostchart2.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgo22OUcpKpG2pFLJteMMWr-ND97Ou1ESNp-vrguohX4_zRfmh12M3TnsKlsCYtNwktMPlH6paeewMAamE1ph4jpkonStNUYDc4WFFPr4J_UuShYfpVwumSwmK0XT1f8PjunDcEm9UPeg/s1600/washpostchart3.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="387" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgo22OUcpKpG2pFLJteMMWr-ND97Ou1ESNp-vrguohX4_zRfmh12M3TnsKlsCYtNwktMPlH6paeewMAamE1ph4jpkonStNUYDc4WFFPr4J_UuShYfpVwumSwmK0XT1f8PjunDcEm9UPeg/s640/washpostchart3.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
This puts some numbers behind some things this author has been pointing out for years. Media coverage significantly distorts Americans' perceptions of terrorism, with potentially very negative consequences. Just last month, Adam Johnson of Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting <a href="http://fair.org/home/how-corporate-media-paved-the-way-for-trumps-muslim-ban/">noted</a> how "corporate media paved the way for Trump's Muslim ban" by this very behavior. Trump makes a show of despising the press but he's able to perpetuate this particular fraud because of it.<br />
<br />
--j.cinemarchaeologisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13507603255666191405noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6321344375544728027.post-84559563589529252722017-03-07T21:22:00.000-08:002018-01-31T20:20:22.184-08:00Fact-Checkers Likely Understate the Magnitude of Trump's Latest LieAnother day, another slanderous lie from Donald Trump. It's hard to keep up. Today, while the press commentariat is still all achatter about Trump's utterly baseless claim that last year, President Obama was wiretapping his campaign, Trump took to his Twitter account--the official Twitter account of the President of the United States--to <a href="https://twitter.com/POTUS/status/839099211266285568?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">offer up his newest fiction</a>:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg5hnnIkvT7rFj4c5penQdSbRZVnVanH2nLcrgFVSCLaTix9D_oi3hyphenhyphenLsKnZvC-SjmuQC_T4XTMZFfSjEwjkuQC3Y4IHWqOYYajbeHXbNBYE1D96hhyphenhyphenvpvwRtWVn0It8XUyONXfZG5Rrw/s1600/trumptweetgitmo.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="342" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg5hnnIkvT7rFj4c5penQdSbRZVnVanH2nLcrgFVSCLaTix9D_oi3hyphenhyphenLsKnZvC-SjmuQC_T4XTMZFfSjEwjkuQC3Y4IHWqOYYajbeHXbNBYE1D96hhyphenhyphenvpvwRtWVn0It8XUyONXfZG5Rrw/s640/trumptweetgitmo.PNG" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
Trump gave no source for his claim but he made it half an hour after Fox News' Fox & Friends account had passed along a Fox News segment in which the same assertion had been made. Fill in the standard appropriate disbelief/bemusement/horror at the President of the United States, with all the resources of the U.S. government at his command, getting his "information" instead from political fantasists like Fox News. Right-wing figures have made similar claims about former Guantanamo prisoners for years. The fact-checkers went to work on this one today but while they refuted part of Trump's claim, they uncritically employed extremely dubious information provided by the government, information past analysis suggests grossly inflates actual recidivism by Guantanamo detainees.<br />
<br />
Rebecca Shahab at <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-incorrectly-claims-122-gitmo-detainees-released-under-obama-returned-to-battlefield/">CBS New</a>s:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"The number [122] appears to stem from <a href="https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/FINAL%20-%20GTMO%20Unclass%20CDA%20Response%20-%20September%202016.pdf" target="_blank">a report released last September from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence</a>,
but the report clearly indicates that 122 of the 693 detainees, or
about 18 percent, released under both George W. Bush and Obama
administrations reengaged.<br />
<br />
"A bulk of those detainees that returned
to the battlefield, however, were released under the Bush
administration, before the U.S. set up an interagency screening and
hearing process for each prisoner. The report says that of the 532
detainees released from the detention facility under Bush, 113 returned
to the battlefield, or about 21 percent.<br />
<br />
"Under Obama, 161
detainees were transferred from Guantanamo Bay and only 9 have been
confirmed to have reengaged and returned to the battlefield. That’s just
under 6 percent of the total transferred since 2009.<br />
<br />
"Of the
combined total 122 that returned to the battlefield under both Bush and
Obama, the report says that 30 are dead, 25 are in custody and 67 are
not in custody."</blockquote>
Shahab's use of Trump's word "released" is potentially problematic, as those who are "released" are, in fact, transferred to the control of foreign governments, not, as that word implies, simply set free.<br />
<br />
FactCheck.Org's Robert Farley used the same report (but also the same problematic wording), <a href="http://www.factcheck.org/2017/03/trumps-false-gitmo-blame/">concluding</a> that Trump's claim was "simply false"; the overwhelming majority of those 122 were released by the Bush administration.[1]<br />
<br />
Politifact's Lauren Carroll <a href="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/mar/07/donald-trump/donald-trump-wrongly-blames-barack-obama-former-gu/">uses the same figures</a>: over 92% of those "the government believes have returned to some sort of terrorist activity" were transferred under Bush. On the terminology, Carroll, to her credit, is more careful and quotes DePaul University counterrorism professor Thomas Mockaitis pointing out that "many of those released are handed over to foreign states who assume responsibility for them." Carroll also references a 2014 report by the New America Foundation which investigated confirmed or suspected "militant activity" by former detainees and could only confirm 1/3 of the cases claimed by the government at the time.<br />
<br />
Rather than spurring further investigation, that last bit of info is just left to lie there unexamined while Carroll rates Trump's claim "mostly false."<br />
<br />
The government's claims with regard to recidivism by former Guantanamo detainees, which have been made in a periodically-issued report for many years, have long been called into serious question. The Center for Policy and Research at the Seton Hall University School of Law, which has released <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Denbeaux#Center_for_Policy_and_Research.2C_Guantanamo_Reports">over 15 reports</a> on issues related to the detainees, has tackled the recidivism claims repeatedly.[2] Among other things, the government can't document most of its claims of recidivism. It consistently makes sweeping assertions regarding this matter while refusing to name most of the alleged recidivists or provide any real information on their alleged recidivism. The material cited by the fact-checkers are just asserted numbers. Empty claims, and not consistent ones either--the number of asserted recidivists goes up and down over the years.[3] With regard to the much smaller group who <i>have</i> actually been named, the government's assertions are rife with problems. Contradictions abound. While "recidivist" clearly suggests someone who was guilty of some past offense returning to commit further offenses, <a href="http://law.shu.edu/publications/guantanamoReports/guantanamo_report_final_2_08_06.pdf">most of the Guantanamo detainees</a>--55%--were "not determined to have committed any hostile acts against the United States or its coalition allies," which shouldn't be surprising given the fact that only 5% of them were captured by U.S. forces in the first place; the rest were, instead, turned over by third parties in exchange for U.S.-provided bounties on those who were supposed to be al Qaida or Taliban fighters. In so impoverished a country as Afghanistan, a get-rich-quick scheme. Some named were, <a href="http://law.shu.edu/ProgramsCenters/PublicIntGovServ/policyresearch/loader.cfm?csModule=security/getfile&pageid=285565">in fact</a>, never detained at Guantanamo at all. For years, the government conflated numbers on those whom it asserted had committed actual recidivist offenses and those merely suspected of doing so, admitting that some of the claims were based on unconfirmed, single-source reporting. Makes the number look bigger, see? For a long time, the government even identified as recidivists those who had merely written articles critical of their own detention or had publicly spoken out against same, a policy now discontinued but one that, like most of the rest of this, speaks to the bad faith of the government's claims. Remarkably, "the government admitted that its primary <span class="highlight selected">sourc</span>e of information was reporting by the press, not government intelligence," which makes the refusal to provide names to go with most of the claims even more suspect, as the names of everyone who had been detained at Guantanamo have been public information for years.[4]<br />
<br />
To put the matter bluntly, the government's claims in this matter are <i>bullshit</i>. They've been bullshit for over a decade.<br />
<br />
So while the fact-checkers have refuted part of Trump's claim, the dubious nature of the information on which those refutations rest--and which the fact-checkers mostly ignore--suggest the scale of his lie may be much larger than even those refutations suggest.<br />
<br />
--j.<br />
<br />
---<br />
<br />
[1] Farley further notes that the Trump regime made a similar claim only a few weeks ago and was corrected by FactCheck then as well:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"On Feb. 22, <a href="http://www.factcheck.org/2017/02/trump-officials-misplaced-gitmo-blame/">we wrote</a>,
Sebastian Gorka, a deputy assistant to the president, wrongly suggested
that a released Guantanamo Bay detainee responsible for a recent
suicide bombing in Iraq was released by Obama. He was transferred from
Gitmo in 2004 under President Bush. Gorka also wrongly claimed that
among detainees released by Obama, 'almost half the time, they returned
to the battlefield.' According to the Office of the Director of National
Intelligence, about 12.4 percent of those transferred from Gitmo under
Obama are either confirmed or suspected of reengaging.<br />
<br />
"As we noted then, most of the former Gitmo detainees who are now
suspected or confirmed to have reengaged were transferred or released
under President Bush. Bush transferred a higher number of detainees--532 compared to 161 under Obama--and they have been reengaging (or are
suspected of reengaging) at a higher rate — 35 percent compared to 12.4
percent under Obama. That may change over time, but those were the
percentages as of last July."</blockquote>
[2] As those reports have been released over the years, they've been almost entirely ignored by the corporate press. Having the fact-checkers now ignore them is, unfortunately, nothing new.<br />
<br />
[3] The Center's March 2012 <a href="http://law.shu.edu/ProgramsCenters/PublicIntGovServ/policyresearch/loader.cfm?csModule=security/getfile&pageid=285565">report</a> even makes a chart of these shifting claims over three years:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgwH_IvWK8-kB9XwI5SgunGQWnDKhH0c9SdxTvTF-zLr68dz_VTuUevcFDqymxlqjSiCqjLOQyjjxOtdqbxjwKX4kwKTfiA0G01S9al-l3e00LpvHXndLWIeRlvGtIcsJyCc_f66JxUvg/s1600/gitmorecidivistclaims.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="338" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgwH_IvWK8-kB9XwI5SgunGQWnDKhH0c9SdxTvTF-zLr68dz_VTuUevcFDqymxlqjSiCqjLOQyjjxOtdqbxjwKX4kwKTfiA0G01S9al-l3e00LpvHXndLWIeRlvGtIcsJyCc_f66JxUvg/s640/gitmorecidivistclaims.PNG" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
[4] Even if one takes the government's worst-case assertions at face value, most detainees who were transferred have never become "recidivists." The actual documented cases of subsequent offenses are a much smaller number. The focus on alleged recidivists, rather than the bulk of detainees who aren't known to have ever committed any offense, is political, aimed at justifying the continuing existence of the GTMO detention facility when the known facts actually show it's been used to lock up people for years on end who have never been any threat to anyone.cinemarchaeologisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13507603255666191405noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6321344375544728027.post-42186267547729421232017-02-15T10:38:00.000-08:002017-03-25T21:40:09.896-07:00Politico Targets Democratic "Lurch To The Left"Much of the corporate press tends to worship at the altar of the political "center," which it always defines as well to the right of the public. Call it the alt-center. In the 2016 presidential cycle, Bernie Sanders found himself on the receiving end of the usual press treatment dished out to liberal or left political candidates who present themselves to the public; news media spent most of a year trying to ignore him to death then when he didn't die, tried to actively destroy his candidacy with relentless attacks. While Democratic politicans have been moving to the right for decades, one manifestations of this alt-center-ism is that mainstream pundits always portray them as too liberal and always counsel them to "move to the right." This has become a rather long-running joke. Liberal media watchdog Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting <a href="http://fair.org/extra/conventional-wisdom/" target="_blank">has</a> <a href="http://fair.org/extra/move-to-the-right-2/" target="_blank">tracked</a> <a href="http://fair.org/extra/move-over8212over-and-over/" target="_blank">the</a> <a href="http://fair.org/take-action/media-advisories/media-misreading-midterms/" target="_blank">trend</a> <a href="http://fair.org/extra/pushing-obama-to-pull-a-clinton/" target="_blank">for</a> <a href="http://fair.org/home/nyts-false-choice-for-democrats-move-to-the-right-or-divide-by-race/" target="_blank">decades</a>.<br />
<br />
The alt-center struck again this morning in <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/poll-trump-democrats-elizabeth-warren-235026" target="_blank">a Politico story</a> based on a new Politico/Morning Consult poll:<br />
<br />
"Donald Trump begins his presidency facing unprecedented
polling headwinds: Roughly a quarter of voters think Donald Trump is the
worst president in the last century. Forty-three percent of voters are
ready to vote for a nameless Democrat in 2020, while just over a third
say they'll vote for Trump."<br />
<br />
What possible point could there be, the reader may ask, in polling on a potential 2020 presidential race in February 2017? Well, in his next paragraph, Politico's Jake Sherman tells you:<br />
<br />
"But, in the fourth week of Trump's presidency, a new
POLITICO/Morning Consult poll shows that Democrats could be in trouble--and Trump could triumph--if they continues their lurch to the left."<br />
<br />
Readers not hobbled by alt-centerist assumptions--or who just pay any more than minimal attention to public affairs--will immediately ask, what "lurch to the left"? In the just-concluded presidential election, Democrats didn't go with the left candidate; they ran the far-too-conservative opportunist. The aftermath of Clinton's defeat hasn't, so far, resulted in any radical changes either. Senate Democrats chose Wall Street shill Chuck Schumer as their leader (to replace the retiring Harry Reid), while House Demos went with the same tired old line-up as before, including Nancy Pelosi at the top, a "leader" who, in the immediate aftermath of the election, <a href="http://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/laurieroberts/2016/12/05/roberts-nancy-pelosi-delusional/95004452/" target="_blank">went on nationwide television and said</a> she didn't think people wanted a new direction for her party.<br />
<br />
But while there is no "lurch to the left," there is a growing debate about the direction of the Democratic party--continue pursuing rightist economic policies in order to suck up to Big Money sources for donations or pursue a more liberal course more in line with the views of the <a href="http://corporatenewsreviews.blogspot.com/2016/01/bernie-sanders-unelectable-bolshevik-or.html" target="_blank">overwhelming majority</a> of the public?<br />
<br />
That's the debate on which Politico just weighed in, in an article that is, on this point, editorializing in the guise of reportage. A poll on a potential 2020 presidential contest is meaningless but Politico's presentation of its results, while serving one side of that internal Democratic debate, is also fraudulent. Digging into <a href="https://morningconsult.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/170202_topline_Politico_v2_AG.pdf" target="_blank">the actual polling results</a>, one finds that Morning Consult also asked respondents if they had a favorable or unfavorable view of Elizabeth Warren; 34% had either never heard of her or had heard her name but as yet lacked sufficient knowledge to have any opinion of her.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiK07hmCEgXx7ZQS-HUxzWpyib3Z3E5eVkyakrYlE-9ZSJyIWyg3LPdTB5WwA12odc-SYdiqCn2X8IeuCWQEVXw8O5hOJbacDcwlUiK4I6_Nv7Eoaz-WkRbL3Avg3Y-2XODJcxTPmpVWg/s1600/warrentrump.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="201" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiK07hmCEgXx7ZQS-HUxzWpyib3Z3E5eVkyakrYlE-9ZSJyIWyg3LPdTB5WwA12odc-SYdiqCn2X8IeuCWQEVXw8O5hOJbacDcwlUiK4I6_Nv7Eoaz-WkRbL3Avg3Y-2XODJcxTPmpVWg/s640/warrentrump.PNG" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
In assessing a potential Trump/Warren presidential contest, the fact that over a third of respondents don't even know Warren would seem a rather relevant fact. Politico's Sherman, while attempting to use the result of the head-to-head question to pour cold water on any Democratic "lurch to the left," <i>declines to mention this finding</i>. It seems a much bigger political story that, even with Warren's severe name-recognition deficit, the actual head-to-head question still finds her within 6 points (margin of error 2%) of not only the sitting President of the United States but of a new president, with all the advantages that entails,[1] but that's apparently not an editorial Politico wants to write.<br />
<br />
<br />
--j.<br />
<br />
---<br />
<br />
[1] Americans typically extend to new presidents a great deal of good will and this has proven the case with Trump as well--though it never put him above 50%, he <a href="http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/trump-job-approval" target="_blank">started his administration</a> with more people approving of his job performance than disapproving. Once he started doing his job, this changed.cinemarchaeologisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13507603255666191405noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6321344375544728027.post-4700944449022958152017-02-09T20:58:00.000-08:002018-04-30T07:48:14.094-07:00Trump & Fascism: Appendices<b>Appendix I: Speaking Their Language</b><br />
<br />
In <a href="http://corporatenewsreviews.blogspot.com/2017/02/trump-fascism-basics.html">"Trump & Fascism: The Basics"</a>, I wrote, "Trump is the darling of the 'alt-right,' much
of which is overtly fascist. This isn't coincidental or in any way
unintentional--he all-but-openly courted these elements during the
campaign, often in ways that would have been political suicide for any
other modern presidential candidate." As I covered in that earlier piece, Trump speaks the language of fascism. "The ultranationalism, the anti-intellectualism and anti-rationalism, the
opportunistic political syncretism (during the presidential race, Trump
freely ran to Hillary Clinton's left on many issues), the lack of any
real program beyond Trump as the strongman who promises to cure the
liberal democracy that ails the nation, the promise of authoritarian
rule and of national renewal to be achieved by it ('Make America Great
Again'), the machismo, the militarism, the exaltation of authority, the
persistent demonization of his 'enemies,' including helpless minorities,
often to justify repressive policies," and so on.<br />
<br />
Donald Trump's protofascism has been a key to his success. When he entered the race for the Republican presidential nomination, he was widely despised within his party. That week in June 2015, <a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_republican_presidential_nomination-3823.html">RealClearPolitics</a>, which aggregates polls from many sources, showed him with a pathetic 3.6% support among Republicans. But the protofascist rhetoric began with his first speech. He asserted that Mexican immigrants in the U.S. were rapists, drug-dealers, criminals and further, that the Mexican government was involved in a conspiracy to ship such elements to these shores. Challenged on such rot, he <a href="http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/donald-trump-i-would-force-mexico-build-border-wall">doubled down</a> again and again, making it clear he wasn't just limiting his attack to people from one Latin American country but meant "people that are from all over that are killers and rapists and they're coming into this country" across the Mexican border. He had a plan to deal with these evil brown people from south of the border too; he promised to "build a great wall" across that entire border, describing it in increasingly grandiose terms, and to establish a "deportation force" which would be assigned the task of removing every illegal immigrant from the U.S.. This sort of rhetoric made Trump's numbers explode; within a month, he went from a low-single-digit also-ran to the head of the Republican field, a position he continued to hold right through to the end of the primary season. Trump called for banning all Muslims from entering the U.S. He described watching "thousands and thousands" of American Muslims celebrating in the streets of Jersey City, New Jersey on 9/11 as the World Trade Center Towers fell and said because of this, he wanted federal surveillance of mosques in the U.S. He insisted the millions of illegal immigrants were illegally voting in our elections. Such rhetoric has been and remains a cornerstone of Trump's stint in politics.<br />
<br />
In reality, immigrants are actually <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/26/us/trump-illegal-immigrants-crime.html"><i>less</i> likely</a> to commit crimes than the native born. Even
if it was possible to deport over 11 million people--and it isn't--the
result of doing so would be the complete and spectacular collapse of the
U.S. economy. The notion that the Mexican government is involved in a conspiracy to send us their vile, their felonious is ludicrous and baseless and it can't be
forced to pay for any wall. Muslims can't be banned from entering
the U.S.; no mechanism either exists or could be created to act as a
"religious police" in such a matter. Trump's tale of Jersey City Muslims celebrating 9/11 was just a lie he pulled out of an orifice on the spot. Ditto with the illegal immigrants voting.<br />
<br />
But subjecting these comments to that sort of empirical analysis entirely misses their point. Trump's rhetoric isn't meant to be an honest, rational assessment of anything. His remarks of this genre are simply lies deployed for their emotional appeal, the standard fascist cult of aggrievement being nurtured. With them, Trump is directly echoing what the
white supremacist community in the U.S. has been saying for decades. At one point, he even <a href="http://fortune.com/2016/10/07/donald-trump-anti-immigration-groups/">directly consulted</a> a network of nativist hate-groups <a href="https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/john-tanton">founded by a white nationalist</a>, and made <a href="https://www.thedailybeast.com/meet-the-shady-network-of-immigration-opponents-donald-trump-loves-to-cite">extensive</a> <a href="http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/trump-cites-racist-s-group-in-new-campaign-ad-747637315565?playlist=associated&v=a">use</a> of their fake "research" on the campaign trail. He tells Americans there are too many brown people with funny accents and
strange habits running around and <i>you're</i> being harmed by this. Stoking
racial and ethnic fears and, most importantly, resentments. Tearing at
the fabric of civilized, liberal society. And that's <i>all</i> it is. When, on the campaign trail, his rhetoric began to attract protests--a healthy liberal society will <i>always</i> strongly react against this sort of thing--Trump spent months <a href="http://mashable.com/2016/03/12/trump-rally-incite-violence/#Anljueojpiqo" target="_blank">encouraging</a> <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwrEjKIdJsY" target="_blank">his supporters</a> to carry out violence against those protesting. That's the fascist response to everything the fascist dislikes, to hit it, to kick it, to try to stomp it out. While there are important differences between Trump and real fascists (outlined in the earlier essay), all of this is why Trump is so incredibly popular within the white supremacist/Nazi/fascist subculture. He speaks their language. He parrots their rhetoric. This is one of the enduring cornerstones of both his campaign and now his presidency.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg_xSG0efn134ahY3O3qEN8GqmAr17axBBeqOCKYkaRjUp6zeyilIEkm2cslDzqJ0K62Az45DkPsb1mQwtOPDydcj8L0vKhoVdmbsIjS3PCyiWXAYk8U8gLZsiw4VZTsvr5GzjYUtMdrg/s1600/138j.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="217" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg_xSG0efn134ahY3O3qEN8GqmAr17axBBeqOCKYkaRjUp6zeyilIEkm2cslDzqJ0K62Az45DkPsb1mQwtOPDydcj8L0vKhoVdmbsIjS3PCyiWXAYk8U8gLZsiw4VZTsvr5GzjYUtMdrg/s640/138j.JPG" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<b>Appendix II: Nazis, Fascists, Racists</b><br />
<br />
If one sticks around internet locales wherein politics are discussed, one quickly runs into an array of rightist trolls who launch thread after thread insisting, among other things, that today's Democratic party is the party of the Ku Klux Klan and that fascists are, in reality, leftists. These trolls deploy a standard litany of lies and misrepresentations in support of such Orwellian assertions; they've all pretty much been programmed from the same playbook. Seeing these endless threads spill over into the election cycle wherein the white supremacist/Nazi/"identitarian"/fascist subculture was absolutely enraptured by one of the presidential candidates,[*] I decided it would be helpful to create a thread that cut through the squid's ink and made clear who these elements were and who they were supporting. Some are separatists who don't take part in electoral politics. Some have their own small, right-wing parties, usually local. But those who participate in traditional two-party politics had made their political allegiance very clear and it wasn't to the party that elected that black fellow president. That thread was basically a series of links to various relevant items, by no means comprehensive but more than sufficient to make the point. They're reproduced here:<br />
<br />
Andrew Anglin, a white supremacist and self-proclaimed fascist, founded the Daily Stormer, which has recently overtaken Stormfront to become the major internet white supremacist site. Here's his endorsement for president:<br />
<a href="http://www.dailystormer.com/the-daily-stormer-endorses-donald-trump-for-president/">http://www.dailystormer.com/the-daily-stormer-endorses-donald-trump-for-president/</a><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjVTrPU9YlD-ybfx8ntTqpowoN208X57u848nab9l2sEr3gqzhkWIpmZL6q3xrPt_lrS2nMQuzrAphUyE1ig44DtTSKu9xDXTVqpx5IvRIFFIOuh6xnlq5DDHgQ6NOF7YrcIS_nAe-Izw/s1600/andrewanglin.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="554" data-original-width="634" height="279" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjVTrPU9YlD-ybfx8ntTqpowoN208X57u848nab9l2sEr3gqzhkWIpmZL6q3xrPt_lrS2nMQuzrAphUyE1ig44DtTSKu9xDXTVqpx5IvRIFFIOuh6xnlq5DDHgQ6NOF7YrcIS_nAe-Izw/s320/andrewanglin.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
Anglin doesn't have the rightist trolls' confusion about fascists. As he tells it, Trump "is absolutely the only candidate who is even talking about anything at all that matters," said things that matter being that Trump wants to get rid of those Mexicans, get rid of Obamacare and he's the only candidate "with any chance whatsoever of beating Hillary."<br />
<br />
The Daily Stormer is jam-packed with articles promoting Trump and attacking his enemies:<br />
<br />
--"Glorious Leader [Trump] Calls for Complete Ban on All Moslems"<br />
--"Media Jews Try to Hoax Trump with Fake Attack on Lying Slut Reporter"<br />
--"Krauthammer Says Trump Train Cannot be Derailed!" (the subheadline for this one: "You gave it a good shot, Jews.")<br />
--"Soros Funds Hispanic Move Against Trump"<br />
--"Vile African Leader of America [President Obama] Again Attacks Donald Trump"<br />
--"Jew Noam Chomsky Says a Trump Presidency Would Destroy Earth"<br />
--"Three Wetbacks Arrested for Pulling Gun on Trump Supporter in Georgia"<br />
<br />
And so on.<br />
<a href="http://www.dailystormer.com/?s=trump">http://www.dailystormer.com/?s=trump</a><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEih3YXsERKywb5sg9oslyM5G2kpP33NeNr-oAMsb37gthPYb2Q0bNlTCiIk7iiETWaURt_f5_4TnEwPEiamG-RO7SsooVqqeBwca3oNpBgUBbSSMLZ23h9A2dpa5RqHljgzCs9pRdPzHA/s1600/david-duke-2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="750" data-original-width="900" height="166" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEih3YXsERKywb5sg9oslyM5G2kpP33NeNr-oAMsb37gthPYb2Q0bNlTCiIk7iiETWaURt_f5_4TnEwPEiamG-RO7SsooVqqeBwca3oNpBgUBbSSMLZ23h9A2dpa5RqHljgzCs9pRdPzHA/s200/david-duke-2.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>
David Duke, probably the single-most prominent white supremacist in the U.S., has issued a de facto endorsement of Trump. "I’m not saying I endorse everything about Trump, in fact I haven’t formally endorsed him. But I do support his candidacy, and I support voting for him as a strategic action. I hope he does everything we hope he will do." Further, he told his followers that "voting for these people [Cruz and Rubio], voting against Donald Trump at this point is really treason to your heritage." He encouraged his listeners to "get active":<br />
<br />
"Get off your duff. Get off your rear end that’s getting fatter and fatter for many of you everyday on your chairs. When this show’s over, go out, call the Republican Party, but call Donald Trump’s headquarters, volunteer. They’re screaming for volunteers. Go in there, you’re gonna meet people who are going to have the same kind of mindset that you have."<br />
<a href="http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/david-duke-urges-his-supporters-to-volunteer-and-vote-for-tr#.dxJQrYjoY">http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/david-duke-urges-his-supporters-to-volunteer-and-vote-for-tr#.dxJQrYjoY</a><br />
<br />
Kevin B. MacDonald is the editor of the Occidental Observer, devoted to "white identity, white interests, and the culture of the West"--a racist who with a particular focus on anti-Semitism who affects the pose of an intellectual. Early on, he saw much hope for white nationalists in the Trump campaign, praising "Trump’s statements on the criminal tendencies and
generally low functioning of Mexican and Central American immigrants," which he wrote, "have struck a chord with White America." MacDonald praises Trump for attacking Jewish pundits--"prominent operatives of the Republican Party/Israel Lobby nexis"--and for bringing to the forefront the "issue" of "illegal alien criminality."<br />
<a href="http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2015/07/10/how-it-could-happen-the-candidacy-of-donald-trump/">http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2015/07/10/how-it-could-happen-the-candidacy-of-donald-trump/</a><br />
<br />
MacDonald has become more and more enthusiastic about Trump as the campaign has gone on:<br />
<br />
"I certainly counted myself among the <b><a href="http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2015/07/how-it-could-happen-the-candidacy-of-donald-trump/" target="_blank">skeptics</a></b>
when it comes to Donald Trump’s candidacy. But it’s clear now that he
is going full populist on the issues that matter, first with his
statements on trade deals, but now—and more importantly—on
immigration. Ann Coulter calls his immigration statement 'the greatest
political document since the Magna Carta'... I agree--if it can actually end up influencing policy. While other
candidates like Scott Walker and Rick Santorum have mumbled things about
legal immigration, the immigration issue will now define Trump’s
candidacy. White Americans can finally express themselves on what kind
of country they want to live in. As Coulter also points out, immigration
is the only important issue."<br />
<a href="http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2015/08/17/donald-trumps-breakthrough-statement-on-immigration/">http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2015/08/17/donald-trumps-breakthrough-statement-on-immigration/</a><br />
<br />
MacDonald has authored perhaps a dozen articles expressing glee that Trump pisses off prominent Jewish commentators.<br />
<br />
"The Ku Klux Klan is using Donald Trump as a talking point in its outreach efforts. Stormfront, the most prominent American white supremacist website, is upgrading its servers in part to cope with a Trump traffic spike. And former Louisiana Rep. David Duke reports that the businessman has given more Americans cover to speak out loud about white nationalism than at any time since his own political campaigns in the 1990s... 'Demoralization has been the biggest enemy and Trump is changing all that,' said Stormfront founder Don Black, who reports additional listeners and call volume to his phone-in radio show, in addition to the site’s traffic bump. Black predicts that the white nationalist forces set in motion by Trump will be a legacy that outlives the businessman’s political career. 'He’s certainly creating a movement that will continue independently of him even if he does fold at some point.'... [White supremacist leaders] consistently say that Trump's rhetoric about minority groups has successfully tapped into simmering racial resentments long ignored by mainstream politicians and that he has brought more attention to their agenda than any American political figure in years. It is a development many of them see as a golden opportunity."<br />
<a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2015/12/donald-trump-white-supremacists-216620">http://www.politico.com/story/2015/12/donald-trump-white-supremacists-216620</a><br />
<br />
As Politico notes, Stormfront, the biggest white supremacist community on the internet (and before the Daily Stormer came along, the most visited site), is full of excitement over Trump. One can go there and, under the logo "We are the voice of the new, embattled White minority!," see thread after thread of enthusiastic white supremacists expressing their delight at Trump.<br />
<a href="https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t1148133/">https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t1148133/</a><br />
<a href="https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t1117558/">https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t1117558/</a><br />
<a href="https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t1148008/">https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t1148008/</a><br />
<a href="https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t1148217/">https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t1148217/</a><br />
<a href="https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t1148102/">https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t1148102/</a><br />
<a href="https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t1148204/">https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t1148204/</a><br />
And on into infinity.<br />
<br />
Stormfront is a very effective antidote for the persistent nut-right trolling about fascism being a phenomenon of the left ("The Nazis have the word 'socialist' in their name!"). The Nazis, white nationalists, race separatists of the Stormfront gang has no such illusions about which side they're on or who their enemies are. Trump is god, George Soros is evil, Black Lives Matters are violent thugs, Bernie Sanders is the evil socialist Jew, Hillary Clinton is a felon, and on and on. Remove the overt racial references and much of the political commentary on the site would be indistinguishable from any other right-wing site that allows people to post. A small sample:<br />
<br />
Poster Blueearth:<br />
<br />
"The enemy is the left, it became clear to even the most moderate whites, with the well organized mob last night and, the bitter vitriol pouring out from Tim Wise the anti white jew. I did not hear Bernie Sanders condemn the violence either, even though today, they are identifying the vast majority as sanders supporters, no surprise really, since sanders has been active in agitation since the early 60's in this same city. This mob was evil and violent, they wanted the war to start last night, they may just get their wish if this continues... The enemy here is the organized institutional left, and every single GOP candidate and surrogate needs to start educating the voters on who they are. This is going to get worse. As I predicted in January:As the newest incarnation of the activist Left, Black Lives Matter will not back down or rest until it is either stopped by someone gutsy enough to call them out or until it gets what it wants: a bloody revolution leading to a socialist/anarchist America."<br />
<br />
Volodyamyr states the matter plainly:<br />
<br />
"The Left and Jewry are synonymous, because the Jews are the Left."<br />
<br />
Makker:<br />
<br />
"...the only way around this is for Trump to take control of the country and explain the media bias to the masses in simple terms. So the best all of us can do right now is hope Trump wins through and is the genuine article, and for the American public get behind and help Trump. I'm not sure that the likes of Trump, The UKIP party in Britain, LePen in France, Vladimir Putin are the real thing, but my God they have to be better than Hillary Clinton and the worldwide libtard movement."<br />
<br />
Phoenix1933:<br />
<br />
"Jews invented left wing ideology and they still set the agenda for all the leftists."<br />
<br />
NationalCrusader14:<br />
<br />
"Hillary is the problem and Trump is the solution."<br />
<br />
DomTxn:<br />
<br />
"Look back at history. Who created the so called left? The Jew... If you are still on the fence about whether to support white pride groups, I would advise you to go to one of the leftist rallies. Listen to the hate and vitriol they spew at absolutely anyone who disagrees with them. Look around at the people at one of these dog and pony shows. These people have the unmitigated gall to call us haters? They talk about brotherly love and peace and love your fellow man. What that means is love thy spook. Fall down and worship thy Hebe. Never question the liberal agenda. If you fail to do any of these things they will attack you like a pack of rabid dogs."<br />
<br />
WhiteRights:<br />
<br />
"We’ve heard the liberal meme over and over that Donald Trump encourages violence among his supporters. Of course the liberals who make this accusation, always fail to note that the problems have always resulted from obnoxious leftists, who show up inside Trump rallies and then try to keep Trump from speaking, forcing Trump and his supporters to throw them out."<br />
<br />
SPOON!:<br />
<br />
"Hungarian Jew billionaire George Soros has announced that he is putting $5 million into a new political action committee designed solely to mobilize Hispanics into a nonwhite anti-Trump voting bloc. The blatant racially-based political mobilization—which Soros would be among the first to call 'racist' if it were done by whites—will take the form of the “Immigrant Voters Win PAC,” and will help to coordinate the effects of a number of nonwhite political groups."<br />
<br />
And so on.<br />
<br />
Now get a shower.<br />
<br />
The New Yorker ran a good piece about, among other things, Trump's extensive fan following among the white supremacist crowd:<br />
<a href="http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/08/31/the-fearful-and-the-frustrated">http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/08/31/the-fearful-and-the-frustrated</a><br />
<br />
The American Freedom Party, a neo-Nazi org, launched a super-PAC, American National, that has been financing robocalls in support of Trump's candidacy:<br />
<a href="http://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/trump-robocall-super-tuesday-william-daniel-johnson">http://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/trump-robocall-super-tuesday-william-daniel-johnson</a><br />
<br />
Jared Taylor, editor of the white supremacist American Renaissance and spokesman for the Council of Conservative Citizens, lent his voice to recording the robocall message:<br />
<br />
"Jared Taylor, a leading white nationalist known for his academic-sounding deconstructions of multiculturalism, has been an ardent supporter of Donald Trump since the earliest days of the billionaire's presidential campaign."<br />
<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/01/12/why-this-leading-white-nationalist-is-urging-iowa-voters-to-back-donald-trump/">https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/01/12/why-this-leading-white-nationalist-is-urging-iowa-voters-to-back-donald-trump/</a><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEixdK-WPInyhvckS8mOXDx9Z74P8ARSTk08HqpSwOru9X55bInWRmcoTnKDGXqJTluEsY_DDi2H0ZQ1U6dGOH0r3hGal4WipRk9Mj5eQ2N49VcyX9ISDqcrOxi69te70fiGOp-kTh8Ccg/s1600/jaredtaylor_cnn-800x430.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="430" data-original-width="800" height="172" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEixdK-WPInyhvckS8mOXDx9Z74P8ARSTk08HqpSwOru9X55bInWRmcoTnKDGXqJTluEsY_DDi2H0ZQ1U6dGOH0r3hGal4WipRk9Mj5eQ2N49VcyX9ISDqcrOxi69te70fiGOp-kTh8Ccg/s320/jaredtaylor_cnn-800x430.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
"Jared Taylor is a believer in what he calls 'race realism,' a belief system that includes the idea that people are happier when they can live with only members of their race, and that people of color are endangering the majority that white Americans have held for centuries. He has questioned the ability of black people to live in civilized society, and his website, American Renaissance, says one 'of the most destructive myths of modern times is that people of all races have the same average intelligence.' Taylor, a white nationalist, is also an enthusiastic supporter of Republican front-runner Donald Trump.<br />
<br />
"'He is really the first candidate in many years whose policies are not going to kowtow,' Taylor said of Trump. 'He has taken a very straightforward position on keeping Muslims out, for example. Can you name a single good consequence of mass Muslim immigration to the United States? I sure can’t!'"<br />
<a href="http://www.ibtimes.com/white-nationalists-among-donald-trumps-most-enthusiastic-supporters-2220618">http://www.ibtimes.com/white-nationalists-among-donald-trumps-most-enthusiastic-supporters-2220618</a><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiP2dTZdpKM0aLoG1lgkosxtijW9G_LSyzXc4fRW3z2NKlDi-WmA-NMPHCUP0XVJUp69-pNLyt4jZJySL49sGRvbbi18oD2WJmLcGt8sATBgbAtFOs1NFg98Ozp8NRHNt4QNlT-a7QYvQ/s1600/Pastor-Thomas-Robb.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="360" data-original-width="640" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiP2dTZdpKM0aLoG1lgkosxtijW9G_LSyzXc4fRW3z2NKlDi-WmA-NMPHCUP0XVJUp69-pNLyt4jZJySL49sGRvbbi18oD2WJmLcGt8sATBgbAtFOs1NFg98Ozp8NRHNt4QNlT-a7QYvQ/s320/Pastor-Thomas-Robb.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
The Knights Party is one of several descendants of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan organization formerly run by David Duke (it fractured over the years). Thomas Robb, the preacher who has run it since the '70s, knows who he's supporting for president: "As far as I’m concerned, Donald Trump is the pick of the litter."<br />
<br />
"'The others say they can control the border … they’ve been talking about controlling the border for 50 years,' he said. 'The Knights Party started calling for a wall on our border back in the late '70s. It’s nice to see some other people catching up.'<br />
<br />
"While he views Trump as the 'pick of the litter,' Robb said that he would back any Republican against Hillary Clinton in the general election."<br />
<a href="http://www.arktimes.com/ArkansasBlog/archives/2016/03/04/current-leader-of-kkk-donald-trump-is-the-pick-of-the-litter">http://www.arktimes.com/ArkansasBlog/archives/2016/03/04/current-leader-of-kkk-donald-trump-is-the-pick-of-the-litter</a><br />
<br />
Some quotes from Robb, courtesy of the Southern Poverty Law Center:<br />
<br />
"When the Negro was under the natural discipline of white authority, white people were safe from the abuse and violence of the Negro, but the Negro was also safe from himself."<br />
–-Editorial in The Torch, April 1990<br />
<br />
"Dats when A'hs does what A'hs want. Dat's also when A'hs kin have da white girls, and da free food stamps."<br />
--The White Patriot, 1991<br />
<br />
"My name’s not Paul Revere, but one of the things I’d be saying if I was on that stallion in 1775, but I’m not, so in 2009, the Mexicans are coming, the Mexicans are coming!"<br />
--At White Christian Heritage Festival, Pulaski, Tenn., Oct. 24, 2009<br />
<a href="https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/thomas-robb">https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/thomas-robb</a><br />
<br />
Rachel Pendergraft, an organizer for the Knights Party, uses Trump as a recruting tool:<br />
<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/12/21/how-donald-trump-is-breathing-life-into-americas-dying-white-supremacist-movement/?tid=sm_fb">https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/12/21/how-donald-trump-is-breathing-life-into-americas-dying-white-supremacist-movement/?tid=sm_fb</a><br />
<br />
The Knights Party has a platform; with a few overt racial references (and one or two odd items) removed, it would pass muster with much of the American nationalist hard right.<br />
<a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20151007004031/http://www.kkk.bz/program.htm">https://web.archive.org/web/20151007004031/http://www.kkk.bz/program.htm</a><br />
<br />
Craig Cobb wants to turn the little town of Antler, North Dakota into a white supremacist enclave and rename it after his hero Donald Trump:<br />
<a href="http://www.theroot.com/articles/news/2015/08/white_supremacist_wants_to_rename_town_after_donald_trump.html">http://www.theroot.com/articles/news/2015/08/white_supremacist_wants_to_rename_town_after_donald_trump.html</a><br />
<br />
William Daniel Johnson of the white nationalist American Freedom Party once proposed a constitutional amendment revoking the citizenship of every non-white American. He thinks Trump is just hunky-dory:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhNRwmKsxpD4Q2ZCQJ_mGqgNHNtBK55hz9ZQcKih_EyV5OfdnFMPKZLHNKAnwL5Oue695MfagqWW2iCii4qxSO68EsZbLwe6wytaHAUj-QQlvHrTbbYWvxJ4clU87f3XXp3zgcpGbpaUw/s1600/William_Johnson_Chairman_of_the_A3P.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="352" data-original-width="517" height="217" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhNRwmKsxpD4Q2ZCQJ_mGqgNHNtBK55hz9ZQcKih_EyV5OfdnFMPKZLHNKAnwL5Oue695MfagqWW2iCii4qxSO68EsZbLwe6wytaHAUj-QQlvHrTbbYWvxJ4clU87f3XXp3zgcpGbpaUw/s320/William_Johnson_Chairman_of_the_A3P.png" width="320" /></a></div>
"'I was not a supporter of the man until the positions made me a convert,' Johnson said, describing how he was swayed by Trump’s promises of a wall separating the United States and Mexico and a new plan to ban all Muslims from entering the country. For the quarter of a century during which Johnson was aware of Trump before these proposals, he wasn’t a huge fan. Now, he said, 'I admire what he’s doing very much.'<br />
<br />
...<br />
<br />
"The slight problem for Johnson, in his political capacity, is that the American Freedom Party has its own presidential candidate. The portly, blue-eyed Bob Whitaker is the party's man. He campaigns with the catchy slogan 'Diversity Is a Codeword for Genocide.' Yet as Johnson laughingly told The Daily Beast, Whitaker himself supports what Trump is doing, as do many members of the party.<br />
<br />
"Indeed, interest in the American Freedom Party has surged along with Trump’s rise, Johnson said.<br />
<br />
"'We have seen a dramatic uptick in support,' he crowed. 'In fact, sometimes I can hardly manage because of this Trump phenomenon.'<br />
...<br />
<br />
"...the American Freedom Party chairman describes his relationship with Trump as 'unrequited love.' He said he has contributed financially to the campaign, created a super PAC to support him, and tries to get the message out about Trump’s near sainthood on the party’s daily radio shows."<br />
<a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/12/10/white-supremacists-for-donald-trump-the-positions-made-me-a-convert.html">http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/12/10/white-supremacists-for-donald-trump-the-positions-made-me-a-convert.html</a><br />
<br />
Whitaker eventually withdrew as the AFP's candidate and the party endorsed Trump.<br />
<br />
Back in the 1960s, the Citizens Councils of America, better known as the White Citizens Councils (and known colloquially as "the uptown Klan"), battled civil rights and racial integration. Those behind it eventually changed its name to the Council of Conservative Citizens. The CCC has all the usual targets--it's anti-black, anti-gay, anti-immigrant, anti-liberal, anti-"race-mixing" (in 2003, the group's website decreed that "Mixing the races is rebelliousness against God)." In 2007, the Citizen Informer, one of the group's publications, offered a "statement of principles" that included things like this:<br />
<br />
"We believe the United States is a European country and that Americans are part of the European people... We therefore oppose the massive immigration of non-European and non-Western peoples into the United States that threatens to transform our nation into a non-European majority in our lifetime. We believe that illegal immigration must be stopped, if necessary by military force and placing troops on our national borders; that illegal aliens must be returned to their own countries; and that legal immigration must be severely restricted or halted through appropriate changes in our laws and policies. We also oppose all efforts to mix the races of mankind, to promote non-white races over the European-American people through so-called ‘affirmative action' and similar measures, to destroy or denigrate the European-American heritage, including the heritage of the Southern people, and to force the integration of the races."<br />
<a href="https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/group/council-conservative-citizens">https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/group/council-conservative-citizens</a><br />
<br />
Dozens of politicians and political officials are tied up with the CCC and, of course, almost all of them are Republicans. Then-Republican leader Trent Lott--the fellow who, a few years ago, praised Strom Thurmond's 1948 "Segregation Forever" campaign--gave at least five speeches to the group and was reportedly a dues-paying member. Then-Mississsippi Governor and former Republican National Committee chief Haley Barbour has addressed the group, as has Mike Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor who ran for the Republican presidential nomination again this year. Alabama "Justice" Roy Moore, the reactionary demagogue who fought a long battle over trying to erect and maintain an unconstitutional Ten Commandments monument in the state Judicial Building, has addressed the org. The CCC was allowed to participate in the Conservative Political Action Conference year after year until their white supremacist views got a wider airing in the press, forcing CPAC to cut them out.<br />
<a href="https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/1999/racist-council-conservative-citizens-finds-home-mainstream-politics">https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/1999/racist-council-conservative-citizens-finds-home-mainstream-politics</a><br />
<br />
In 1999, Rep. Robert Wexler (D-Fla.) introduced a resolution in congress condemning the CCC:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Resolved, That the House of Representatives--<br />
(1) condemns the racism and bigotry espoused by the Council of Conservative Citizens;<br />
(2) condemns all manifestations and expressions of racism, bigotry, and religious intolerance wherever they occur; and<br />
(3) urges all Members of the House of Representatives not to support or endorse the Council of Conservative Citizens and its views.</blockquote>
<a href="https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/106/hres35/text">https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/106/hres35/text</a><br />
<br />
All but 13 Republicans in the House lockstepped against the resolution and killed it. Over in the Senate, Lott himself stood opposed to it. Shocking, right?<br />
<br />
A few years later, a little right-wing slug happened across the CCC's website. He was amazed by what he found there--as he described it, it really opened his eyes to the world. That slug was Dylann Roof and in 2015, inspired by what he'd found, he entered a black church in Charleston and murdered 9 people.<br />
<a href="http://splcenter.org/blog/2015/06/21/charleston-shooters-manifesto-indicates-sound-knowledge-of-white-nationalist-ideology/">http://splcenter.org/blog/2015/06/21/charleston-shooters-manifesto-indicates-sound-knowledge-of-white-nationalist-ideology/</a><br />
And:<br />
<a href="http://time.com/3930993/dylann-roof-council-of-conservative-citizens-charleston/">http://time.com/3930993/dylann-roof-council-of-conservative-citizens-charleston/</a><br />
<br />
In the flurry of press coverage the followed the Roof killings, it was brought to light that the CCC's president Earl Holt III, a man who describes black people as "the laziest, stupidest and most criminally-inclined race in the history of the world," had given $65,000 to various Republican campaigns in the last few years, including large donations to Mitt Romney in 2012 and, prior to the rise of Trump in the current race, to Ted Cruz, Rand Paul and Rick Santorum.<br />
<a href="http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/21/dylann-roof-manifesto-charlston-shootings-republicans">http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/21/dylann-roof-manifesto-charlston-shootings-republicans</a><br />
<br />
A breakdown of Holt's donations over the years, which have gone to Michele Bachmann, Louis Gohmert, Steve King, Tom Cotton, Rick Santorum, Todd "Legitimate Rape" Akin, etc.--all the darlings of the nut right:<br />
<a href="https://mic.com/articles/121121/ted-cruz-among-politicians-with-donations-from-white-supremacist-earl-holt#.Loe9N06de">https://mic.com/articles/121121/ted-cruz-among-politicians-with-donations-from-white-supremacist-earl-holt#.Loe9N06de</a><br />
<br />
Holt switched to Donald Trump in the presidential race, <a href="http://www.salon.com/2016/06/11/the_gop_must_be_proud_when_your_partys_nominee_is_the_darling_of_white_supremacists/">helping finance</a> those American Freedom Party robocalls.<br />
<br />
White supremacist Kyle Rogers, the CCC's webmaster, has been a Republican activist in South Carolina for nearly a decade; you can visit ebay where he'll sell you a "Trump 2016" shirt:<br />
<a href="http://www.ebay.com/itm/Donald-Trump-for-president-2016-t-shirt-in-different-colors-/261860194123?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&var=&hash=item3cf815774b">http://www.ebay.com/itm/Donald-Trump-for-president-2016-t-shirt-in-different-colors-/261860194123?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&var=&hash=item3cf815774b</a><br />
<br />
Trump recently made a few waves in the press by <a href="http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/271078-trump-responds-to-retweet-Mussolini">approvingly retweeting</a> a quote by Benito Mussolini. Getting much less attention is the fact that Trump routinely retweets white supremacists:<br />
<br />
"Last week, presidential candidate Donald Trump caused a minor stir by retweeting someone with the Twitter handle @whitegenocideTM, which some saw as making explicit the connection between Trump and American white supremacists. But that’s just one data point, right? A one-off thing that could have been an intern’s mistake? Unfortunately, no: the data shows that 62 percent of the accounts Trump has retweeted recently have white-supremacist connections."<br />
<a href="http://nymag.com/following/2016/01/donald-trump-mostly-retweets-white-supremacists.html">http://nymag.com/following/2016/01/donald-trump-mostly-retweets-white-supremacists.html</a><br />
<br />
Fortune did an analysis of Trump's social media ties to white supremacists and found them depressingly significant:<br />
<a href="http://fortune.com/donald-trump-white-supremacist-genocide/">http://fortune.com/donald-trump-white-supremacist-genocide/</a><br />
<br />
"Last night, <a href="http://www.pbs.org/newshour/episode/pbs-newshour-full-episode-march-15-2016/">PBS NewsHour ran a story on the Tilly family</a>
of Fayetteville, North Carolina. The Tillys do not have a history of
being active in politics, but various members of the family—both old and
young—are being motivated to vote or work for a campaign for the first
time by Donald Trump.<br />
<br />
"If you can put aside the fact that the
Tillys are rallying behind Trump, this is a small but almost
heartwarming story of a family choosing to engage with democracy. That’s
also if you can put aside the fact that Grace, one of the central
characters in the story, has large white power tattoos on each of her
hands."<br />
<a href="http://gawker.com/pbs-news-story-on-first-time-trump-voters-prominently-f-1765284316">http://gawker.com/pbs-news-story-on-first-time-trump-voters-prominently-f-1765284316</a><br />
<br />
This became a bit of a controversy and Grace Tilly falsely denied they had any connection to white supremacy:<br />
<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2016/03/17/pbs-issues-second-editors-note-on-trump-supporters-white-supremacist-tattoos/">https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2016/03/17/pbs-issues-second-editors-note-on-trump-supporters-white-supremacist-tattoos/</a><br />
<br />
"A white supremacist radio show was given full press credentials by the Donald Trump campaign, and even managed to snag at interview with Donald Trump Jr... The Political Cesspool bills itself as 'unapologetically pro-White... Even though Whites represented the vast majority of the American population, we had no mainstream voice,' its website laments. 'That would soon change. The Political Cesspool enjoyed a modest launch on October 26, 2004.' [Host James] Edwards has a long history of making disparaging comments about racial minorities, even saying interracial sex was nothing but 'white genocide.'<br />
<br />
"Needless to say, Edwards is a big Trump fan. 'Trump is the only candidate who gives us a chance at having a fighter who will put America first. He’s the only candidate who isn’t owned and operated by special interests,' he continued. 'With Trump, America has a chance to regain her identity.'"<br />
<a href="http://www.mediaite.com/election-2016/donald-trump-camp-gives-press-credentials-to-white-supremacist-radio-show/">http://www.mediaite.com/election-2016/donald-trump-camp-gives-press-credentials-to-white-supremacist-radio-show/</a><br />
<br />
When this received some press attention, Trump Jr. claimed he <a href="http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/271571-trumps-son-if-i-had-know-i-wouldnt-have-done-the-interview">didn't know Edwards held such views</a> and that if he had, he wouldn't have done the interview but a few weeks later, Edwards was given press credentials for the upcoming Republican National Convention and invited to cover it. While there, he interviewed several Trump surrogates, including at least four Republican congressmen, who "promoted Trump’s candidacy to <i>The Political Cesspool</i> audience."<br />
<a href="https://www.mediamatters.org/research/2016/07/24/trump-adviser-and-gop-congressmen-gave-pro-trump-interviews-white-nationalist-radio-host-rnc/211861">https://www.mediamatters.org/research/2016/07/24/trump-adviser-and-gop-congressmen-gave-pro-trump-interviews-white-nationalist-radio-host-rnc/211861</a><br />
<br />
Matt Forney is a virulent white supremacist--hates blacks, hates Jews, hates Muslims, immigrants, gays, Mormons, Latinos and seems to particularly hate women--he advocates regular domestic violence against them, argues against educating them, says "feminists want men to rape them." He endorsed Trump early:<br />
<br />
"Donald Trump’s presidential campaign is the closest America will come to
redemption, the last triumph of nationalism before the left swamps us
with hordes of barely literate foreigners who will vote them into a
permanent majority. I’m not going to sit back and pretend that both
parties are identical when one of them is presenting a clear alternative
to decay and decline."<br />
<a href="http://mattforney.com/im-voting-donald-trump/">http://mattforney.com/im-voting-donald-trump/</a><br />
<br />
Forney later covered the Republican National Convention for Red Ice Radio (there's plenty on Forney charming views here as well):<br />
<a href="https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2016/07/21/rnc-contact-gave-white-supremacist-and-virulent-misogynist-convention-pass/211786">https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2016/07/21/rnc-contact-gave-white-supremacist-and-virulent-misogynist-convention-pass/211786</a><br />
<br />
Red Ice Radio is a racist internet radio show where the Holocaust is denied, white supremacy is affirmed and an endless parade of white nationalists/Nazis/fascists find a welcome home. It's produced by Red Ice Creations:<br />
<br />
"Their [Red Ice Creations] two primary programs are the podcasts Red Ice Radio hosted by
Henrik [Palmgren] and Radio 3Fourteen hosted by Lana [Lokteff]. Here they focus on guests for
interviews, which are quickly becoming the 'who’s who' of the broad
white nationalist and racist communities. Guests like Richard Spencer<a href="https://antifascistnews.net/2015/12/18/alternative-internet-racism-alt-right-and-the-new-fascist-branding/"></a>,
American Renaissance’s Jared Taylor, David Duke, Mike Enoch and Seventh
Son from the Daily Shoah, various people from the Manosphere and Men’s
Rights community, and just about everyone who remains relevant from this
growing Alt Right scene."<br />
<a href="https://antifascistnews.net/2016/07/11/red-ice-creations-and-the-new-fascist-media/">https://antifascistnews.net/2016/07/11/red-ice-creations-and-the-new-fascist-media/</a><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjlT5rcuqN0ZP1T83gsmbckMCum_SCUkR0tgBHDteUL4JUzxX76wqvVxr9M8nBTl7Hr4jgIZgBCN-q86BEqgyUVB_39diYRjki8vHEB6h6Cz_x6N9nlisof34nzoTOWij4a8sN_XFFWzg/s1600/billysnuffer.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="900" data-original-width="1600" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjlT5rcuqN0ZP1T83gsmbckMCum_SCUkR0tgBHDteUL4JUzxX76wqvVxr9M8nBTl7Hr4jgIZgBCN-q86BEqgyUVB_39diYRjki8vHEB6h6Cz_x6N9nlisof34nzoTOWij4a8sN_XFFWzg/s320/billysnuffer.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
Billy Snuffer, the Imperial Wizard of the Virginia-based Rebel Brigade Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, knows who he's backing:<br />
<br />
"'You're paying attention to the presidential elections this time? In your own personal opinion, who is best for the job?' I asked the Imperial Wizard.<br />
<br />
"'I think Donald Trump would be best for the job,' said the Imperial Wizard. 'The reason a lot of Klan members like Donald Trump is because a lot of what he believes in, we believe in. We want our country to be safe.'"<br />
<a href="http://www.nbc12.com/story/31846257/kkk-leader-disavows-violent-past-declares-trump-best-for-president">http://www.nbc12.com/story/31846257/kkk-leader-disavows-violent-past-declares-trump-best-for-president</a><br />
<br />
William Daniel Johnson of the American Freedom Party made another appearance in the Trump saga: <br />
<br />
"On Monday evening, California's secretary of state published a list of delegates chosen by the Trump campaign for the upcoming Republican presidential primary in the state. Trump's slate includes William Johnson, one of the country's most prominent white nationalists."<br />
<a href="http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/05/donald-trump-white-nationalist-afp-delegate-california">http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/05/donald-trump-white-nationalist-afp-delegate-california</a><br />
<br />
When this became public, Johnson stepped down as a delegate.<br />
<br />
White nationalist Richard Spencer of the National Policy Institute is the fellow who coined the phrase "alt-right" as a rebranding of the white supremacist/Nazi/fascist subculture. When Johnson had the AFP conducting those elect-Trump calls, Spencer had warned him that the association could be hurting Trump's campaign but Spencer himself is a Trump supporter who has become increasingly enthusiastic as the campaign has continued. From Dec. 2015:<br />
<a href="https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/we-asked-a-white-supremacist-what-he-thought-of-donald-trump-1210">https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/we-asked-a-white-supremacist-what-he-thought-of-donald-trump-1210</a><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhuA2Nre6ylLm9wSL7V9fIqFGMAkfrpatN58dP8ae28NTNRcLmnpknjUpuanjAlCvT3UxXMBFYEwLzOJExwHEHnWKC3Fq7uVv0j8yp2hTnMxBY_1P7TBqVDBQKSA_thq2U7ea1F2O_hBQ/s1600/richard-spencer-whitefish-20161216.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="900" data-original-width="1600" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhuA2Nre6ylLm9wSL7V9fIqFGMAkfrpatN58dP8ae28NTNRcLmnpknjUpuanjAlCvT3UxXMBFYEwLzOJExwHEHnWKC3Fq7uVv0j8yp2hTnMxBY_1P7TBqVDBQKSA_thq2U7ea1F2O_hBQ/s320/richard-spencer-whitefish-20161216.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
By Oct. 2016:<br />
<br />
"Spencer has become more enthused as Trump has ramped up his claims about
how his campaign represents an 'existential threat' to 'global special
interests.' After Trump's <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/10/donald-trump-gives-his-most-extreme-speech-yet-florida">widely criticized speech</a> in West Palm Beach last week, during which the GOP nominee <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/10/13/donald-trump-leans-in-hard-to-the-conspiracy-theory-of-the-2016-election/">alleged a 'conspiracy'</a> against the American people led by a 'global power structure,' <a href="https://twitter.com/RichardBSpencer/status/786634855559770112">Spencer tweeted</a>, 'The shackles are off, and Trump is getting radical. We've never seen a major postwar politician talk like this.' He later <a href="https://twitter.com/RichardBSpencer/status/786955879429971968">amplified his appreciation</a> of what he characterized as Trump 'demystifying "racism" and the financial power structure,' <a href="https://twitter.com/RichardBSpencer/status/786956856727965697">concluding</a>, 'No matter what happens, I will be profoundly grateful to Donald Trump for the rest of my life.'... Spencer reflects on the significance of what he sees as Trump's
affinity for white nationalism. 'It's not so much about policy – it's
more about the emotions that he evokes,' he says. 'And emotions are more
important than facts. Trump sincerely and genuinely cares about
Americans, and white Americans in particular.'<br />
<br />
"Spencer is
ebullient over how Trump has legitimized his movement. 'It's not just
about "deport illegals" or "stop illegal immigration,"' he says. 'It's
about the sense – the existential sense – of, <i>Are we a nation</i>? He's brought an existential quality to politics.'<br />
...<br />
<br />
"Trump, Spencer believes, has exposed the Republican Party's id. 'The
Trump phenomenon expresses a fundamental truth,' he says. 'It's an
unspoken truth, and that is that the Republican Party has won elections
on the basis of implicit nationalism and not on the basis of the
Constitution, free-market economics, vague Christian values and so on.
Even a leftist would agree with that statement. Like, Trump has shown
the hand of the GOP. The GOP is a white person's populist party.' Unlike
Trump, though, the party is 'embarrassed of itself.'"<br />
<a href="http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/meet-the-alt-right-spokesman-thrilled-by-trumps-rise-w443902">http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/meet-the-alt-right-spokesman-thrilled-by-trumps-rise-w443902</a><br />
<br />
In July, Trump again retweets virulent racists, this time trashing Hillary Clinton:<br />
<a href="https://mic.com/articles/147711/donald-trump-s-star-of-david-hillary-clinton-meme-was-created-by-white-supremacists#.7FxDZgJMi">https://mic.com/articles/147711/donald-trump-s-star-of-david-hillary-clinton-meme-was-created-by-white-supremacists#.7FxDZgJMi</a><br />
<br />
"Donald Trump's paid campaign staffers have declared on their personal social media accounts that Muslims are unfit to be U.S. citizens, ridiculed Mexican accents, called for Secretary of State John Kerry to be hanged and stated their readiness for a possible civil war, according to a review by The Associated Press of their postings."<br />
<a href="https://apnews.com/d98c99e8626549d984d3695ac6ef589f/Racism-and-talk-of-religious-war:-Trump-staff's-online-posts">https://apnews.com/d98c99e8626549d984d3695ac6ef589f/Racism-and-talk-of-religious-war:-Trump-staff's-online-posts</a><br />
<br />
"The effort to plant the seeds of white nationalism in the political mainstream, where they might blossom into pro-white political coalitions that appeal to a broader swath of Caucasian voters, will not be easy, according to the chairman of the American Nazi Party.<br />
<br />
"But Rocky Suhayda thinks there is one political figure who presents a 'real opportunity' to lessen the load.<br />
<br />
"Who is it? Donald Trump, the Republican nominee for president.<br />
<br />
"'Now, if Trump does win, okay, it’s going to be a real opportunity for people like white nationalists, acting intelligently to build upon that, and to go and start — you know how you have the black political caucus and what not in Congress and everything — to start building on something like that,' Suhayda declared on his radio program last month.<br />
<br />
"'It doesn’t have to be anti-, like the movement’s been for decades, so much as it has to be pro-white,' he added.<br />
...<br />
<br />
"Audio from the radio program was posted Saturday by BuzzFeed’s Andrew Kaczynski, who noted that Suhayda has in the past avoided making statements about Trump out of concern that he might harm the businessman’s candidacy. Yet, Kaczynski reported, in an American Nazi Party report from September, the chairman argued that Trump’s rhetoric revealed the secret popularity of the party’s messages.<br />
<br />
"'We have a wonderful OPPORTUNITY here folks, that may never come again, at the RIGHT time,' Suhayda wrote, according to BuzzFeed. 'Donald Trump’s campaign statements, if nothing else, have SHOWN that "our views" are NOT so "unpopular" as the Political Correctness crowd have told everyone they are!'<br />
<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/08/07/top-nazi-leader-trump-will-be-a-real-opportunity-for-white-nationalists/?utm_term=.aadaf6f7697c">https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/08/07/top-nazi-leader-trump-will-be-a-real-opportunity-for-white-nationalists/?utm_term=.aadaf6f7697c</a><br />
<br />
"Last week, when Donald Trump tapped the chairman of Breitbart Media to lead his campaign, he wasn't simply turning to a trusted ally and veteran propagandist. By bringing on Stephen Bannon, Trump was signaling a wholehearted embrace of the 'alt-right,' a once-motley assemblage of anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim, ethno-nationalistic provocateurs who have coalesced behind Trump and curried the GOP nominee's favor on social media. In short, Trump has embraced the core readership of Breitbart News.<br />
<br />
"'We're the platform for the alt-right,' Bannon told me proudly when I interviewed him at the Republican National Convention (RNC) in July. Though disavowed by every other major conservative news outlet, the alt-right has been Bannon's target audience ever since he took over Breitbart News from its late founder, Andrew Breitbart, four years ago. Under Bannon's leadership, the site has plunged into the fever swamps of conservatism, cheering white nationalist groups as an 'eclectic mix of renegades,' accusing President Barack Obama of importing 'more hating Muslims,' and waging an incessant war against the purveyors of 'political correctness.'<br />
...<br />
<br />
"A Twitter analysis conducted by The Investigative Fund using Little Bird software found that these 'elements' are more deeply connected to Breitbart News than more traditional conservative outlets. While only 5 percent of key influencers using the supremacist hashtag #whitegenocide follow the National Review, and 10 percent follow the Daily Caller, 31 percent follow Breitbart. The disparities are even starker for the anti-Muslim hashtag #counterjihad: National Review, 26 percent; the Daily Caller, 37 percent; Breitbart News, 62 percent."<br />
<a href="http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/08/stephen-bannon-donald-trump-alt-right-breitbart-news">http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/08/stephen-bannon-donald-trump-alt-right-breitbart-news</a><br />
<br />
White nationalist/fascist leaders couldn't have been more pleased with Trump's choice of Bannon:<br />
<a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/08/17/alt-right-rejoices-at-trump-s-steve-bannon-hire.html">http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/08/17/alt-right-rejoices-at-trump-s-steve-bannon-hire.html</a><br />
<br />
Trump's crazed, reactionary speech on immigration in August drew tweets of praise from the white supremacist crowd:<br />
<br />
The editors of VDARE:<br />
"In a sane country, everything Trump has proposed tonight so far would be regarded as so obviously true it wouldn't even be up for debate."<br />
<br />
Jared Tayler of American Renaissance:<br />
"Hell of a speech. Almost perfect. Logical, deeply felt, and powerfully delivered. Now watch how the media twists it."<br />
<br />
David Duke:<br />
"Excellent speech by Donald Trump tonight. Deport criminal aliens, end catch and release, enforce immigration laws & America First."<br />
<a href="http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/9/1/1565759/-Former-Imperial-Wizard-of-the-KKK-and-white-supremacists-line-up-to-praise-Trump-s-speech">http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/9/1/1565759/-Former-Imperial-Wizard-of-the-KKK-and-white-supremacists-line-up-to-praise-Trump-s-speech</a><br />
<br />
During Trump's acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention, Republicans displayed a tweet by white supremacist "Western_Triumph" on the big monitors around the arena. Earlier in the convention, they'd also displayed a tweet from VDARE:<br />
<a href="http://time.com/4418591/republican-convention-white-supremacist-tweet/">http://time.com/4418591/republican-convention-white-supremacist-tweet/</a><br />
<br />
The Twitter profile for "Western_Triump" makes it rather difficult to write that off as an honest mistake; he describes himself as "AltRight #Pro White #Southern #RaceRealist #Nationalist #SlayCulturalMarxism #Trump2016 #LoveYourRace."<br />
<br />
"Originally established in 1999 by the Center for American Unity, a
Virginia-based nonprofit foundation started by English immigrant Peter
Brimelow, VDARE.com is an anti-immigration hate website 'dedicated to
preserving our historical unity as Americans into the 21st Century.'<br />
<br />
"Now run by the VDARE Foundation, the site is a place where relatively
intellectually inclined leaders of the anti-immigrant movement share
their opinions. VDARE.com also regularly publishes articles by prominent
white nationalists, race scientists and anti-Semites."<br />
<a href="https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/group/vdare">https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/group/vdare</a><br />
<br />
"The extent to which the Trump campaign has legitimized and promoted
white supremacism--the real unvarnished version--still boggles my
mind. I sincerely can’t understand why people are just sitting back and
letting this happen. The media now treat each new revelation of Trump’s
outright connections with and sympathy for these racial extremists as a
sort of 'ho-hum' routine thing, not very big news, let’s just move on
and discuss Ivanka’s designer dress instead.<br />
<br />
"But the GOP convention was absolutely lousy with white supremacists,
and not just hanging around outside. They were given press passes and
convention credentials, and in at least one case actually seated in the
luxury box next to the VIP section."<br />
<a href="http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/46173_White_Supremacists_Were_Everywhere_at_the_GOP_Convention">http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/46173_White_Supremacists_Were_Everywhere_at_the_GOP_Convention</a><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgeWskeUYKo7-aCKPxapU5PFiPQqPvIeZZhwT7MCmmwK_afhETR_kkE4X-G2DV9bqN8RRvYU9Ys5DUwA7KhUDnp1i1Nf8K3T3_tw6eD15axsgJFTVuVjL1dgEAB8aVCtPL0J01-7fL3bg/s1600/richardspencerchuckjohnson.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="768" data-original-width="1024" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgeWskeUYKo7-aCKPxapU5PFiPQqPvIeZZhwT7MCmmwK_afhETR_kkE4X-G2DV9bqN8RRvYU9Ys5DUwA7KhUDnp1i1Nf8K3T3_tw6eD15axsgJFTVuVjL1dgEAB8aVCtPL0J01-7fL3bg/s400/richardspencerchuckjohnson.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
That pic, from the above Little Green Footballs article, is Richard Spencer posing, at the convention, with Chuck Johnson, another white supremacist. During the primary season, after Trump spokeswoman Katrina Pierson had posed for a photo with Johnson, LGF ran an article outlining his deplorable views:<br />
<a href="http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/45740_Yet_Another_Donald_Trump_Spokesperson_Associating_With_a_White_Supremacist">http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/45740_Yet_Another_Donald_Trump_Spokesperson_Associating_With_a_White_Supremacist</a><br />
<br />
"Among the small number of American newspapers that have embraced Donald Trump’s campaign, there is one, in particular, that stands out.<br />
<br />
"It is called the Crusader — and it is one of the most prominent newspapers of the Ku Klux Klan.<br />
<br />
"Under the banner 'Make America Great Again,' the entire front page of the paper's current issue is devoted to a lengthy defense of Trump’s message — an embrace some have labeled a de facto endorsement."<br />
<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/11/01/the-kkks-official-newspaper-has-endorsed-donald-trump-for-president/">https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/11/01/the-kkks-official-newspaper-has-endorsed-donald-trump-for-president/</a><br />
<br />
Trump's election was greeted with orgiastic glee by the white nationalist/Nazi/fascist community:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhIqX4Bu_HfN4X2FRPipqDn9OWxmVRZEAGuQaXzTK_C_f65ArWwsviLcwtE3wXUNGPh9cyaTuL45b99hdN25tuLxaGp2zQuYtPqMrlHalENdZCVeqhxVGPNFNaMv2KSmwHpfQkIm8wYPw/s1600/spencertweet_2016-11-09_12.15.41.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="426" data-original-width="625" height="435" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhIqX4Bu_HfN4X2FRPipqDn9OWxmVRZEAGuQaXzTK_C_f65ArWwsviLcwtE3wXUNGPh9cyaTuL45b99hdN25tuLxaGp2zQuYtPqMrlHalENdZCVeqhxVGPNFNaMv2KSmwHpfQkIm8wYPw/s640/spencertweet_2016-11-09_12.15.41.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhIJCNpSuV3aU4Lskji803RAYR2g-T6jUhQA7ST5cWkeg9SOvnKFmxJyFxpuj8PuBy2QlP3mRgk7ld58uAswr-FvQd6w6lJeUakiXJ8KHAGTrAPgqHlHFlalaSsmEN6-75qHpIT35n-xQ/s1600/duke02.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="667" data-original-width="637" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhIJCNpSuV3aU4Lskji803RAYR2g-T6jUhQA7ST5cWkeg9SOvnKFmxJyFxpuj8PuBy2QlP3mRgk7ld58uAswr-FvQd6w6lJeUakiXJ8KHAGTrAPgqHlHFlalaSsmEN6-75qHpIT35n-xQ/s640/duke02.JPG" width="610" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjdmAmuk_FxRFyzbfENwLmm2ZnNg57nYAtITmio39lDvuUeE4HxSpvNSW60MM2wVhma-46O4_PwO9jTOapUyxlD_21t7FiNDyZKefNbk6YnfZLLws8pIh_-YLCq1gdZRby5RqN4cHHrRA/s1600/duke01.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="709" data-original-width="635" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjdmAmuk_FxRFyzbfENwLmm2ZnNg57nYAtITmio39lDvuUeE4HxSpvNSW60MM2wVhma-46O4_PwO9jTOapUyxlD_21t7FiNDyZKefNbk6YnfZLLws8pIh_-YLCq1gdZRby5RqN4cHHrRA/s640/duke01.JPG" width="572" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiRjv7J_xYAQAhEw5LMWKxQbx8Ln2TQL61l7iqdTU3_pG9Uhm_uDhZNfV57nUeVnP8jxIV4ZM55XeLi85QLpkNjHUOwcWLt6Ekvq-VwyS1rUvCZY7dziG3ys5EYZnOjgJsQgratPPH6Bw/s1600/duke03.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="762" data-original-width="637" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiRjv7J_xYAQAhEw5LMWKxQbx8Ln2TQL61l7iqdTU3_pG9Uhm_uDhZNfV57nUeVnP8jxIV4ZM55XeLi85QLpkNjHUOwcWLt6Ekvq-VwyS1rUvCZY7dziG3ys5EYZnOjgJsQgratPPH6Bw/s640/duke03.JPG" width="534" /></a></div>
<br />
"White Nationalists all over the world," <a href="http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2016/11/09/white-nationalists-take-victory-lap/">wrote Brad Griffin</a> of Occidental Dissent, "are celebrating like this on the way to work this morning!"<br />
<br />
"An historic, quite possibly revolutionary victory," <a href="http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2016/11/09/an-amazing-victory/">declared Kevin MacDonald</a> at Occidental Observer:<br />
<br />
"This is an amazing victory... Fundamentally, it is a victory of White Americans over the oligarchic, hostile elites what have run this country for decades... [Trump]understood the anger in White America far better than anyone else
and he was willing to say what they wanted to hear--most of all the
White working class (72-23!), but also White women (53-43), and his
deficit among White educated women was only 51-45 (<a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/news/cbs-news-exit-polls-how-donald-trump-won-the-us-presidency/"><b>CBS exit polls</b></a>).
Looks like quite a few college-educated women ignored what they heard
in their gender studies courses and those mandatory credits in Black
Studies. While obviously a lot of work needs to be done, this is a glorious day."<br />
<br />
"We Won," <a href="http://www.dailystormer.com/we-won/">declared Andrew Anglin</a> of the Daily Stormer. "All of our work. It has paid off. Our Glorious Leader has ascended to God Emperor... History has been made. Today, the world ended. A new world has been born... This has been the best year and a half of my life. We have won so much. And it has led to the ultimate win. The battle is far from over. Much, much, much work to be done. But the White race is back in the game. And if we’re playing, no one can beat us."<br />
<br />
Thomas Robb, Knights Party:<br />
<br />
"America’s white voting majority, men and women, have spoken by electing
Donald J. Trump to the presidency. They have recognized that this was a
last chance election. They are sick and tired of seeing our young men
and women die in foreign wars protecting other borders, while leaving
our own border unsecure. They have been appalled by the leftist attack
upon law and order and the hardworking law enforcement officers who put
their lives at risk everyday. They are alarmed by the increasing number
of Muslims invading America; with a majority who hate America and are
anti-women. And they recognize that the liberal agenda, free trade, and
over regulation robs [sic] them of jobs and opportunities and harms all
communities; white and nonwhite alike. They are beginning to feel like a
stranger in their own country. They are beginning to feel like a stranger in their own country. They
are saying to the establishment, “Keep your hands off our families, 2nd
Amendment and Christian faith."<br />
<a href="https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2016/11/09/white-nationalists-and-alt-right-celebrate-trump%E2%80%99s-victory">https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2016/11/09/white-nationalists-and-alt-right-celebrate-trump%E2%80%99s-victory</a><br />
<br />
The North Carolina-based Loyal White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan greeted news of the election by declaring a "Victory Klavalkade Klan Parade" to be held in Pelham, NC in celebration. "Trump’s Race United My People," its website declared.<br />
<a href="http://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article116062103.html">http://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article116062103.html</a><br />
<br />
Shorty after the election, Richard Spencer brought his National Policy Institute conference to the Ronald Reagan Building in the nation's capitol. Addressing the assembled, Spencer declared, ""Hail Trump! Hail our people! Hail victory!" At which point, attendees exploded <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1o6-bi3jlxk">in applause and Nazi salutes</a>. Spencer made generous use of racist imagery and asserted, "America
was, until this last generation, a white country, designed for
ourselves and our posterity. It is our creation and our inheritance, and
it belongs to us."<br />
<br />
---<br />
<br />
[*] Right in the midst of the general election, the
deplorable Dinesh D'Souza put out one of his dreadful
"documentaries"--HILLARY'S AMERICA: THE SECRET HISTORY OF THE DEMOCRATIC
PARTY--that tied the Democratic party to the KKK.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Appendix III: Ku Klux Reflux</b><br />
<br />
Ever hear the one about the Ku Klux Klan endorsing Hillary Clinton? Throughout the presidential campaign, rightist internet trolls took great delight in posting--and reposting and reposting--the alleged "endorsement" of Hillary Clinton by California KKK Grand Dragon Will Quigg.<br />
<br />
Quigg had been a Trump supporter:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhVCJX6i6BKp_LXC8_pu4Bz8W0k13SA2uQ_zZqr1YuZbcQx8Ixrt6xcTIpx0GC5zf1ujvjnR5YHq9n3M9NT7L52zRsE81zelNVCIuT8fsHKxt0NxJDIM8_16mTR51koe1OyJ6kSgjAbzQ/s1600/quigg1b.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="213" data-original-width="500" height="272" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhVCJX6i6BKp_LXC8_pu4Bz8W0k13SA2uQ_zZqr1YuZbcQx8Ixrt6xcTIpx0GC5zf1ujvjnR5YHq9n3M9NT7L52zRsE81zelNVCIuT8fsHKxt0NxJDIM8_16mTR51koe1OyJ6kSgjAbzQ/s640/quigg1b.JPG" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
He flip-flopped and made his "endorsement" of Clinton in March 2016. The <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/12192975/The-KKK-leader-who-says-he-backs-Hillary-Clinton.html">original Telegraph article</a> on this development noted that:<br />
<br />
"'Based on his past statements, it doesn’t appear highly credible that he has changed his effusive allegiance to Donald Trump,' Brian Levin, a former New York police officer who is director of the Centre for the Study of Hate and Extremism at California State University in San Bernardino, told the Telegraph. 'The timing seems suspect. I think this is a function of not wanting to undermine the Trump campaign.'"<br />
<br />
While Clinton stood for everything Quigg and his org despise, Quigg said she has a "hidden agenda" that dovetails with his own, something that will only come out after she's elected. For now, she was just "telling everybody what they want to hear so she can get elected..." Quigg's reasoning for turning on Trump? "We don’t like his hair. We think it’s a toupee."<br />
<br />
By April, the tale had grown; Quigg was then claiming to have made an anonymous $20,000 donation to the Clinton campaign. He said the donation was made anonymously. Those at Vocativ seem to have been alone in examining this claim but <a href="http://www.vocativ.com/312479/kkk-endorses-hillary-clinton-for-president/">they did debunk it</a> almost as soon as Quigg had made it:<br />
<br />
"According to Schwerin, the campaign has 'not received anywhere close to $20,000 in anonymous donations in total, [so] it is impossible that they are telling the truth.' Vocativ independently verified this through FEC filings."<br />
<br />
...which did nothing to slow the roll of the rightists trolls plastering the story of the "endorsement" all over the internet. Other than actually saying, from time to time, that his org endorsed Clinton, Quigg said nothing complimentary of his allegedly favored candidate. His Twitter feed, instead, was full of standard Trumpian far-right ranting. He wrote that Black Lives Matter had issues a statement saying "To kill all Whites esp. White Cops" (17 July). When Trump asserted President Obama was "the founder of ISIS," Quigg tweeted "Trump Does make a good point here" (11 Aug.). In response to a tweet by Obama himself, he wrote:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjqy1veaJ4cCFnlCMD3OaFbsjQIlZlkA54U1R1SNAiLkxlpbz4tIAjd-1wmW_8BS8xhOAicyCWx-f3UxY5D5yy2wtiHHJ2TtSBFSjxvzAebbCMAPAG0EH_IF9_hEuIc2cUAS0ce2h8THA/s1600/quigg2.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="422" data-original-width="638" height="422" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjqy1veaJ4cCFnlCMD3OaFbsjQIlZlkA54U1R1SNAiLkxlpbz4tIAjd-1wmW_8BS8xhOAicyCWx-f3UxY5D5yy2wtiHHJ2TtSBFSjxvzAebbCMAPAG0EH_IF9_hEuIc2cUAS0ce2h8THA/s640/quigg2.JPG" width="640" /></a></div>
He tweeted an article about reactionary Arizona "sheriff" Joe Arpaio continuing to "investigate" Obama's birth certificate (25 Sept.). And so on.<br />
<br />
Nevertheless, when, in August 2016, Democratic Vice Presidential candidate Tim Kaine railed against Donald Trump's white supremacist support, Fox News <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvqerYj8sSY">aired footage of Quigg's "endorsement"</a> of Clinton to rebut his comments. The video was widely circulated throughout the rightist internet.<br />
<br />
When Trump won, Quigg finally dropped even the little effort he'd put into his ruse and came clean:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiYZbHdDPKlUHEj4O9Jg5wfqLV_w9VgfROYvUYgwkUNsVqziPkF8GQEPJErmTjxo5c3TsEG0G6Ne8rdxmUl3HETDDln7oLPIGFFKi-f4eda6q5Zl8wEvmopeJ24CayEEENeBDAcj2B99w/s1600/quigg7.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="345" data-original-width="639" height="344" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiYZbHdDPKlUHEj4O9Jg5wfqLV_w9VgfROYvUYgwkUNsVqziPkF8GQEPJErmTjxo5c3TsEG0G6Ne8rdxmUl3HETDDln7oLPIGFFKi-f4eda6q5Zl8wEvmopeJ24CayEEENeBDAcj2B99w/s640/quigg7.JPG" width="640" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgEIOY-nv1rNr0UEKOnRMG0AGGMZ04sJxmO9VK8jAMz7RJy_JvC3mu27WbeZXr1ulFrAl5f2KLrNwN46Fr5SxMS3om4miMfjP0PcfO_TRYjRont2x2MkHPNFGHRAO66oHYx02bBh9KPdA/s1600/quigg8.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="343" data-original-width="641" height="342" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgEIOY-nv1rNr0UEKOnRMG0AGGMZ04sJxmO9VK8jAMz7RJy_JvC3mu27WbeZXr1ulFrAl5f2KLrNwN46Fr5SxMS3om4miMfjP0PcfO_TRYjRont2x2MkHPNFGHRAO66oHYx02bBh9KPdA/s640/quigg8.JPG" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
After he'd fessed up, Quigg was a bit irked that some were a little slow to catch on<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhK3c9MlPq5u1JTQyss2447Igv36qWEKVhnoqmxae8dMPE1Eigy91zUIG7lAni0A2dFLRbB2FRxGP8A2RIvYAd-fHID4kd32I0ePzQtmJ-JAzGRZ_W1n_NLHpgDGmbpOq3lMlZlWPOWaA/s1600/quigg11.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="377" data-original-width="640" height="376" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhK3c9MlPq5u1JTQyss2447Igv36qWEKVhnoqmxae8dMPE1Eigy91zUIG7lAni0A2dFLRbB2FRxGP8A2RIvYAd-fHID4kd32I0ePzQtmJ-JAzGRZ_W1n_NLHpgDGmbpOq3lMlZlWPOWaA/s640/quigg11.JPG" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhYIiN4Cn6ksDQZldwpAvxCWy2_0ECGwDp_IBMnTOC_eZtSXQN8WtnMu9M-wUIu25okrjIJcTtsm6t-cz2Y-YSBJZxoi5AAZNIIqRum2cfLElIVsmuHxs5Ltpb2sJODsyXrIiMIUdIs-A/s1600/quigg12.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="579" data-original-width="647" height="572" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhYIiN4Cn6ksDQZldwpAvxCWy2_0ECGwDp_IBMnTOC_eZtSXQN8WtnMu9M-wUIu25okrjIJcTtsm6t-cz2Y-YSBJZxoi5AAZNIIqRum2cfLElIVsmuHxs5Ltpb2sJODsyXrIiMIUdIs-A/s640/quigg12.JPG" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
As of this writing, rightist trolls are <i>still</i> occasionally posting the story about how the KKK endorsed Hillary Clinton. What can you do?<br />
<br />
--j.cinemarchaeologisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13507603255666191405noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6321344375544728027.post-17295970571815568342017-02-08T11:23:00.006-08:002023-03-17T09:21:26.405-07:00Trump & Fascism: The BasicsAn extraordinary thing happened during the recently-concluded
election cycle: the rise of Donald Trump inspired some in the mainstream
corporate press to utter
the "f" word. Not "fornicating" but "fascism." This proved a brief flirtation; a few months
later, those in the press have long since dropped this talk and have
largely tried to go back to some semblance of business-as-usual while
being tasked with covering a "president" who is entirely inexplicable in
those terms. Applying the word to him was hyperbolic and
arguably even irresponsible but not, as some would have it, because
there's any great distance
between Trump and fascism. Trying to cover Trump without reference to
fascism is, in fact, like trying to ignore an angry gorilla while
crammed into a very small closet with it.<br />
<br />
That isn't to say Trump <i>is</i>
a fascist, just that the matter was handled indelicately and now needs
to be handled with greater care, instead of just being ignored. Trump is the darling of the "alt-right," much
of which is overtly fascist.[1] This isn't coincidental or in any way
unintentional--he all-but-openly courted these elements during the
campaign, often in ways that would have been political suicide for any
other modern presidential candidate. Trump has a much larger fanbase
among a faction of what's considered the "regular" right that would
properly be described as protofascist--not the whole hog but well on its
way. And that's Trump himself, a protofascist who, at present, lacks
some of the important elements of the real thing.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEib9E6U5e4pErcVhOszMcM6u4yYIEitSm6M8us5pItcrWnvOBxjcXRwoC553NejMHLkk6t6gUaTWRcmxOAeVBrLBPqCG1NfA6sehiNQYwCsikOjZvbQh9YCWj02yzyhw0zYXf82Kxn3Zg/s1600/hitlertrumptie.PNG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="332" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEib9E6U5e4pErcVhOszMcM6u4yYIEitSm6M8us5pItcrWnvOBxjcXRwoC553NejMHLkk6t6gUaTWRcmxOAeVBrLBPqCG1NfA6sehiNQYwCsikOjZvbQh9YCWj02yzyhw0zYXf82Kxn3Zg/s640/hitlertrumptie.PNG" width="640" /></a></div><p>
<br />
"Fascism" is one of the most repeated but least understood words in political discourse, perhaps second only to "socialism" in words whose meaning has been almost entirely lost to relentless, politically-motivated misuse. As far back as the 1940s, George Orwell famously lamented that in common usage, it has come to mean merely "something not desirable." For decades, it was hurled as a multipurpose term of abuse, first by both conservative and liberal factions, then, for a long time, by liberals and leftists. In more recent years (in the U.S., at least), it has primarily been conservatives and rightists spewing it like a grudge. Reduced to virtual meaninglessness, its emptiness encouraged people with too much time on their hands to fill it with all manner of nonsense. Thus at a point in history when it has become a more important subject than it has been in decades, people aren't just uninformed about it, they're often very badly <i>mis</i>informed. This isn't just troublesome, it's potentially dangerous.<br />
<br />
Any effort to define fascism as a body of ideas must contend with the fact that one of its defining elements is a seething anti-intellectualism and a fundamental anti-rationalism that sometimes masquerades as a faux-rationalism, travestying the real thing but counterfeiting it in the service of the fascist cause. Fascism prioritizes action over reflection. Its basic antagonism toward serious, informed thought means it isn't so much a cohesive ideology as it is an impulse; reactionary, to use another word that has gone out of fashion in common political discourse. Any discussion of fascism must account for this. Few of those that occur in internet forums ever do.<br />
<br />
<span class="ind">Oxford <a href="https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/fascism" target="_blank">defines</a> fascism as "an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization." While not really incorrect, that's far too general and incomplete, as dictionary definitions will tend to be. Among other things, fascism is a movement, something with which that definition doesn't reckon at all. To the extent that such definitions feed that vacuum that has developed around the word, it may do more harm than good.[2] </span><br />
<br />Presenting itself as "radical," even "revolutionary," fascism is militant far-right sentiment on legs. The fascist is ultranationalistic, which is the most important thing to understand about him and the source from which nearly everything else about him flows. He despises modern liberal democracy, which he insists has failed and betrayed the people, and calls for national renewal by sweeping it aside and replacing it with an authoritarian regime. He holds that radicals, liberals, labor unions, immigrants, democrats, racial or ethnic minorities, sexual "deviants," non-conformists, women who don't understand their place is in the kitchen and bearing male children, those measured as less than patriotic, not of the right ethnicity or religion, those pesky "intellectuals" with all their ideas about things, etc. are, by their mere existence, an attack on the established institutions and traditions (or imagined institutions and traditions) of the particular cultural milieu chauvinistically favored by the fascists--enemies who have no place in society. Fascists foster a cult of aggrievement against these "enemies," who are relentlessly demonized and scapegoated as a rationale for stamping them out
in the name of that project of national renewal and are willing to employ an incredible amount of violence, often up to and including mass murder, to crush them. As Benito Mussolini put it, "The democrats of Il Mondo want to know our program? It is to break the bones of the democrats of Il Mondo. And the sooner the better." All of the fundamental values of the liberal society--freedom, self-determination, democracy, diversity, tolerance, openness, free inquiry--are held in contempt by the fascist, who projects strength, resolve and moral clarity against what he sees as weakness, softness, incompetence, betrayal, decadence, idiocy, relativism, appeasement, impurity, indecision, indecency, bleeding heart-ism and that Great Other--that which is outside that favored milieu. The fascist typically indulges in a perverse Romanticism that revels in the imagined glories of some mythologized past and seeks to recapture them. He embraces martial values, hyper-masculinity and glorifies in war and conquest--means of proving strength, superiority, heroism. The fascist venerates heroism; in his story, he's the hero who is going to save civilization from these evils.<br />
<br />
Fascist movements tend to congregate around charismatic demagogues who rise to power preaching this message and presenting themselves, rather than any specific political program, as the living embodiment of it. Because these movements are tied to the cultures from which they emerge, some specific details about the various permutations of fascism will differ but they're a bit like <a href="http://cinemarchaeologist.blogspot.com/2009/07/mainstream-scribe-makes-mess-of-slasher.html" target="_blank">slasher movies</a>; it may not be quite accurate to say of them "if you've seen one, you've seen 'em all," but it ain't far off the mark.<br />
<br />
That's fascism, a far-right movement that preaches national renewal by means of the destruction of the liberal society, the suppression of the left and the adoption of an authoritarian state run along ultranationalistic lines. Hopefully, this makes clear how much any brief, positivist description--like, for example, the previous sentence--necessarily leaves on the cutting-room floor and helps knock some of the ambiguity out of the subject.<br />
<br />
Nearly everything beyond this is merely ad hoc, and the failure to understand this is where the efforts of so many of the internet's amateur lexicographers fail. It's hard to do history and political science when you don't know either, and the matter of fascism is further complicated by the almost-constant presence of politically motivated revisionism that actively seeks to take advantage of the general ignorance of the subject for partisan advantage. In the name of further demystifying the matter, some of the many hashes made of fascism are worth some attention here.<br />
<br />
A popular one is an effort to define it via a structural model and this hash's Exhibit A-Z is the following quote by Mussolini:<br />
<br />
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the
merger of state and corporate power."<br />
<br />The first big problem: While Mussolini did put forth the idea of a
"corporate" or, more typically, a "corporativist" state, this quote
isn't real. It appears nowhere in the recorded utterances of Benito
Mussolini. The next: Those selling this notion of fascism invariably
treat "corporate power" as a reference to modern business corporations, a
reading that is entirely alien to fascist corporativism. A repudiation
of socialism, the theoretical fascist "corporativist" state was one in
which sectors of society were organized into corporate entities that
made a pretense of representing these various interests but, of course,
these entities would be created and run by the fascists themselves.
Fascists don't do democracy.<br />
<br />
That misperception regarding "corporate power" is often fed by another stream of commentary offered initially by Marxists who presented fascism as a form of capitalism in crisis, proposing a narrative wherein the established Big Money interests, feeling threatened by socialists and other radical reformers, turn to fascism in order to smite these foes and protect their interests. That basic narrative is largely correct. The support of the, broadly, capitalist class is typically critical in bringing fascist movements to power, after which the money-men enter into a mutually profitable arrangement with the regime that develops.[3] Where the cruder Marxists sometimes collapse into hash is in suggesting that the fascist states were merely the puppets of that capitalist class, a preposterous proposition. The money-men embraced the fascists movements and were made even wealthier by them but whenever a dispute arose between they and the government, the regime got the last word. While, in practice, these regimes are invariably pro-capitalist, this is
usually just part of fascism's larger alliance with traditional
conservative elites, not some doctrinal commitment to capitalism itself.[4]<br />
<br />
Another hash--one of the most common, in fact--is made by those who attempt to present fascism as an economic doctrine or to examine it as any sort of cohesive economic system. Fascism isn't an economic system, it isn't an economic doctrine and it has no economic doctrine. As Hitler put it, "the basic feature of our economic theory is that we have no theory at all." Fascists aren't intellectuals sitting around reading economic texts--certainly not writing them--or putting any real effort into trying to learn how economies work. "Economic policy" under these regimes is ad hoc--whatever it takes at the moment to meet the goals (or perceived goals) of the day. Policy could radically change on a dime with circumstances then change again shortly after. There's no real consistency, either internally or between the different fascisms.[5]<br />
<br />
Many-a-hash is made by those--even, over the years, many of the top experts on fascism--who try to explain fascism as one would any other traditional political movement. If fascism's anti-intellectualism and anti-rationalism doesn't trip them up, its relationship with doctrine will. If one wants to get a general picture of the policies for which most political parties stand, one need only consult that party's current platform. Fascists tend to be very opportunistic though, political omnivores who make a show of syncretistically gobbling up bits and pieces from other political movements and parties across the spectrum and deploy propaganda in the worst sense of that word. In their hands, "doctrine" in the programmatic way ordinary political parties conceive it doesn't really exist. It's treated as a fluid, the generation and exploitation of popular grievances or the steering of existing ones toward fascist ends, that which needs to be said from day to day in order to achieve then maintain power. Mussolini had originally been a socialist. He'd been expelled from the Socialist party in 1914 for a growing list of heresies, principally his support of the First World War, and in March 1919, he founded the Fasci di Combattimento--the Fascism from which we get the word--in order to, as he put it, "declare war against socialism." Initially, he tried to craft a sort of fusion of right and left views--the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascist_Manifesto" target="_blank">original Fascist manifesto</a>, though anti-socialist, was quite progressive in many respects, even radical in others--calculated to draw attention--but this drew little interest and after the Fascists were utterly squashed in the 1919 elections, Mussolini simply abandoned--or, more often, directly reversed--most of the left elements[6] and Fascism became a movement of reactionary ex-soldiers who mustered into far-right paramilitaries that were rented out to the industrial and agribusiness elite to physically crush the Italian left. This approach led them to power. In internet discussions of German fascism, some amateur professional will inevitably pull out the <a href="http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/25points.htm" target="_blank">25-point program</a> of the National Socialist German Workers Party from 1920 as representative of that party. In that platform, there is, to be sure, plenty of the Nazism that would later emerge but the radical planks in it, the items that inevitably prove to be the reason it's brandished in these discussions, were entirely ignored once the Nazis seized power. Likewise, the German fascists' use of socialist slogans and imagery and even the word "socialist" itself amounted to little more than an effort to attract votes (at which it largely failed) and attention (at which it succeeded beyond what anyone could have expected). Those attracted to the movement who took the radical window-dressing seriously were successively purged.[7] The fascist freely poses as adopting various doctrines to which he has no real commitment to serve various ends and freely discards them if they've served their purpose or outlived their usefulness. Always in this is ultranationalist grievance. Fascism doesn't have a traditional political movement's connection to programmatic doctrine. And once in power, it's about recognizing the authority of the fascist leaders and doing what they say.<br />
<br />
This hopefully provides an outline of where the Trump phenomenon is similar to fascism and wherein it differs. It's easy to understand why even reasonably intelligent and informed people would jump to the "f" word to describe him. The ultranationalism, the anti-intellectualism and anti-rationalism, the opportunistic political syncretism (during the presidential race, Trump freely ran to Hillary Clinton's left on many issues), the lack of any real program beyond Trump as the strongman who promises to cure the liberal democracy that ails the nation, the promise of authoritarian rule and of national renewal to be achieved by it ("Make America Great Again"), the machismo, the militarism, the exaltation of authority, the persistent demonization of his "enemies," including helpless minorities, often to justify repressive policies--it would be far easier to list the few areas in which he differs from fascism than those wherein he echoes it. Nevertheless, some of those points of departure are important. Fascism revels in violence against its perceived enemies and while Trump spent months during the campaign <a href="http://mashable.com/2016/03/12/trump-rally-incite-violence/#Anljueojpiqo" target="_blank">encouraging</a> <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwrEjKIdJsY" target="_blank">his supporters</a> to carry out violence against anti-Trump protesters and has always pimped a belligerent foreign policy, this is hardly the same as fielding a paramilitary force who battle opponents in the streets. Trump, likewise, hasn't called for the abolition of liberal democracy. His attacks on its institutions, however, are relentless and, in fact, form the basis of his popularity. While, in this writer's view, these differences rule out "fascist" as an accurate description of Trump,[8] it's also entirely reasonable to see these differences as merely matters of degree, as, if one follows Trump's "logic" on both, one reaches the fascist conclusion.[9] While Trump is no fascist, he's certainly protofascist.<br />
<br />
</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiyZ8XLc_YEEOli4P56uxLllhCQPreHkkE5RCGCF2NhCtvQ211UAfdoxMiy4R1heJKxvDlD3uRGVfaZmn-thAMNmpV26XPxkrhr0EFET6Ghw0EjcotnKk7B9poD7UvEShdeSHvbrE0z9w/s1600/everyoneishitler.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiyZ8XLc_YEEOli4P56uxLllhCQPreHkkE5RCGCF2NhCtvQ211UAfdoxMiy4R1heJKxvDlD3uRGVfaZmn-thAMNmpV26XPxkrhr0EFET6Ghw0EjcotnKk7B9poD7UvEShdeSHvbrE0z9w/s320/everyoneishitler.jpg" width="264" /></a></div><p>
An unfortunate fact of life on the internet is that baseless and stupid fascist comparisons, particularly Nazi comparisons, are, in political discussions, ubiquitous--like air but without any of its beneficial properties. Barack Obama, Mitch McConnell, Bernie Sanders, Mitt Romney--it doesn't matter who is being discussed, their background, how far removed from fascism they may be, if a conversation goes on long enough, someone will eventually chime in with some entirely inappropriate fascist analogy. It's just a sad reality that while everyone these days has a computer with an internet connection, not everyone has the real tools needed to participate in informed, thoughtful discussion of public affairs.[10] Those toting such understocked toolboxes routinely compare any politician they dislike to Adolf Hitler, frequently even depicting those pols as Hitler. Trump has gotten the same treatment. Here are some things that shouldn't have to be said: Hitler was the leader and, in many ways, the personal embodiment of arguably the most evil regime in human history, a regime that launched the most murderous war in that history and that, in fact, industrialized murder on a mass scale. <i>Comparing any run-of-the-mill pol to Hitler is <b>utterly ludicrous</b>. Comparing Donald Trump to Hitler is <b>utterly ludicrous</b></i>. There are over 60 million graves between these pols and anything that could possibly justify any such comparison. When someone makes one of these comparisons, he marks himself as a thoroughgoing crackpot who is bereft of sound judgment.<br />
<br />
Were that the only effect, there would be no need to do anything more than step back and let the fool cut his own throat. Unfortunately, the pervasiveness of these sorts of comparisons can also have a very negative impact, in that they can lead those bombarded with them to avoid or even dismiss more serious and informed conversations on the topics of fascism, protofascism, the current President of the United States and the movements that brought him to power. At the same time, those who, for partisan reasons, don't want such conversations to go forward will attempt to portray every effort at holding one as nothing more than just another iteration of Trump-with-a-Hitler-moustache memes. We have to be able to talk sensibly on such things.<span data-offset-key="1fbj4-0-0"><span data-text="true"><span data-offset-key="1fbj4-0-0"><span data-text="true"> </span></span></span></span><br />
<br />
<span data-offset-key="1fbj4-0-0"><span data-text="true"><span data-offset-key="1fbj4-0-0"><span data-text="true">As president, Trump is in a position to do incalculable damage to the U.S. and the world and when it </span></span>comes to items in need of attention, he's likely to suck up most of the oxygen for the immediate future but his rise is representative of what is perhaps an even larger problem. </span></span><span data-offset-key="1fbj4-0-0"><span data-text="true"><span data-offset-key="1fbj4-0-0"><span data-text="true">The
manufactured disconnect between so much of the American right and reality has
been a constant concern of this writer's commentary on public affairs
for more than a quarter-century, in which time that disconnect has
become more and more profound as right-wing and far-right-wing media have
arisen to carefully nurture it.[11] Collectively, I've long referred to that media, after its principal function, as the Rage Machine. Only a few weeks ago, I <a href="http://corporatenewsreviews.blogspot.com/2017/01/journalism-in-era-of-alt-facts.html" target="_blank">wrote</a>:</span></span></span></span><br />
<span data-offset-key="1fbj4-0-0"><span data-text="true"><span data-offset-key="1fbj4-0-0"><span data-text="true"><br /></span></span></span></span>
<span data-offset-key="1fbj4-0-0"><span data-text="true">"What lurks
behind [Trump adviser Kellyanne] Conway's alt-'facts' is the extraordinary social damage
wrought--and nascent fascist movement birthed--by the right-wing Rage
Machine. For better or worse, the U.S. is a fundamentally liberal
nation. There's simply no significant popular support for conservative
policies. To maintain power in the face of this, the American
conservative elite have aggressively labored, through their massive
media apparatus, to reduce 'politics' and the larger social discourse to
the level of a simple good-vs.-evil tale, encouraging their followers
to side with them not because their policies are more sound or they have
any sort of better argument--any serious examination of such things is,
in fact, discouraged--but because they've conjured a pleasing narrative
in which they've positioned themselves as the virtuous heroes and
everyone else as the evil villains. </span></span><span data-offset-key="1fbj4-0-0"><span data-text="true">Nearly every major rightist
outlet in the United States has spent a few decades making open war on
both reason and on reality itself. Because objective facts would equal
an agreed-upon yardstick against which claims can be assessed--and
because conservative and reactionary claims can't withstand that
scrutiny--breaking down confidence in them has been a major project of
the Rage Machine, which attempts to indoctrinate its followers in the
belief that </span></span><span data-offset-key="1fbj4-0-0"><span data-text="true">the
truth or falsity of any proposition can be judged entirely by its
temporary political utility. Facts, via this conditioning, become things that can be used as propaganda on the
rare occasions when they serve the cause and can be otherwise discarded</span></span><span data-offset-key="1fbj4-0-0"><span data-text="true"><span data-offset-key="1fbj4-0-0"><span data-text="true">; the only 'fact' is the Machine's narrative.</span></span> </span></span>T<span data-offset-key="1fbj4-0-0"><span data-text="true">he
Machine tells its followers they're persecuted, feeds them a steady
diet of manufactured outrages and utterly dehumanizes and demonizes
liberals, minorities and anyone else who may stand against the hero of
the tale. Liberals, in this fantasy, aren't those who may have a
legitimate disagreement. T</span></span><span data-offset-key="1fbj4-0-0"><span data-text="true">hey're
an evil, lying, cheating, stealing, weak, moronic enemy actively seeking
to do you harm, that have control of the levers of power by
illegitimate means and that need to be defeated, destroyed, eliminated.
When all reason, all serious thinking, all confidence in institutions
has been burned away, all that's left are a bunch of fearful,
rage-filled reactionaries who have been taught that though they're
right, they're good and they represent The People, they're persecuted by
this foe, whom they've been taught to despise. The American conservative elite hope those reared in this
atmosphere will show up on election day and vote Republican, which is
exactly what has, for some years, happened, but this smog has now given
rise to something they didn't anticipate and can't control: a
Trumpenstein monster, an angry, ambulatory representation of every bad
impulse the Rage Machine has ever projected, with the fascist's promise
of national renewal by means of the authoritarian dismantling of the
liberal society. Trump's hardcore supporters were reared in this
environment... For this particular group, there are no genuine facts anymore, just
a narrative to which they've been conditioned to respond."<span data-offset-key="1fbj4-0-0"><span data-text="true"> </span></span></span></span><br />
<span data-offset-key="1fbj4-0-0"><span data-text="true"><span data-offset-key="1fbj4-0-0"><span data-text="true"><br /></span></span></span></span>
<span data-offset-key="1fbj4-0-0"><span data-text="true"><span data-offset-key="1fbj4-0-0"><span data-text="true">The
Machine has relentlessly bred this protofascist cult, whose adherents
are fed up with the liberal democracy with all its tolerance and
diversity and built-in procedures that always seem to prevent them from
getting their way. They wanted a strongman who promised to do what that
liberal democracy wouldn't and in 2016, they allied with conservatives,
actual fascists, those who wished to express their disapproval of the
incumbent administration and its de facto continuation in the person of
Hillary Clinton and others to successfully elect that very thing. While </span></span></span></span><span data-offset-key="1fbj4-0-0"><span data-text="true"><span data-offset-key="1fbj4-0-0"><span data-text="true"><span data-offset-key="1fbj4-0-0"><span data-text="true"><span data-offset-key="1fbj4-0-0"><span data-text="true">Trump
has tapped this cult, it's larger than him, was there long before he
came along and is likely to continue well beyond him, as its spawning
pool is made up of most of the major institutions of the American
right, particularly the media institutions</span></span></span></span>, which show no sign of going away.</span></span></span></span><br />
<span data-offset-key="1fbj4-0-0"><span data-text="true"><span data-offset-key="1fbj4-0-0"><span data-text="true"><br /></span></span></span></span>
<span data-offset-key="1fbj4-0-0"><span data-text="true"><span data-offset-key="1fbj4-0-0"><span data-text="true">Despite the occasional effort by internet liberals to tar them with the label, conservatives <i>aren't</i> fascists. While the protofascists are drawn from the conservatives' ranks, f</span></span></span></span><span data-offset-key="1fbj4-0-0"><span data-text="true"><span data-offset-key="1fbj4-0-0"><span data-text="true">ascists and protofascists are, in fact, as much a
threat to conservatives as they are to anyone else. They run all over
those principles conservatives profess to cherish. Conservatives don't control the public microphone of the right though. The voices that come through it may call themselves "conservative" but they're largely reactionaries, the protos, </span></span></span></span><span data-offset-key="1fbj4-0-0"><span data-text="true"><span data-offset-key="1fbj4-0-0"><span data-text="true"><span data-offset-key="1fbj4-0-0"><span data-text="true"><span data-offset-key="1fbj4-0-0"><span data-text="true">and while man</span></span></span></span>y
of them were horrified by the rise of Trump, nearly all of them had
helped create the toxic environment that bred him and that, left
unreformed,
will breed the next one and the next ten. Collectively, they are the
Rage Machine. Like any machine, this one can't run without fuel
and what's powering it now is its primary audience: conservatives. This puts conservatives in an unique position to make a difference. </span></span></span></span><span data-offset-key="1fbj4-0-0"><span data-text="true"><span data-offset-key="1fbj4-0-0"><span data-text="true">The
only way these institutions will ever dry up and disappear (and
hopefully be replaced with better ones) is if their
audience willingly walks away--has a road-to-Damascus moment, turns off
Fox News, shuts out Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage, stops reading RedState
and Breitbart and Coulter and Malkin, casts Glenn Beck into the sea.
Confirmation bias can be an intoxicant and feeding it has proven a
formula for
right-wing media success, as the appetite for it on the right seems
insatiable.[12] For a time. Conservatives are going to have to sort out whether their future is conservative or reactionary. At the moment, too many of them think they're sitting at a safe distance and delighting in watching a video feed of that gorilla in that closet raging away. They</span></span></span></span> may soon discover they're actually stuffed in that closet with the rest of us.<br />
<br />
--j.<br />
<br />
---<br />
<br />
[1] The phrase "alt-right" was introduced by Richard Spencer, a white nationalist, as an effort to rebrand the same old white supremacist/Nazi/fascist subculture.<br />
<br />
[2] Some of the other standard dictionary definitions are even worse. Merriam-Webster <a href="https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism" target="_blank">defines</a> it as "a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the
Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and
that stands for a centralized <a class="d_link" href="https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/autocratic">autocratic</a> government headed by a <a class="d_link" href="https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dictatorial">dictatorial</a> leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition." Vocabulary.com <a href="https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/fascism" target="_blank">calls it</a> "a political theory advocating an authoritarian hierarchical government (as opposed to democracy or liberalism)." The Cambridge Dictionary <a href="http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/fascism" target="_blank">defines</a> it as "a political system based on a very powerful leader, state control of social and economic life, and extreme pride in country and race, with no expression of political disagreement allowed." And so on. Definitions so devoid of substance that they would cover nearly <i>any</i> dictatorship.<br />
<br /> [3] That doesn't, of course, prevent some of those capitalists from experiencing buyer's remorse. Even if one is becoming fantastically rich via the arrangement, it sucks to live under a dictatorship.<br />
<br />
[4] Nonetheless, this arguably makes fascism a form of capitalism. There's a history of both rightist "Libertarian" capital-C Capitalist ideologues embracing fascism and of fascism embracing them, perhaps most infamously in the Pinochet regime in Chile. This is a large subject that would quickly turn into an overly long tangent here, so I've set it aside.<br />
<br />
[5] In "The Anatomy of Fascism," Robert Paxton, one of the foremost living experts on fascism, wrote:<br />
<br />
"This [economic policy] was the area where both fascist leaders [Hitler and Mussolini] conceded the most to their conservative allies. Indeed, most fascists--above all after they were in power--considered economic policy as only a means to achieving the more important fascist ends of unifying, energizing, and expanding the community. Economic policy tended to be driven by the need to prepare and wage war. Politics trumped economics... [F]ascist economic policy responded to political priorities, and not to economic rationale. Both Mussolini and Hitler tended to think that economics was amenable to a ruler’s will."<br />
<br />
In a 2015 interview with Vox, Paxton said "it's hard to link those people [the fascists] to any one kind of economic idea."<br />
<br />
In "A History of Fascism 1914-1945," historian Stanley Payne, who specializes in Spanish fascism but has written on the broader subject, writes that "economic policy under [Italian] Fascism did not chart an absolutely clear course." Of Germany, Payne concludes "no completely coherent model of political economy was ever introduced in Nazi Germany."<br />
<br />
Daniel Woodley, from "Fascism & Political Theory":<br />
<br />
"...as a political innovation, fascism is distinguished by an absence of coherent economic ideology and an absence of serious economic thinking at the summit of the state. Not only are economic factors <i>alone</i> an insufficient condition of understanding fascism, but the decisions taken by fascists in power cannot be explained within a logical economic framework."<br />
<br />
Stuart Woolf, "The Nature of Fascism":<br />
<br />
"No comparative study exists of fascist economic systems. Nor is this surprising. For one can legitimately doubt whether it is appropriate to use so distinctive a term as 'system' when discussing fascist economics... Nor, in the economic field, could fascism lay claim to any serious theoretical basis or to any outstanding economic theoreticians."<br />
<br />
He describes fascist economics as "a series of improvisations, or responses to particular and immediate problems" and notes that "the actions of any single fascist regime... [were] so contradictory as to make it difficult to speak of a coherent and consistent economic policy in one country, let alone in a more general system..." And so on.<br />
<br />
[6] When the movement made its sharp rightward turn, Alceste De Ambris, the principal author of the 1919 Fascist manifesto, left it in disgust. When the Fascists rose to power, he opposed them and was eventually forced to flee Italy because of it.<br />
<br />
[7] An element of the fringe right has long gnawed on the farcical notion that fascism is some sort of movement of the left or even a socialist movement and the internet has helped make this . Essentially a form of Holocaust denial, it's the sort of idiocy that could only gain traction in a <i>profoundly</i> historically illiterate population.<br />
<br />
[8] Vox consulted several experts on fascism and <a href="http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2015/12/10/9886152/donald-trump-fascism" target="_blank">they agreed</a> Trump didn't qualify. At least one other has <a href="http://www.tikkun.org/nextgen/one-expert-says-yes-donald-trump-is-a-fascist-and-its-not-just-trump-2" target="_blank">gone on record</a> as saying Trump <i>is</i> a fascist. Some of those experts are, in this writer's view, being overly precious about their subject. Stanley Payne, for example, says fascism literally couldn't exist after the 1940s. Robert Paxton, who says Trump isn't a fascist, nevertheless <a href="https://www.democracynow.org/2016/3/15/father_of_fascism_studies_donald_trump" target="_blank">notes</a> that Trump "shows a rather alarming willingness to use fascist themes and fascist styles." It was a subject of some <a href="https://newrepublic.com/article/137339/donald-trump-fascist" target="_blank">interesting discussion</a>.<br />
<br /> [9] And Trump does practically nothing to counter this. American conservatives have long used a language of freedom to sell their agenda. That the notion of "freedom" they're peddling is usually a travesty of the real thing (and that language a cynical farce) is, here, secondary to the fact that this is the ideal to which they rhetorically appeal. There's nothing like that in Trump, who works from the usual fascist playbook about the nation in decline and presents America as a besieged and dying failure. Not an uplifting vision of America as the Land of the Free but a dark vision of it as a crazed, reactionary fortress.<br />
<br />
[10] The best the rest of us can do is to try to educate them, which is one of the points of this article.<span data-offset-key="1fbj4-0-0"><span data-text="true"> </span></span><br />
<br />
<span data-offset-key="1fbj4-0-0"><span data-text="true">[11] At least some conservatives seem to be recognizing the problem. Last year, longtime conservative talk-radio host Charlie Sykes offered <a href="https://twitter.com/oliverdarcy/status/764909726278836225" target="_blank">some observations</a> about the state of the American right. </span></span>Speaking of conservative media, he said<br />
<br />
"We've
basically eliminated any of the referees, the gatekeepers.
There’s nobody. Let’s say that Donald Trump basically makes... whatever
claim he wants to make. And everybody knows it's a
falsehood... The big question of my audience, it is
impossible for me to say that. 'By the way, you know it's false.' And
they'll say, 'Why? I saw it on Allen B. West.' Or they'll say, 'I saw it
on a Facebook page.' And I'll say, 'The New York Times did a fact
check.' And they'll say, 'Oh, that’s The New York Times. That’s
bullshit.'... You can be in this alternative media reality and there's
no way to break through it. And I swim upstream because if I don't say
these things from some of these websites then suddenly I have sold out.
Then they'll ask what's wrong with me for not repeating these stories
that I know not to be true... We've created this monster... [W]e have
spent 20 years demonizing the liberal
mainstream media... But, at a certain point you wake up and you realize
you have
destroyed the credibility of any credible outlet out there. And I am
feeling, to a certain extent, that we are reaping the whirlwind at
that."<br />
<br />
<span data-offset-key="1fbj4-0-0"><span data-text="true">Unfortunately, Sykes then retired
from the Wisconsin airwaves in December. </span></span><br />
<br />
<span data-offset-key="1fbj4-0-0"><span data-text="true"><span data-offset-key="1fbj4-0-0"><span data-text="true">[12] On the other hand, the
disaster that is Trump in power will probably do significant harm to the
Machine and bring it into disrepute.</span></span></span></span></p>cinemarchaeologisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13507603255666191405noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6321344375544728027.post-36886555683390508342017-01-30T21:15:00.016-08:002023-02-07T23:07:26.590-08:00Yes, Sanders Would Have Won: Exploding False Clintonite Narratives<div>Clintonites in the press and the Democratic party, sometimes aided and abetted by Hillary Clinton herself, have spun a number of narratives to explain--or, more to the point, to explain away--the embarrassing failure of the Clinton campaign in the 2016 presidential race and continue to labor to generate from them, by mere repetition, an artificial Conventional Wisdom about the outcome of the election. These narratives tend toward the self-serving and self-exculpatory--Clinton and her people are never said to have done anything wrong--and for the most part, range from grossly misleading to entirely false. The campaign generated a great deal of data and collectively, they stand as a bulwark against these misrepresentations. If, that is, anyone bothers to consult them.<br />
<br />
"It's Bernie Sanders' fault Trump won," runs a popular one. "He fatally weakened Clinton by putting her through such a grueling primary contest."<br />
<br />
Baked into this is a rather irritating sense of entitlement on the part of the Clintonites, one that turns up through many of their narratives. In this case, they're rejecting the notion that the party nomination should be conducted via a vigorously contested democratic process and asserting, instead, the view that their candidate was entitled to a coronation, free of serious challenge. During the campaign itself, there had already appeared a variation on this, when members of the party Establishment began posing as Noble Statesmen thoughtfully looking out for the greater good by insisting, from fairly early in the race, that Sanders should drop out, endorse Clinton and try to "unify the party" so that it may better face the Republican nominee in the fall. All of these insiders had, of course, endorsed Clinton and were, in this, merely doing their part for their candidate by trying to create the impression that there was something wrong with Sanders contesting the nomination. Toward the end of the race, this became so intense that it temporarily affected Sanders' favorability ratings. For anyone who accepts the basic premise of a party primary system, the sense of entitlement that underlies these notions is a non-starter. During the 2008 Democratic contest, Hillary Clinton herself had, by the end of February, virtually no statistical chance of winning yet continued to battle Barack Obama right into June, reluctantly dropping out only a few days after the last round of state contests.<br />
<br />
Clinton had turned that earlier contest into a bitter, ugly fight--at one point, she'd openly fantasized about her (more popular) opponent being murdered--which added more and more baggage to the substantial pile she'd already accumulated (and would continue to accumulate). Even in 2008, she'd been an anachronism, a tired throwback to 1990s conservative "New Democrats" trying to sell herself to an increasingly liberal electorate that wanted "hope and change." Entering the 2016 race, she was the weathered face of a way of doing business a lot of people thought they'd finally rejected and buried nearly a decade earlier. This is a chart of Clinton's favorability rating averages from 31
Jan., 2013--as far back as Real Clear Politics allows one to make these
interactive charts--to 31 Jan., 2016, the day before the Iowa caucus:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjc1vh_e2AgWt3Ksh4vFJD2udW1xZusNdR9hgLWmhvhFTs-t2NcF2yzhsjHWBRwsMnXGlaLMLTKd4zgWKc_iBzKgqDDlvWkFj7t6LmlbyyQfQ1tlBl9r9u-_UwW4QyzPnqKbTB-n2W4cA/s1600/clintonfavorablespreIowa.PNG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="482" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjc1vh_e2AgWt3Ksh4vFJD2udW1xZusNdR9hgLWmhvhFTs-t2NcF2yzhsjHWBRwsMnXGlaLMLTKd4zgWKc_iBzKgqDDlvWkFj7t6LmlbyyQfQ1tlBl9r9u-_UwW4QyzPnqKbTB-n2W4cA/s640/clintonfavorablespreIowa.PNG" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
HuffPost Pollster uses a lot of the same polls as RCP but includes some that RCP doesn't and its database goes back farther and thus offers both a slightly different and a longer-running look at the matter. But the story is the same:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgSDCeuDZN-xQkARIPYy_v5hUyGbvVGyE7AEonFGBaQPMMCjLznVfTIbNf7vRb2Ujjt0-1BEikZkNmsmx7sY3AmOgwMRNbo4sknq1D3d1IPCE7-i7nQ7FzFY5cW_QR4qBACBqXnLEYqOw/s1600/clintonfavhuff.PNG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="427" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgSDCeuDZN-xQkARIPYy_v5hUyGbvVGyE7AEonFGBaQPMMCjLznVfTIbNf7vRb2Ujjt0-1BEikZkNmsmx7sY3AmOgwMRNbo4sknq1D3d1IPCE7-i7nQ7FzFY5cW_QR4qBACBqXnLEYqOw/s640/clintonfavhuff.PNG" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
Clinton's favorability ratings were in long-term decline. That Huffpost chart begins in Sept. 2010 because that's when they began dropping (and it runs through to the present). By the Huffpost data, Clinton's approval average dropped below 50%--the dead zone--in July 2014, never to return. RCP puts that landmark a little later, in mid-March 2015. In mid-April, when Clinton officially entered the presidential race, her average was, by both data sets, underwater, with more people telling
pollsters they disliked her than liked her. And it stayed underwater. It's still there today.<br /><br />Clinton's weakness was apparent even among Democrats. In <a href="https://news.gallup.com/poll/182351/clinton-favorable-rating-dems.aspx">a poll</a> that wrapped 8 days before she entered the presidential race, Gallup asked, "Who would you like to see the Democratic party nominate for president in 2016--Hillary Clinton or someone else?" Over 1/3 of Democratic respondents--38%--chose "someone else," along with 43% of Dem-leaning independents.<br /><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj7V0elX_KQWU_0GzDytyrO3I6u9jP_xGaAm_sYRrimqFHiATDZ5g7zdk7-XGVRCKd5yDZpxWGqbb6yG1ueHhZ7rnc08YB0VSYU1Y4NirPsDDcXL-UhyphenhyphenS8OiVo8uetgEqSFD0wJ6Z2CvA/s582/Gallup_April_3_4_2015.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="350" data-original-width="582" height="384" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj7V0elX_KQWU_0GzDytyrO3I6u9jP_xGaAm_sYRrimqFHiATDZ5g7zdk7-XGVRCKd5yDZpxWGqbb6yG1ueHhZ7rnc08YB0VSYU1Y4NirPsDDcXL-UhyphenhyphenS8OiVo8uetgEqSFD0wJ6Z2CvA/w640-h384/Gallup_April_3_4_2015.png" width="640" /></a></div><div>
<br />
The unpopularity that proved Clinton's undoing wasn't brought on by Bernie Sanders. Rather, it was just a continuation of a very long-running trend. When, in either the Summer of 2014 (Huffpost) or the early Spring of 2015 (RCP), Clinton's average finally fell below 50% then went underwater, Sanders wasn't yet even a factor. In a March 2015 <a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/1618/favorability-people-news.aspx" target="_blank">"people in the news" poll</a> by Gallup, 62% of respondents said they'd
never even heard of him, and another 14% said they didn't know enough about him to have an opinion. For a long time, he was one of American politics' best-kept secrets in the press (I'll return to that later). In <a href="https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/1i8b982g6q/econToplines.pdf" target="_blank">a YouGov poll</a> conducted at the end of April--the period when Sanders entered the presidential race--53% of adult respondents had never heard of him and only 9% of registered voters were then supporting his bid to become the Democratic nominee. And so on.<br />
<br />
One of Clinton's major weaknesses was, of course, that voters didn't
find her honest and trustworthy. As with her approval ratings, these
numbers, too, had been disintegrating over an extended period before
Sanders came on the scene. The data recording this are a bit more spotty. Clinton had left the State
Department and was a private citizen for over 2 years before announcing
her presidential run; pollsters tend not to
systematically track such things until election season rolls around. CNN/Opinion Research offers the following through a series of polls:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiClN7oNw3drNSlrUXZiOXSXgVG_FwLFRmOeAUKfosH2GecOfILp25FipvVtNvHKDn6R9u4zBH7ODYuIY2ucD8u_qdyZxGFRk49FA5ILNtiOVdhKqSgyqzI8u9xlY96P9JdKF6jqf7Ptg/s1600/cnnclintontrustworthy.PNG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="241" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiClN7oNw3drNSlrUXZiOXSXgVG_FwLFRmOeAUKfosH2GecOfILp25FipvVtNvHKDn6R9u4zBH7ODYuIY2ucD8u_qdyZxGFRk49FA5ILNtiOVdhKqSgyqzI8u9xlY96P9JdKF6jqf7Ptg/s640/cnnclintontrustworthy.PNG" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
During the campaign season, the ABC News/Washington Post poll proved to be a pro-Clinton poll, meaning it tended to yield results slightly more favorable to Clinton than her polling average,[1] but it told the same story. In May, 2014, it had <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/polling/hillary-clinton-trustworthy-honest/2014/06/08/0126e02a-eec2-11e3-8a8a-e17c08f80871_page.html" target="_blank">asked</a>, "Do you think Hillary Clinton is or is not honest and trustworthy?" At the time, 59% of registered voters said she was. By May, 2015 though, this was the chart included with <a href="http://www.langerresearch.com/uploads/1169a12016Politics.pdf" target="_blank">the poll results</a> on this question:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhoB_jzgCz2AYDxY9Xv93zlw56cjUnBzp8Pz9lhgCu3jru8Ne0Wj42gLy0KMhTsP9IeXBTk5XC9_RPP9ALuUE48u3J_6Z_5jS4wU8FQiTDxHk3covgZp6-4f1vdRYFCHH9ZqgY1nJNlBQ/s1600/abcclintontrust.PNG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="464" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhoB_jzgCz2AYDxY9Xv93zlw56cjUnBzp8Pz9lhgCu3jru8Ne0Wj42gLy0KMhTsP9IeXBTk5XC9_RPP9ALuUE48u3J_6Z_5jS4wU8FQiTDxHk3covgZp6-4f1vdRYFCHH9ZqgY1nJNlBQ/s640/abcclintontrust.PNG" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
A <a href="https://poll.qu.edu/images/polling/us/us04232015_Uknh62d.pdf/" target="_blank">Quinnipiac poll</a> from mid-April: "American voters say 54–38 percent that
Clinton is <u>not</u> honest and trustworthy, a lower score than top
Republicans." And so on. When Sanders entered the presidential race on 30 April 2015, Clinton was already in trouble.[2]<br />
<br />
The Democratic primary campaign did Clinton's numbers no favors, to be sure but enhanced exposure to Hillary Clinton never does. Her poll numbers have only ever been good when she's mostly out of public sight and mind. Whenever she's becomes a center of attention and is perceived as a partisan political figure, they sink. This isn't a Bernie Sanders-induced phenomenon either; it's a pattern that has been present throughout the whole of her time on the national stage. Nate Silver of 538 was <a href="https://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/11/why-hillary-clinton-would-be-strong-in-2016-its-not-her-favorability-ratings/" target="_blank">writing about</a>--and charting--it as far back as 2012. Silver <a href="https://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/31/predictable-decline-in-hillary-clintons-popularity/" target="_blank">revisited this theme</a> in 2013. In Sept. 2015, as Clinton's polling continued to crash, Greg Sargent at the Washington Post's Plum Line <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/09/02/what-hillarys-sinking-poll-numbers-really-mean-in-one-chart/?postshare=7441441279547873&utm_term=.5d3fd6fb21e6" target="_blank">covered it</a> as well. Though none of these commentators offer the thought, it's also entirely reasonable to assume that all of those crashes would eventually have a cumulative effect, with each new occurrence reminding people why they'd come to dislike her in the past.<br />
<br />
This writer covered most of this ground in real time in various internet venues during the long 2015-'16 campaign season. For anyone who bothered to look, the seeds of Clinton's eventual destruction were right there in the often-brutal data. A few items from my notes:<br />
<br />
--A <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2015/05/13/fox-news-polls-huckabee-seen-as-more-ethical-than-most-clintons-favorable-slips/" target="_blank">Fox News poll</a>, conducted in May 2015 (only days after Sanders threw his hat in the ring):<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg0giGwGfUFoZAv2YixDH6es3JrvDYckCyYUx-cwoTFD8hYk2MvyfRay3H1nKUcQoJyhRws5ugwKmgRUOmJrcMV7cgKreTJq5UDqdOqfinVWZETDP_emn6-FCc3X4mo1MucDtU06AAbZQ/s1600/foxethicalpoll.PNG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="258" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg0giGwGfUFoZAv2YixDH6es3JrvDYckCyYUx-cwoTFD8hYk2MvyfRay3H1nKUcQoJyhRws5ugwKmgRUOmJrcMV7cgKreTJq5UDqdOqfinVWZETDP_emn6-FCc3X4mo1MucDtU06AAbZQ/s640/foxethicalpoll.PNG" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
--An August 2015 poll by Qunnipiac open-endedly asked respondents to say the first word that comes to mind when the name of a candidate is mentioned. The <a href="https://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/ken-walshs-washington/2015/08/28/poll-finds-americans-negative-on-presidential-field" target="_blank">top 3 words</a> for Hillary Clinton were "liar", "dishonest" and "untrustworthy."<br /><br />--An <a href="http://www.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/NBCWSJOct2015PollFinal.pdf" target="_blank">NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll</a> from October 2015 asked,<br />
<br />
"Now, which of the following best describes how you would feel if Hillary Clinton were elected president--optimistic and confident that she would do a good job, satisfied and hopeful that she would do a good job, uncertain and wondering whether she would do a good job, or pessimistic and worried that she would do a bad job?"<br />
<br />
A plurality--a whopping 43%--chose "pessimistic and worried," with another 13% choosing "uncertain and wondering." Only 24% chose "optimistic and confident," with 19% opting for "satisfied and hopeful." That same poll asked respondents to rank, on a scale of 1 to 5, how "honest and straightforward" they saw Clinton: 40% chose 1--the lowest rating--with another 10% choosing 2 (only 13% chose 5, with another 13% choosing 4).<br />
<br />
--When a <a href="http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2015/images/12/23/cnnpoll2.pdf" target="_blank">CNN/ORC poll</a> in mid-December 2015 asked if Clinton was "someone you would be proud to have as president," 56% answered in the negative. Asked in that same poll if Clinton "shares your values," 58% answered in the negative.<br />
<br />
--In the head-to-head polling, Clinton's initially-commanding double-digit leads over Donald Trump had disappeared by August 2015. Here are the <a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html" target="_blank">Clinton-vs.-Trump polls</a> in the RealClearPolitics database from December 2015 and January 2016, the months leading into the first contest of the primary season:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh6jE0UYz_QNqkaBnIzmngtEaXsqjoNRCKQ9o_kq77QtpJnu8YSQ4OMWZue0Tah8lVXAa7pFUbkcsSxB2IZqszWBKTxHAPL5r1ji4knOF0qyt7gGPMDfSmQ_5aw7eufMJnQADOfE1ScCw/s1600/clintontrumph2h1.PNG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="382" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh6jE0UYz_QNqkaBnIzmngtEaXsqjoNRCKQ9o_kq77QtpJnu8YSQ4OMWZue0Tah8lVXAa7pFUbkcsSxB2IZqszWBKTxHAPL5r1ji4knOF0qyt7gGPMDfSmQ_5aw7eufMJnQADOfE1ScCw/s640/clintontrumph2h1.PNG" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
When one takes into account the margin of error (listed in the column marked "MoE"), Clinton was in a statistical tie with Trump in five of the 11 polls, is only leading by one point in a sixth, two in a seventh and only beats Trump by a significant margin in the four that remain. Additionally, a <a href="https://zogbyanalytics.com/news/704-zogby-analytics-clinton-45-trump-45" target="_blank">Zogby poll</a>, a <a href="https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2698464/rel3b-Republicans-6a.pdf" target="_blank">CNN/ORC poll</a> and two Morning Consult polls from January (<a href="http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/160101crosstabstrend.pdf" target="_blank">here</a> and <a href="http://morningconsult.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/160102_Topline-Trend.pdf" target="_blank">here</a>), not included in the RCP collection, also showed the two in a tie (a <a href="http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/160103_topline_trend_v4_TS.pdf" target="_blank">third</a> Morning Consult poll that month gave Clinton a 4-point-over-MoE lead over Trump).<br /><br />During this same period, Clinton fared even worse in the head-to-heads against the other major GOP contenders. Of the 9 <a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_cruz_vs_clinton-4034.html" target="_blank">Clinton-vs.-Ted Cruz polls</a>, one had Cruz winning by 3
points over MoE, one had Clinton winning by 0.5% and the rest were ties.
Of the 9 polls matching <a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_rubio_vs_clinton-3767.html#polls" target="_blank">Clinton against Marco Rubio</a>, Rubio beat Clinton by 6 points in one and was tied with her in the other 8.<br />
<br />
All of this before a single vote in the primary season had been cast.<br />
<br />
For this writer, Clinton's weakness as a candidate seemed obvious all along and I'd shared that thought (and the considerable supporting data behind it) throughout the campaign, most often on various Facebook groups. By the end of February 2016, I assembled my accumulated thoughts into <a href="http://corporatenewsreviews.blogspot.com/2016/02/handicapping-hillary.html" target="_blank">an article that handicapped Clinton and her candidacy</a>. The present article is very much a companion piece and sequel to it. Interested readers can check it out--I've tried not spend too much time recovering the same ground. Briefly, Clinton, laden with more baggage than anyone else in American politics, was running as a Democrat in the shadow of a two-term Democratic administration, which is always a hard sell, but instead of trying to differentiate herself from the incumbent or blaze any sort of new course (which voters want), she tried to present herself as Obama's Siamese twin for short-term gain. The ultimate Establishment figure in a screamingly anti-Establishment election, she was an opportunistic flip-flopper whose instincts, in a liberal party, were conservative, who positively oozes insincerity and who ran a demoralizing and utterly defeatist "No, We Can't" primary campaign peddling diminished expectations and aimed at crushing, by whatever means necessary, the energizing "hope" candidate who had sprang up as an alternative. The myth of her inevitability, carefully nurtured by Clinton and her surrogates in the press, appeared to have been depressing interest in the Democratic contest. She ran a horrible campaign, making all the wrong calls, <a href="http://2fblogs.alternet.org/election-2016/hillary-clinton-picks-virginia-senator-tim-kaine-vp-frustrating-sanders-delegates" target="_blank">pointlessly antagonizing</a> <a href="http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/07/24/mission-accomplished-dnc-clinton-hires-wasserman-schultz-top-post" target="_blank">the Sanders voters</a> she was going to need to win and wasting time and resources <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/07/us/politics/hillary-clinton-republican-party.html?_r=0" target="_blank">trying to recruit</a> <a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/09/01/caitlin_huey-burns_clintons_appeal_to_moderate_republicans_and_independents.html" target="_blank">"moderate"</a> <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/sep/01/hillary-clinton-republican-voter-appeal-democratic-party" target="_blank">Republicans</a> and <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/16/politics/ip-forecast-clinton-red-states-trump-down-ballot/" target="_blank">flip red states</a> that obviously weren't going to flip while <a href="http://www.channel3000.com/news/politics/why-hasnt-clinton-come-to-wisconsin-here-are-some-theories_20161215102103342/213782061" target="_blank">ignoring</a> states she was going to need to win. Throughout all of this, the Democratic party Establishment seemed to be under some sort
of suicidal spell, closing its eyes, plugging its ears and chanting to
drown out reality while, come Hell or high water, it pushed ahead with a
campaign that seemed not only doomed but obviously doomed (I certainly
predicted, early on, that Clinton would probably lose any
general-election match-up against Trump). Clintonites, whose machinations have now saddled the U.S. with the Trump regime, are constructing these false narratives with the aim of absolving themselves but the hard, inescapable truth, now born out by the predictable election outcome itself, is that Clinton was always a weak, loser candidate and if the goal was to beat the Republican nominee, it was never responsible to back her in the first place. In a sane world, the Clintonites, their Master Candidate defeated by a reality-show joke of an opponent, have now been as utterly discredited as anyone in American politics can be with their pants still on.<br />
<br />
And to finally tackle the other of the big, false Clintonite narrative, yes, Bernie Sanders probably <i>would</i> have beaten Donald Trump. Not only that, there's significant evidence he may have rolled right over Trump in a complete rout the likes of which the American presidency hasn't seen in a few decades.<br />
<br />
Sen. Bernie Sanders was much beloved in his home sate of Vermont but when he launched his presidential campaign, he was virtually unknown to the broader public. For most of 2015, much of the corporate press tried to keep it that way, <a href="http://corporatenewsreviews.blogspot.com/2015/04/networks-barely-mention-sanders.html" target="_blank">carrying out</a> <a href="http://corporatenewsreviews.blogspot.com/2015/05/the-corporate-press-bernie-systemic.html" target="_blank">what became known as</a> <a href="http://corporatenewsreviews.blogspot.com/2015/12/on-major-networks-bernie-blackout.html" target="_blank">the "Bernie Blackout."</a>
Even basic name-recognition was pretty long in coming. What little coverage Sanders received in 2015 often had a
dismissive and/or mocking tone and this mingled with the general lack
of coverage to negatively impact the candidate's numbers for some time. When he eventually started to break through this effort to ignore him to death and became a genuine threat to Clinton's candidacy, much of the press switched to the usual Rabid Attack-Dog Mode always reserved for left candidates who become popular, buttressed, in this case, by the slanderous assaults of the Clintonites, both in the press and in the Democratic party. Despite these prolonged efforts to bury he and his candidacy, Sanders persevered and when people finally began to get to know him, they found they liked him. A <i>lot</i>. Most of the public's good will toward Clinton was already history when Huffpost Pollster started keeping track of Sanders' favorability ratings and while hers steadily sank into oblivion, here's the arc of Sanders' own over the course of the last 21 months:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgqPCwa6cfT-I23QuRP8UEfuMyYLzM2giau2bf8reSGa7UMgjVzvAvydnyRJ_w8H1GVTD6KfASPpuPsjeMWV1SKtoWaAdIuY1Vtv0rMkyE4HoS-LXclA8jak7kF1-ibkdr09HI5HRDYXA/s1600/sandersfavorable.PNG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="462" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgqPCwa6cfT-I23QuRP8UEfuMyYLzM2giau2bf8reSGa7UMgjVzvAvydnyRJ_w8H1GVTD6KfASPpuPsjeMWV1SKtoWaAdIuY1Vtv0rMkyE4HoS-LXclA8jak7kF1-ibkdr09HI5HRDYXA/s640/sandersfavorable.PNG" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />The more people saw of Sanders, the more they liked what they saw, but the Blackout delayed his ability to build that profile with the public. In mid-Sept. 2015--nearly 5 months into his campaign--1/3 of respondents were <a href="https://news.gallup.com/poll/1618/favorability-people-news.aspx">still telling Gallup</a> they'd never even heard of him. Sanders' net favorability among Democrats eventually shot past Clinton's but that only happened in late March, nearly 2 months into voting (and nearly a year into the campaign). As the primaries neared their end, Sanders had--again, among <i>Democrats</i>--a <a href="https://news.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/192362/clinton-negatives-among-dems-sanders.aspx">whopping 13-point net favorability</a> advantage over Clinton.<br /><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjJIzf2_uMHtrdfnl_DfyXtnqBZDL4aHiBM3ifIlsNFb0NfvO7KP0ttusLGn-jGRyUfmud1Omlo2REVUrjfFwJzE8xdGo995Cunkf9JAo_qFh5hUy39cQ7fJ1VrsS32UTjqVIi49UpdXg/s858/sanders_net_favorability.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="527" data-original-width="858" height="394" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjJIzf2_uMHtrdfnl_DfyXtnqBZDL4aHiBM3ifIlsNFb0NfvO7KP0ttusLGn-jGRyUfmud1Omlo2REVUrjfFwJzE8xdGo995Cunkf9JAo_qFh5hUy39cQ7fJ1VrsS32UTjqVIi49UpdXg/w640-h394/sanders_net_favorability.JPG" width="640" /></a></div><br /><div>These numbers suggest that if there had been no Blackout, no imposition of that early, months-long delay in Sanders being able to introduce himself to the public, the primaries may have turned out very differently.<br /><br />One of the manifestations of the Blackout is that, when it came time to sanction head-to-head polls, news organizations frequently matched Republican hopefuls against only Clinton, pretending as if Sanders didn't exist. There is, as a consequence, less data in this area than with Clinton but there's still more than enough to tell the story. The RealClearPolitics database contains <a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_sanders-5565.html#polls" target="_blank">46 head-to-head polls</a> matching Sanders against Trump between 20 July, 2015 and 5 June, 2016. Of that, Trump only managed to beat Sanders above the margin of error 3 times, the most recent of these happening way back in mid-November 2015. In another 4, they were in a statistical tie. The last of the latter happened in mid-February; from there forward, the chart below tells the story: Sanders won every poll, all but three of them by dominant double-digit leads:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiHN7pjdXxtRqfb5EJsC6sUifnnv5RbHfuvm6sqPRauGrHgBb_LIG9Rs-dgmh40PkrI-NuHwD8gf2gOfjXBAY3tPdVs7ejrCuROsriTo_u6f886q9y_2-npgAxBPopIsKUHOULSEEh5nQ/s1600/sandersvtrump.PNG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="612" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiHN7pjdXxtRqfb5EJsC6sUifnnv5RbHfuvm6sqPRauGrHgBb_LIG9Rs-dgmh40PkrI-NuHwD8gf2gOfjXBAY3tPdVs7ejrCuROsriTo_u6f886q9y_2-npgAxBPopIsKUHOULSEEh5nQ/s640/sandersvtrump.PNG" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
To the 46 polls at RCP, we can add 18 Morning Consult polls:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgSOdJxu7Dg8YCeq-sAqJNB5G_zPOthIANKc-6BH0Jpgxrb_eNjq6w7pv7b0sjksBaUv7c6t8mDiB0zlgDOoN3bqSmzAn0wXURVBHfBpLkG7oW89w_4Qn1aov5Lyr9Cwc9FkYorRyj2uQ/s1600/morningconsult.PNG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="604" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgSOdJxu7Dg8YCeq-sAqJNB5G_zPOthIANKc-6BH0Jpgxrb_eNjq6w7pv7b0sjksBaUv7c6t8mDiB0zlgDOoN3bqSmzAn0wXURVBHfBpLkG7oW89w_4Qn1aov5Lyr9Cwc9FkYorRyj2uQ/s640/morningconsult.PNG" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
In all but two of these, Sanders is beating Trump by double digits <i>above the margin of error</i>. Ipsos/Reuters also conducted 7 Sanders-vs.-Trump polls from late January to mid-March; Sanders won all of them.[3]<br />
<br />In the
last full month in which Sanders was included in the head-to-heads, he was still
rolling right over Trump, while the Clinton vs. Trump
polling was previewing what would eventually happen in the general:
Clinton was statistically tied with Trump in 6 of that month's 10 polls and losing to him above the MoE in a seventh:<br /><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiFyfq4pZzQCswEcN3jK_BpQvOvei5UsRDIf6A0acjX_XqZtQ3FQpCLLlrQcv8hV5XvfnrBlrY1wBP_tRuk_82Zet9mMr_mpGnk6cOFZ5xKgLbGELbH6ey0yejpSfirrb7q6NAUtTjWsA/s719/clintonvtrumpmay.PNG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="395" data-original-width="719" height="352" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiFyfq4pZzQCswEcN3jK_BpQvOvei5UsRDIf6A0acjX_XqZtQ3FQpCLLlrQcv8hV5XvfnrBlrY1wBP_tRuk_82Zet9mMr_mpGnk6cOFZ5xKgLbGELbH6ey0yejpSfirrb7q6NAUtTjWsA/w640-h352/clintonvtrumpmay.PNG" width="640" /></a></div><br />With one exception (covered later), there's a gap in the Sanders/Trump head-to-head polling after the primary season but in his favorability polling during that period, Sanders <a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/sanders_favorableunfavorable-5263.html">continued to rise</a>, averaging nearly 60% favorable by the month of September, at which point polling orgs either stopped polling on it or RCP stopped recording their results. Through that same period, the monthly average favorability polling for both Clinton and Trump were statistically flat-lined, <a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/clinton_favorableunfavorable-1131.html">Clinton</a> at an embarrassing 40-43%, <a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/trump_favorableunfavorable-5493.html">Trump</a> at a slightly worse 35-39%.<br /><br />From shortly after he entered the race, Sanders was a star in ascendance, Clinton one in decline. These tracks crossed too late to land Sanders the Democratic nomination but if he <i>had</i> been the nominee, it seems pretty unlikely Trump--disliked by most Americans from the day he entered the race--would have been able to significantly enough alter Sanders' trajectory to eke out a win.<br /><div><br />
Clinton
lost the election in the Rust Belt. That <i>is</i>
the correct characterization. Trump didn't win those critical states, the ones that gave him the election; she <i>lost</i> them.
Large
portions of these states, which were the industrial heartland of
America, have, for decades, been devastated by policies aimed
at deindustrializing the U.S. in the name of corporate profits. Heading into this election, Pennsylvania
and Michigan had been blue states for a quarter-century, Wisconsin had
been for even longer. Clinton is a Wall-Street-backed,
tone-deaf "free trader" who, whenever there's an election in front of
her, comes out against the latest
grant-superpowers-to-the-multinationals proposal--that which is
misleadingly sold as "free trade"--then <a href="http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/04/21/401123124/a-timeline-of-hillary-clintons-evolution-on-trade" target="_blank">"evolves" back to supporting them</a> as soon as she's in power. Presented with this living embodiment of the
policies that had laid waste to their homes, it isn't at all surprising that a large number of voters in these states, the
long-suffering victims of these policies, cast their lot with Trump,
the first general-election candidate who seriously promised to do anything about their
situation. Clinton lost Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin by razor-thin margins
(0.23%, 0.73% and 0.77%, respectively) while underperforming--often
grossly underperforming--Obama's 2012 take among
white voters (particularly white males), young voters and independents. Her campaign did just about as badly as any
Democratic campaign would ever do in those states.[4] As the primary results and electoral history in those states suggested, many there would have preferred a more sane alternative like Sanders, something the Democrats, once Clinton became the nominee, weren't
offering anymore. Winning a primary is, of course, very different from winning a general--something that shouldn't be understated--but Sanders had, in these states, won huge, lopsided majorities among those demographics in which Clinton so badly underperformed. He'd already defeated Clinton in contests in two of these three states. Sanders was performing better than Clinton in the head-to-head polling vs. Trump in all three states as well. <span class="css-901oao css-16my406 r-poiln3 r-bcqeeo r-qvutc0">The final Michigan poll to match both Democratic contenders against the Republican was conducted by the Detroit News. In it, Clinton was <a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/mi/michigan_trump_vs_clinton-5533.html">statistically tied</a> with Trump, while Sanders was <a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/mi/michigan_trump_vs_sanders-5744.html">beating</a> him by 19 points. I</span><span class="css-901oao css-16my406 r-poiln3 r-bcqeeo r-qvutc0">n Pennsylvania, it was a Quinnipiac poll that had Clinton <a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/pa/pennsylvania_trump_vs_clinton-5633.html">statistically tied</a> with Trump, with Sanders <a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/pa/pennsylvania_trump_vs_sanders-5648.html">beating</a> him by 6 points--3 above the margin of error. In Wisconsin, the last was a Marquette poll that </span><span class="css-901oao css-16my406 r-poiln3 r-bcqeeo r-qvutc0">had Clinton <a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/wi/wisconsin_trump_vs_clinton-5659.html">beating</a> Trump by 9--4 points over MoE--and Sanders <a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/wi/wisconsin_trump_vs_sanders-5735.html">beating</a> Trump by 24--19 points over MoE.</span><br /><br />
For obvious reasons, Clintonites who maintain that Sanders would have lost to Trump retreat from the hard data, preferring, instead, to rely on nebulous, unquantifiable assertions. Americans, it's said, would never vote for a candidate who, like Sanders, identifies himself as a "socialist." And, indeed, one can point to polling data wherein people <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/poll-voters-socialist-atheist-catholic-119273" target="_blank">say as much</a>. The only thing such polls really measure, though, is respondents' reaction to a contentious word. This is a phenomenon well-known by pollsters. One of the <a href="http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/09/27/poll-obamacare-vs-affordable-care-act/" target="_blank">most remarked-upon examples</a> in recent years occurs in polling on the Obama healthcare law. If pollsters ask about "the Affordable Care Act," the name of the law, it draws much better numbers than if, instead, they refer to it as "Obamacare," a word that causes the numbers to go down, even though it refers to exactly the same policy. For many years, there were few more demonized words in American political discourse than "liberal." As a consequence, the number of people who self-identify to pollsters as "liberal" was anemic. Today, it's difficult to find <a href="http://lefthooktheblog.blogspot.com/2009/11/conservative-america.html" target="_blank">a single issue</a> of major import on which Americans <i>don't</i> hold to a liberal view by overwhelming margins, yet the <a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/188129/conservatives-hang-ideology-lead-thread.aspx" target="_blank">overwhelming majority</a> of that same public--76% in Gallup's 2016 survey--identifies as either "moderate" or "conservative" (and "conservative" has significantly outnumbered "liberal" for decades). The one word in our political discourse that has been more demonized than "liberal"--both <i>much</i> more intensely and for much longer--is "socialism." What really matters here isn't in-the-abstract public reaction to a word. What Sanders defines as his "democratic socialism" is a slate of policies, one with, for the most part, immense public support. Last year, co-writer/researcher Mitch Clark and I put together <a href="http://corporatenewsreviews.blogspot.com/2016/01/bernie-sanders-unelectable-bolshevik-or.html" target="_blank">a fairly extensive article</a> about the polling data on Bernie Sanders' major issues and found that most of his top agenda items are supported by huge majorities of the public, often even by majorities of Republicans.<br />
<br />
Hold that thought.<br />
<br />
Another of these fuzzy Clintonite claims--a sort of corollary to the first, really--is that Sanders never faced any real political attacks and that his campaign would have withered in the face of them. For anyone who lived through the 2016 campaign cycle, the first part of that amounts to a "don't believe your lying eyes" claim--ludicrous on its face. Clinton, who, herself, mercilessly pounded Sanders with constant--and mostly scurrilous--attacks, contributed to it, saying, "I don't think [Bernie Sanders has] had a single negative ad ever run against him," a claim <a href="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/may/22/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-wrong-negative-ads-bernie-sanders/" target="_blank">Politifact debunked</a>. Adam Johnson at Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting <a href="http://fair.org/home/the-myth-that-sanders-hasnt-been-criticized-wont-go-away/" target="_blank">tackled the wider claim</a> in even more detail, pointing out that it's an empty, unfalsifiable assertion, outlining only a sample of the savage attacks Sanders had weathered and noting the obvious:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Is there some undiscovered bombshell waiting to blow up about Sanders?
Of course, it’s possible he murdered someone with his bare hands in a
Calcutta bazaar in 1991—we can’t know for sure. What one has to believe
in order to accept the entirely theoretical assumption that a damning
piece of news about Sanders awaits to be revealed is that the Clinton
team, armed with $186 million dollar warchest, either A) can’t find
something the GOP will or B) found something but is just too darn nice
to expose it. Neither of these scenarios seems plausible."</blockquote>With commanding leads over the Republican, Sanders' campaign would have to do a <i>lot</i> of withering--and his meteoric momentum throughout the campaign would have to be blunted then reversed--to pull defeat from the jaws of victory, and there just didn't seem to be much out there with which to beat him back. And who was going to do it? Well...<br /><br />Donald Trump's numbers throughout the presidential race were abysmal, his <a href="https://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/donald-trump-favorable-rating" target="_blank">favorables</a> typically even worse than Clinton's. From Day 1, a majority of Americans disliked him. On election day, his RCP average stood at 39.4% favorable, while Clinton's was at 41.6% --a tie that made them the two most disliked major-party presidential candidates in the history of polling.[5] Just as with Clinton, a majority of respondents consistently told pollsters they didn't consider him "honest and trustworthy." In a <a href="https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2324" target="_blank">Quinnipiac poll</a>, for example, only 37% thought he was. But in that same poll, only 30% would say the same of Hillary Clinton. In fact, of the 7 different candidates then in the race about whom that question was asked, Clinton scored the lowest.[6] The highest-scoring candidate, on the other hand, beat everyone else in a rout. Matching a pattern that continued throughout the campaign, a whopping 68% said they found Bernie Sanders honest and trustworthy. Even 54% of Republicans said so. That poll was conducted on Feb. 10-15, 2016, only days after the primary/caucus contests had started.<br />
<br />
Something to keep in mind while you're sitting in front of the evening news tonight watching the protofascist buffoon in the White House trying to dismantle the liberal society with strokes of the pen. It didn't have to be this way.<br /><br /> Hillary Clinton's followers, who backed a weak candidate who went on to lose, now tell you Sanders couldn't have beaten Trump.
Consider what goes into that claim. Those offering it insist we ignore all the actual accumulated data (all of which suggests there would have been a significant Sanders win) and accept the proposition that, by the end of a Sanders-vs.-Trump contest, most voters would have decided to vote against a candidate they <i>like</i> and whose policies they <i>love</i> because of a word (SOCIALISM!) that candidate uses to describe those policies and would, instead, cast their ballots for a candidate they hate--the most disliked candidate in the history of polling, against whom Sanders would somehow do worse than did the 2nd-most-disliked candidate in the history of polling.<br />
<br />
Yeah.[7]<br />
<br />
I'm sure this will be argued--and fulminated over--endlessly but history's final word on the subject comes from <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/2016-election-poll-bernie-sanders-trump_us_58260f7ee4b0c4b63b0c6928" target="_blank">a privately-commissioned Gravis poll</a> that was conducted in November only two days prior to the general election. It asked likely
voters for whom they would vote if the looming presidential contest were between Sanders and Trump. Readers will no doubt be shocked to learn that it, too, showed Sanders destroying Trump. Margin of victory: 12%.<br />
<br />
The election is now a few months in the past and many would prefer to stop talking about Hillary Clinton, put aside the divisions of that ugly campaign and focus on the problem the U.S. has inherited as a result of it. It's a legitimate perspective. Whether or not his reactionary fanbase yet recognizes it, Trump is a threat to <i>every</i> American, to American society and to the entire world. Not just an embarrassment or the butt of a joke: a <i>threat</i>. A protofascist Twitter troll running the most powerful nation in the world is <i>dangerous</i>. This business of how he got there, however, is a matter that needs to be hashed out and it's not a distraction from dealing with Trump, it's a critical part of it, because if any of these false Clintonite narratives are allowed to harden into a Conventional Wisdom, nothing will have been learned. The Clintonites who brought about this calamity won't be held accountable for their part in it, won't be pushed aside in disgrace and will only try to do it again. And again. And there's an unreformed system still in place that would allow them to do it. Trump doesn't present an ordinary political situation that can afford to tolerate that.<br />
<br />
--j.<br />
<br />
---<br />
<br />[1] And to cut off the knee-jerk implication, that's not necessarily because of any unfair bias; much more likely just a quirk in the methodology.<br />
<br />
[2] Clinton favorability ratings bottomed out at just a hair about 36% in late May 2016 before stabilizing in the low 40-percentile, where it remained for the rest of the campaign. Her "honest and trustworthy" ratings bottomed out around 27%, though some anomalous polls put it even lower.<br />
<br />[3] The Morning Consult and Ipsos/Reuters material is archived, with details and links, at <a href="http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-general-election-trump-vs-sanders" target="_blank">HuffPost Pollster</a>.<br />
<br />[4] CNN maintains a handy archive of exit poll data from<a href="http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/results/race/president/" target="_blank"> the 2012 race</a>, <a href="http://www.cnn.com/election/primaries" target="_blank">the 2016 primaries</a> and <a href="http://www.cnn.com/election/results/exit-polls/national/president" target="_blank">the 2016 general</a>.<br />
<br />[5] On election day, Gallup, the Grand Old Man of polling, <a href="https://news.gallup.com/poll/197231/trump-clinton-finish-historically-poor-images.aspx">reported</a> that "the 2016 election is the only one in Gallup's polling history to feature
two broadly unpopular candidates... Trump and Clinton are the two
most negatively reviewed U.S. presidential candidates of the modern era,
and probably ever."<br /><br />
[6] Pollsters sometimes directly pitted Clinton against Trump on this question. CNN <a href="http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2016/images/09/05/rel13a.-.2016.post-labor.day.pdf" target="_blank">did so</a>
in September and found that by a 50-35% split, respondents said Trump was more honest and trustworthy
than Clinton.<br />
<br />[7] Trump certainly knew better. <a href="https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/727796025247846400?lang=en" target="_blank">He</a> <a href="http://www.wnd.com/2016/06/trump-to-savage-id-rather-face-hillary-than-bernie/" target="_blank">said</a> <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3679139/Thanks-NOT-indicting-Clinton-says-Trump-face-Bernie.html" target="_blank">repeatedly</a>
he'd rather face Clinton than Sanders. Reince Priebus, then the head of
the Republican party and now Trump's chief-of-staff and right hand, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pGxXnPwwSg&t=107s" target="_blank">did as well</a>.<br />
<br />
<br />
Post-Credits Scene - <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0XQwazkx10" target="_blank">The obvious caveat</a>. Campaigns ain't static--it's are always about how you get there. Probabilities are just that.<br /></div>cinemarchaeologisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13507603255666191405noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6321344375544728027.post-63637227673163752422017-01-22T18:33:00.000-08:002020-03-07T23:05:53.939-08:00Journalism in the Era of the Alt-Facts Administration [UPDATE BELOW]<span data-offset-key="bef2m-0-0"><span data-text="true">It's entirely expected that the newly-sworn-in protofascist regime in the capitol is likely to have significant problems adjusting to holding power within a liberal democracy wherein it can't entirely control the press, the internet, the other branches of government--the other power-centers that are theoretically there to keep such a regime in check. The corporate press is going to have some problems adjusting as well.</span></span><br />
<br />
<span data-offset-key="bef2m-0-0"><span data-text="true">After aerial photos of Donald Trump's Friday inauguration suggested a smaller audience for the event compared to those of the past, Trump dispatched his minions to wage war on this notion. On Saturday, Sean Spicer used his first official appearance as White House Press Secretary to offer up a demagogic tirade against the press, calling it dishonest, saying it was "sewing division" and in particular raging against any reporting that the inauguration was anything less than heavily attended. "No one. Had. Numbers," he huffed, "Because the National Park Service, which controls the National Mall, does not put any out." Embarrassingly, an anti-Trump march on the capitol Saturday appeared to draw several times the crowd as the inauguration; Spicer was on that case too, adding, "</span></span><span data-offset-key="bef2m-0-0"><span data-text="true"><span data-offset-key="bef2m-0-0"><span data-text="true">By the way, this [the lack of any numbers] applies to any attempts to try to count the number of protesters today in the same fashion." Get it folks? No numbers! A</span></span>nd then, only moments later, No Numbers Spicer boldly asserted that</span></span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="6fn6r" data-offset-key="4brv4-0-0">
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="4brv4-0-0">
<span data-offset-key="4brv4-0-0"><span data-text="true">"This was the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration, <i>period</i>. Both in person and around the globe."</span></span></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="6fn6r" data-offset-key="1fbj4-0-0">
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="1fbj4-0-0">
<span data-offset-key="1fbj4-0-0"><span data-text="true"><span data-offset-key="1fbj4-0-0"><span data-text="true">After ranting and raving for a little over five minutes, Spicer then stomped out of the room
without taking a single question from the assembled reporters. Ladies and gentlemen, your new White
House Press Secretary!</span></span></span></span><br />
<br />
<span data-offset-key="1fbj4-0-0"><span data-text="true"><span data-offset-key="1fbj4-0-0"><span data-text="true">Politifact tackled Spicer's claims on this subject and found nearly every one either entirely false or grossly misleading--rating: <a href="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jan/21/sean-spicer/trump-had-biggest-inaugural-crowd-ever-metrics-don/" target="_blank">Pants On Fire</a>.</span></span></span></span><br />
<br />
<span data-offset-key="1fbj4-0-0"><span data-text="true">For NBC's Chuck Todd, this crowd-size thing was completely ridiculous, Spicer's fiction appearing to have been advanced for no real reason at all. Mainstream press commentators like Todd still haven't quite figured out that whole protofascist thing. They never figured it out during the campaign either, and their failure was, in fact, a not-insignificant factor in how this regime was inflicted upon the U.S. Fortunately, Chuck had Kellyanne Conway, the Counselor to the new President, to explain it to him. The two engaged in a rather comical rhetorical dance on Meet the Press Sunday morning.</span></span></div>
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="1fbj4-0-0">
<span data-offset-key="1fbj4-0-0"><span data-text="true"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="1fbj4-0-0">
<span data-offset-key="1fbj4-0-0"><span data-text="true">"The presidency is about choices," said Todd, "so I'm curious why President Trump chose yesterday to send out his press secretary to essentially litigate a provable falsehood when it comes to a small and petty thing like inaugural crowd-size. I guess my question to you is, why do that?"</span></span></div>
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="1fbj4-0-0">
<span data-offset-key="1fbj4-0-0"><span data-text="true"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="1fbj4-0-0">
<span data-offset-key="1fbj4-0-0"><span data-text="true">Conway tried to deflect on to other issues, went into a long, irrelevant commentary that tried to make Trump's performance in the election sound like some sort of major popular win--I'll come back to that in a moment--then said of reports of the relatively small size of the inaugural crowd, "I think it is, I think it is a symbol for the unfair and incomplete treatment that this president often receives." She went on about how the Nielsen ratings showed that more people watched Trump's inauguration on television than watched Obama's 2013 inauguration.[1]</span></span></div>
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="1fbj4-0-0">
<span data-offset-key="1fbj4-0-0"><span data-text="true"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="1fbj4-0-0">
<span data-offset-key="1fbj4-0-0"><span data-text="true">Todd persisted; Conway's response was to threaten to cut off access to the White House for those questioning the administration:</span></span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="1fbj4-0-0">
<span data-offset-key="1fbj4-0-0"><span data-text="true">"If [you're] going to keep referring to our press secretary in those types of terms, I think that we're going to have to rethink our relationship here. I want to have a great, open relationship with our press."</span></span></div>
</blockquote>
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="1fbj4-0-0">
<span data-offset-key="1fbj4-0-0"><span data-text="true">Dynamite. Todd continued to seek an answer to his question and Conway gave him another headline item:</span></span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="1fbj4-0-0">
<span data-offset-key="1fbj4-0-0"><span data-text="true">"You're saying it's a falsehood and they're giving-- Sean Spicer, our press secretary, gave alternative facts to that."</span></span></div>
</blockquote>
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="1fbj4-0-0">
<span data-offset-key="1fbj4-0-0"><span data-text="true">That phrase "alternative facts" is likely to get a lot of play in the press.[2] Todd, to to his credit, clearly couldn't believe his ears. "Alternative facts are not facts," he noted. "They're falsehoods."</span></span></div>
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="1fbj4-0-0">
<span data-offset-key="1fbj4-0-0"><span data-text="true"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="1fbj4-0-0">
<span data-offset-key="1fbj4-0-0"><span data-text="true">The correct word, of course, is "lies" but applying the "L" word to even the most blatant lies by the president--any president--is a longstanding taboo in the press. The Cult of Objectivity likes to pretend that deploying that particular characterization is some sort of breach of professional ethics, an inappropriate editorial judgment.[3] It's going to be interesting, then, to see how those in the press are going to cover a president who utters massive lies as a matter of daily routine.[4] On this point, Todd at least seems to be heading in the right direction; while he still refuses to call a lie by its proper name, his formulation--a "provable falsehood"--is as strongly worded as anything we ever get from any of his mainstream colleagues and he didn't back down from it, even when threatened.</span></span></div>
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="1fbj4-0-0">
<span data-offset-key="1fbj4-0-0"><span data-text="true"><br /></span></span>
<span data-offset-key="1fbj4-0-0"><span data-text="true">What
Todd doesn't seem to understand is that to this administration--and to its fans--things
like the size of the inauguration crowd aren't at all inconsequential. While trying to dodge Chuck Todd's questions, Kellyanne Conway offered this:</span></span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span data-offset-key="1fbj4-0-0"><span data-text="true">"On this
matter of crowd size, I mean, for me, I think the most quantifiable
points of interest for Americans should be what just happened a few
months ago that brought him [Trump] here, the 31 of 50 states he won,
the 2600 counties, the 200 counties that went for President Obama that
now went to President Trump and the fact that 29, 30 million women voted
for Donald Trump for president, they should be respected, somebody
should cover their voices as well."</span></span></blockquote>
<span data-offset-key="1fbj4-0-0"><span data-text="true">Some "quantifiable points" Conway neglected in her irrelevant spiel: Trump lost the popular vote by 3 million, with 58% of women <a href="http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/09/behind-trumps-victory-divisions-by-race-gender-education/" target="_blank">voting <i>against</i> him</a>. Trump had an explanation for the former back in November:</span></span><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEio4iciqc52lv5QzwZEA1Y_2imxx-6Yget1BZlupTx-STawM-ZroN7TLmqVf498JMo7t2EHcnh-WNOGHBIKkMWpvMktD-kpjckfoEOh4W8z75Buzrx352928TJKKKUdbcWHdD-LWt6c2Q/s1600/trumpillegalsvote.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="344" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEio4iciqc52lv5QzwZEA1Y_2imxx-6Yget1BZlupTx-STawM-ZroN7TLmqVf498JMo7t2EHcnh-WNOGHBIKkMWpvMktD-kpjckfoEOh4W8z75Buzrx352928TJKKKUdbcWHdD-LWt6c2Q/s640/trumpillegalsvote.PNG" width="640" /></a></div>
<span data-offset-key="1fbj4-0-0"><span data-text="true"><br /></span></span>
Though the idea of widespread "voter fraud" is one of those "alternative facts" persistently peddled by the right-wing Rage Machine as rationale for Republican voter suppression efforts, it's a fiction, one that has been <a href="http://fortune.com/2016/10/18/studies-contradict-trump-claim-that-voter-fraud-is-very-very-common/" target="_blank">debunked</a> <a href="http://www.factcheck.org/2016/10/trumps-bogus-voter-fraud-claims/" target="_blank">by every</a> <a href="https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/debunking-voter-fraud-myth" target="_blank">serious</a> <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/09/01/voter-fraud-is-not-a-persistent-problem/?utm_term=.76148697b21c" target="_blank">examination</a> <a href="http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/person-voting-fraud-rare-doesnt-affect-elections/" target="_blank">of the</a> <a href="http://matteroffact.tv/election-expert-voter-fraud-nonexistent/" target="_blank">question</a>. Every scrap of reliable information says this kind of in-person voter fraud is virtually non-existent and the idea that it's not only real but extends to millions of people falls into the same category as Trump's claims about "thousands and thousands" of American Muslims celebrating in the streets of New Jersey when the 9/11 attacks occurred. These were lies that, like so many that emanate from Trump, aim at demonizing powerless minorities (Trump identified those he claimed were voting illegally as illegal immigrants). Trump's politics <i>are</i> protofascist in nature--basically fascism minus the more extreme commitment to violence--and the corporate press is simply going to have to accept this and understand the implications of it. One of those implications is that <span data-offset-key="1fbj4-0-0"><span data-text="true">Trump must,
at all times, project an image of a strong and beloved leader, standing
up for the people while besieged by an evil Establishment. He can't bear to let stand the fact that he lost the vote or, in the current dust-up, even a hint of anything
that can be interpreted as mockery of his small, er, crowd size.</span></span><br />
<br />
<span data-offset-key="1fbj4-0-0"><span data-text="true">What lurks behind Conway's alt-"facts" is the extraordinary social damage wrought--and nascent fascist movement birthed--by the right-wing Rage Machine. For better or worse, the U.S. is a fundamentally liberal nation. There's simply no significant popular support for conservative policies. To maintain power in the face of this, the American conservative elite have aggressively labored, through their massive media apparatus, to reduce "politics" and the larger social discourse to the level of a simple good-vs.-evil tale, encouraging their followers to side with them not because their policies are more sound or they have any sort of better argument--any serious examination of such things is, in fact, discouraged--but because they've conjured a pleasing narrative in which they've positioned themselves as the virtuous heroes and everyone else as the evil villains. </span></span><span data-offset-key="1fbj4-0-0"><span data-text="true">Nearly every major rightist
outlet in the United States has spent a few decades making open war on
both reason and on reality itself. Because objective facts would equal
an agreed-upon yardstick against which claims can be assessed--and
because conservative and reactionary claims can't withstand that
scrutiny--breaking down confidence in them has been a major project of
the Rage Machine, which attempts to indoctrinate its followers in the
belief that </span></span><span data-offset-key="1fbj4-0-0"><span data-text="true">the
truth or falsity of any proposition can be judged entirely by its
temporary political utility. Facts, via this conditioning, become things that can be used as propaganda on the
rare occasions when they serve the cause and can be otherwise discarded; the only "fact" is the Machine's narrative. </span></span>T<span data-offset-key="1fbj4-0-0"><span data-text="true">he
Machine tells its followers they're persecuted, feeds them a steady
diet of manufactured outrages and utterly dehumanizes and demonizes
liberals, minorities and anyone else who may stand against the hero of the tale. Liberals, in this fantasy, aren't those who may have a legitimate disagreement. T</span></span><span data-offset-key="1fbj4-0-0"><span data-text="true">hey're
an evil, lying, cheating, stealing, weak, moronic enemy actively seeking
to do you harm, that have control of the levers of power by illegitimate means and that need to be defeated, destroyed, eliminated. When all reason, all serious thinking, all confidence in institutions has been burned away, all that's left are a bunch of fearful, rage-filled reactionaries who have been taught that though they're right, they're good and they represent The People, they're persecuted by this foe, whom they've been taught to despise. The American conservative elite hope those reared in this atmosphere will show up on election day and vote Republican, which is exactly what has, for some years, happened, but their smog has now given rise to something they didn't anticipate and can't control: a Trumpenstein monster, an angry, ambulatory representation of every bad impulse the Rage Machine has ever projected, with the fascist's promise of national renewal by means of the authoritarian dismantling of the liberal society.[5] Trump's hardcore supporters were reared in this environment and it's to them all this fuss over things like crowd-size is directed. For this particular group, there are no genuine facts anymore, just a narrative to which they've been conditioned to respond. Those alt-"facts" are there to feed that narrative and, perhaps more importantly, to try to widen the range of those infected by it.</span></span><br />
<span data-offset-key="1fbj4-0-0"><span data-text="true"><br /></span></span>
<span data-offset-key="1fbj4-0-0"><span data-text="true">Something that perhaps shouldn't need to be so overtly stated is that governance isn't a game to be played between an authoritarian reality-show star and his admiring viewers. There are real people, both in the U.S. and abroad, who can be hurt by Trump and that will be hurt if he governs as he says, real civil liberties that can be crushed and that will be crushed if he has his way. The government of the most powerful nation in the history of the world is now in the hands of a protofascist Twitter troll. That's a problem. </span></span><span data-offset-key="1fbj4-0-0"><span data-text="true">The
"evil Establishment" Trump stands against isn't the actual political
Establishment; it's the institutions of liberal democracy and
ultimately, liberal democracy itself. In this particular matter of news media,</span></span> the press is, at least in theory, a check on Trump and Trump's
goal is to completely destroy public confidence in it as an
institution--to get rid of that watchdog. He has the presidency and he can do an incredible amount of damage.<br />
<br />
His administration presents journalists with something many of them may initially perceive as a crisis. In reality, it's an opportunity, a chance for the press to clean its own house, a chance to shine. While that
idea that there are no facts, only narratives, seems
self-evidently stupid and dangerous, it's also exactly how most of the
corporate press covers political issues. He said/she said "journalism,"
reporting competing claims as if they were equal while making no effort
to adjudicate which, if either, is true. Mainstream commentators may be
horrified by that characterization of lies as "alternative facts" but they've implicitly incorporated that same notion into their own work for decades. That needs to stop. Lazy equivalence only ever privileges the lie and in this age of Trump, that's something journalism--and America itself--can no longer afford. And speaking of that, reporters and commentators need to stop trying to come up with some creative way to call a lie something other than a lie. Talk straight. Grow the fuck up. Become that watchdog you're supposed to be, instead of the lapdog you usually are. Since everything in the corporate press seems to come down to profits and demographics, the good news is that Trump is widely despised. He just entered office with the <a href="http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/315762-gallup-poll-trump-enters-white-house-with-lowest-approval" target="_blank">lowest approval rating</a> of any new president on record and that means there's an audience for serious journalism that challenges this administration, something the press should offer with every administration anyway. That can, of course, have a negative effect as well. In the Confirmation Bias Nation, reporting that is false and inaccurate but that plays to public anxiety about Trump can also draw a big crowd. That kind of irresponsible work would only feed Trump's own narrative though, and help further undermine the institution. These are the paths open to journalism now. Shape up, serve your country and maybe this becomes your finest hour or continue down the road of prevarication and/or click-bait-chasing and be rendered even more irrelevant.<br />
<br />
<span data-offset-key="1fbj4-0-0"><span data-text="true">--j.</span></span></div>
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="1fbj4-0-0">
<br />
<span data-offset-key="1fbj4-0-0"><span data-text="true">---</span></span><br />
<br />
<span data-offset-key="1fbj4-0-0"><span data-text="true">[1] This is entirely dishonest--second-term inaugurations from established administrations are always more sparsely watched than first-term ones. <a href="http://variety.com/2017/tv/news/donald-trump-inauguration-ratings-30-6-million-obama-1201966171/" target="_blank">According to Nielsen</a>, Trump's inauguration drew 30.6 million viewers, which puts him well behind Obama's 37.7 million viewers in 2009, Reagan's 41.8 million in 1980 and Jimmy Carter's 34.1 million in 1977. He was even behind Richard Nixon's <i>second</i> inaugural, which drew 33 million in 1972. The good news for Trump is that he did at least manage to barely squeak by both Bill Clinton in 1993 (29.7 million) and George Bush Sr. in 1989 (29 million) but if one adjusted for the population growth in the U.S. over those years, he would be well behind them as well, and probably the lowest on record.</span></span><span data-offset-key="1fbj4-0-0"><span data-text="true"> </span></span><br />
<br />
<span data-offset-key="1fbj4-0-0"><span data-text="true">[2] Or maybe
not. It's a silver platter item but if those in the corporate press
ignore it, it wouldn't be the first time when it comes to dealing with
Trump. Or even the 10,000th.</span></span><br />
<br />
<span data-offset-key="1fbj4-0-0"><span data-text="true">[3] Earlier just this month, Janine Jackson of Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting <a href="http://fair.org/home/signs-look-grim-for-media-picking-the-side-of-liberty-and-dissent/" target="_blank">wrote about this</a>.</span></span><br />
<br />
<span data-offset-key="1fbj4-0-0"><span data-text="true">[4] On Saturday, for example, Trump made a rambling speech to CIA employees in which he asserted that reports about tension between himself
and the U.S. intelligence community were a fabrication of an
out-to-get-him press. </span></span><span data-offset-key="1fbj4-0-0"><span data-text="true">"I have a running war with the media," he declared. "They are among the most dishonest
human beings on earth. Right? And they sort of made it sound like I have
this feud with the intelligence community." In the real world, Trump, only days earlier, had <a href="http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-trump-intelligence-nazi-dossier-buzzfeed-20170111-story.html" target="_blank">compared that same intel community</a> to Nazi Germany.</span></span></div>
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="1fbj4-0-0">
<br />
[5] Trump's emergence caused a split inside the Rage Machine, with some embracing him as a virtual messiah while others were horrified. It's been particularly amusing to watch the latter. The National Review's Jonah Goldberg just couldn't believe Republicans would embrace a Trump--the Jonah Goldberg who once wrote an entire book on the premise that fascists were "liberals." Glenn Beck, who sat on television for years preaching anti-rational conspiracism, displaying his infamous board on which he labored to visually connect President Obama and any prominent liberal to dictators, evil Jewish plotters, communists, etc., was aghast at Trump's rise. Unlike most prominent anti-Trump rightists, Beck correctly recognized his own responsibility for this development and was even apologetic about it.<br />
<br />
<br />
UPDATE (24 Jan, 2017) - From <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/23/us/politics/donald-trump-congress-democrats.html" target="_blank">the New York Times</a>:<br />
<br />
"President Trump used his first official meeting with congressional
leaders on Monday to falsely claim that millions of unauthorized
immigrants had robbed him of a popular vote majority, a return to his
obsession with the election’s results even as he seeks support for his
legislative agenda."<br />
<br />
The Times' headline for this story: "Trump Repeats Lie About Popular Vote in Meeting With Lawmakers." Progress, fellahs, progress.</div>
</div>
cinemarchaeologisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13507603255666191405noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6321344375544728027.post-69144417415567606802016-11-09T11:16:00.003-08:002021-06-23T10:21:53.760-07:00A Memo To The Press: Get the Clinton Loss RightIn one of my other hats (one I wear here on occasion), I'm a bit of a political analyst. It has been offered to me by several friends and acquaintances that I'm pretty good at this and that this is probably because I'm a radical, a guy who doesn't have a dog in partisan battles. I'll defer to others on the matter of whether my analysis is of any merit. Some months ago, I did predict the likely outcome of yesterday's presidential contest. On days when I should probably be doing something better with my time, I haunt various message boards and Facebook groups and talk politics. The weakness of Hillary Clinton as a candidate has been a constant theme of mine throughout this campaign season, just as it was back in 2008. On 3 June, I wrote a post I threw up on several Facebook groups--and that's how it was often treated, as if I'd thrown up--noting that, from a long-term perspective, it could be argued that<br /><blockquote>
"The best possible outcome of a Clinton/Trump general is to simply let the GOP have the presidency and allow that to become the rock on which that party in its present form is finally broken. That's also the most likely outcome of such a race. But that's a story for another time."</blockquote>
That post eventually evolved into an article here, "<a href="http://corporatenewsreviews.blogspot.com/2016/06/a-trump-win-best-possible-outcome.html" target="_blank">A Trump Win the Best Possible Outcome?</a>" Late last night, Donald Trump won the presidency.[1] In the coming days and weeks, I imagine we're going to be hearing all kinds of spin from Democratic insiders in the press trying to explain this. Or, more to the point, to explain it away. Late last night, I wrote some thoughts on this:<br />
<br />
As I’m writing this, the outcome of the presidential contest hasn't yet been settled but it’s clear Donald Trump has performed solidly and is probably on his way to winning it. However that turns out, what should have been a one-sided massacre of a joke of a Republican candidate has become a razor-thin contest and before the usual Democratic spin-cycle starts, it’s important to get some things straight.<br />
<br />
Hillary Clinton didn't perform badly because of the presence of third-party candidates in the race. Clinton didn't perform badly because of Bernie Sanders. She didn't perform badly because people didn't want a woman for president. It certainly wasn't because she wasn't conservative enough, and moving the party even further right is certainly no solution. It isn't the fault of young people or of James Comey. Hillary Clinton has performed so badly because of Hillary Clinton. She's a weak, loser candidate who began the race more disliked than liked, ran a terrible campaign that made that even worse, a bought-and-paid-for shill, the ultimate Establishment politician in a year in which that was an anathema. She's behind and probably going to lose because she was, yet again, another pol who offered nothing to those who have been harmed by the decline of America and have been left behind by the political Establishment. In the absence of constructive politics that address their concerns, people will inevitably turn to whatever is available, even a faux-populist protofascist campaign.<br />
<br />
This didn't have to happen. The Democrats had a solid candidate who drew all the enthusiasm within the party and who would have rolled right over Trump. And Clinton and the party Establishment burned every bridge in order to screw him over and foist Clinton on the public instead, at a time when most people openly told pollsters they despised her. It worked. Hope was broken.[2] And now, the U.S. is likely to be saddled with a dangerously incompetent protofascist half-wit.<br />
<br />
There's a certain element of unappealing braggadocio in told-you-so-ism but in this case, it's some salt that needs to be vigorously applied to this particular wound, because this outcome was utterly predictable. I assembled the below graphic in October 2015[3] and used it to accompany this analysis, which I'd been offering in various venues even before that, and had, in fact, offered back in 2008 as well. The good news is that a Trump win will probably finish off the GOP and lead to the revitalization of an opposition party.<br />
<br />
It will, that is, unless the expected Democratic spin I've tried to prematurely disentangle is allowed to substitute for a genuine autopsy.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEixcSW_MhDL7GkqzjSHUVL-8eGcv60RaH031tbwrZZt2KkVKJMkGiIl20Fb9zlYQdEE_AZVnQvN0RImgCspqxLN79mQM-SX0tM7-1JOgYP1PFj7FOpiH46oHUuwLrKD8G6ETYLNpM6_0Q/s1600/hillaryclintonlloser.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEixcSW_MhDL7GkqzjSHUVL-8eGcv60RaH031tbwrZZt2KkVKJMkGiIl20Fb9zlYQdEE_AZVnQvN0RImgCspqxLN79mQM-SX0tM7-1JOgYP1PFj7FOpiH46oHUuwLrKD8G6ETYLNpM6_0Q/s400/hillaryclintonlloser.JPG" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
Showing the same lack of class that helped defeat her, Clinton declined to speak to her followers gathered at her campaign headquarters in New York last night, offering no public concession. It fell to Trump to note, during his own victory speech, that she'd called him and conceded.<br />
<br />
It will be interesting to see if Democrats get this right and, for the purpose of this blog, even more interesting to see if the press holds them to account rather than letting them spin it away. Trump's win also presents a major problem for the GOP, as the populist views he's adopted on things like "free trade" and jobs clash rather spectacularly with those of the party and its elected officials and the coverage of that will be a whole 'nother can of worms. But that's a can of worms for another day...<br />
<br />
--j.<br />
<br />
---<br />
<br />
[1] In recent days, I've been overwhelmed by the feeling that I've seriously dropped the ball on the Trump phenomenon. Trump is the latest manifestation of trends I've been covering for a couple decades now and though on various message boards and debate groups I've written perhaps entire books about his candidacy and, much more importantly, what's behind it, I've written almost nothing in the way of formal articles on it (and certainly no books). His campaign could be seen as a culmination of <i>so</i> much work I've done. Now that he's won, I guess I'll have the opportunity to play catch-up. I note this for no particular reason. Maybe it's just that this piece sounds like I'm crowing about getting the election right, so I'm feeling overly compelled to point out a personal shortcoming as counter.<br />
<br />
[2] Bernie Sanders saw the likely outcome of a Clinton/Trump contest as well. In <a href="https://berniesanders.com/remarks-at-the-democratic-national-committee/" target="_blank">a speech</a> to the Democratic National Committee's Summer conference on 28th August, 2015, he warned:<br />
<br />
"Let me be very
clear. In my view, Democrats will not retain the White House, will not
regain the Senate, will not gain the House and will not be successful in
dozens of governor’s races unless we run a campaign which generates
excitement and momentum and which produces a huge voter turnout. With
all due respect, and I do not mean to insult anyone here, that will not
happen with politics as usual. The same old, same old will not be
successful. The people of our country understand that — given the
collapse of the American middle class and the grotesque level of income
and wealth inequality we are experiencing — we do not need more
establishment politics or establishment economics. We need a political
movement which is prepared to take on the billionaire class and create a
government which represents all Americans, and not just corporate
America and wealthy campaign donors. In other words, we need a movement
which takes on the economic and political establishment, not one which
is part of it."<br />
<br />
[3] To clarify, this was an existing image of Clinton; I only applied the word to it.cinemarchaeologisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13507603255666191405noreply@blogger.com0