Support NeoGAF

[Wall]

Yeah, looks like that New York Times article I posted was wrong about what Sanders was getting at. Konczal's interpretation (The Roosevelt Institute article Elforkusu posted) seems closer to what was the point.

Those plans don't sound politically realistic, especially within a year, but then again, neither would passing legislation.

Edit: To be clear, Konczal isn't arguing Sanders's answers in the interview indicate a lack of knowledge of the subject but rather the opposite: Sanders was being too wonky and a bit narrow in focus.

 

[HK-47]

Yeah, looks like that New York Times article I posted was wrong about what Sanders was getting at. Konczal's interpretation (The Roosevelt Institute article Elforkusu posted) seems closer to what was the point.

Those plans don't sound politically realistic, especially within a year, but then again, neither would passing legislation.

Funny how it always comes back to Congress. How about those downticket funds, Sanders?

 

[Barajas_201]

I know HillaryGAF hates progressive media (while calling themselves liberals) and facts but here is more:

The Four Layers Of Gotcha Questions

Its abundantly clear, Clinton supporters have an irrational hate towards Bernie and any tiny misstep is overblown. I hope this attitude doesn't backfire on your favorite candidate come the general when she is left with support from only fear votes and pseudo-liberals.

 

[The Adder]

I've been following Kyle for a while, and he's never been shy about supporting Sanders. However, if you look at his history, he's been critical of Sanders performances as well (Mainly during debates). But the fact of the matter is, he's correct.

-Bernie gets cornered by agressive interview. Is expected to have all kinds of strange shit oddly memorized with statutes and shit like that.
-Media (And some of GAF) tries tries to tar and feather the guy.

I'll take a guy who struggled a bit with a tough and aggressive question, doesn't know all the shit right up front, and then FUCKING OWNS IT and is honest that he doesn't have the answer right there, instead of spinning it like Hillary would.

I'll take that ANY DAY of the week over Hillary's way of doing things. https://youtu.be/-dY77j6uBHI

I repeat

This is fucking hilarious.

No, Sanders voters, this is not the corrupt media sabotaging Bernie.

You wanted him to be taken seriously as a candidate? This what it looks like.

Remember when people who have been following elections for longer than a year said that the reason Bernie was winning in electability against Repubs slightly more than Hillary was because he was a virtual unknown, never having been grilled or vetted, being compared to someone who has been taking it on the chin from the right for 20 years?

Remember when they said that he would be torn apart in the general once the right wing's canons were aimed his way?

He's already faltering and he hasn't even been attacked yet. He's just being asked questions and he's already shitting the bed.

Welcome to the real world.

 

[Nipo]

What would happen to people's 401k with Bernie's unfriendly business and wall street policies. Retirement savings would take a dive.

 

[damisa]

I know HillaryGAF hates progressive media (while calling themselves liberals) and facts but here is more:

The Four Layers Of Gotcha Questions

Its abundantly clear, Clinton supporters have an irrational hate towards Bernie and any tiny misstep is overblown. I hope this attitude doesn't backfire on your favorite candidate come the general when she is left with support from only fear votes and pseudo-liberals.

Nov Bernie: I WANT TO BREAK UP BIG BANKS
Dec Bernie: I WANT TO BREAK UP BIG BANKS
Jan Bernie: I WANT TO BREAK UP BIG BANKS
Feb Bernie: I WANT TO BREAK UP BIG BANKS
Mar Bernie: I WANT TO BREAK UP BIG BANKS
Apr Bernie: I WANT TO BREAK UP BIG BANKS
Reporter: How will you do that?

Bernie supporters: STOP ASKING GOTCHA QUESTIONS

 

[googleplex]

I know HillaryGAF hates progressive media (while calling themselves liberals) and facts but here is more:

The Four Layers Of Gotcha Questions

Its abundantly clear, Clinton supporters have an irrational hate towards Bernie and any tiny misstep is overblown. I hope this attitude doesn't backfire on your favorite candidate come the general when she is left with support from only fear votes and pseudo-liberals.

Has "pseudo-liberals" replaced "closet conservatives" as the default insult name for Hillary supporters this week?

 

[RustyNails]

I know HillaryGAF hates progressive media (while calling themselves liberals) and facts but here is more:

The Four Layers Of Gotcha Questions

Its abundantly clear, Clinton supporters have an irrational hate towards Bernie and any tiny misstep is overblown. I hope this attitude doesn't backfire on your favorite candidate come the general when she is left with support from only fear votes and pseudo-liberals.

Hey, every news media is questioning Bernie Sanders right now. It's not a tiny misstep. It's a colossal goatfuck.

 

[johnsmith]

Has "pseudo-liberals" replaced "closet conservatives" as the default insult name for Hillary supporters this week?

They'll be back to neoliberals in a couple of days. They like to keep things fresh.

 

[The Adder]

I know HillaryGAF hates progressive media (while calling themselves liberals) and facts but here is more:

The Four Layers Of Gotcha Questions

Remember when we liberals all collectively laughed at Sarah Palin's inability to answer a simple question and then laughed harder when she blamed it on the "Gotcha media"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_aQupiaCSA&nohtml5=False

 

[Damaniel]

I know HillaryGAF hates progressive media (while calling themselves liberals) and facts but here is more:

The Four Layers Of Gotcha Questions

Its abundantly clear, Clinton supporters have an irrational hate towards Bernie and any tiny misstep is overblown. I hope this attitude doesn't backfire on your favorite candidate come the general when she is left with support from only fear votes and pseudo-liberals.

The Young Turks are so far off the rails that they're the Fox News of the left at this point, and they're so biased toward Bernie that I can't take any supposedly objective reporting of him or Hillary seriously.

And not knowing how you're going to go about fixing the problem you've made the single most important part of your platform is not a 'tiny misstep' - it's a huge gaffe that demonstrates a fundamental lack of knowledge necessary to lead. If he doesn't know how he's going to fix the central plank of his domestic policy, why should I expect him to understand how to fix anything else?

 

[Arkeband]

Yeah, you guys aren't doing any favors posting TYT videos, they're not only up their own ass but they don't even pretend to be impartial.

 

[Irnbru]

Jesus Christ, honestly, if Bernie can't take these softballs, what's going to happen if he wins and the republican machine goes for the throat? He'll be torn into more pieces than batman v superman.

 

[Boney]

Hey, every news media is questioning Bernie Sanders right now. It's not a tiny misstep. It's a colossal goatfuck.

Corporate media is, most independant outlets are siding with sanders.

Sanders thoughts on corporate media http://youtu.be/v4EP0PZIsfA

Will this hurt the election? You got it. Even Hillary launched a press conference to roast him. But ehh

 

[BlastProcessing]

I know HillaryGAF hates progressive media (while calling themselves liberals) and facts but here is more:

The Four Layers Of Gotcha Questions

Its abundantly clear, Clinton supporters have an irrational hate towards Bernie and any tiny misstep is overblown. I hope this attitude doesn't backfire on your favorite candidate come the general when she is left with support from only fear votes and pseudo-liberals.

Asking somebody how they plan on implementing a part of their platform is not a gotcha question. Following up on a question that the candidate avoided actually answering is not a gotcha question. It is just fundamental journalism.

 

[Valhelm]

They'll be back to neoliberals in a couple of days. They like to keep things fresh.

Neoliberalism isn't a buzzword. It's a legitimate economic descriptor that applies to most American politicians, really meaning anybody who supports privatization and is pro-austerity

 

[The Adder]

Corporate media is, most independant outlets are siding with sanders.

Listen to yourself, Boney.

Isn't this the exact kind of shit you'd roast a conservative for saying last election?

 

[Four_Chamber]

What's the definition of a "too big to fail" bank that would be broken up by Sanders anyway? It's a pretty darn arbitrary categorization which makes implementation of his plan so dependent on the details which he surprisingly lacks.

 

[Wall]

I wouldn't say the questions in the Daily News Interview were "gotcha questions", but I would say the reporter sounded somewhat unsure of what they were asking. The questions related to financial regulation were challenging, but I don't think they were out of line, just maybe a little dumb.

Mike Konczal Bernie Sanders gave some fairly normal answers on financial reform to the New York Daily News editorial board. Someone sent it to me, and as I read it I thought “yes, these are answers I’d expect for how Sanders approaches financial reform.” ...

Sanders has a clear path on how he wants to break up the banks which he described. Breaking up the banks doesn’t require, or even benefit from, describing the specifics on how the banks would end up, neither for his plans or the baby steps Dodd-Frank has already taken.

Konsczal knows his stuff. He isn't completely uncritical of Sanders in the piece, but he is clear that Sanders's answers indicate he knows what he is talking about.

Edit: The quotes are from the article posted upthread. The author specializes in financial reform and writes a widely respected blog on finance.

http://rooseveltinstitute.org/sanders-ending-tbtf/

 

[Boney]

Listen to yourself, Boney.

Isn't this the exact kind of shit you'd roast a conservative for saying last election?

But there's a difference between sensationalist, headlined based reporting and some of the better outlets like Democracy Now! advocating for Sanders. I'm definately partial to those outlets, I won't deny that, so I guess I'll just say it fits my narrative better.

Here's the democracy now bit http://youtu.be/MQmsJuXwvNA

Also it's pretty nuts how the Clinton campaign sent the transcript to every journalist in town with a few highlighted extracts and urged people to share the news. There's nothing technically wrong with that but you know they're getting very worried at how Sanders is starting to chomp at her feet.

Oh and I mentioned it earlier, but YouTube has had some pretty nice documentation a of how the media acts. Like Cooper bringing the polls to Hillary saying she's losing but framing the question with a "do you buy tha?t" and following up on her not being a natural politician to boost her trust issues, while Bernie gets asked 5 times about Castro and the Cuban government. Amy Goodman blasted CNN for the ratio of minutes they've covered Sanders vs other candidates, and most interviews ask him petty stuff. The most headlines he did was when the bird landed, it's that crazy. Why wasn't anyone covering the 20.000 people that were raving at the Bronx like it was a carnival, that's some pretty interesting news about his campaign.

 

[The Adder]

But there's a difference between sensationalist, headlined based reporting and some of the better outlets like Democracy Now! advocating for Sanders. I'm definately partial to those outlets, I won't deny that, so I guess I'll just say it fits my narrative better.

This is the same "corporate media," or to borrow the Republican term, "lamestream media" that spent months hammering at Clinton over her e-mails until she performed spectacularly in front of congress. Why weren't they in her back pocket then?

Take a step back, Boney. You can still stand with Bernie without sinking into madness.

 

[Boney]

This is the same "corporate media," or to borrow the Republican term, "lamestream media" that spent months hammering at Clinton over her e-mails until she performed spectacularly in front of congress. Why weren't they in her back pocket then?

Take a step back, Boney. You can still stand with Bernie without sinking into madness.

Because mainstream media flourishes on scandals. They're gonna cover it and demonize her to squeeze every bit of buck they can out of the story. It's not like there's another democratic candidate that was gonna hurt her chances.

Do I think the media is biased against Bernie and paints Hillary in a more positive way? Yes absolutely, even if sometimes it's subconcious.

 

[Xe4]

Because mainstream media flourishes on scandals. They're gonna cover it and demonize her to squeeze every bit of buck they can out of the story. It's not like there's another democratic candidate that was gonna hurt her chances.

Why do you think the main stream media cares about Clinton winning? Honest question.

 

[Irnbru]

I'ts different, okay? He's only doing it this one time, and she's done it her WHOLE LIFE.

Also he's never going to need to do this, ever again, as President, to get anything done at all. Because he'll be the POTUS and he'll remove money from politics and politics from politics and it'll all be perfect utopia.



To be fair, it's not like Trump knows anything so I think at the very least, Sanders will fair better relative to his opponent being Trump.

It's not Trump I really worry about, it's Cruz. He can make that machine churn like no other, and if they smell blood on easy questions like this, it'll be nasty.

 

[Piecake]

But there's a difference between sensationalist, headlined based reporting and some of the better outlets like Democracy Now! advocating for Sanders. I'm definately partial to those outlets, I won't deny that, so I guess I'll just say it fits my narrative better.

Here's the democracy now bit http://youtu.be/MQmsJuXwvNA

Also it's pretty nuts how the Clinton campaign sent the transcript to every journalist in town with a few highlighted extracts and urged people to share the news. There's nothing technically wrong with that but you know they're getting very worried at how Sanders is starting to chomp at her feet.

Thats called confirmation bias, and is something that you should try to challenge yourself on, not embrace.

Though to be fair, every political thread should just be called Confirmation Bias; the thread

And it is basically mathematically impossible for Sanders to win the nomination. Just because she wants to hurt Sanders chances does not mean that she is afraid that he will actually win.

 

[Mr. RPG]

And it is basically mathematically impossible for Sanders to win the nomination. Just because she wants to hurt Sanders chances does not mean that she is afraid that he will actually win.

Thats called confirmation bias, and is something that you should try to challenge yourself on, not embrace.

Mathematically impossible? I'm going to love your explanation.

Sure, it isn't very likely he'll win, but it isn't mathematically impossible.

 

[Boney]

Why do you think the main stream media cares about Clinton winning? Honest question.

They probably care more about Sanders getting more traction. Democrat or Republican is the same for them.

Thats called confirmation bias, and is something that you should try to challenge yourself on, not embrace.

Though to be fair, every political thread should just be called Confirmation Bias; the thread

And it is basically mathematically impossible for Sanders to win the nomination. Just because she wants to hurt Sanders chances does not mean that she is afraid that he will actually win.

I mean, there's no better example of that NYTimes article that was was a pretty glowing piece on him praising his legislation accomplished and his ability to work with both aisles, that got stealthily edited without any editor's note and got changed it a pretty bad hit piece, taking out most of the praise other politicians made and framing everything as very small and insignificant victories. The NYT senior editor has to write a column apologizing for it and that she couldn't explain what happened.

And as for Sanders winning? Is it mathematically impossible if you don't count the super delegates? I don't think it is right? But it's a non issue because the super delegates aren't gonna jump ship like they did with Obama in 08 if for some miracle Bernie wins the most delegates.

 

[Hexa]

While not mathematically impossible, its really implausible.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/its-really-hard-to-get-bernie-sanders-988-more-delegates/

Like he won yesterday in Wisconsin, but not by enough to actually push him towards winning. He would have to make a series of upsets for it to be possible.

 

[Piecake]

Mathematically impossible? I'm going to love your explanation.

Sure, it isn't very likely he'll win, but it isn't mathematically impossible.

He needs to win all the remaining states by like 20 points and he is down in the polls in New York and California by pretty good margins.

That isnt going to happen.

So yea, sure, he can still win mathematically, but there is a reason why I said basically and it was more or less to convey the fact that he has basically no chance of winning this.

They probably care more about Sanders getting more traction. Democrat or Republican is the same for them.


I mean, there's no better example of that NYTimes article that was was a pretty glowing piece on him praising his legislation accomplished and his ability to work with both aisles, that got stealthily edited without any editor's note and got changed it a pretty bad hit piece, taking out most of the praise other politicians made and framing everything as very small and insignificant victories. The NYT senior editor has to write a column apologizing for it and that she couldn't explain what happened.

Why exactly is that an example? Perhaps they simply didn't think that that reflected the reality of the situation. I mean, what are Bernie's legislative accomplishments? What are a few of his signature bills that he has put forward that have been put into law? And I am not quite sure how well a far left ideologue works with Republicans across the aisle. I don't see much common ground and I can't see much compromises between the two except maybe on things like guns.

If the NYT's was so in the tank for Hilary then they wouldn't have posted that article that defended Bernie's response to the interview. Of course, if you bring up those examples then it doesn't fit the narrative of the biased corporate media.

 

[Matt]

Also it's pretty nuts how the Clinton campaign sent the transcript to every journalist in town with a few highlighted extracts and urged people to share the news. There's nothing technically wrong with that but you know they're getting very worried at how Sanders is starting to chomp at her feet.

That is NOT nuts, that is campaign rapid response 101. Every campaign does it for everything. Bernie does it. It's how the business works.

 

[Mr. RPG]

He needs to win all the remaining states by like 20 points and he is down in the polls in New York and California by pretty good margins.

That isnt going to happen.

So yea, sure, he can still win mathematically, but there is a reason why I said basically and it was more or less to convey the fact that he has basically no chance of winning this.

Come on, he doesn't need to win each state by 20 point margins to receive a majority in pledged delegates. Look at your math again.

 

[The Adder]

Mathematically impossible? I would love your explanation.

And as for Sanders winning? Is it mathematically impossible if you don't count the super delegates? I don't think it is right? But it's a non issue because the super delegates aren't gonna jump ship like they did with Obama in 08 if for some miracle Bernie wins the most delegates.

Hilary stands at 1280 delegates (not counting Super)

Bernie has 1030 (not counting Super)

There are 1,955 left

They need 2383 total to win flat out.

To come out ahead of Hilary before the Super Delegates are counted (not flat out win, mind) he needs 56% of the remaining delegates.

Given that he's behind in all four of the remaining biggest states (New York - 247, Pennsylvania - 189, California = 476, New Jersey - 126), no other state has even 100 delegates, and his wins tend to be by very thin margins, yes. Not counting the Super Delegates it is still mathematically impossible for Bernie to win.

Barring some cataclysmic event.

 

[Mr. RPG]

To come out ahead of Hilary before the Super Delegates are counted (not flat out win, mind) he needs 56% of the remaining delegates.

That's possible. Doesn't Trump need about the same amount of delegates?

and his wins tend to be by very thin margins, yes

Hawaii, Alaska, and Washington were all razer-thin margins?

 

[Piecake]

Come on, he doesn't need to win each state by 20 point margins to received a majority in pledged delegates. Look at your math again.

After a trio of landslide wins in Washington, Alaska and Hawaii on Saturday — the best single day of his campaign — Bernie Sanders narrowed his delegate deficit with Hillary Clinton. But he still has a lot of work to do. Sanders trails Clinton by 228 pledged delegates and will need 988 more — a bit under 57 percent of those available — to finish with the majority.

So, 17 instead of 20? is that better?

That's possible. Doesn't Trump need about the same amount of delegates?



Hawaii, Alaska, and Washington were all razer-thin margins?

Its not possible when you look at the polls in New York and California

 

[AntraxSuicide]

Nov Bernie: I WANT TO BREAK UP BIG BANKS
Dec Bernie: I WANT TO BREAK UP BIG BANKS
Jan Bernie: I WANT TO BREAK UP BIG BANKS
Feb Bernie: I WANT TO BREAK UP BIG BANKS
Mar Bernie: I WANT TO BREAK UP BIG BANKS
Apr Bernie: I WANT TO BREAK UP BIG BANKS
Reporter: How will you do that?

Bernie supporters: STOP ASKING GOTCHA QUESTIONS

I hate how accurate this is.

Listen to yourself, Boney.

Isn't this the exact kind of shit you'd roast a conservative for saying last election?

But there's a difference between sensationalist, headlined based reporting and some of the better outlets like Democracy Now! advocating for Sanders. I'm definately partial to those outlets, I won't deny that, so I guess I'll just say it fits my narrative better.

Here's the democracy now bit http://youtu.be/MQmsJuXwvNA

Also it's pretty nuts how the Clinton campaign sent the transcript to every journalist in town with a few highlighted extracts and urged people to share the news. There's nothing technically wrong with that but you know they're getting very worried at how Sanders is starting to chomp at her feet.

Oh and I mentioned it earlier, but YouTube has had some pretty nice documentation a of how the media acts. Like Cooper bringing the polls to Hillary saying she's losing but framing the question with a "do you buy tha?t" and following up on her not being a natural politician to boost her trust issues, while Bernie gets asked 5 times about Castro and the Cuban government. Amy Goodman blasted CNN for the ratio of minutes they've covered Sanders vs other candidates, and most interviews ask him petty stuff. The most headlines he did was when the bird landed, it's that crazy. Why wasn't anyone covering the 20.000 people that were raving at the Bronx like it was a carnival, that's some pretty interesting news about his campaign.

You have to step back and realize that when you're claiming the only accurate media is random outlets on Youtube, you've gone a bit far. We'd be blasting people on the right if they said these arguments about the media treating their chosed candidates. Cruz does it all the time, and it's batshit crazy.

Also, the reason Bernie isn't getting coverage is because he's not doing well now, and he's starved for air time thanks to Trump saying newsworthy things every week. Hop into Poligaf threads from a few months ago, and the constant conversation was about what Trump would say on Friday to dominate the weekend news. He knows how to get the headlines, and the media isn't wrong for giving him that. He says new things every week, and they're crazy as shit. That's news. Bernie almost never does anything new, which is why you have places like CNN cutting away from his speeches when he starts pulling a Rubio, to put it bluntly. It's not interesting to most readers/viewers since it's old news.

And this interview is a softball at best. Bernie should've walked into this thinking "I'm going to knock this out of the park, and it'll drive a 'Bernie's serious business' narrative." Instead, he legitimately comes off like one of my students who clearly decided to wing the day's work instead of preparing something. The words "pie-in-the-sky" have been attached to him for a little while, but that's not a good thing if it sticks around. By that, I mean it's one of those qualifiers that starts as a compliment (He's a dreamer!) that eventually morphs into a negative (He's unqualified!).

Like someone mentioned, it only gets worse if you're the nominee. Much, much, much worse. The Republicans had Hillary Clinton sit through over 10 hours of needless interrogation for the explicitly stated purpose (thanks McCarthy!) of hurting her politically. If Bernie has trouble with interviews like this, where it's honestly a great chance for him to stay on message if he wants to, then he'll get annihilated publicly for months in the general. He needs to do better in this environment.

I'll say this; he's had few opportunities to practice this because New York is just that different. The media market there is another world to any primary before now, so it's understandable that he's green to it. But them's the breaks, as the youths say.

 

[Boney]

While not mathematically impossible, its really implausible.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/its-really-hard-to-get-bernie-sanders-988-more-delegates/

Like he won yesterday in Wisconsin, but not by enough to actually push him towards winning. He would have to make a series of upsets for it to be possible.

But that's counting super delegates. He needs to close a 200 delegate lead to pass with the regular and make his argument to convince the super delegates to vote for him. Of course they're never switching over

He needs to win all the remaining states by like 20 points and he is down in the polls in New York and California by pretty good margins.

That isnt going to happen.

So yea, sure, he can still win mathematically, but there is a reason why I said basically and it was more or less to convey the fact that he has basically no chance of winning this.



Why exactly is that an example? Perhaps they simply didn't think that that reflected the reality of the situation. I mean, what are Bernie's legislative accomplishments? What are a few of his signature bills that he has put forward that have been put into law? And I am not quite sure how well a far left ideologue works with Republicans across the aisle. I don't see much common ground and I can't see much compromises between the two except maybe on things like guns.

If the NYT's was so in the tank for Hilary then they wouldn't have posted that article that defended Bernie's response to the interview. Of course, if you bring up those examples then it doesn't fit the narrative of the biased corporate media.

I remember that article covering his work with McCain and other republicans for expanding the veterans health care system. Sanders is known in congress both for his ability to work with both parties incredibly well and he's known as the amendment King because how many progressive amendments he's able to pass.

He passed the most amendments from 95-2007 which was a republican senate and all were progressive oriented.

I mean I don't have any tangible proof to tell you that the media is biased other than amounts of negative articles written about him (16 by Washington post in 24 hours) in relation to other candidates but one could argue that he's just a weak candidate that deserves the misrepresentation of his goals. Other stuff like petty stuff making headlines like when they accused him of being sexist by not letting Hillary interrupt him in a debate or more empirically just the amount of air time he's had compared to other candidates which is significantly less but of course one could also say it's just because of ratings. I have had absolutely no respect for corporate media all my life though, so I'll just leave it at that.

That is NOT nuts, that is campaign rapid response 101. Every campaign does it for everything. Bernie does it. It's how the business works.

The press release yeah obviously, communications director needs to do his job, but the press conference that spun the guns issue accusing him of being a heartless monster that doesn't care about sandy hook was a bit overboard.

 

[Karsticles]

I wouldn't say the questions in the Daily News Interview were "gotcha questions", but I would say the reporter sounded somewhat unsure of what they were asking. The questions related to financial regulation were challenging, but I don't think they were out of line, just maybe a little dumb.





Konsczal knows his stuff. He isn't completely uncritical of Sanders in the piece, but he is clear that Sanders's answers indicate he knows what he is talking about.

Edit: The quotes are from the article posted upthread. The author specializes in financial reform and writes a widely respected blog on finance.

http://rooseveltinstitute.org/sanders-ending-tbtf/

I think this is a good article to read to clear up the nonsense going on.

 

[Boney]

I hate how accurate this is.


You have to step back and realize that when you're claiming the only accurate media is random outlets on Youtube, you've gone a bit far. We'd be blasting people on the right if they said these arguments about the media treating their chosed candidates. Cruz does it all the time, and it's batshit crazy.

Also, the reason Bernie isn't getting coverage is because he's not doing well now, and he's starved for air time thanks to Trump saying newsworthy things every week. Hop into Poligaf threads from a few months ago, and the constant conversation was about what Trump would say on Friday to dominate the weekend news. He knows how to get the headlines, and the media isn't wrong for giving him that. He says new things every week, and they're crazy as shit. That's news. Bernie almost never does anything new, which is why you have places like CNN cutting away from his speeches when he starts pulling a Rubio, to put it bluntly. It's not interesting to most readers/viewers since it's old news.

And this interview is a softball at best. Bernie should've walked into this thinking "I'm going to knock this out of the park, and it'll drive a 'Bernie's serious business' narrative." Instead, he legitimately comes off like one of my students who clearly decided to wing the day's work instead of preparing something. The words "pie-in-the-sky" have been attached to him for a little while, but that's not a good thing if it sticks around. By that, I mean it's one of those qualifiers that starts as a compliment (He's a dreamer!) that eventually morphs into a negative (He's unqualified!).

Like someone mentioned, it only gets worse if you're the nominee. Much, much, much worse. The Republicans had Hillary Clinton sit through over 10 hours of needless interrogation for the explicitly stated purpose (thanks McCarthy!) of hurting her politically. If Bernie has trouble with interviews like this, where it's honestly a great chance for him to stay on message if he wants to, then he'll get annihilated publicly for months in the general. He needs to do better in this environment.

I'll say this; he's had few opportunities to practice this because New York is just that different. The media market there is another world to any primary before now, so it's understandable that he's green to it. But them's the breaks, as the youths say.

Yes random media outlets employ Juan Gonzales and is one of the most respected outlets among a lot of intellectuals

http://youtu.be/ORTDX4cc3rs

Bernie has also won the last 8 out of 9 caucuses and some by record breaking margins. That's hardly a doing badly.

 

[The Adder]

But that's counting super delegates. He needs to close a 200 delegate lead to pass with the regular and make his argument to convince the super delegates to vote for him. Of course they're never switching over

Read my post.

And to further put my numbers into perspective.

If Bernie gets 49% of the delegates in the big states that he's losing, and then wins 60% of EVERY SINGLE OTHER REMAINING STATE, he STILL comes out with 2089 delegates to Hilary's 2176 BEFORE super delegates.

 

[digdug2k]

Because mainstream media flourishes on scandals. They're gonna cover it and demonize her to squeeze every bit of buck they can out of the story. It's not like there's another democratic candidate that was gonna hurt her chances.

Do I think the media is biased against Bernie and paints Hillary in a more positive way? Yes absolutely, even if sometimes it's subconscious.

Seriously? Your first paragraph basically contradicts the second. i.e. if the media just wants clicks, Sanders even coming close to Clinton in a primary means clicks. Its in their interest to promote him (and they generally do, i.e. see this interview being one of the very few times he's actually been pressed on any of his positions). Heck, they've got to be head over heels that the man ran at all, since up until he did everyone just assumed the democratic nomination would basically be uncontested. The alternative is just writing "Hillary wins again" over and over.

 

[Boney]

Read my post.

And to further put my numbers into perspective.

If Bernie gets 49% of the delegates in the big states that he's losing, and then wins 60% of EVERY SINGLE OTHER REMAINING STATE, he STILL comes out with 2089 delegates to Hilary's 2176 BEFORE super delegates.

How do you mean behind in the big stars? Do you mean poll wise? I'm not American so some issues can be lost on me.

Seriously? Your first paragraph basically contradicts the second. i.e. if the media just wants clicks, Sanders even coming close to Clinton in a primary means clicks. Its in their interest to promote him (and they generally do, i.e. see this interview being one of the very few times he's actually been pressed on any of his positions). Heck, they've got to be head over heels that the man ran at all, since up until he did everyone just assumed the democratic nomination would basically be uncontested. The alternative is just writing "Hillary wins again" over and over.

It's simple l, Hillary is part of the establishment and is pretty much a celebrity. Sanders is a relative threat to Time Warner Comcast etc.

 

[The Adder]

That's possible. Doesn't Trump need about the same amount of delegates?



Hawaii, Alaska, and Washington were all razer-thin margins?

Couple of things:

1. Trump has New York, Bernie does not.

2. Republican primaries function differently from Democratic ones.

3. He's still not going to make his numbers.

4. I didn't say Razor thin. And I didn't say all.

5. No, but New Hampshire, Minnesota, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Michigan, and Wisconsin sure as hell were.

How do you mean behind in the big stars? Do you mean poll wise? I'm not American so some issues can be lost on me.

Yes. He is behind in the polls in the 4 biggest remaining states in the primary. If we're generous and give him the absolute thinnest of losses in all four of those states, he still has to win an average of 65% of the delegates in every other state.

 

[Piecake]

I remember that article covering his work with McCain and other republicans for expanding the veterans health care system. Sanders is known in congress both for his ability to work with both parties incredibly well and he's known as the amendment King because how many progressive amendments he's able to pass.

Do you have proof of that (not the amendments)? I am actually curious about that

I mean I don't have any tangible proof to tell you that the media is biased other than amounts of negative articles written about him (16 by Washington post in 24 hours) in relation to other candidates but one could argue that he's just a weak candidate that deserves the misrepresentation of his goals. Other stuff like petty stuff making headlines like when they accused him of being sexist by not letting Hillary interrupt him in a debate or more empirically just the amount of air time he's had compared to other candidates which is significantly less but of course one could also say it's just because of ratings. I have had absolutely no respect for corporate media all my life though, so I'll just leave it at that.

Yes, only Bernie is the victim of negative articles. Clinton, Trump and Cruz has never had a negative article written about them in their lives. And are you really using a basis of comparison as a 24 hours period for the Washington post to prove your point? That is just ridiculous.

And Sanders would have gotten more air time if he posed a legitimate threat to Clinton or did something newsworthy. That isnt the media's fault.

And I really hate this bullshit about the establishment, corporate media, and all of these other terms that treat a bunch of people who are a part of a number of different organizations under these umbrella terms as drones under the diabolical control of some monolith super power that crushes their agency and voice and tells them to do what the master says. It is just so stupid, simple, juvenile and conspiratorial that I can't take it seriously at all.

 

[Mr. RPG]

5. No, but New Hampshire, Minnesota, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Michigan, and Wisconsin sure as hell were.

10-20 point wins are thin margins?

 

[The Adder]

10-20 point wins are thin margins?

You mean 4-15 delegate wins.

And they sure as fuck are when his opposition is posting wins by 30 to 40 delegates.

Which, by the way, even in his WIDEST victory, Bernie hasn't matched.

 

[AntraxSuicide]

Bernie has also won the last 8 out of 9 caucuses and some by record breaking margins. That's hardly a doing badly.

Primaries aren't best 26 out of 50. I really, really, really hate this line of reasoning since it's devoid of all math whatsoever. He's currently down by more than twice as much as Obama was over Hillary at his peak. He's done. Period.

The media was calling for Hillary's concession at this point in '08 because it was over. Dodging math is just insane. And the media isn't going to continue propping up the horse race when it's not close at all. This isn't your first primary, surely. You have to know that 200+ deficits at this point are not salvageable.

Not covering a candidate who's currently being beaten by worse than Obama ever pulled off is not some conspiracy. It's just not reporting on the blue sky being blue.

 

[Boney]

Yes. He is behind in the polls in the 4 biggest remaining states in the primary. If we're generous and give him the absolute thinnest of losses in all four of those states, he still has to win an average of 65% of the delegates in every other state.

Well he's already performed a few upsets. But you're right, everything is counting on whether or not he wins Ny or not, which I don't think it's impossible but it's definately an uphill battle.

Do you have proof of that (not the amendments)? I am actually curious about that

Yes, only Bernie is the victim of negative articles. Clinton, Trump and Cruz has never had a negative article written about them in their lives. And are you really using a basis of comparison as a 24 hours period for the Washington post to prove your point? That is just ridiculous.

And Sanders would have gotten more air time if he posed a legitimate threat to Clinton or did something newsworthy. That isnt the media's fault.

And I really hate this bullshit about the establishment, corporate media, and all of these other terms that treat a bunch of people who are a part of a number of different organizations under these umbrella terms as drones under the diabolical control of some monolith super power that crushes their agency and voice and tells them to do what the master says. It is just so stupid, simple, juvenile and conspiratorial that I can't take it seriously at all.

Well the proof is different outlets I've read detailing that and Sanders himself testifying about it. It's super late so I'm not gonna search for almost them now but here's a quote from the amendment King article I think I posted earlier

Sanders did something particularly original, which was that he passed amendments that were exclusively progressive, advancing goals such as reducing poverty and helping the environment, and he was able to get bipartisan coalitions of Republicans who wanted to shrink government or hold it accountable and progressives who wanted to use it to empower Americans.

And as for the corporate media thing well, I guess you could say one of the oldest contemporary sociological schools of thought about the culture industry and is still extremely relevant today childish I guess you can but you're gonna get laughed by a lot of people. And while other schools of thoughts are less pessimist about the media's motives, most agree on the transformative powers it has and how editorial line is factors in it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_industry

Primaries aren't best 26 out of 50. I really, really, really hate this line of reasoning since it's devoid of all math whatsoever. He's currently down by more than twice as much as Obama was over Hillary at his peak. He's done. Period.

The media was calling for Hillary's concession at this point in '08 because it was over. Dodging math is just insane. And the media isn't going to continue propping up the horse race when it's not close at all. This isn't your first primary, surely. You have to know that 200+ deficits at this point are not salvageable.

Not covering a candidate who's currently being beaten by worse than Obama ever pulled off is not some conspiracy. It's just not reporting on the blue sky being blue.

It is actually my first primary I'm not American. And while obviously the odds are stacked against him, Bernie has got both momentum and is carrying a particularly different campaign historically speaking in terms of the populist agenda. And of course one could argue that the southern states Hillary had a bigger advantage, but I'm not gonna get upset if you don't share that thought. If I were to throw a random number based on my hopes/chances of Bernie overcoming the delegate lead? 20%
Getting the super delegates and being the nominee? Lol 0%

 

[cryptosporidium]

Canadian so correct me.

1. President does not have all the power in the world let alone america

2. Bernie is self described socialist and he does have a degree in political sciences so I'm assuming he understands the various components of his ideology though seems unfamiliar with the economics of socialism and apparently the ability of imposing his socialist/ welfare liberal agenda through american legislature.

3. It seems he may be akin to Trudeau where he is more of public figure for the party and it would be his cabinet that would have the education and know how as to run the country. This would be a decentralized cabinet which generally works more efficiently than one more centralized to one person unless if that party is highly factionalized. I'm unfamiliar on the spread of the Democrats political beliefs and general agenda. TLDR Trudeau is kind of an airhead/public face of the liberal party but he established a highly educated cabinet which thus far has run the country fairly well with some issues being arguably wrong and Sanders could very well do the same.

 

[B-Dubs]

Canadian so correct me.

3. It seems he may be akin to Trudeau where he is more of public figure for the party and it would be his cabinet that would have the education and know how as to run the country. This would be a decentralized cabinet which generally works more efficiently than one more centralized to one person unless if that party is highly factionalized. I'm unfamiliar on the spread of the Democrats political beliefs and general agenda. TLDR Trudeau is kind of an airhead/public face of the liberal party but he established a highly educated cabinet which thus far has run the country fairly well with some issues being arguably wrong and Sanders could very well do the same.

No. The presidency is far more powerful than a prime minister would be.

 

[The Adder]

Canadian so correct me.

1. President does not have all the power in the world let alone america

2. Bernie is self described socialist and he does have a degree in political sciences so I'm assuming he understands the various components of his ideology though seems unfamiliar with the economics of socialism and apparently the ability of imposing his socialist/ welfare liberal agenda through american legislature.

3. It seems he may be akin to Trudeau where he is more of public figure for the party and it would be his cabinet that would have the education and know how as to run the country. This would be a decentralized cabinet which generally works more efficiently than one more centralized to one person unless if that party is highly factionalized. I'm unfamiliar on the spread of the Democrats political beliefs and general agenda. TLDR Trudeau is kind of an airhead/public face of the liberal party but he established a highly educated cabinet which thus far has run the country fairly well with some issues being arguably wrong and Sanders could very well do the same.

The main problem here is that Bernie has done nothing for down ticket Democrats. Nor, to my knowledge, even down ticket leftist independents. Your cabinet is an advisory board with autonomy to lead their department, if you want to get anything done in any lasting manner, you need to have a congress that will work with you. Bernie has done nothing to make that happen.

Also, the above.