In recent months, as the ability to tell the difference between a Bernie Sanders supporter and a Tea Partier has gotten tougher--on various forums angry Sanders supporters have suggested that Clinton supporters are only voting for her because she has a uterus (and that's probably the least sexist thing said in relation to Hillary Clinton by these people), have pondered whether "ignorant minorities" should be allowed to vote in the primaries, since they can't possibly understand politics or decide what is in their best interest, and therefore may need some good white folks to protect them from themselves, have made "liberal elites" the boogeyman (and a target of various grievances), and have taken up Hillary's e-mails and Benghazi with even more gusto, perhaps, than your average right-winger--it seems that Sanders supporters have found yet another villain to cast blame upon or their candidate's every failure: the "lamestream" media.
Yes, that's right. I'm sure you've heard it too many times to count at this point. The media is "in the tank" for Clinton. The media is helping the DNC "fix" the election for Clinton. Of course there's no other way she could be beating Sanders by nearly 2.5 million votes, is there?
Simply put, as with many of the things that Sanders' supporters believe to be true, the evidence simply isn't there. Let's take a look at a few examples of the media's treatment of Secretary Clinton in relation to Senator Sanders, and then you can decide if they are in the tank for her.
1. Iowa
Hillary Clinton won Iowa. I know that must come as a surprise to you, however, after being told by the media time and again that Clinton and Sanders tied in Iowa.
2. Momentum
On March 15th, Hillary Clinton won five states in one day, two of which the Sanders campaign predicted that Sanders would win. Do you recall the media talking about "momentum"? Do you recall them talking about how Clinton's supporters must be "fired up", or "energized", as evidenced by here commanding victory on that day? I don't either. I do recall the media telling us again and again that the momentum is with Sanders because he went on a pretty good run after that day, winning seven of eight contests. I don't think I've heard any reporting on Sanders in the last couple of weeks that didn't include some mention of momentum. What they fail to mention, as if it has completely slipped their minds, is that everyone knew that Sanders was going to have a few good weeks between March 15th and April 19th (the day of the New York Primary). The map favored him--six of eight contests were held by caucus, a process widely acknowledged to be favorable to Sanders. Most of the states being contested happened to favor Sanders demographically, i.e. they were very white (Hawaii being an exception). So Sanders won a bunch of states where both the demographics and the voting process favored him, and what the media makes of this is that he has momentum on his side.
3. "The Michigan Upset" (or, "What About Mississippi?")
On the same day that Bernie Sanders pulled a come-from-behind upset in Michigan another contest was being held, this one in Mississippi. I doubt you heard much about Mississippi in the days that followed, however. While the media was busy chattering about the "stunning results" of the Michigan Primary, and how once again the theory (or, as it would be more accurately called, the MYTH) that Hillary Clinton under-performs had been proven, the ignored the fact that while Bernie won Michigan by 1.5 points that day, Clinton won Mississippi by 66 points, a feat that is even more impressive when you consider the fact that "under-performing" Hillary was leading in Mississippi polls by significantly less (RCP avg. +44) than she ultimately won by. Clinton finished the night with a net gain of 24 pledged delegates. But once again the media told us that the "momentum" was with Bernie.
4. Clinton only wins in the South
Not only is this oft-repeated claim made by Sanders and his supporters, as well as by their friends in the media, offensive to Democratic voters in the South (and, as journalist Robert Schlesinger
puts it, suggests a world view redolent of former half-term Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's toxic pandering to "real America"), but it a lie so obvious that one can only assume that the people telling it have absolutely no shame. Ohio, Iowa, Massachusetts, Arizona and Illinois are southern states? The media rarely questions this claim, but as Nate Silver
writes, Clinton is winning the states that look like the Democratic Party.
5. Clinton is only winning states that the Republican nominee will win in November
Again with the shameless lies. Clinton has won several major swing states: Florida, Ohio, Iowa, Nevada, Virginia and North Carolina. She has also won states like South Carolina, Georgia and Arizona, states that, while longshots, some Dems think can be turned blue this November, such as South Carolina, Georgia and Arizona. Meanwhile, Sanders has won the key battleground states of...Wyoming and Idaho?
6. The "Sanders surge" in New York
A lot has been made in the media over the surge in Senator Sanders' poll numbers in New York in recent weeks. Where polls once showed Clinton leading by 30+ points, the numbers started to tighten, with polls showing Sanders narrowing Clinton's lead to as little as ten points (if you consider ten points "little"). The media hasn't given much thought to the fact that the "Sanders surge" has (at best) plateaued, and (at worst) receded, with one recent poll showing Clinton's number climbing to +17. Curious that the evil elitist media isn't playing this "Clinton surge" up, seeing as how they are trying to "steal" the election for her and all.
7. Sanders rallies are big (and it doesn't mean much)
Both Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump (as well as their die-hard supporters) will tell you time and again that the large turnout they get at rallies proves that "the people" are overwhelmingly behind them. Yet to date Trump has only captured about 37% of the Republican vote, and on the Democratic side Bernie Sanders is trailing Hillary Clinton by about 2.5 million votes. Huge rallies on Ohio and Florida didn't do much good, apparently, as Sanders lost the first state by 14 points, and the second state by 31. Big turnout at Sanders and Trump rallies proves nothing more than that their supporters are more likely to attend a rally. But still, the media can't wait to tell you about the great turnout Bernie has had at several recent New York rallies, and what this means re: momentum.
8. Protestors, immaturity looks awful on you
It's not just Donald Trump who has felt the sting of overzealous Sanders supporters showing up to wreck the party. (And let's be clear, neither Trump nor his sucker-punching followers are without blame.) But let me ask you this: Have you seen Clinton supporters show up to a Sanders rally or speech, and proceed to shout him down? Have you seen Clinton supporters throw objects at a Sander's motorcade, the way Sanders supporters threw a thousand dollars in singles at a Clinton motorcade
recently? (And what a fine use of a thousand dollars. Go to hell, homeless people, this money is for throwing at cars as a means of protest!) Yet the media doesn't call these people immature brats (which is what they are); instead they are called "passionate supporters".
As Eric Sasson
wrote in the New Republic:
We never hear that Hillary Clinton has “momentum”—what she has is a “sizable delegate lead.” No one this cycle has described Clinton supporters as “fired up”—it’s simply not possible that people are fired up for Hillary. No, what we gather about Clinton from the press is that she can’t connect. She has very high unfavorable ratings. People think she is dishonest and untrustworthy. She is not a gifted politician. She is a phony. Hated by so many. The list goes on.
Yet almost 9.5 million Americans have gone out to the polls and voted for Hillary Clinton, a figure not matched by any other candidate. Yet, according the the media, Sanders the momentum, Clinton consistently under-performs, and a "revolution" is taking over the country. Boy, if the media is trying to steal the election for Clinton, they sure have a funny way of going about it.
sources:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/
https://newrepublic.com/article/131762/hillary-voter
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/robert-schlesinger/articles/2016-04-15/bernie-sanders-bad-delegate-math-and-fantasy-revolution
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/clinton-is-winning-the-states-that-look-like-the-democratic-party/
http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/16/politics/sanders-clinton-fundraiser-dollar-bills/index.html
