Centrists have broader appeal. It is a pretty well-known trend in political science. And Biden likely has a lot of appeal in PA and OH, where Hillary did not. It might go to Trump but don't count on it being exactly the same.
Which is exactly why the DNC, and more accurately their billionaire donors and corporate puppet masters, choose centrists as their face, and why those working for their interests like Biden or Mayor Pete adopt centrism as their identity.
Or, and stick with me on this, maybe the centrists gravitate to the top of the funding and votes because centrists appeal to more people, including those with some corporate interests.
Puppet masters gets an eye roll though. 
Don't get me wrong, I think lobbying should be done away with, as should campaign donations. They arguably are not protected by the first amendment.
But the fact that Bernie has not won over enough people has nothing to do with the DNC. Bernie is a niche candidate.
Don't get me wrong, I think lobbying should be done away with, as should campaign donations. They arguably are not protected by the first amendment.
But the fact that Bernie has not won over enough people has nothing to do with the DNC. Bernie is a niche candidate.
I think Bernie has two major problems:
- The other candidates dropped out sooner than he expected and supported Biden; his 30% of the Democrats is great if there's four other candidates, not so much when it's one-on-one
- Biden isn't Clinton. A LOT of people were very much against Clinton, and assumed she'd win from Trump even without their support. Biden is not universally loved, but is a much more "good enough" candidate. People are tired of the infighting and just want to get on with fighting Trump.
Of course, there's also the addition that a candidate with mostly just left-of-center ideas is entirely un-electable in the USA because he's automatically painted as a communist and that's just anti-American. Ridiculous as that may be.
- The other candidates dropped out sooner than he expected and supported Biden; his 30% of the Democrats is great if there's four other candidates, not so much when it's one-on-one
- Biden isn't Clinton. A LOT of people were very much against Clinton, and assumed she'd win from Trump even without their support. Biden is not universally loved, but is a much more "good enough" candidate. People are tired of the infighting and just want to get on with fighting Trump.
Of course, there's also the addition that a candidate with mostly just left-of-center ideas is entirely un-electable in the USA because he's automatically painted as a communist and that's just anti-American. Ridiculous as that may be.
I don't think this is true anymore. Trump certainly isn't centrist - and the further he moves away from the centre the more successful he seems to get. I wouldn't have called Obama centrist either. Or not by American standards anyway.
So by the time of the election it will be at least 12 years since you had a centrist President.
Dave
Staff member
It's not just the DNC, though. It's also the corporate-owned (by billionaires) media. Look at the coverage for each of the candidates. Biden's is substantially different than Bernie's. Before he became the front runner, the media either ignored him completely or tried cutting him off at the knees every time. There were NO positive stories from mainstream media outlets about Bernie. Like in 2016 when the NYT ran 16+ hit pieces on Bernie in a weekend. These things have an effect. That's why they do them.Puppet masters gets an eye roll though.
Don't get me wrong, I think lobbying should be done away with, as should campaign donations. They arguably are not protected by the first amendment.
But the fact that Bernie has not won over enough people has nothing to do with the DNC. Bernie is a niche candidate.
So you can't just say, "maybe the centrists gravitate to the top of the funding and votes because centrists appeal to more people" because that's disingenuous and ignores actual evidence that shows certain candidates were acceptable to the DNC and their corporate interests, and others needed to be defeated. Bernie is what this country needs. His ideas are what would finally get us out of the red state-induced dark ages. Instead, we're going to get establishment status quo.
By all means. What evidence?
Except when it suits him, Bernie is not a Democrat. Why would the DNC want to support someone who very much *isn't* one of them?
I voted Bernie in the 2016 primary, mainly because I was so fucking tired of Hillary going back to the 92 campaign. But I sure as hell voted for her in the general.
This time around, I'm sick and tired of the Bros. Where were they after the convention? The last four years? Oh, NOW you stick that D back on your shirt, eh? Not buying it this time.
Over 90% of primary Bernie voters voted for Hillary. There were plenty of people saying they'd stay home if Bernie won this cycle too.
Dave
Staff member
Super delegates (DNC establishment) that have come out & stated as much. The rules change to favor Bloomberg. There are examples. And each of them push one candidate or another. The sole exception to this is the lack of progressive changes.
I'm not convinced that wasn't done with the hope of it stopping Bloomberg. If not, that's what happened anyways.
Dave
Staff member
Yes. Stopping Bloomberg by allowing him to get on ballots and join debates. Makes perfect sense.
And no, they didn't know if he would do well in the debates or not. They gave him a seat at the table because he gave them money. Not their fault he couldn't eat without getting shit all over himself.
All polls done so far I've ever seen suggest this isn't true, so.... Have any proof?
Anyway, the thing is - Trump gets about 35% of the national vote. And as far as anyone seems to be able to tell, about 30% of the population is actually a right-wing Trumpist (be it nationalist or evangelist or whatever), and the others are conservative moderates who vote Republican but don't actually like Trumps style.
Bernie gets about 35% of the Democrat vote. As far as anyone can tell, about 15% of the population is actually a left-wing liberal.
If 50% of the population is somewhere between the extreme views, it makes sense to run a centrist candidate. If Bernie bros once again decide they won't support a more moderate candidate, well, that's on them. Not going to vote for the DNC candidate, then complaining it's the DNC's fault for losing the election is pretty hypocritical. It's not a "choice between plague and cholera" choice - it may be a choice between a good staph infection and the plague, but that's still worth voting for.
My b. I remembered 10% voted trump and just forgot the 3rd party aspect.
Though as has been pointed out, the percentage of Bernie->Trump voters is lower than Hillary->McCain in 2008.
1.) You were talking about media coverage
2.) Seeing as how that back does for Bloomberg, it would take some real gymnastics to make that about Bernie losing.
3.) You were right before blaming the youth voters
Dave
Staff member
Oh you wanted proof of the MEDIA COVERAGE bias?!? Shit, son. That's all you had to say. How much time do you have?
en.wikipedia.org
www.nationofchange.org
www.gq.com
www.vox.com
www.jacobinmag.com
www.foxnews.com
And the coup de grace:
www.commondreams.org
Media coverage of Bernie Sanders - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Burned? Media bias against Bernie Sanders intensifies | NationofChange
www.nationofchange.org
Why Does Mainstream Media Keep Attacking Bernie Sanders as He Wins?
Bernie Sanders keeps surprising cynical pundits in his second presidential run.
Bernie Sanders versus the “corporate media,” explained
Sanders came out of an Iowa trip a loser in the media for very weird reasons.
The Corporate Media’s War Against Bernie Sanders Is Very Real
A new report offers hard evidence for what you already suspected: MSNBC is riding hard against Bernie.
www.jacobinmag.com
CNN blasted over ‘clear bias against Bernie Sanders’ amid ongoing anyone-but-Trump agenda
CNN is widely regarded as anti-Trump, but a series of recent events have critics on both sides of the political spectrum wondering if the network doesn’t like Democrats who are too liberal, either.
www.foxnews.com
And the coup de grace:
If You're Looking for Evidence of WaPo Media Bias Against Bernie Sanders, Here It Is | Common Dreams
Fairness & Accuracy In Media (FAIR) has been following this issue for quite some time, so we're happy to offer the evidence CNN and the Post claim is lacking
www.commondreams.org
Win or lose, Sanders has objectively and empirically been disproportionately ignored and/or smeared by many if not most of the (bigger) media outlets. This is not conjecture, it is a repeatedly proven fact, and to suggest otherwise is disingenuous. It's just that nobody in any position to do anything about it cares to do so...an attitude displayed by the current administration on a multitude of topics, actually.
--Patrick
It's funny that at least 3 of those are supportive articles of Bernie.Oh you wanted proof of the MEDIA COVERAGE bias?!? Shit, son. That's all you had to say. How much time do you have?
Media coverage of Bernie Sanders - Wikipedia
Burned? Media bias against Bernie Sanders intensifies | NationofChange
Why Does Mainstream Media Keep Attacking Bernie Sanders as He Wins?
Bernie Sanders keeps surprising cynical pundits in his second presidential run.
Bernie Sanders versus the “corporate media,” explained
Sanders came out of an Iowa trip a loser in the media for very weird reasons.
The Corporate Media’s War Against Bernie Sanders Is Very Real
A new report offers hard evidence for what you already suspected: MSNBC is riding hard against Bernie.
CNN blasted over ‘clear bias against Bernie Sanders’ amid ongoing anyone-but-Trump agenda
CNN is widely regarded as anti-Trump, but a series of recent events have critics on both sides of the political spectrum wondering if the network doesn’t like Democrats who are too liberal, either.
And the coup de grace:
If You're Looking for Evidence of WaPo Media Bias Against Bernie Sanders, Here It Is | Common Dreams
Fairness & Accuracy In Media (FAIR) has been following this issue for quite some time, so we're happy to offer the evidence CNN and the Post claim is lacking
Post automatically merged:
Restating the point is not evidence
Last edited:
In the 2016 election, according to Wikipedia, "While Sanders received less media coverage than Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton, research shows that the tone of media coverage of Sanders was more favorable than that of any other candidate..."
That may have changed, but if so it clearly isn't enough to explain anything then.
That may have changed, but if so it clearly isn't enough to explain anything then.
If you are deliberately going to ignore evidence posted above by @Dave , and the links I've mentioned earlier, then there is no point in presenting further evidence to you, since it's obvious you will just choose to ignore that, too.
--Patrick
I clearly didn't ignore them. Just calling you out for adding nothing.
As I directly stated, my contributions to the subject were posted earlier. And I don't mean post #689 above, I mean in earlier posts.
I'm not going to go dig them all up for you. If you don't remember them, then that is just further confirmation that you have been deliberately skipping over information which conflicts with your worldview.
--Patrick
Because I don't remember them? No, that is not how memory works and not what that means.
Ok, you're not wrong here.
But my assertion is really not dependent on your ability to remember my posts.
Rather it was more that we started presenting empirical, easily verifiable evidence in this thread long before today, so if you are still skeptical now in the face of that preponderance of evidence, then it must not be because we have not presented a sufficient quantity of evidence, and I can only conclude it is because you do not wish to be swayed.
--Patrick
The quality is certainly suspect....
*deep breath*
Okay, the internet is back on so I can actually type this out.
Candidates for public office are supposed to be criticized. Listing out the criticisms that a candidate receives does not demonstrate bias, even if you think the criticisms are unfair. Bias requires comparison. You have to be able to demonstrate that the other people are not receiving the same degree or worse degree of criticisms as the person you claim is receiving biased coverage. AND, this has to be demonstrated under similar conditions, where the candidates are relatively on equal footing. This is my main complaint about the point that the media is biased against Sanders as people almost universally follow it up with examples of coverage they simple disagree with. That is not bias. I'm sorry, it just isn't. The standard for bias is higher than that.
My point above does not argue that Sanders' media coverage is not biased, just that most people do not present the evidence for it. But the problem gets more complicated when you look at Trump's campaign in 2016. He received more media coverage than any other candidate simply because he was saying things that were outrageous. That coverage did not fawn over him. At all. He complained about it all the time. He started a war with the media over it. And he still got elected. So instead it may need to be about the sheer amount of media coverage, not the content of it. And that is something that people don't even seem to be tracking, let alone incorporate into their argument about media bias.
So yes, color me unconvinced, because people's arguments for media bias are themselves unconvincing in their presentation. It would take a lot of work to present a convincing case, actually, which is partly why people fall back on presenting stuff they think just seems unfair. I get it. Some of those media pieces seem unfair to me too. That might be par for the course with the media, though. But it doesn't mean there is bias, just that you perceive a correlation. And we are terrible about perceiving correlations.
Okay, the internet is back on so I can actually type this out.
Candidates for public office are supposed to be criticized. Listing out the criticisms that a candidate receives does not demonstrate bias, even if you think the criticisms are unfair. Bias requires comparison. You have to be able to demonstrate that the other people are not receiving the same degree or worse degree of criticisms as the person you claim is receiving biased coverage. AND, this has to be demonstrated under similar conditions, where the candidates are relatively on equal footing. This is my main complaint about the point that the media is biased against Sanders as people almost universally follow it up with examples of coverage they simple disagree with. That is not bias. I'm sorry, it just isn't. The standard for bias is higher than that.
My point above does not argue that Sanders' media coverage is not biased, just that most people do not present the evidence for it. But the problem gets more complicated when you look at Trump's campaign in 2016. He received more media coverage than any other candidate simply because he was saying things that were outrageous. That coverage did not fawn over him. At all. He complained about it all the time. He started a war with the media over it. And he still got elected. So instead it may need to be about the sheer amount of media coverage, not the content of it. And that is something that people don't even seem to be tracking, let alone incorporate into their argument about media bias.
So yes, color me unconvinced, because people's arguments for media bias are themselves unconvincing in their presentation. It would take a lot of work to present a convincing case, actually, which is partly why people fall back on presenting stuff they think just seems unfair. I get it. Some of those media pieces seem unfair to me too. That might be par for the course with the media, though. But it doesn't mean there is bias, just that you perceive a correlation. And we are terrible about perceiving correlations.
This comment is literally the definition of a genetic fallacy.
Go look for yourself.
Use critical thinking while doing so.
I mean, there are actual pictures, for crying out loud. Actual facts. And not just a few. Dozens. Sometimes the conspiracy theorists are actually right, you know.
EDIT: You seem to think this is merely about instances of negative criticism, and ignores the instances when Sanders was omitted entirely from discussion.
—Patrick