http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brian-han ... 59188.html
Still an uphill battle for Sanders where superdelegates will need to switch sides, but that very thing happened in 2008, so...we'll see. But Sanders needs to keep winning primaries for that to have a chance at happening. And one would think the New York debate conversation (Bernie is being too mean...which isn't true at all) is only hurting Hillary.
Interesting stuff for sure.
The Media Vs. Bernie Sanders
Today, The Wall Street Journal ran a piece entitled, Bernie Sanders Gets No Respect, which is ironic in itself because the WSJ has generally written off Senator Sanders, just as The New York Times, CNN and MSNBC have written off Senator Sanders.
When the New York Times recently published a positive article about Sanders, it later went to great lengths to edit that piece and make it much less pro-Sanders.
Sanders supporters have grown sick of the media’s Clinton bias and most recently, their tendency to include super delegates in their delegate math, which gives Clinton a massive and misleading advantage because super delegates can still switch sides.
CNN, MSNBC and even Google almost always factor the totally-unofficial-super-delegates into their delegate counts, making Clinton look lightyears ahead of Sanders.
If you notice, in the image above, it’s the light blue (super delegates) and not the dark blue (pledged delegates) that position Clinton as the clear Democratic frontrunner.
The problem is, in their highly scientific “delegate math,” CNN, MSNBC and Google are including the super delegates who haven’t even voted yet. This is a dirty and clever little trick designed to conceal the viability of a Sanders’ nomination.
Including super delegates at this point is not only misleading, but downright dishonest because the super delegates won’t vote until the Democratic National Convention. As they did for Obama in 2008, super delegates can and will transfer their support to Sanders if the Senator continues to win in primaries and caucuses.
Last week, the WSJ reported that Trump needs to win 57% of the remaining delegates to clinch the GOP nomination, stating that he has “a feasible path to winning.”
After sweeping three Western caucuses and winning 6 of the last 7 delegate battles, now it’s Sanders who needs only 57% of the remaining delegates to surpass Clinton and make the case that super delegates should switch over to his camp.
But of course you’ll never hear the WSJ describing Sanders’ opportunity as “a feasible path to winning,” despite the fact that both he and Trump need the same 57%.
It’s not just the media bias that drives Sanders supporters bonkers, it’s the lack of coverage their candidate receives, especially in the earlier months of his campaign.
In 2015, for example, ABC World News Tonight allocated a mere 20 seconds to covering the Sanders campaign, while spending over 80 minutes talking about Donald Trump. Similarly, CBS set aside just six minutes to covering Sanders and NBC Nightly News spent less than three.
When social media was buzzing about Sanders’ historic upset in Michigan, the mainstream media was quiet. At that time, I published the article: Sanders Massively Outperforms Expectations in Michigan Primary, CNN Ignores It to Cover Trump.
Why would the mainstream media want to silence a popular presidential candidate who’s educating the American people about our corrupt campaign finance system and vast levels of wealth and income inequality?
Why would the corporate media have a bias towards Hillary Clinton? Why would Time Warner and Comcast, the parent companies behind CNN and MSNBC, be among Clinton’s top ten campaign donors? Could it have anything to do with money?
Could it all be so simple?
