The pollsters are theoretically asking questions of a random sample of the
public. The questions may reflect the prejudices of the elites, but they're
not asking the elites to answer the questions. One wonders whom they polled
in Michigan, however.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2016 8:46 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Sanders Takes Michigan, But Mainstream Media
Keeps Discounting His Campaign
We need to keep in mind who the Pollsters turn to as their source of
information. Since this government is the government of the Ruling Class,
it is natural that the polls reflect the views of the 1%.
Why any of us expect something different is a puzzler. What we need to do
is to ignore the Media Polls and devise polls of our own, reflecting the
thinking of working class and lower class folks.
Carl Jarvis
On 3/9/16, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Sanders Takes Michigan, But Mainstream Media Keeps Discounting Hisnot?
Campaign Published on Wednesday, March 09, 2016 by Common Dreams
Sanders Takes Michigan, But Mainstream Media Keeps Discounting His
Campaign by John Atcheson
Seven-in-10 voters said they would be satisfied if Bernie Sanders were
the Democratic nominee. (Photo: AP)
For weeks now, the Mainstream Media (MSM) has all but ignored the
Sanders campaign and talked about Hillary's capture of Democratic
nomination as a done deal.
But, once again, Sanders proved them wrong with a dramatic win in
Michigan on Tuesday.
And as for Hillary's victory in Mississippi? It's worse than useless.
The South is totally irrelevant to Democratic presidential victories
and has been since Johnson pushed through the civil rights act. In
fact, it looks like the South is the only place she can consistently win.
Sanders' victory in Michigan was all the more remarkable given the
fact that the MSM has been either ignoring him, distorting his
positions, and/or giving Hillary a free pass on issues that should be
examined.
So this begs a few questions.
Why Does the Press Discount Sanders?
1) The role of Money.
As usual in American politics, money can explain a lot. As I wrote
last
September:
Federal campaigns are expected to spend $4.4 billion in the 2016
election cycle, and typically, two thirds of that will go to
advertising. So the MSM-which, as Bernie Sanders points out, is
dominated by just 6 major corporations-has a vested interest in
ignoring a candidate who's serious about campaign finance reform.
But as Sanders has closed the gap on Clinton, the press has gone from
ignoring to distorting. With billions of dollars on the line, the
last thing the mainstream media (MSM) wants is a revolution.
2) The tyranny of the known and the terror of the unfamiliar:
The day after the Flint, Michigan debate, the majority of the pundits
and the MSM declared Hillary the clear winner. Yet ordinary citizens
overwhelmingly thought Sanders won. For example, those responding to
a Time poll declared Bernie the winner by 87% to 13% for Hillary.
Other surveys of real people had similar results.
Why such a big disconnect? Media analysts and pundits are trained to
analyze political races as horse races. It's all about tactics, money
raised, who has support from whom, who's "supposed" to win.
They simply aren't equipped to understand a phenomena that comes from
outside their wheelhouse. In fact, many resent the presence of an
outsider who refuses to play by the same old corrupt rules. This is
clear in the irrational attacks from normally rational players like
Paul Krugman. In fact, the entire New York Times and Washington Post
editorial staff and most of their news folks seem to be engaged in a
institutional attack against Sanders. Which brings us to .
Five Way the MSM Seeks to Bias the Process The fact that Sanders is on
track to pull out a victory is all the more remarkable when you
examine how the MSM seeks to tip the scales in Hillary's favor. Here
are five examples.
1) Using "political analysis" as a means of attacking Sanders.
For example, consider for a moment, their coverage of an exchange
between Hillary and Bernie in the Flint, Michigan debate.
Hillary accused Sanders of voting against the auto industry bailout-a
false accusation as it turns out-and then twice interrupted Sanders
when he was given time to respond. When Sanders made the perfectly
reasonable request that she let him talk when it was his turn, much of
the press criticized Sanders for being ill-mannered and many suggested
he was bordering on being sexist.
So, Hillary makes a false accusation; she rudely interrupts Sanders
twice, and his reaction is "the story?" Wow. Really? Somehow,
intentionally distorting your opponents position then interrupting him
twice is fine, but asking to be allowed to respond when it's your turn is
An objective press would have reported this as yet another attempt onover.
her part to distort his positions, and then noted the use of rude - if
not crude
- tactics to blunt his response.
2) Using "political analysis" to create phony wedge issues.
Exhibit A has to be the media's reaction to Sanders' response to a
question about racism. His response to a question about the
experiences of blacks in the ghetto ignited a chorus of criticism,
ranging from observations that whites sometimes live in ghettos to not
all blacks do.
But the message from the press was clear and nearly ubiquitous:
Bernie has no clue about how blacks live and no sympathy for poor whites.
Again, these aren't reasonable interpretations of what Sanders said.
To arrive at them required a tortuous distortion of what he, in fact,
was saying, and a willful disregard for the context of his response.
He was specifically talking about a conversation he had with some
folks from BLM about their treatment in the ghetto. He made no claim
that some whites don't also live in the ghetto, nor did he suggest
that all blacks do.
Note the surgical precision of these accusations form the MSM: they
are designed to create doubt in the minds of women, poor whites and
African Americans - all key constituencies Sanders is working hard to win
OneObama began winning races.
would almost think the MSM is working for Hillary.
3) Ignoring a key issue that virtually begs for analysis.
The biggest man-bites-dog issue in the Democratic primaries is why
Hillary Clinton gets so much support from African Americans. The MSM
routinely reports her big advantage, but never examines it. It's
stated as if it were her birthright. And make no mistake, if it
weren't for this advantage, Hillary would be trailing in the race by a
wide margin.
Yet as Michelle Alexander has pointed out, the policies Clinton has
historically backed "decimated" black America. Her abysmal record
started as far back as 1964, when Hillary was campaigning for Barry
Goldwater, who promised to re-segregate the south and overturn the
Civil Rights Act. Since then, as Alexander points out, Hillary has
backed numerous programs that have had massive negative impacts for
black and other marginalized communities, including the Crime Bill;
so-called 'Welfare Reform'; mandatory sentencing; three-strikes laws;
and more.
In the years before Hillary was campaigning for Goldwater, Bernie was
marching with Dr. Martin Luther King and demonstrating on behalf of
racial equality and desegregation at the University of Chicago. Many
African-American leaders back Sanders, and many more are switching as
they learn more about the two candidates. But Hillary remains much
stronger among the Black community at large.
Seems like this rather bizarre phenomenon ought to be worth a bit of
"political analysis," but don't hold your breath.
4) Fostering the myth that Hillary has a commanding lead in the
delegate count.
Listen to the press or read the papers and you'll here that Hillary
Clinton has an all but insurmountable lead over Bernie Sanders.
Going into the Michigan primary, most sources reported that Hillary
was ahead 1130 to 499. But that includes super delegates, and super
delegates are not bound to any single candidate. Historically, they
move toward the candidate with the most popular support as reflected
by the voters. In fact, at this point in the 2008 race, Clinton's
"commanding" lead was evaporating as super delegates abandoned her as
The real count pre-Michigan, is 658 for Clinton, 471 for Sanders. Thatpolitics.
is not a large lead and with states like California, New York, New
Jersey, Ohio and Florida coming up and Sanders improving in the polls,
easily surmountable.
But what the Establishment wants to do is feed the notion that
Clinton's nomination is "inevitable." The reality is, that both
candidates have a plausible path to victory. In fact, if Sanders can
crack the lock Clinton has on African-American voters - something that
is certainly possible, given the fact that Hillary's policies have
"decimated" Black America - he's pretty much a lock.
So why distort the delegate counts? Well.
5. Feeding the myth of "inevitability" is designed to reduce Sanders'
support.
Sanders has been remarkably successful at engaging people who have not
participated in the political process or who have dropped out, because
they believed the deck is stacked against a real reformer. He's given
people real hope for the prospect of real change. But even that
passion will have a hard time surviving if people believe there is no
hope. Feed the idea that Hillary's nomination is a done deal, and
many of these people will drop out again.
In fact, that's precisely what's being attempted. Sanders isn't
merely battling Clinton, he's battling the establishment forces within
labor unions, not-for-profit think tanks, and the press. In addition,
Sanders is working to win over the justifiable cynicism of people who
believe there is no hope for changing the system.
And yet he may yet win. Here's why.
We Hold These Truths to Be Self Evident The presence of money in
politics-and the interlocking network of those who depend upon it-is
the root cause of most of our national ills. Whether it's failing to
get effective gun control; feeding a massive military industrial
complex; shipping trillions overseas to tax havens; exporting jobs
through trade agreements; killing ourselves with fossil fuels;
incarcerating more people than any nation on Earth; or enduring the
lies of a corporate media complex-the cure is in getting money out of
Only one candidate will do that-Bernie Sanders.examined.
The people have figured this out. The MSM hasn't. And until they do,
they'll continue to get it wrong.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike
3.0 License John Atcheson
Skip to main content
//
. DONATE
. SIGN UP FOR NEWSLETTER
Wednesday, March 9, 2016
. Home
. World
. U.S.
. Canada
. Climate
. War & Peace
. Economy
. Rights
. Solutions
. Sanders vs. Clinton
. Supreme Court Obstructionism
. Apple vs. FBI
. Trump-mentum?
. Election 2016
. Water Crisis in Flint
Sanders Takes Michigan, But Mainstream Media Keeps Discounting His
Campaign Published on Wednesday, March 09, 2016 by Common Dreams
Sanders Takes Michigan, But Mainstream Media Keeps Discounting His
Campaign by John Atcheson
. 31 Comments
.
. Seven-in-10 voters said they would be satisfied if Bernie Sanders
were the Democratic nominee. (Photo: AP)
. For weeks now, the Mainstream Media (MSM) has all but ignored the
Sanders campaign and talked about Hillary's capture of Democratic
nomination as a done deal.
. But, once again, Sanders proved them wrong with a dramatic win in
Michigan on Tuesday.
. And as for Hillary's victory in Mississippi? It's worse than
useless. The South is totally irrelevant to Democratic presidential
victories and has been since Johnson pushed through the civil rights act.
In
fact, it looks like the South is the only place she can consistently win.
. Sanders' victory in Michigan was all the more remarkable given the
fact that the MSM has been either ignoring him, distorting his
positions, and/or giving Hillary a free pass on issues that should be
So this begs a few questions.not?
Why Does the Press Discount Sanders?
1) The role of Money.
As usual in American politics, money can explain a lot. As I wrote
last
September:
Federal campaigns are expected to spend $4.4 billion in the 2016
election cycle, and typically, two thirds of that will go to
advertising. So the MSM-which, as Bernie Sanders points out, is
dominated by just 6 major corporations-has a vested interest in
ignoring a candidate who's serious about campaign finance reform.
But as Sanders has closed the gap on Clinton, the press has gone from
ignoring to distorting. With billions of dollars on the line, the last
thing the mainstream media (MSM) wants is a revolution.
2) The tyranny of the known and the terror of the unfamiliar:
The day after the Flint, Michigan debate, the majority of the pundits
and the MSM declared Hillary the clear winner. Yet ordinary citizens
overwhelmingly thought Sanders won. For example, those responding to a
Time poll declared Bernie the winner by 87% to 13% for Hillary. Other
surveys of real people had similar results.
Why such a big disconnect? Media analysts and pundits are trained to
analyze political races as horse races. It's all about tactics, money
raised, who has support from whom, who's "supposed" to win.
They simply aren't equipped to understand a phenomena that comes from
outside their wheelhouse. In fact, many resent the presence of an
outsider who refuses to play by the same old corrupt rules. This is
clear in the irrational attacks from normally rational players like
Paul Krugman. In fact, the entire New York Times and Washington Post
editorial staff and most of their news folks seem to be engaged in a
institutional attack against Sanders. Which brings us to .
Five Way the MSM Seeks to Bias the Process The fact that Sanders is on
track to pull out a victory is all the more remarkable when you
examine how the MSM seeks to tip the scales in Hillary's favor. Here
are five examples.
1) Using "political analysis" as a means of attacking Sanders.
For example, consider for a moment, their coverage of an exchange
between Hillary and Bernie in the Flint, Michigan debate.
Hillary accused Sanders of voting against the auto industry bailout-a
false accusation as it turns out-and then twice interrupted Sanders
when he was given time to respond. When Sanders made the perfectly
reasonable request that she let him talk when it was his turn, much of
the press criticized Sanders for being ill-mannered and many suggested
he was bordering on being sexist.
So, Hillary makes a false accusation; she rudely interrupts Sanders
twice, and his reaction is "the story?" Wow. Really? Somehow,
intentionally distorting your opponents position then interrupting him
twice is fine, but asking to be allowed to respond when it's your turn is
An objective press would have reported this as yet another attempt onblacks do.
her part to distort his positions, and then noted the use of rude - if
not crude
- tactics to blunt his response.
2) Using "political analysis" to create phony wedge issues.
Exhibit A has to be the media's reaction to Sanders' response to a
question about racism. His response to a question about the
experiences of blacks in the ghetto ignited a chorus of criticism,
ranging from observations that whites sometimes live in ghettos to not all
But the message from the press was clear and nearly ubiquitous: Berniewide margin.
has no clue about how blacks live and no sympathy for poor whites.
Again, these aren't reasonable interpretations of what Sanders said.
To arrive at them required a tortuous distortion of what he, in fact,
was saying, and a willful disregard for the context of his response.
He was specifically talking about a conversation he had with some
folks from BLM about their treatment in the ghetto. He made no claim
that some whites don't also live in the ghetto, nor did he suggest
that all blacks do.
Note the surgical precision of these accusations form the MSM: they
are designed to create doubt in the minds of women, poor whites and
African Americans - all key constituencies Sanders is working hard to
win over. One would almost think the MSM is working for Hillary.
3) Ignoring a key issue that virtually begs for analysis.
The biggest man-bites-dog issue in the Democratic primaries is why
Hillary Clinton gets so much support from African Americans. The MSM
routinely reports her big advantage, but never examines it. It's
stated as if it were her birthright. And make no mistake, if it
weren't for this advantage, Hillary would be trailing in the race by a
Yet as Michelle Alexander has pointed out, the policies Clinton haspolitics.
historically backed "decimated" black America. Her abysmal record
started as far back as 1964, when Hillary was campaigning for Barry
Goldwater, who promised to re-segregate the south and overturn the
Civil Rights Act. Since then, as Alexander points out, Hillary has
backed numerous programs that have had massive negative impacts for
black and other marginalized communities, including the Crime Bill;
so-called 'Welfare Reform'; mandatory sentencing; three-strikes laws;
and more.
In the years before Hillary was campaigning for Goldwater, Bernie was
marching with Dr. Martin Luther King and demonstrating on behalf of
racial equality and desegregation at the University of Chicago. Many
African-American leaders back Sanders, and many more are switching as
they learn more about the two candidates. But Hillary remains much
stronger among the Black community at large.
Seems like this rather bizarre phenomenon ought to be worth a bit of
"political analysis," but don't hold your breath.
4) Fostering the myth that Hillary has a commanding lead in the
delegate count.
Listen to the press or read the papers and you'll here that Hillary
Clinton has an all but insurmountable lead over Bernie Sanders.
Going into the Michigan primary, most sources reported that Hillary
was ahead 1130 to 499. But that includes super delegates, and super
delegates are not bound to any single candidate. Historically, they
move toward the candidate with the most popular support as reflected
by the voters. In fact, at this point in the 2008 race, Clinton's
"commanding" lead was evaporating as super delegates abandoned her as
Obama began winning races.
The real count pre-Michigan, is 658 for Clinton, 471 for Sanders. That
is not a large lead and with states like California, New York, New
Jersey, Ohio and Florida coming up and Sanders improving in the polls,
easily surmountable.
But what the Establishment wants to do is feed the notion that
Clinton's nomination is "inevitable." The reality is, that both
candidates have a plausible path to victory. In fact, if Sanders can
crack the lock Clinton has on African-American voters - something that
is certainly possible, given the fact that Hillary's policies have
"decimated" Black America - he's pretty much a lock.
So why distort the delegate counts? Well.
5. Feeding the myth of "inevitability" is designed to reduce Sanders'
support.
Sanders has been remarkably successful at engaging people who have not
participated in the political process or who have dropped out, because
they believed the deck is stacked against a real reformer. He's given
people real hope for the prospect of real change. But even that
passion will have a hard time surviving if people believe there is no
hope. Feed the idea that Hillary's nomination is a done deal, and many
of these people will drop out again.
In fact, that's precisely what's being attempted. Sanders isn't merely
battling Clinton, he's battling the establishment forces within labor
unions, not-for-profit think tanks, and the press. In addition,
Sanders is working to win over the justifiable cynicism of people who
believe there is no hope for changing the system.
And yet he may yet win. Here's why.
We Hold These Truths to Be Self Evident The presence of money in
politics-and the interlocking network of those who depend upon it-is
the root cause of most of our national ills. Whether it's failing to
get effective gun control; feeding a massive military industrial
complex; shipping trillions overseas to tax havens; exporting jobs
through trade agreements; killing ourselves with fossil fuels;
incarcerating more people than any nation on Earth; or enduring the
lies of a corporate media complex-the cure is in getting money out of
Only one candidate will do that-Bernie Sanders.
The people have figured this out. The MSM hasn't. And until they do,
they'll continue to get it wrong.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike
3.0 License
