Bernie Sanders thinks the media cost him the nomination

[brooklynite]

CNN

(CNN)In an interview with CNN's Ryan Nobles reflecting on his 2020 presidential bid, Bernie Sanders makes clear that he's still holding something of a grudge -- against the media.

Here's the key bit:

"I think what we saw from Nevada on out was a cry from the rooftops, from the political establishment, from the media that they wanted anybody but Bernie. Anybody but Bernie! My God, I don't know how many articles they were about, we need anybody but Bernie and, you know, they ended up succeeding. And that's that."

[Iliyah]

1. Well all the way up to SC and shortly thereafter they were still

bashing VP Biden.

[frazzled]

2. I hate to say it

But he sounds more and more like Trump in terms of personality flaws every day. Blaming media for everything, everybody having to praise him so he doesn’t go off. Sigh.

[uponit7771]

10. +1, he's avoiding addressing why more AA's didn't vote for him. It's the "establishments" fault

[totodeinhere]

54. He endorsed Joe Biden and promsied to work for his election. And he is urging his supporters to do

the same. That's good enough for me.

[msongs]

3. the perpetual victim eternally waiting for the 18 year olds vote to bail him out nt

[Mike Nelson]

4. Well...

... I had a completely different take.... when Bernie was doing well, the media decided a Trump-Bernie race would be wild - a ratings winner! The media liked Bernie, I thought... I believe the media finds Biden a bore. I also think they wanted Bernie over Hillary... to each their own opinion, I guess!

[Me.]

5. He Takes No Responsibility

[TexasTowelie]

15. Ding, ding, ding!

Always a victim, never a presidential nominee.

[Me.]

19. Sound Familiar?

[Blue_true]

49. Like someone else that we all know of. nt

[Hermit-The-Prog]

6. Divide and conquer did not work. 30% of the pile was bs and that's not enough.

Joe, on the other hand, tried unification and that worked.

[Hoyt]

7. Yeah, media reported all his promises and what they would cost, his supporters voting for trump, etc

[Zeus69]

8. It's not difficult

Rep. Clyburn turned the primary on its ear for the Sanders camp.

Let’s move on...

[LizBeth]

16. Voters did.

[IllinoisBirdWatcher]

9. SHEESH! Our VOTERS are NOT STUPID.

Primary VOTERS were "the cry from the rooftops" and they cried loudly and clearly.

States which switched from "pack the hall for hours" caucuses to voter primaries spoke loudly and clearly.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

11. Bernie Sanders and especially the Bros cost him the nomination,

assuming he ever really had a chance in the first place with so little support from PoC.

[RandiFan1290]

12. Primary is over

Time to move on

[TexasTowelie]

17. Why?

Bernie hasn't as his statements show.

[William769]

40. ...

[Doremus]

44. Yes. Give it a fucking rest already.

Let former Bernie supporters have a minute to grieve and then join the bandwagon.

Let's stop the alienating rhetoric already. (Not addressed at RandiFan of course, I'm agreeing with their post)

[former9thward]

51. As you can see by the posts in this thread that is not going to happen.

We used to have a rule about not fighting over the 2016 primary season but people did and still are doing it. Now they have two primary seasons to bash Sanders over.

[TexasTowelie]

52. Bernie's supporters should have saw the writing on the wall after the March 3 primaries.

The message was reinforced in the March 10 and March 17 primaries. That means that they have had a month to accept the results. That's a lot more than many of us had when our preferred candidates decided to withdraw. Several of us didn't receive any adjustment period whatsoever.

The rules about not refighting the 2016 primaries still exist and I've noted that they have been enforced fairly consistently. There might be a few exceptions, but I suspect that some of those posts were commenting about 2016 (sometimes the post was about the 2016 general election) rather than actually refighting the primaries--there is a difference. If another member felt that a post was removed unjustly, then they had the opportunity to appeal the jury verdict to the administrators.

[Doremus]

56. I've noticed and I'm coming here less often because of it

I’m not able to say what I’d like to in order to point out some hypocrisies so I’ll just go elsewhere. Been here since 2004 but it’s getting insufferable.

[Cha]

60. BS is the one who gave the interview that his "losing" was

all the "media fault".

[ehrnst]

75. Um... it's Bernie whose not "giving it a rest" - he's the one giving the interviews

on the topic. Apparently he thinks it's still a topic for discussion.

He's the one you need to be telling to "give his supporters a minute to grieve" instead of continuing to beat that drum.

[Cha]

61. Obviously. BS is the one who is giving the Post Mortem interview..

saying it's all the media's fault.

[ehrnst]

74. Tell it to Bernie. You know, the one quoted in the OP.

[katmondoo]

13. Sanders had more coverage than I cared to listen to. More than the other candidates.

I thought Biden had the least.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

28. TBH I didn't think that Biden would make it to the finals

let alone actually win the primary. I was totally wrong about that.

[LizBeth]

14. He is such a cry baby. Democrats didn't want Sanders. Suck it up.

[spanone]

18. Hey Bern.....just be a good loser.

[DFW]

20. What cost Sanders the nomination is simple, and should end all discussion

More voters wanted someone else to be our nominee than wanted him to be our nominee.

That is never what the runner-up wants to hear. But in this case, it is reality.

As I see it, there are two ways for him to go about the current situation, as it stands now:

1.) Say, "Look, I'm with you all the way now, but I did get a solid 30% of the vote, so would you listen to what I have to say, and will you give me the chance to bring my people on board to go out and try and get you elected, and could I prevail on you to listen to them AFTER the election as well?"

or,

2.) Say,"If it weren't for the big bad media, I would have kicked your ass, and I would have been the nominee, so you had better listen to me or else!"

Of the two approaches, I suspect one has a better chance of succeeding. Just my hunch, you understand.....

[Doremus]

45. Yes, reminiscent of the 2016 general election, with different players of course

[DFW]

57. And, one would hope, with a different outcome! n/t

[calguy]

21. Trump will say the same thing in November

[LiberalLovinLug]

22. I think the surprise would have been if they'd NOT opposed him

Laughable that anyone could say Sanders was treated equally as the more establishment friendly nominees. Many examples of the derision and whining about him on network news shows. In fact there was a moment of reprise from the onslaught when Sanders took the early lead and you had MSNBC, probably the worst of the bunch, had a moment of self reflection on air, including such Bernie Bashers as Joy Reid, how maybe they all had to take a step back and maybe alter their perception and take him and his supporters seriously now. Well that lasted about a week.

Why would the huge corporations that own the major networks who have their fingers in other big business through Wall Street, NOT do whatever they could to diminish his campaign? Why would they support him getting into power? Someone who won't accept their bribes...er campaign donations....A candidate that would have not be beholden to corporate America because he was funded by average Americans with small donations. That kind of loss of control scared the bejesus out of them.

And any future candidate, who swings left, that threatens the monopolized position they hold, or their bottom line, will face the same treatment. I don't know why this would be a surprise to anyone.

[Tarheel_Dem]

25. Everyone already knew what was gonna happen when the primaries moved South. The fact that....

you and Bernie would try to absolve yourselves of any responsibility for his massive losses. He was never going to be the nominee, no matter what the networks did.

[TexasTowelie]

65. +1

[TexasTowelie]

53. Blaming the media and corporation is a worn and tired argument.

That well has run dry and it's time for Bernie's supporters to let go of that argument. If they decide that they can't support Biden by refusing to vote, writing in another candidate, or voting for a third-party candidate, then they are in effect supporting Trump.

[LiberalLovinLug]

58. Worn and tired. Yes. But not untrue.

Why would anyone "let go" of an argument simply because its been used before? That in fact would only prove its credibility more.

Example: During the lead up to the Iraq war, the MSM networks ramped up the war rhetoric. Over the top wild graphics. Interviews with former generals with a stake in the MIC. Not interviewing peace orgs. Not showing the massive protests, and if they did, focusing on the most punked out young persons to define it by. (A tactic also used on Occupy Wall Street) Firing the anti-war hosts like Donahue. We all watched that happen. And, I don't know about you, but I and others would contend that the corporate media, including MSNBC with a major owner being the weapons manufacturer GE, had a big influence on how Americans judged the decision to invade whether by promotion or omission.

So to now dismiss that history, as if none if it took place because its a "tired and worn" argument, retroactively.....sorry....that does not change reality.

Of course Sanders supporters, must accept it. Must accept the disadvantages that any progressive candidate would run into. Warren would have had a hell of battle if she'd looked to be a threat as well. They were keeping their powder dry in regards to her, but make no mistake, if she'd have leapt ahead, there would have been all kinds of gnashing of teeth on the MSM about her plans for Wall Street.

But any progressive candidate's supporters knew their candidate would be targets in advance. We are well prepared to know we have to also run against the corporate media. Its no surprise to any of us. Any advance scolding about voting third party, or not voting, won't change any minds now. There are those that decided to go Bernie or Bust a long time ago, and then there are the majority that will choose to accept that at least Sanders and Warren got the conversion pushed a little further. Further defanged the word "socialist" Maybe we can even cajole Joe to move towards a public option for instance. Progressives, for the most part, will hold their noses and vote for the third way candidate. The alternative is just too abhorrent. Now its also true that the more Joe sweetens the pot, for average workers, or moves towards M4A, or perhaps appoints Warren as VP even, it will only help his chances in November with more ex-Sanders supporters convinced he will respect progressive values too. That is not a threat, its reality.

We made our presence felt, by coming in second twice in row, no thanks to the MSM, and the establishment of the party got a reminder to listen to us. We must, as usual, lick our wounds and accept how well we did do. And keep on running against, and being critical, of anti-worker anti-people legislation from both parties, going forward. (sorry) The only option is change from within now for the foreseeable future. But we have new voices rising like Katey Porter along with the squad going forward.

[TexasTowelie]

59. It's a worn and tired argument which is why people ignore it.

Despite what you think, there isn't a large progressive movement in this country which is why progressives lose in most elections. As far as cajoling Joe Biden into the public option, he already favored a public option and the progressive movement had no impact in Biden's position.

The fact that you believe that progressives should "hold their noses" to vote for Biden is also insulting to the candidate who is our presumptive nominee. You aren't going to persuade anyone with that argument.

Biden is far more likely to win the election if he shifts towards the center than to the far left of the political spectrum. Look at a normal distribution curve and do the math.



On the left side of the curve two standard deviations away from the mean there is only 2.2% of the population. Look at the curve again and you will find 34.1% of the population within one standard deviation of the mean on the right side. Even if Democrats only persuade 1 out of 10 voters within that group to vote Democratic (because they can't stand Trump's morality or because of economic distress), then we still gain 3.4% of the total population.

Two elections and the progressive movement has not made any significant gains. The new members of Congress that were elected in the 2018 mid-terms came primarily from moderates, not far-left progressives. That is the reality that progressives ignore.

Coming in second twice in a row is nothing to gloat about, particularly when at the end the two choices available were progressive and moderate--most would say that the progressives lost twice. Getting 30% of 50% of the voting population means that the progressive candidate only received the support of 15% of the people--another reality that progressives ignore. So yes, the rest of the voters felt the progressive's influence and then they rejected it. The media had very little influence upon the decisions among most voters, particularly among those voters who are pragmatic rather than idealists.

[TexasTowelie]

64. LOL, what drivel.

[ehrnst]

76. People will grip onto a fantasy long after it's been debunked.

[Cha]

67. No.. why doesn't BS own up to what went wrong

in his campaign? There have been many detailed articles on it.

The buck stops at the top.

[ehrnst]

70. +1000.

[ehrnst]

69. Bernie lost. He lost because of his own run, his own ideas and his own way of communicating.

Blaming it on everyone and everything else doesn't change the fact that people did not show up to vote for him in the numbers that he promised. Most voters felt someone else would be a better Democratic POTUS than him. Twice now.

It all comes back to the candidate.

It's the poor carpenter who blames his tools, as the saying goes.

About voting for military action in Iraq...some who point fingers voted for such action twice.

In 1998 Sanders voted in favor of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, which said: "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."

Later that same year, Sanders also backed a resolution that stated: "Congress reaffirms that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."

Sanders also voted for the 2001 Authorization Unilateral Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF), which pretty much allowed Bush to wage war wherever he wanted.

Authorization for Use of Military Force - Authorizes the President to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations, or persons.

States that this Act is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of the War Powers Resolution.

[Cha]

71. Exactly.. he didn't do himself or his

movement any favors by trying to blame the media instead of doing a lot of self reflection.

He did fire brie-brie, though.. I'll give him credit for that.

[ehrnst]

72. It was always due to a hidden hand, never his own missteps, miscalculations and

lack of respect for the data and expertise that didn't simply support his talking points.

I don't think he fired Brihanna.... she got severance. The campaign ended and therefore all the campaign jobs.

There is no way he'd ever hire her for his Senate staff, obviously.

I think Our Revolution is going under and isn't going to be hiring anyone, let alone anyone who will demand to be the face and voice of the org.

I would not be surprised to see her, like Weaver, making post campaign appearances on FoxNews.

[Cha]

66. So Sorry.. BS is Not doing himself any favors by "Blaming the Media"..

he needs to own up to his part in only having a "30%" base and hiring jill stein pushers as his top staff.. who he's already Fired.

[ehrnst]

68. Treated "unequally" by whom? Oh, you mean the voters?

Yes, fewer wanted him than Biden. I guess you could say that's "unequal."

[The Magistrate]

23. 'Bernie' Cost Sanders His Chance For The Nomination, Sir

Sanders' clear triumphalism after the Nevada caucus, and the media hype that 'Bernie' was in a commanding position, roused the great preponderance of Democratic Party voters who oppose Sanders, and do not want 'Bernie' to be the Party's nominee. These people constituting about two thirds of the primary electorate, once Sanders was proclaiming himself a sure thing, it was only to be expected these voters would rally against 'Bernie', and they did.

[NNadir]

36. I agree 100%. I was terrified that he would be the nominee, and I think most Democrats...

...including major candidates agreed.

Those people on the stage with Joe Biden, Senator Klobuchar, Mayor Pete, etc, etc could see that Joe Biden was a decent human being, and for love of their country, over themselves, acted accordingly.

The Democrats in the Democratic Party Presidential primaries behaved impeccably.

[logme]

24. From a European perspective, it is pretty indisputable

Hi,

Speaking as a neutral observer, as a left leaning European who follow US politics and media, it is pretty indisputable there was a bias against Sanders in the main Media outlets.

It was not subtle at times. It was not necessarily what they were saying about sanders but rather the way they chose to cover its campaign, prioritize some news or frame the discussion.

It was not propaganda but a clear and sincere bias. You could feel some commentators just could not take sanders seriously, and would preemptively dismissed some piece of information or deem some debate as unimportant.

The way the proposals around health care was portrayed was mind numbing reductive. The way many newscasters avidly jump at any opportunity to reject the idea of him being a front-runner and promote any other candidate as a rising star of the democratic party was just hilarious.

To be perfectly clear there is no conspiracy here, it is mostly a confirmation bias among a rather wealthy and conservative sample of the population that was sincerely dismissive of sanders proposals.

The problem was that many of its proposal were actually very sound and could have exposed the US public to some interesting discussion if properly debated.

I would also like to mention that Biden poor beginnings pushed them to put him on the back-burner for a time. It almost seems, they were trying to hype up each and every candidate ( except sanders ), anything to find an alternative.
As soon as Biden got better results the whole debate switch to who would desist himself in his favor first.

Frankly it was funny, but also a bit chilling at times.

It does not mean that Biden ( or any other "proper" candidate ) would not have finally emerge as a centrist champion to beat Sanders. But it is crazy to ignore the handicap he had in terms of media coverage.
A more fair and open media coverage would have certainly led to a longer campaign and closer result.

I do think however that the moderate position promoted by the DNC currently represent a majority of democrats and would therefore have prevailed .


Beware of the beast though. What matters in a campaign is momentum which mass media still help build and equally important is the way questions are framed and presented to the public.

You will not necessarily win because you have the better answer but because your were able to frame the debate in your favor. "Should we have a Single-payer healthcare system ?" is not the same as "can we afford a universal system ?" or " does universal health care leads to communism ?"

Be careful not to be tricked in a senseless & irrelevant debate with the buffoon of the oval office. Because even though he may have alienated many journalists, entertainment and marketing is one of the few things he could get right.

[NNadir]

39. Thank you for speaking for all "unbiased" left leaning Europeans.

This reminds me of Bernie Sanders, who claimed to speak for all young people.

There are zero people without biases; all people see things through the prism of their own thinking.

Since I despise Bernie Sanders for his rather inflated and inflexible ideology which has not changed a whit in half a century despite a dynamic world that has changed since 1969, even if Sanders hasn't - and would only have voted for him if I had to vote against the racist buffoon - I saw things very differently.

I saw a media trying to sell newspapers with by promoting the theater of the absurd; the same theater that is killing Americans and destroying our country because of their similar theatrics in 2016. I saw them promoting Sanders by claiming that Iowa, New Hampshire, and Iowa were the center of the world, despite their small populations and rural character.

If Europe is reaching perfection; good for you. Our party voted and we are not stupid people controlled by the media, thank you.

[logme]

46. Wut ?!?

Hi,

My disclaimer was to avoid any confusion regarding my perspective and the intent of my post. I certainly never pretended to spoke for Europe ( which is not a country yet).

What I meant is : I have no skin in this game. I do not care who is the democratic nominee as long as he beats trump. I am fascinated by the way both wings of the party are currently (unsurprisingly) bashing one another and how distorted their perceptions of the situation seem to be.

I obviously do not claimed any European superiority, and I am just trying to offer to any who wants to consider it, a different perspective on this whole show.

Being sincere, and not directly affected by this issue does not mean that I am necessary right but I hope it will enrich the reflection of some readers especially the most passionate ones.

Last but not least, while knowing were someone speaks from is important, that does not mean that all opinions are equals, passions often makes it more difficult to notice some details or acknowledge other feelings.


Being a typical center-left voter, I even recognize your anger and passion as I experienced it, in the past, toward far left candidates who bared the left from having any chance to reach power in France. While I may have felt that those candidates were hyped up at first. I realized simultaneously how the mass media were also toying with them progressively reducing them to their own caricature.

The most savvy (and least sincere ) ones, were the one who made the most of it, the more candid ones were rapidly "consume" and discarded.

But when push came to shove the "main" candidates ( the equivalent of the democrats & republicans) were effortlessly given the front seats. All were given exposure, as mandated by law, but I noticed the questions asked were often "formatted" by the main parties mindsets.

I do not think those lunatic trotskysts and far left demagogues were not dangerous or wrong, but I did notice how they were subtly played and probably despised by most media figures.

The worrisome thing, is that the same subtle bias tend later on to favors narratives pushed by the republicans against their social democrat opponents ( at least in Europe ).


So be careful, while I certainly hope that the current crisis finally convinced America of trump incompetency, beware of the media they are never neutral. They tend to reflect the interest of their social milieu and are not immune to pressures from corporate interest.

[NNadir]

47. OK. I think I have "skin in the game" for what happens in Europe though.

In these times, under the conditions we're seeing, all human beings have "skin in the game" for all other human beings, as particles on skin are having a huge effect around the world.

In this country there are many of us who think that Bernie Sanders is a Trumpian simpleton with a narrow focus by which he claims that he can address all the world's ill simply by spitting the word "corporate" just as Trump thinks that spitting the word "Democrat" for all purposes passes for competence.

Neither case is true. (I note that Sanders has never been immune from joining Trump is spitting "Democrat." )

This simplistic nonsense is repulsive, since they lead to very lazy thinking, the type of thinking much of which characterizes Sanders' ideology.

It is also insulting to assume that the only way one can find these simpleton ideologies to be repulsive is if one is manipulated by propaganda from the media.

Actually, some people, believe it or not, actually think for themselves.

Lazy thinking always characterizes the decline of cultures and I strongly and clearly object to your "unbiased" "no skin in the game" claim that Sanders suffered from something other than being Sanders, which in my view is suffering from being a fool.

[logme]

55. Sigh, I would not be on DU if I did not care but I obviously did not took part in the vote

Hello again,

Sincerely I am not sure what part of my post you are reacting to.

You are the one who is talking about me be being "unbiased" over and over. I just said that I had a different perspective & background. I did not vote in the primary as I am not a US citizen.

What I am saying is that not being directly engage in the vote probably gave me a different perspective than many democrats on this forum. Obviously if I took interest in the primary, it is because I feel a kinship with my fellow American democrats & care about the future of American democracy.

That being said, while I did not follow the cover of the primary without interest, I obviously did not had the visceral & clear cut reaction you had ( toward any candidates). This, I postulated, may have led me to notice some things, while watching the news, that might interest some DU members.

I am not saying that you are not allow to see sanders as a dangerous trump-like candidate.

Once again I can relate to your reaction towards sanders as it mirrors feelings I experienced toward some demagogues on the far left in past experience. It is just that sanders is so tame in comparison, I did not reacted the way you do.


That does not mean however, that the way his campaign was relayed by media was not problematic.
Maybe, you notice the narratives media tends to create ( to feed the circus of the news cycle ) differently when you are not directly involved in a campaign. They need, heroes, villains & scandals more than ideas and debates.

In this aspect, I notice how, at times commentators appeared dismissive of sanders candidacy or anxious for an alternative and that influenced their coverage.

Remember the weird chris matthews break down and his rambling about socialist "execution in central park". I feel it was not purely anecdotal but somehow revealing of deeper fears that others in the media shared ( in a less dramatics manner) .

Again I did not specifically support sanders candidacy, but I do get how he, and most importantly his supporters could feel victimized. I do not think he would have won even if the media "playing field" had been perfectly leveled but I do feel media did influence the process and that it was not in its favor.

Finally, I do agree with you when you say people mostly rejected him because they disagree with what he represented.


That being said, while all people think for themselves, no man is an island. Based on my experienced, mass media do have an influence. After all, their business model is to frame how people & reality is presented to the public.

Social media amplified each groups certainties, but Radio and TV still have the opportunity to influence the debate across the usual social & political lines.

Heck, Trump is an example of how ones TV persona can led people to vote not only against their interest but also their values. I do not mean that none of his supporters voted for him knowingly (because they are bigoted racists) .
But I am pretty sure, enough were simply convinced he was just a capable business man that would get things done and help the little man ( like them). Those few, are the reason he is now in power.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

26. Bernie was 1 of around 20 candidates

and he was considered a frontrunner the entire race. In the end, Democratic primary voters just coalesced around Biden as being the best choice to beat Trump. I personally wanted Warren but Que Sera Sera. I would have voted for Bernie if he was the nominee.

[Wounded Bear]

27. He's like a liberal Trump...

[Docreed2003]

30. Bernie had a truly unique opportunity to make inroads with SC political and civil rights leaders

During the 2016 campaign.

A group of several party leaders and civil rights leaders within the state reached out specifically to Bernie's team offering their assistance in South Carolina and he told them thanks but no thanks. Mark Thompson had many people on his show who verified that information.

Clearly, Bernie didn't care to learn in '16 and he didn't learn this time around either. That's not on the media

[yortsed snacilbuper]

31. Doing the same thing over and over, and expecting different results,

you know what I mean.

[betsuni]

32. Mommy, there's an establishment under my bed!

[lpbk2713]

34. How about some cheese with that?

[Azathoth]

35. The media wasn't friendly to Bernie, but they were worse to Biden

After only two states had voted, Biden was being asked questions like "Why are you still in this race?"

[trueblue2007]

37. HA ... HE COST HIMSELF THE ELECTION. I don't think he should have run again.

[SouthernCal_Dem]

38. Umm.......no

What happened was the voters picked Biden.

End of story.

[honest.abe]

41. It was the Democratic voters who were screaming "anybody but Bernie!"

And that's that.

[MyNameGoesHere]

42. Why isn't the ISFV back to senatoring?

Seems like a fine time to do his job and help crush Dr. Orange Anus.

[Roland99]

43. Yeah, the media kept the millennials from voting

[NurseJackie]

48. Oh brother! GMAFB!

I guess it's always easier to blame somebody or something other than one's own self (or other than one's own campaign). I mean, seriously... Gray, Sirota, Turner?? What a toxic combination. And he doesn't believe that they had ANYTHING at all to do with his poor performance?

All I'm trying to say is that if Bernie wants a realistic explanation of "What Happened" then he should be more willing to look within and accept personal responsibility as well, rather than trying to blame "the media". Ugh.

[peggysue2]

50. Bernie came in with 30-35% Democratic support

Yet he blames the media for the loss? He and his senior advisors admitted they were going for a plurality of the vote after which they would make Sanders' case at the convention and insist he be the nominee. They were attempting a takeover of the Democratic Party, a way to wiggle in while the moderate voters, the majority of the Party, were split among various candidates.

The voters of South Carolina stopped Bernie cold, the same voters he might have made inroads with after 2016 but decided not to. Moderates coalesced around Biden and the rest is history, as they say.

As for the media? They hardly gave Biden a free ride. His obituaries were long and continuous from the day he entered the race.

And yet, he prevailed. Who'd have thunk it! An actual Democrat won the Democratic nomination.

[Cha]

62. LOL.. NO, BS.. That is Not That.

[ehrnst]

73. Nah. It was Bernie. The media didn't cost HRC the nomination, & they treated her much worse.

Introspection isn't something that Senator Sanders is known for.

He is known for micromanaging every aspect of his campaign, including emails.

Except when it comes to a check cut by his own campaign for $300,000 to settle a harassment lawsuit, inexplicably.