• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

MSNBC Ignoring Sanders? A Media Analysis

I don't think that's the story here since there wasn't a reversal back to the norm; MSNBC didn't hire more progressives, or replace conservatives.

Sanders has heart issues, is old as dirt, and is a foot and a half into the grave. He has no inside the beltway support, and as the inside the beltway news outlet, MSNBC is going to 1) focus on viable candidates and 2) bring on Never Trumpers to create the illusion they are being moderate while still trying to twist the knife in Trump's back. That they are not bowing down at the Bernie alter is not surprising at all. This is really no different than their tilt that lead to Melissa Harris-Perry departing the network in 2016 when they side-lined her show that discussed a wide variety of progressive issues to add in more Hillary cheerleaders.
 
Melissa Harris Perry was a thoughtful voice on MSNBC. She sure disappeared.
 
Sanders has heart issues, is old as dirt, and is a foot and a half into the grave. He has no inside the beltway support, and as the inside the beltway news outlet, MSNBC is going to 1) focus on viable candidates and 2) bring on Never Trumpers to create the illusion they are being moderate while still trying to twist the knife in Trump's back. That they are not bowing down at the Bernie alter is not surprising at all. This is really no different than their tilt that lead to Melissa Harris-Perry departing the network in 2016 when they side-lined her show that discussed a wide variety of progressive issues to add in more Hillary cheerleaders.

To imply that Bernie isn't viable is to either betray your bias, your willful ignorance of the numbers as they stand or both. Who is viable precisely? Biden, who seems to be struggling with early stage dementia, and seems to decay further with every public appearance? Warren who doesn't poll as well as Bernie in head to heads against Trump, and is coming out in 3rd in many recent polls? Buttigieg, who, besides polling terribly against Trump, is desperate for an all or nothing win in Iowa (after dumping an absolute metric ton of money there to get the poll numbers he's presently enjoying in that state) that will somehow propel him all the way through the primary?

Having said that, I don't disagree with most of the rest of this.
 
Last edited:
Patrick might be the guy as Biden implodes daily.

Biden's money issues remind me of the early stages of the Dem 2016 campaign.

How is it that the DNC ran itself into such a money ditch that they actually needed Clinton money (I mean actual Clinton money) just to be viable. We know Dems can raise money normally, maybe not often in the kinds of numbers that Repugs can raise. But all things being equal, Dems can still raise money.

I suspect that the Dem insistence on pushing Hillary forward early and often for 2016 had stilted their donation drives to the point where they were so broke, they literally needed Clinton money. They couldn't raise money IMO because they were out early with the standard bearer they wanted to get the brass ring and turned off donations for their efforts. It would not be hard to convince me that they needed Bernie as a foil to add some credibility to their nominating process as opposed to actually thinking Bernie would make headway. Once he did, they were screwed. But did that stop them? NOOOOOOOOO!!!!

Seems to me they had not learned how beatable Hillary was when Obama went past her like she was standing still in 2008, coming all the way back from 21 points down in the polling. But they were absolutely devoted to the idea that they would put that next sheepskin up on their wall, first woman President atop first non-white President and nothing was going to deter them from that goal....EXCEPT THEMSELVES....dumbasses!
 
To imply that Bernie isn't viable is to either betray your bias, your willful ignorance of the numbers as they stand or both. Who is viable precisely? Biden, who seems to be struggling with early stage dementia, and seems to decay further with every public appearance? Warren who doesn't poll as well as Bernie in head to heads against Trump, and is coming out in 3rd in many recent polls? Buttigieg, who, besides polling terribly against Trump, is desperate for an all or nothing win in Iowa (after dumping an absolute metric ton of money there to get the poll numbers he's presently enjoying in that state) that will somehow propel him all the way through the primary?

Having said that, I don't disagree with most of the rest of this.

He isn't viable. That ism't bias. It is honest assessment. Biden isn't viable either.
 
He isn't viable. That ism't bias. It is honest assessment. Biden isn't viable either.

If it's an honest assessment, tell me on which facts and data that assessment is based; and don't default to 'muh socialism' please.
 
why do people even care what MSNBC says? They are irrelevant in deciding whom is President
 
Again, the idea that his core policies don't have broad support, and that he hasn't pushed the bounds of acceptability and convention just isn't supported by the facts, given that majorities agree with his calls for a 15 dollar minimum wage, universal healthcare, health care as a right, free public college, getting money out of politics, increasing taxes on the rich and so on, and the fact that these have indeed all become mainstream ideas being broadly discussed, including outside of the party. Extraordinary claims such as yours in defiance of years of polling require extraordinary evidence, and I've yet to see any in support of your assertions.

Meanwhile, Bernie polls very well in head to heads against Trump as they stand; there isn't anything in terms of concrete numbers at this time that undermine the idea of Bernie being electable, or being unviable in the general. If voters in the general election are repelled by Sanders' demeanour and ideas they certainly aren't showing it.

Moreover, I'm not sure on what basis you claim that a majority of Democrats are opposed to Bernie or at the least dislike his demeanour; per what data?

From above, it seems you can't take, 'I agree', as an answer.

...While Sanders has expanded our bounds of acceptability and convention, they've been mostly embraced by just Democrats...

...He's in the top three now and wasn't he polling second after Hillary in 2016? Most Democrats are attracted to his ideas and proposals, including me...

...For me, Sanders incorruptibility is his greatest trait. For many reasons his primary supporters are attracted to and love his demeanor and I can understand why. But for practical reasons I have to agree with the majority of Democrats and an even larger majority of general election voters, who do not.


As far as the basis and the data that forms my opinion, it's history and polling. He couldn't convince Democrats to vote for him in 16' and he's polling third in 20'. If he can't gather enough Democrats to support him in the primary, he won't win much of the independent vote or Repubs with a conscience, in the general. I could be wrong, but as much as we need his policies, I'll give you odds he won't win the primary...
 
As far as the basis and the data that forms my opinion, it's history and polling. He couldn't convince Democrats to vote for him in 16' and he's polling third in 20'. If he can't gather enough Democrats to support him in the primary, he won't win much of the independent vote or Repubs with a conscience, in the general. I could be wrong, but as much as we need his policies, I'll give you odds he won't win the primary...

Okay, you're saying polling; which polling? Surely you can point to something that contradicts me and validates what you're asserting.

That Sanders failed to beat a big name Democrat in 2016 who started out the primary with over 60% support, universal name recognition and an overflowing war chest that benefited from the proven and systemic bias of the DNC vs his 3%, complete obscurity and zero dollars tells me nothing about his chances today.
 
Then vote for the candidate who was the best and an incredible record at getting things passed already, the "Amendment King", Bernie. The question is, are you making excuses to oppose him, or do you actually want the best person at getting things passes as you said you do?

I can't vote for any Democrat, I've never joined a political party. And no one needs an excuse to oppose anyone, at anytime. I want the best person I believe has the best chance to win in 20', man, woman, moderate, progressive, conservative, young or old guys or cranky old guys, gay or anything in between. I don't care if he/she is a governor, senator, representative, mayor, or dog catcher.

We just disagree on how to implement Sanders policies. While my method takes much more time, I believe it has a much better chance of getting it done, while your method is faster and a more direct approach, it's a risky gamble, a gamble we can't afford to lose...
 
I can't vote for any Democrat, I've never joined a political party. And no one needs an excuse to oppose anyone, at anytime. I want the best person I believe has the best chance to win in 20', man, woman, moderate, progressive, conservative, young or old guys or cranky old guys, gay or anything in between. I don't care if he/she is a governor, senator, representative, mayor, or dog catcher.

We just disagree on how to implement Sanders policies. While my method takes much more time, I believe it has a much better chance of getting it done, while your method is faster and a more direct approach, it's a risky gamble, a gamble we can't afford to lose...

You're changing the topic from the points I made.

It's pretty simple. Republicans are total plutocrats. Corporatist Democrats are plutocrat-lite - still moving the country to plutocracy, as Clinton and Obama did. We need to reverse plutocracy, as Bernie is the only candidate who clearly will do so, though some others are at least partly willing to do some of. Your road is a road to plutocracy more slowly, not a road back to democracy and reducing inequality much IMO.
 
Melissa Harris Perry was a thoughtful voice on MSNBC. She sure disappeared.

And very easy on the eyes.

It seems they got rid of many including one of my favorites Malcolm Nance. Glad they kept Steve Schmidt. Schmidt and John Heilmann are terrific.
 
Back
Top Bottom