This message was self-deleted by its author

[G_j]

This message was self-deleted by its author (G_j) on Tue Nov 29, 2016, 10:45 PM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

[boston bean]

1. And Clinton wasn't being piped into every home either.

Trump was from the moment he announced.

And most of her coverage even in the primaries was more negative than his and she still beat him.

[bravenak]

3. Exactly

[bettyellen]

5. It was 10::1 email bullshit vs policy. And of that policy, 8-10

Mentions were other people slamming and often lying about her policy. Bernie got coverage when he slammed Clinton and the Dems. I guess we're lucky he didn't do even more of that just to get press.

[rurallib]

9. Whoever ran against Trump would have faced the most biased media ever

and with no left wing media there was no way to counter the blitz he was able to put on.

[LisaM]

12. That's the thing. I never seemed to see anything of Hillary.

Only when they wanted to yammer about emails.

[MadDAsHell]

39. She did that to herself. 95% of her commercials were about how Trump was unqualified.

Maybe she talked about her own qualifications at her rallies, but the way to reach the nation was via television commercials, and it was shocking that "the most qualified candidate in history" spent tens of millions of dollars talking about the opponent.

[LisaM]

45. I'm talking about media coverage, not commercials.

Pretty sure we all were discussing that here.

[MadDAsHell]

46. Fair enough, but since the media wasn't being fair, why didn't she take advantage of her resources?

She had tens of millions of dollars she could have used to get her own story out. Instead, almost all commercials (both from pro-Hillary PACS and "Approved by HRC&quot were about Trump.

The media wasn't right in what they did, but Hillary had every opportunity to counter it with her own resources and messaging.

[emulatorloo]

68. Thread's about media coverage of Dem Primary. Go start a thread about how bad HRC's GE ads were, it

would be very interesting!

[berksdem]

76. in certain states...

there was not much to cover for HRC - considering her campaign literally never set foot in some states. Hard to get your messahe across when you ignore areas of the voting population.

[Larkspur]

99. Hillary did not want to be piped into everyone's homes

When she was her poll numbers went down.

[bravenak]

2. I am damn tired of hearing Bernie's whines about blackouts and other assorted bullshit

He had those large white ass rallies and wondered why they rest of us were not RACING to join his white male revolution. There was no black out. He only appealed to white liberals and they are not the majority of the party and everyon was too busy reporting on everything Trump said on twotter to give ANYBODY else attention. O'malley was the one who really got robbed but here Bernie is playing the victim.

[boston bean]

6. His speeches were covered on cable news. in their entirety most times. He was on more news shows

on ABC, NBC, CBS than Hillary ever was.

He wasn't in any media black out.

Hillary was in a negative media narrative the entire time and SHE STILL BEAT BERNIE and got MILLIONS more votes from actual PEOPLE than either Bernie or Trump.

[bravenak]

10. Everyday his ass was on my tv yelling and slamming the democratic party

Now that he did what he could to smear Clinton I wonder why he think we have forgotten how he behaved and how he gave donald the ammo he used against hillary. He better not run again. He's not even a democrat he can go back home and find those taxes

[ismnotwasm]

24. Right?

I would walk out or turn of the TV--I can do a killer impression of him though

[bravenak]

26. I have a good impression of him too

But I think mine is an impression of larry david doing an impression of bernie

[ismnotwasm]

30. Heh!

[JCanete]

29. Yes he was, it was a very selective one that often came pre significant primaries and post victories

Some of his victory speeches weren't covered in favor of covering an empty podium in lieu of Donald's victory speech.

Also, it seems to me that if the media cared about phenomena, and they did when it came to a small subset of Bernie Supporters known as Bernie Bro's, they might have thought it was worth covering a candidate early on, who was entirely funded by small donations, and was getting millions of dollars for his campaign. He wasn't covered in a timely fashion. He was covered begrudgingly when it started to get too obvious in a social media culture that he wasn't being covered.

This isn't conspiracy shit, its just the way of the world. I'm not sure why Sanders was stunned. You don't have to collude to just selectively shut out a message that doesn't resonate with you, or even goes against your own principles, and a bunch of rich journalists and producers have no interest in giving a megaphone to a socialist, any more than a bunch of rich politicians in the Democratic Party do.

[progressoid]

70. Not according to this Harvard study.

The study found that five Republican candidates—Trump, Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and Ben Carson—each got more coverage than Sanders during 2015 and that Clinton herself received three times as much press than the Vermont senator.

[bettyellen]

8. Yes, O Malley got the worst of it. A real shame.

[bravenak]

11. I really liked him tol

[ismnotwasm]

25. He still is awesome

And so very few paid attention

[LisaM]

16. I know I've made this point incessantly, but when he was campaigning in Seattle

he had four rallies in ten days, all within a three to five hour drive of each other. One in Spokane, one in Portland (the "bird" rally), one in Seattle, and ten days later, another in Seattle that they added at the last minute, on Good Friday. They were all the same rally, more or less, and I can bet you dollars to doughnuts that they attracted a lot of the same people. I wouldn't have been able to tell one from another, since they all had the same stump speech.

I don't mention this to pile on Bernie, per se, but when you hold essentially the same event over and over, there isn't that much to cover.

[bravenak]

19. And it was the exact same speech everytime

Boring as hell to hear him yell

[LiberalLovinLug]

91. Gee I wonder why he has such crowds then eh?

Maybe it was because it was more about WHAT he said, and not HOW he said it or how great of a speaker he was.

[bravenak]

112. They liked that speech. I wasn't in the crowd and would not have been

I do not attend monochromatic events as a rule

[MFM008]

62. They attracted the SAME people

He is not liked here in Washington State as you can see by the vote.
We will find out maggot bused or paid the same idiots to get to rallies everywhere.

[NWCorona]

66. I was at the Seattle and Portland rallies. He definitely hit on a lot

Of the same points at both but he did change it up a bit.

[grossproffit]

38. He has a book coming out.

[bravenak]

40. Oh. Well, no wonder he cant stfu

[NWCorona]

44. There definitely was a black out and I'm not a liberal white person.

Trump got free coverage, Hillary got negative coverage and Bernie got little coverage.

I agree with you about O'Malley. He was actually a democratic and the DNC shut him out too.

[Me.]

4. Let It Go Bernie

[BobbyDrake]

7. Boo fucking hoo.

Sanders went through the primary with very little of his negative dirt being exposed. His essays about women's "rape fantasies" and orgasm boxes didn't come up once, nor did his lack of a private career before he spent 30+ years collecting a taxpayer-funded salary with little to show for it.

You know what the media would report, though? If he ever got around to releasing his taxes like he lied and said he would do.

[moriah]

80. Yes, it was reported. And even as a Hillary supporter, it didn't change...

... that if he won the primary, I would have voted for him in the General.

I even made a post defending that particular essay.

[think]

13. Last fall on ABC News Trump got 81 minutes of coverage. Bernie got 20 seconds.....

ABC World News Tonight Has Devoted Less Than One Minute To Bernie Sanders' Campaign This Year

Blog ››› December 11, 2015 9:40 AM EST ››› ERIC BOEHLERT

~Snip~

So in terms of stand-alone campaign stories this year, it's been 234 minutes for Trump, compared to 10 minutes for Sanders. And at ABC World News Tonight, it's been 81 minutes for Trump and less than one minute for Sanders.

Other Tyndall Report findings:

*Trump has received more network coverage than all the Democratic candidates combined.

*Trump has accounted for 27 percent of all campaign coverage his year.

*Republican Jeb Bush received 56 minutes of coverage, followed by Ben Carson's 54 minutes and Marco Rubio's 22.

Read more:
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/12/11/abc-world-news-tonight-has-devoted-less-than-on/207428

[LisaM]

17. I think we can all agree they spent way too much time on Trump.

Even when he wasn't doing anything, there they were. And when he showed up one night post-primary hawking all of his crap, they should have turned off the cameras and gone to something else.

[Buzz Clik]

14. ..

The election is over. Move on. For the love of God.

[RKP5637]

15. Looking at who controls the media in this country I'm not surprised at all. This country is going

down fast into a dystopia for most. Any not seeing that just can't seem to pay attention. ... or too stupid, or on the take. Give this place four years under the Trump regime and many will be looking for an escape route. Seriously!

[frazzled]

18. The damaged male ego

Get over it. You lost because you failed to convince the majority of voters. And you had plenty of airtime, still do (for unknown reasons, except for a book tour).

Let's start a thread on the thousand-and-one things Bernie did wrong or could have done better to win the primaries. I'll start: he should have found a way to speak to minorities and women about their concerns, and he should have done more to visit urban areas. He also should not have scowled and yelled and looked so angry all the time. Oh yeah, and the finger pointing and waving. It was a wreck of a campaign.

[bravenak]

20. I agree

[MadDAsHell]

50. Because having separate messages for every demographic group worked for Hillary?

I think the insistence on having message tailored to women's issues, a message tailored to racial minorities' issues, etc. is actually what cost Hillary in the end. She was so busy coming up with the talking points for the demographic groups she was talking to each day that she never came up with a message about the issues that mattered to everyone.

[frazzled]

59. I disagree

When I listened to her general election speeches, from the Convention onward, she always had an overall economic message that applied to everyone (except "those at the very top&quot . I was very taken with her broad, yet detailed, messaging. Perhaps you weren't listening. 2.5 million more Americans seem to have thought her message was pretty darned good.

I think you're looking for some kind of dumbass, vacuous slogan like "Make America Great Again."

"Stronger Together" was a uniting issue, and the foundational message of liberal/progressive thinking: the country does well when we work together for the common good.

Let me ask, apart from criticizing Clinton, what did you, personally, do to spread the message to vote for her? Did you volunteer to make phone calls, did you post on social media encouraging people to vote for her, did you knock on doors, did you talk to friends and family? Anyone criticizing the campaign should be looking as well to themselves. You were either part of the problem or part of the solution.

In my opinion, it was a vast number of people who sat back waiting for her to fail who bear a large part of the blame. Everyone who chose to leave this site for many months (and I'm not saying you're one of them--I have no idea) and who are now back blaming the Democratic Party or the candidate are a good part of the reason we failed to win the electoral college.

[hueymahl]

60. Pretty sexist statement there Frazzled

How did you jump from media analysis all the way down to a sexist assumption of a "damaged male ego?" You could have just said "damaged ego" and it would have been a lot more effective.

Love him or hate him, let's keep to the discussion without resorting sexism.

[frazzled]

65. I am not particularly amused by your comment

It seems it is only the males who have complained endlessly about their media coverage: Trump and Sanders.

Clinton got far less coverage than Trump, but I didn't hear her complain. She got far more negative media coverage than Sanders, but I didn't hear her complain.

Bernie got tons of front page stories, biographical and otherwise, in the New York Times, the cover of Newsweek (or was it Time?), etc. Why is it that men are so sensitive? (Or is it just a way to try to bully the press?)

[hueymahl]

67. Nor was I amused by a sexist statement

Especially coming from you. I have a lot of respect for you positions.

BTW, you appear to be doubling down on the sexism "Why is it that men are so sensitive"


It's fine to say Sanders is whining and complaining. Its quite another to say he is doing it because he is a man.

[frazzled]

75. Because I do believe it is a male issue

And I tried to substantiate that for you with the facts about the three main candidates and their public relationship to the media.

If a woman candidate were to complain about her press coverage, she would be considered whining or shrill, or ungrateful. I might add that Obama never did it either, because if you are a black politician, you also can't do it without suffering repercussions.

Indeed, no politician (male or female) should themselves be derogating the media. Leave it to the analysts and the public to do that. Someone running for higher office treads a dangerous line when they start railing against the free press, whether rightfully or not. We don't like it when Trump does it, and I don't like it when Sanders does it. In the latter case, it is particularly unhappy, since it is treading over old water and is about him, not the country and what it will face now.

[hueymahl]

77. Thanks for the explanation

I disagree that it is a male issue any more than it is a female issue, but we can agree to disagree.

[BobbyDrake]

85. He's not "doing" it because he's a man. He's "getting away with it" because he is.

Non-men don't get to whine like Trump and Sanders without being heavily and repeatedly criticized for it.

[David__77]

90. I agree that Sanders is responsible for losing the primary election.

Candidates are definitely responsible for losing.

Perhaps in four years, we will have a candidate that will win.

[NCTraveler]

21. Welcome to being a Democrat Bernie. We are already well aware of how the right wing media works.

Just look at what they did to Clinton. Be thankful they only gave you half the treatment they give most Democrats. The only reason you got that amount of respect is that they wanted a horse race in our primary where none existed.

[elleng]

22. Don't bother with facts around here, G_j.

Slammers gotta slam. And 'I really liked O'Malley,' too.

[jalan48]

23. It was a big party and Bernie wasn't invited. He needed to kiss more corporate ass to get on TV.

[R B Garr]

27. The irony is that Bernie was also the beneficiary of the corporate media the same way

as Trump was! Neither one was held accountable for a single thing they said! Bernie had a cake walk the whole way through. So, yeah, it was rigged -- rigged for those candidates who weren't challenged by the media to be truthful or to prove a single thing they said.

[BlueMTexpat]

48. This ....

[Beartracks]

28. Deplorable.

The media, that is.

[BeyondGeography]

31. Bernie gave the same speech for a year

Lots of people heard it.

The flip-side of limited coverage is no one really dug into his ideological past, his finances, Jane's calamitous college presidency, etc. I don't think he has much to complain about.

[LenaBaby61]

93. I don't think he has much to complain about.

Bernie was spared what Hillary Clinton's been "getting" for 30 years from right-winged haters/liars/fake news/media. Now, on top of the Commie, Castro/Socialism, 25 year DC insider meme's, from all I've been reading lately, IF Bernie had won the Dem nomination per Bannon's opposition research, he was going to turn Bernie into a pedophile and rapist--per Bernie voting against the Amber Alert Bill (Banned some types of child porn) and rapist per Bernie's 1972 essay, using his own words from that essay. Then on top of that, you'd have had tRump who loves projecting calling him a Pedophile/rapist also 24/7. It would have been viscous, and we know the media would have been running with the sex angle on a daily basis, plus not many people knew a lot about Bernie. Then on top of it all, you had voter suppression/WikiLeaks/Russian hacking/interference. Bernie would have lost just as Hillary lost.

[BeyondGeography]

96. I agree

[G_j]

32. no wonder I rarely post here anymore

Last edited Tue Nov 29, 2016, 03:41 PM - Edit history (1)

thread turns into a Sanders pile on.. I thought this was addressing the media...


so long, and thanks for the fish.

[progressoid]

74. Don't go.

There are some very vocal Bernie haters here. But a lot more of us that don't hate him.

[G_j]

81. thanks, I still lurk

been here forever, just don't post much anymore.
The bullies seem to have taken over.

Also, the lack of apparent interest in Standing Rock sort of demonstrates how DU is no longer as relevant to progressive liberal causes.
(Bernie is the one who has addressed this head on)

[SidDithers]

88. Bye...nt

Sid

[G_j]

92. glad to see

you're still true to form..

[Lil Missy]

33. He had the same speech over and over and over again. Nothing to report most of the time.

And now he is whining. Again.

[geek tragedy]

34. here's a thought--run a candidate who is really media savvy.

For all his faults, Trump knows how to play the media.

[Fast Walker 52]

43. Yes. Though at what price?

Being a demagogue and lying your ass off?

Playing to race fears?

Do we want to do that too?

[DemonGoddess]

35. WHAT media blackout?

You mean the one where he was covered all the time? Where his speeches were broadcast in their entirety? Whereas they did not give Hillary the same coverage. THAT media blackout?

[retrowire]

49. Be informed

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/12/11/abc-world-news-tonight-has-devoted-less-than-on/207428

[bettyellen]

55. That was before the primary campaigns went into full gear and totally omits mention of Clinton....

I read for her it was 10/1 emails/policy... and if that 2, 80% were opponents saying negative things.

they covered Bernie plenty later when he was railing against Clinton and other Dems- that's what they wanted to show.

[retrowire]

84. Oh no doubt she got more negative press

But negative press is better than little to no press.

"Bad publicity is still good publicity" and all that.

And besides, I was replying to the person who was saying Hillary got no coverage.

[bettyellen]

111. Negative press might be better if it's repeating what you said - like they do for trump....

For her it was: "everyone hates her" (never said that about trump who had lower ratings)
"Emails and corruption" (now they wonder why they made a big deal of it)
"_____ said this about Hillary=bad"

-
All that and I actually heard pundits say she never spoke about policy immediately after a heavy policy speech was just shown. Bernie was not presented like that at all. They showed and discussed what he actually said. Probably would not have discussed much in the way of proposals either, but his speeches were more about ideas.
He got fairer coverage because he railed against problems more than talking concrete solutions. They liked covering people throwing bombs, and Trump won out on that.

[retrowire]

113. Fairer coverage is nice and all

But when it's a few seconds....?

[DemonGoddess]

109. Exactly n/t

[pansypoo53219]

36. the TEEVEE GNEWS MASSAGED the results of the election for MAXIMUM RATINGS PERIOD.

they are the enemy.

[Fast Walker 52]

42. the GOP is also the enemy, and yes, they are in league with the TV assholes

[BainsBane]

37. Bernie was and is on TV more than any other poltiician

I assumed that corporate media blackout claim during the primary was just something he said to gin up his supporters. That he actually believes it is even more disturbing.

[think]

47. Trump got 81 minutes of air time on ABC News compared to 20 seconds for Bernie last year

during the primaries. Trump got a total of 234 minutes of coverage from the major networks. Bernie got 10 minutes total.

Many Americans only get their news from these major networks.

[NWCorona]

51. Pesky facts

[George II]

97. If only they were facts. But they're not.

[NWCorona]

101. What are the true numbers then?

[George II]

106. I didn't post the original (unsourced!) numbers, perhaps you should ask Think?

[think]

107. Excuse me?

ABC World News Tonight Has Devoted Less Than One Minute To Bernie Sanders' Campaign This Year

Blog ››› December 11, 2015 9:40 AM EST ››› ERIC BOEHLERT

~Snip~

So in terms of stand-alone campaign stories this year, it's been 234 minutes for Trump, compared to 10 minutes for Sanders. And at ABC World News Tonight, it's been 81 minutes for Trump and less than one minute for Sanders.

Other Tyndall Report findings:

*Trump has received more network coverage than all the Democratic candidates combined.

*Trump has accounted for 27 percent of all campaign coverage his year.

*Republican Jeb Bush received 56 minutes of coverage, followed by Ben Carson's 54 minutes and Marco Rubio's 22.

Read more:
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/12/11/abc-world-news-tonight-has-devoted-less-than-on/207428

[BainsBane]

54. ten minutes total?

Good lord. How can you say something like that with a straight face? He got more than that on any one of his weekend appearances on the Sunday news shows.

You act like you think no one actually watches the news and you can just make shit up. Truly shameful. You've completely discredited yourself. That is the most blatantly and demonstrably false claim I've ever seen anyone make on this site. I don't know how a person gets to the point where they can behave that way. It's not easy to shock me, but you've succeeded.

[think]

57. Yes. He got 10 minutes total of prime time news coverage on the major networks, ABC, NBC, CBS.

ABC World News Tonight Has Devoted Less Than One Minute To Bernie Sanders' Campaign This Year

Blog ››› December 11, 2015 9:40 AM EST ››› ERIC BOEHLERT

~Snip~

So in terms of stand-alone campaign stories this year, it's been 234 minutes for Trump, compared to 10 minutes for Sanders. And at ABC World News Tonight, it's been 81 minutes for Trump and less than one minute for Sanders.

Other Tyndall Report findings:

*Trump has received more network coverage than all the Democratic candidates combined.

*Trump has accounted for 27 percent of all campaign coverage his year.

*Republican Jeb Bush received 56 minutes of coverage, followed by Ben Carson's 54 minutes and Marco Rubio's 22.

Read more:
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/12/11/abc-world-news-tonight-has-devoted-less-than-on/207428

[hueymahl]

63. Wow, I did not realize that

Thanks for posting (and thanks for not being bullied by people trying to shut you up).

[BainsBane]

72. That isn't the primary

It's 2015, before the primary. And your original statement claimed to be about all networks, not just ABC. You said he got 10 minutes total coverage from all the networks, and you claimed the info was for the primary, only it turns out it's the year BEFORE the primary. Your own link proves your claims to be false.

Also, Bernie wasn't running against Trump. He was running against Clinton. So the media's hard on for Trump didn't have anything to do with Bernie's loss. The media was complicit in promoting Trump, but unless Bernie was also running for the GOP nomination, it isn't relevant to his whine. Bernie was running against Clinton, and he got far more favorable coverage and was NEVER vetted even minimally.

Here is an actual study done by a Harvard Scholar of communications. He demonstrates that Clinton got far more negative coverage than any of the other candidates. http://shorensteincenter.org/pre-primary-news-coverage-2016-trump-clinton-sanders/

I know that Trump was able to whine constantly and get elected anyway, but I find the quality exceedingly unattractive, particularly when the claims are so clearly false. it insults the intelligence of the voter, and I will not not allow a politician or his uncritical fan base to treat me that way.

We all saw him covered by the news everyday for months on end. To pretend otherwise is ludicrous. They even covered him for months after it was clear he had no chance of winning the nomination. And even this weekend he was on the Sunday news shows, as well as the prior weekend. And here you are trying to back up blatantly false claims about primary coverage by citing a list--not even a study--a list from the year BEFORE the primary.

I'm done here. I'm completely disgusted.

[think]

82. 81 minutes compared to 20 seconds on ABC NEWS. Is it that hard to see the massive difference

between those two numbers? Those are facts.

The primary debates ALWAYS started BEFORE the actual primaries and that is considered part of the primary process. If you are a candidate it's very important to get your message out BEFORE the primaries start during the time most of the debates are suppose to be occurring is it not?

Unfortunately Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the DNC decided to severely limit debates in the early part of the primary so that further lead to lesser known candidates having their message kept from reaching the voting public.


In 20007 we had 13 debates between April and last part of September. In 2015 we had ZERO early debates.

It was very obvious what was going on to anyone who was willing to admit it....

[BainsBane]

95. The facts are you made false claims

You used numbers from 2015 to support your blatant misrepresentation about coverage for the 2016 primary. Now you switch to DWS and debates, in a weak effort to distract from your previous distortions. Eichenwald dealt quite thoroughly with this the false debate mantra that we have heard ad nauseum. http://www.newsweek.com/myths-cost-democrats-presidential-election-521044

No one heard anything from Bernie in 6 debates that they didn't hear in one. After the second debate it was clear to me I would not be hearing anything more from him that I heard in the first. I watched every single debate and he never elaborated on his message because he simply didn't have more to say. He had a core message but not developed policy. I'm not the kind of person who is persuaded by slogans. I look for substance. He didn't provide it in debates or on his website, and certainly not in the NY Daily News Interview. The fact is he never thought through how he would implement what he talked about. I expect that was because he never planned to be elected, the same reason he never put together a foreign policy team.

Bernie lost months ago. Yet he and his supporters continue to whine about how he was denied his right to rule over people whose votes he could not earn. Worse yet, your stunt with that blatantly false claim about media coverage and complete lack of remorse at being caught red handed says a great deal about who you are. You chose to forsake your credibility to promote a politician's excuses for his own failures. I'm done here.

FYI, if Bernie ever runs for national office again, I will absolutely vote against him. That's a promise.

[think]

98. Eichenwald blatantly omits the new exclusion rule which forbid candidates from being in non sanction

debates. He focuses only on the DNC SANCTIONED events and the very late candidate forums that occurred in 2016 when voting was already underway.


Here is the Democratic primary debate schedule from 2015-2016:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_debates_and_forums,_2016

Here is the Democratic primary debate schedule from 2007 - 2008:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_debates_and_forums,_2008


In the spring and summer of 2007 there were 13 debates held. In 2015 the first debate wasn't held until October 13th.

We had ZERO debates in the spring ans summer of 2015.

Martin O’Malley raises legal questions with Democratic debate plan

By Alex Seitz-Wald - 08/11/15 10:05 AM—UPDATED 08/11/15 05:01 PM

~Snip~

“Shame on us as a party if the DNC tries to limit debate.”


Sandler — O’Malley’s lawyer who served as general counsel to the DNC from 1993 through 2008, first in-house and then through his law firm — also says the party has never used an exclusivity clause in the past.

“Although the DNC announced a schedule of sanctioned debates both in 2004 and 2008, it has never before attempted to require debate sponsors to exclude any recognized candidate as punishment for participating in non-sanctioned debates,” wrote Sandler. All major candidates in 2008, including Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, participated in unsanctioned debates, he said.

After the DNC announced the schedule of it debates last week, O’Malley launched a crusade against the party to increase the number of debates. “Shame on us as a party if the DNC tries to limit debate,” O’Malley said on msnbc Monday. “I believe we need more debates, not fewer debates. And I think it’s outrageous, actually, that the DNC would try to make this process decidedly undemocratic.”....


Read more:
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/martin-omalley-raises-legal-questions-democratic-debate-plan

O’Malley challenges DNC over 'rigged' debate schedule

BY BRADFORD RICHARDSON - 08/28/15 03:41 PM EDT

~Snip~

Four debates and only four debates — we are told, not asked — before voters in our earliest states make their decision,” the presidential candidate said at the Democratic National Committee (DNC) Summer Meeting on Friday.

“This sort of rigged process has never been attempted before,” he added. “One debate in Iowa. That’s it. One debate in New Hampshire. That’s all we can afford.”

Read more:
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/dem-primaries/omalley-dnc-debbie-schultz-awkward-debates

And as to the coverage everyone knows the primary season started in 2015. Do we need to dig up some posts here by us all or can we just admit that candidates were campaigning at that time?

Seriously. The early part of the primary season is when a candidate needs to be seen and heard to get their message out and that was what I was clearly trying to get across.

[tom_kelly]

100. I'm still confused at the refusal

to see the obvious by some Democrats. Why they're still so defensive about it says a lot. Bernie was screwed by the DNC from the get-go. Yes, I voted for Hillary and encouraged others to do so. But it's not easy to have your candidate screwed over by the democratic establishment and then be expected to jump up and down in support of the Democratic candidate who was the beneficiary of the their shenanigans. The way I saw it was the DNC was acting quite a bit like Republicans through this election cycle. After all the discussion on DU about the Republican Party being in disarray for generations to come we now find our party in disarray. Kind of ironic, huh?

DU members were only permitted to post positive things about the party and its nominee leading up to the GE. That time has passed and we all need to once again open our minds to what's going on out there.

I'm used to being treated like a troll on here so bash away...

[think]

102. Thank you. It baffles me also. /nt

[jalan48]

103. Like the old saying goes, "Don't confuse me with facts, my mind is made up!"

[Fast Walker 52]

41. I stopped watching Rachel Maddow after the Michigan primary, where she essentially ignored his

surprise victory there on her show the next day. It was stunning.

I do think there was a blackout on him early on, but at the end, he was getting tons of attention, for whatever reason. Maybe they wanted more of a race with Hillary or to drag her down, whatever.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

52. When Trump first launched his campaign many in the media wanted to file it under "Entertainment".

[BlueMTexpat]

53. Speaking from my own experience,

I believe that Bernie not only got a lot more free press than Hillary in the Dem primary, but also that his coverage was mostly favorable.

Most of the press coverage that Hillary got was negative and anything the DNC did that people didn't like was also considered to be Hillary's fault. Bernie fed into that narrative.

If there is one candidate who might have a right to whine about unfair and biased press coverage, it is Hillary. But she is much too gracious to do so. Apparently Bernie is not.

[Kentonio]

56. Luckily we don't need to rely on people's experiences.

Harvard did a study on it, and found..

“Less coverage of the Democratic side worked against Bernie Sanders’ efforts to make inroads on Clinton’s support. Sanders struggled to get badly needed press attention in the early going. With almost no money or national name recognition, he needed news coverage if he was to gain traction. His poll standing at the beginning of 2015 was barely more than that of the other lagging Democratic contenders, former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley and former Virginia Senator Jim Webb.

By summer, Sanders had emerged as Clinton’s leading competitor but, even then, his coverage lagged. Not until the pre-primary debates did his coverage begin to pick up, though not at a rate close to what he needed to compensate for the early part of the year. Five Republican contenders—Trump, Bush, Cruz, Rubio, and Carson—each had more news coverage than Sanders during the invisible primary. Clinton got three times more coverage than he did.”

They said you're right about her coverage being the most negative though.

[emulatorloo]

71. Link to the study? Would love to read it.

Thanks in advance/

[G_j]

104. I believe this is it,

http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2016/06/the-making-of-the-campaign-2016/

[emulatorloo]

108. Thanks G_j, appreciate it!

[Spitfire of ATJ]

58. The media coverage of Bernie's campaign....

It was of an overpaid clueless anchor asking an even more clueless overpaid field reporter why so many people were showing up to see him.

Keep in mind the Beltway thinks there aren't enough Liberals in the country to fit in a phone booth. They think the entire breed died when Saint Ronny of the Sacred Bonzo came along and everyone was converted by his divine light.

[MFM008]

61. The media wanted this ass wad

so they got him, like all of them getting yelled at by the 70 year old infant when he called the media in.
Get ready you havent seen anything yet.

[INdemo]

64. He is correct..and no neither was Clinton.

but with the corporate news you sure as hell can bet they will not allow a liberal or progressive to tarnish their corporate image.

But one must note that Hillary Clinton or advisors or managers were given a hell-of -a lot of air time more so than Bernie Sanders.
Remember when Cris Mathews called Bernie Sanders a Socialist/Communist and gave him about 20 seconds of air time before having DWS on? The TV hosts that follow the Corporate script last a long time but if they stray away from that script,well we know the good ones are gone.
They wanted a Trump/Clinton fight because they feared Trump/Sanders match up because Sanders would have likely kicked his ass.

Take a look at Chris Mathews and how well he followed his Corporate bosses scripts and orders

So looking forward how does it change. Well we establish our own on line networks but we cant expect the Social networks to really carry the load because there is a limit there too.

We are screwed because in 2018 there are 27 Democratic Senate seats Seats open for challenge while 8 Republicans seats so that equals screwed and we can.t do a damn thing about it.

[George II]

69. There was more media coverage of Sanders than there was of Clinton. In fact prior to the convention

I'd bet that there was more media coverage of Jane than there was of Bill!

[emulatorloo]

73. Yes, for media, it was pretty much GOP Primary 24/7.

And a lot of that time was spent on pumping up Trump.

[johnp3907]

78. He stuns rather easily.

[wundermaus]

79. The corporate corrption is systemic

Bernie Sanders did not have a chance, and as a result, neither did we. The 2 major political parties are bought and paid for with democracy having nothing to do with it. We are now only left with revolution.

[stonecutter357]

83. We had plenty of bernie and his bro's in the Democratic Primary...

[David__77]

87. And his sisters too, no?

...

[David__77]

86. What's true is that Sanders lost the primary and Clinton lost the general election.

We have a couple losers in Sanders and Clinton. I would prefer that Sanders talk about how to organize and fight rather than make the media out to be wrong.

[TheCowsCameHome]

89. He and Clinton have one thing in common.

You fill it in.

____ ____

[CajunBlazer]

94. I am tired of whining and tired of excuses!

It's time for the losers to shut up and for the rest of us figure out how to win.

[duffyduff]

105. Some "blackout." He was all over the place in the media.

He didn't deserve any coverage because he was not a viable candidate for president.

[DemonGoddess]

110. I am so heartily sick and tired of this bullshit

dogma you "I told you so" ers keep spewing here.

First and foremost, Bernie is not a Democrat, so he has NO SAY in whatever our party does to move forward. NONE.

Secondly, he got more favorable coverage throughout. No vetting. Gee, wouldn't that be nice for everyone?

Third, he's whining, yet AGAIN, even though HE and his team are the ones who hacked the Clinton data in the DNC files. Not the reverse. He gave Trumpler his best talking points because he wasn't just running against Hillary, he was running against DEMOCRATS in general.

Get a grip.

[Starry Messenger]

114. I honestly don't get his appeal at this point.

He could be doing constructive things with his position, and this isn't it.