3
100

[–] alienz 3 points 100 points (+103|-3) ago 

because they don't want him to have a chance

0
50

[–] PintOfBees 0 points 50 points (+50|-0) ago 

The media pretty much controls who people vote for too. This is a very effective strategy for stomping a candidate you don't like.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 32 points (+32|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
17

[–] Echo_of_Savages 0 points 17 points (+17|-0) ago 

The thing though, is that social media is widely used now and it makes it that much harder to hide candidates.

What Sanders needs to do is get on a bunch of podcasts and hit the internet hard. Get him on Joe Rogan, get him on Majority Report, get him on Adam Corolla, get him on Nerdist. He needs to fully exploit the burgeoning online media outlets.

0
3

[–] Guerilla 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago  (edited ago)

This hopefully will put an end to the illusion that liberals and their media are "left". They have nothing to do with the left, they're capitalist corporate puppets like the rightwingers they supposedly oppose, it's just political theater to keep pretending that there's a choice. When an actual leftist candidate appears they purposely shut him out obeying their corporate masters. Sanders isn't even that much of a leftist based on international standards, he's just a social-democrat making the most basic rational suggestions to save a decimating middle class that is being attacked and pillaged for years now by the rich.

0
1

[–] minusthebearplus44 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Id say its more likely the rigged Voting Machines that control who people vote for

0
16

[–] secretsquirrel2 0 points 16 points (+16|-0) ago 

I agree. But people are founding out about him, just not through the "traditional media".

I live in Dallas and I can tell you there was no mention of Bernies' rally here until after the fact. Word was spread purely via social media and we had 8,000 people there. he man is inspiring in a way Ron Paul never achieved.

0
3

[–] WhoToldYouThat 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

BY THE POWER OF GRAYSKULL!

[–] [deleted] 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
1

[–] alienz 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

dude the guy is having giant rallies around the country. i live in california where everyone is left wing and don't know anyone who supports hillary.

0
1

[–] Robotrollcall- 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Work with two older fellas. The near retiree reads the paper. He knows and is interested in Bernie. The 50 yo watches tv. He knows about Bernie and says he backs him. I'm 35, I get my news from the web. I'm leaning toward Bernie. Nobody else out there is speaking my language, yet. Middle class politics.

0
1

[–] Morgatron 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

In that case, they think that Donald Trump has more of one since in 15sec google search I can find 2 articles from the NYT in the past 18h on Trump.

I'm inclined to believe that they do believe he has a chance, and don't want to give him any cred. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/23/us/politics/conservative-airwaves-grapple-with-donald-trump-aiding-his-rise.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/22/us/politics/titans-clash-as-donald-trumps-run-fuels-his-feud-with-rupert-murdoch.html

0
61

[–] goat_boat 0 points 61 points (+61|-0) ago 

It's too bad that he's being shut out, just like Ron Paul was back in 2012. If you aren't a puppet with corporate corruption in your heart you won't get any airtime in the MSM.

0
17

[–] torky 0 points 17 points (+17|-0) ago 

Oh yeah, I remember that. Even in the polls, they either left him out completely, put him on the bottom (even if he had the highest percentage) or put someone else's picture next to his name. It was so blatant.

0
11

[–] riposte 0 points 11 points (+11|-0) ago 

One time he gave a speech to a crowd that cheered and applauded, and when they aired it on national tv they "accidentally" aired it with the sound of him being booed by the crowd.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
8

[–] One_Wing_Angel 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago 

Jon Stewart skewered them for that. It was blatant and systematic.

0
4

[–] YourDumbWhat 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

They're so goddamn shameless.

0
2

[–] JJEvil 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Or Ron Paul in 2008-2009. Paul was all over reddit at the time, but the mainstream media painted him as a kook. Honestly, I would never have voted for him because of his libertarian positions on the environment, but he did not get fair play in the media.

4
0

[–] Dirty_Asshole 4 points 0 points (+4|-4) ago 

the mainstream media painted him as a kook

You can't really blame the media for that, Ron Paul is a kook so it wasn't really a stretch for them to simply point a camera at him and broadcast the kooky things he said. I mean, have you read the Ron Paul Papers, his racist rants from the 1980s?

0
1

[–] Spiral_Out 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

True - except Sander's supports all of Israel's motives with his votes. Not very progressive of him, is it?

0
47

[–] Ruab 0 points 47 points (+47|-0) ago 

fuck jeb bush and fuck hillary clinton.

i am so fed up with the oligarchy this country has fallen comfortably into.

0
8

[–] tictac 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Will our next monarch be from the House of Windsor or the House of Tudor!? It is all so titillating to watch our betters and their relatives vie for their right to rule us.

Well, cheerio! I'm off now to eat some berries and cream! I'm a little subject who loves berries and cream!

0
3

[–] jollycynic 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Honestly, I'd rather Prince Harry declare himself the Rightful King of North America than put up with the bullshit farce we have now. There is something to be said for the stability of a monarch head of state checked by an elected legislature.

0
37

[–] Rellik88 0 points 37 points (+37|-0) ago 

As a Ron Paul Supporter from 2012 hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Yea know the feelz.

0
2

[–] minusthebearplus44 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

But I hope you aren't comparing the two.

4
26

[–] BoiseNTheHood 4 points 26 points (+30|-4) ago  (edited ago)

They literally posted two articles that are specifically about him today:

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/07/22/bernie-sanders-proposes-federal-minimum-wage-of-15-an-hour/?_r=0

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2015/07/22/business/ap-us-dem-2016-sanders.html

Here's two more from a few days ago:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/18/us/politics/bernie-sanders-presses-hillary-clinton-on-her-views-on-banks.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/17/opinion/bernie-sanders-and-third-parties.html

He also gets mentioned in NYT articles pretty much every day.

The Cult of Bernie clearly thinks it's a "blackout" if their messiah isn't mentioned in glowing reverence 24/7/365.

2
12

[–] brokenfingers 2 points 12 points (+14|-2) ago 

The Cult of Bernie clearly thinks it's a "blackout" if their messiah isn't mentioned in glowing reverence 24/7/365.

Good god, so much salt...

3
0

[–] Valyrios 3 points 0 points (+3|-3) ago 

It's the death knell of the conservative/republican, 'tis a beautiful sound.

1
3

[–] jstressman 1 points 3 points (+4|-1) ago  (edited ago)

The Alternet article was written on the 17th. The day before the top 3 links you posted, and the day of the "letter to the editor" piece of the 17th.

Your denigration rings a bit hollow in light of that, given that the article reflected the state of things when it was written, not today, and the fact that coverage has really only started to pick up now since the massive turnouts in Phoenix, Houston, and Dallas, in traditionally very red states, and of course in light of the #BlackLivesMatter kerfuffle that the media and conservatives jumped all over to try to show Sanders as having a flaw they could exploit.

0
1

[–] oooooo 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Thank you. Have an upvoat.

0
2

[–] Dumbledead 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Great research.

0
6

[–] jtt8355 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

they don't want anything to distract from Hillary winning the nomination this time!

4
6

[–] Dumbledead 4 points 6 points (+10|-4) ago 

Because he is extraordinarily unlikely to win. If you disagree, put a bet on at extraordinary odds and make a shit-tonne of money.

1
23

[–] cwt 1 points 23 points (+24|-1) ago 

Because he is extraordinarily unlikely to win.

Explain why they write 4-5 articles about Trump every day, then.

1
17

[–] thomrenault 1 points 17 points (+18|-1) ago 

Covering Bernie Sanders makes Democrats look bad, immoderate, socialist, redistributivist, unserious, racist due to economic protectionism (against immigrants and workers in other countries), etc, etc. The media does not want the large majority of politically moderate and inactive, to see these things as an aspect of the core of the Democratic party. Therefore they don't cover them.

Covering Donald Trump makes the GOP look bad. The media likes it when the GOP looks bad, therefore they cover Donald Trump.

2
5

[–] abk006 2 points 5 points (+7|-2) ago 

Probably because "Trump makes new insensitive comment" is more newsworthy than "Bernie does normal campaigning stuff, says the same things he's been saying for months".

Also, Trump's 15% polls make him #1 in a close race; Bernie's 15% polls make him an extremely distant #2.

2
1

[–] grayk47 2 points 1 points (+3|-2) ago 

because first and foremost, Donald Trump is absolutely batshit crazy and in general a terrible human being based on hist both racist comments and his total disrespect for POWs and Veterans.

and second, Donald Trump is at the moment leading the GOP polls or is near the top. Bernie Sanders on the other hand according to all the smart statisticians and political experts who are much smarter in terms of predicting political election, compared to both you and I, those smart people who predict him maybe winning the Vermont Primaries, maybe Iowa and New Hampshire, but nothing else. Hillary Clinton is extremely favoured within the democratic party, even with the recent upsurge in Sanders support, Clinton's numbers have not suffered. and likely Clinton will carry the nomination with ease.

1
0

[–] Rummel 1 points 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

Because Trump has a backbone when he attacks D.C.

When Sanders does it, it's just kinda cute and that's it.

0
3

[–] PraiseIPU 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago  (edited ago)

you could even double down and bet on the primary and the actual election

He is at 14:1 (up from 25:1 2 months ago) right now http://gambling911.com/politics/bernie-sanders-now-14-1-odds-becoming-next-president-betonline-071015.html

I'm curious if I place a bet at 14:1 then they change the odds as the election gets closer do I still get the 14:1 if he wins?

0
2

[–] scout238 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

most betting sites (and i will put HUGE emphasis on MOST) will payout at whatever odds you bet on, if you place a bet on a sprinter and he breaks a leg... you are stuck with that bet... same thing here

0
2

[–] cobeast 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Already did:

  1. BET#: 471407741 FUTURE WAGER 05/29/15 02:44 EDT Bet $ 40.00 to win $ 2,600.00 Result: Pending 2016 US Presidential Election - Odds to win the 2016 Electoral Vote (All Bets Action) Bernie Sanders 11/08/16 12:00 EST +6500

0
1

[–] defiantKITTY 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

The fact that they (and others) don't report on him is why he's so unlikely to win, or at least one of the major reasons.

0
1

[–] Dumbledead 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Meh, there's some endogeneity there, but post-primary voters are never going to let a self-proclaimed socialist win the main event.

0
5

[–] Groomzilla 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

They are giving up, because they know only one person can be president and make America great again. All hail president Trump, the unstumpable

0
2

[–] PM_ME_YOUR_ESSENCE 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

IF there truly can be only one, then I propose giving them all swords, and locking them in a room together.

load more comments ▼ (39 remaining)