Treason is TECHNICALLY defined as;
Article 1 Section 3
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.
Most people interpret this as something that is ONLY applicable in times of war but what about if you betray the country & you're not at war.
However the law says "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."
Here is what the Economist Robert Reich had to say about this;
The idea here is simple: If the people are being lied to (not doing your job if in the media by covering up the whole truth counts as lying since the job is not being done as the viewers/public's trust has been betrayed) and these lies lead to suffering, deaths, or just is something that is advantageous to the few while being disadvantageous to the many (such as carrying the tax burden of the country on the poor and not on those who can afford it as per the GOP's class warfare plans - which coincide with the history of the Clinton's ... so for the purposes of this post the Clinton's are GOP Republicans) THEN a war IS being waged against the citizens of the United States
GOP Politics
Lets look at each of Robert Reich's points in turn:
1. The first point is basically saying that people are being bought to destroy the Governmental structures as laid out by our Constitution (such as Article 1 Section 8). If you destroy the government as laid out by the Constitution rather than seeking transparency so corruption is not taking place then you are committing treason against the Constitution of the United States and the Citizens who have come to rely on this Constitution. This tactic is particularly used by the Koch Brothers who have famously said they want to drown our Constitutional Government 'in a bathtub'... there is simply nothing about making the system transparent AND accountable to the people of the United States. They say it can't be done cause 'Government (especially the ones they bought) will always be corrupt'.
Related blog posts:
2. Intimidating people is called bullying. Subverting policies that could help people for policies that don't help people is the very definition of 'war against the United States & it's citizens'. This one should be clear so moving on to the next point.
Related blog posts;
3. Gerrymandering elections to win on groups of people who are hyponotized by your media channel is what he is talking about here. Although the GOP is the biggest criminal here, they are not the only ones. ALL of corporate media takes parts in this deception
Related blog posts;
4. The forth part is what the Media, all of it, is guilty of. Yes, Fox News does it's lies in an obvious way that any educated & intelligent person can perceive. But what about the other Media corporate channels? This post proves that the whole media is involved in lying and covering up the truth to the American people and are thus committing treason. The example Robert Reich gives is valid according to that time when the debate on Climate Change was big and the GOP decided, unanimously, to deny science by saying "I'm not a scientist". This treason is recorded for every educated person to see. What to do about the uneducated? Well, for a start, stop lying to them.
Related blog posts; A Summary Of The Corporate Media's Iraq War Treason Towards The People Of The United States Of America
5. Buying the media to hide truth. This is obvious now. Before one could say the media is mistaken or, their favorite, 'is too caught up by sensationalism to do the right thing' such as tell the truth or whole truth or any truth at all in their daily "news" casts. The Iraq War coverup displays this point so clearly that no one in thier right minds can claim that the Media hasn't committed treason on thier Iraq War coverups/lies.
Here is one of the few talks in corporate media about the Iraq War coverup on the International branch of CNN who have to deal with the world not the US based CNN who seems to be playing with the GOP rather than doing thier job (Yes, I'm including myself as part of the Republican party here as the extent of the coverup is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt)
Amanpour on CNNi: Where Were The Journalists?
Related blog post; A Summary Of The Corporate Media's Iraq War Treason Towards The People Of The United States Of America
Now the Bernie Sanders Treasonous Coverup in detail;
1. Major Media Blackout
When Sanders began his campaign, as he often recounts, he had virtually no national name recognition and trailed Clinton by 60 to 70 points in national polls. The major media barely breathed his name, even when he began drawing crowds of 20,000 or more to summer rallies. This was partly the result of the obsession with Trump, but also because the conglomerates controlling the media hardly wanted to promote such a fierce critic of Wall Street and the 1 percent.
In December, the nightly news networks had allotted Trump 23 times more coverage than Sanders; on ABC alone 81 minutes to Trump for the year, compared to only 20 seconds for Sanders. While Sanders was holding extensive campaign events and press availabilities for months, Clinton was mostly avoiding public events and media avails, with the media largely ignoring its rebuff. (Even today, Clinton often passes on press conferences.)
2. They’re Debating When?
Ironically, unlike the Republican National Committee, the DNC manipulated its debate schedule to have the fewest number of debates at the worst times, intended to minimize voter viewing, including setting them on holiday weekends and the Saturday night before Christmas.
The goal was to restrict voter exposure and side-by-side comparison with other candidates who offered a significant alternative to Clinton, which served to keep name recognition off Sanders and his prescription for change artificially low. Additional debates were only added much later after widespread condemnation of the DNC.
3. Sanders Booms, Media Works to Marginalize
As the votes began coming in for Bernie, especially with his big win in New Hampshire, Clinton surrogates were given extra time as TV analysts to downplay the results, and the media narrative shifted.
The media paradigm typically is crafted inside the Washington Beltway and New York boardrooms, with other reporters compelled by their own editors or self-censorship to follow along, a practice also known as pack journalism.
The next storyline depicted Sanders as a narrow candidate because the majority of his support came from students, working-class white voters, independents, and low- to moderate-income voters, largely ignoring that Clinton’s own base failed to include any of those groups who would be critical to winning a general election in November. Or that Clinton continues to fail to move support among those constituencies.
4. Vote Rigging
After Sanders’ sweeping win in New Hampshire, the DNC went into hyper drive to break his momentum, starting in the next voting state Nevada.
Concerned Sanders would win Nevada, Sen. Harry Reid, the former Senate Majority Leader and most powerful elected official in Nevada, as it later emerged, arranged a plan with owners of Las Vegas casinos, where many caucuses were being held, and other employers, to ensure Clinton would win. The Nevada caucuses were then rigged with massive voting irregularities such as casino owners orchestrating which workers would be allowed to vote and, in clear intimidation, openly monitoring how they voted.
Vote tampering also occurred in other states, most recently in Arizona where on election day, polling locations were sharply cut forcing many voters to stand in line for up to five hours in the heat, with some leaving before casting a vote.
Voter suppression laws, rampant now across the country, disproportionately disenfranchise students and young voters, a group that has voted for Sanders by margins of up to 80 percent. The laws, passed by right-wing legislatures and governors, also target African Americans and Latinos, which will ultimately harm any Democratic nominee in November.
5. The Sexism Canard
Desperate for attack lines against Sanders, the Clinton camp and her adherents have tried to paint him as a sexist, employing the same tactic of exaggerated small slights they used against Barack Obama in 2008 (remember “you’re likeable enough”). Add in the clumsy effort of Clinton surrogates Gloria Steinem and Madeleine Albright to criticize young women who vote for Sanders.
6. Undemocratic Primaries
Sanders has won the overwhelming majority of independent voters in “open” primaries or caucuses that allow them to vote.
Because of the media blackout, many voters do not gain sufficient information about Sanders until shortly before election day. Early voting reflects lower name recognition for Sanders, benefiting Clinton and enabling her to win some close races.
That contributes to the meme of her inevitability, but does not indicate she is the stronger candidate. In competitive states, Sanders has won a majority of those who voted on election day. When voters have more time to compare candidates based on sufficient information, they tend to choose Bernie.
7. Superdelegates Toe the Line
Enormous pressure was brought to bear on the some 700 superdelegates, mostly Democratic elected officials and other high-profile DNC members, to fall in line behind Clinton, facing intimidation or promises well honed by a Clinton machine that has had 25 years of practice.
The DNC created the undemocratic superdelegate system to confer the power on the Democratic Party hierarchy to handpick their preference and blunt the ability of insurgents to win the nomination after outsiders George McGovern and Jimmy Carter shocked the party establishment by winning nominations in the 1970s.
8. Who’s Most Electable, Who Is Not
It’s repeated over and over by her superdelegates and the media—Clinton is the most electable candidate, and Democrats must rally behind her to beat Trump. The line has been so drummed into the narrative that many voters in exit polls cite it as the reason they voted for Clinton.
One problem: it’s not true. Virtually every poll for months has shown Sanders faring better against Trump, Cruz and Kasich than Clinton, often by a wide margin, even as the media has already played out the attack lines Republicans would use against Sanders.
9. The Math, the Math
The final defense for the Clinton camp and the major media, spinning out from the eastern media centers to local news outlets, is that Clinton is too far ahead in delegates so the race is over.
To strengthen the case, Clinton’s big margin among superdelegates is added to the total of delegates won in primaries and caucuses. Even though, unlike pledged delegates, superdelegates are not committed to their position. They can flip at will, as they did from Clinton to Obama in 2008.
Next time you hear a pundit say Sanders needs to win 60 percent of the remaining delegates, “and that just can’t happen,” consider his 80 percent margin in Idaho and Utah.
In state after state, especially those that are not closed to independents, where Sanders has had time to campaign so voters get to know him, his platform, consistent record and unimpeachable character, and when the voting process is allowed to move forward without open rigging, Sanders does increasingly well.
10. Forward to Victory
Sanders himself says the path to his nomination is challenging, but still within range. States that were the biggest hurdle, in the South where the Clintons have a long history and Sanders was a complete unknown, are all past.
Read details here.
The Democratic establishment is putting all the heat it can on Bernie Sanders to drop his weapons and put his hands where we can see them. This includes the media establishment. Last Monday Politico ran a piece headlined “Democrats to Sanders: Time to wind it down,” quoting a bunch of senators who said Bernie could stay in so long as he talks just about stuff he and Hillary agree on. (Claire McCaskill: “If the contrast is about what separates us from Donald Trump, then I think it’s fine.”) If they can’t end the race, they’ll settle for ending the debate.
A Times story headlined “Obama Privately Tells Donors Time Is Coming to Unite Behind Hillary” had Obama telling DNC high rollers to “come together.” In it Obama “didn’t explicitly call on Sanders to quit” but a “White House official” confirmed his “unusually candid” words. It was a plant dressed up as a scoop. Obama spoke not privately but on background, and not to his donors but through them (and the paper) to his base. It was a different portrait of Obama as unifier: political, financial and media elites, all working as one to put down a revolt.
Obama’s neutrality is a polite scam. His “private” chat came before voters in 29 states even had their say. Presidents never let appointees make endorsements, but three Obama cabinet secretaries — Agriculture’s Tom Vilsack, HUD’s Julian Castro and Labor’s Thomas Perez — backed Clinton early, thus shepherding whole economic sectors into her camp. At Obama’s DNC, ethically challenged Debbie Wasserman Schultz brazenly violates party rules by daily rigging the game for Clinton.
Sanders often says he took on “the most powerful political machine in America,” by which he means the Clintons. He’s really fighting the whole Democratic Party: White House, Congress, DNC, elite media and, sad to say, national progressive groups. That includes organized labor but also nearly every liberal lobby in town. He’s been a more constant friend than Hillary Clinton to almost all of them — but he must face and defeat them all. That he’s done so in 14 states — 15 counting Iowa-and fought four more to a draw is a miracle — and a sign their days are truly numbered.
Donald Trump has accomplished little by comparison. Everything was easier for him. When he hit party elites, no one hit back. Democratic elites had a flawed but still formidable Clinton to carry their water. Republicans had Jeb Bush, and now Ted Cruz. Trump took the low road and then lowered it some more, yet could help himself to issues of broad populist appeal without an establishment type feigning agreement. The media that ignored or dismissed Sanders coddled and appeased Trump. Eight years of open GOP warfare prepared Trump’s way. Bernie’s in the first wave to hit the Democratic beach.
With each call to surrender, Sanders just gets stronger. The day the Politico story ran, he swept Democrats Abroad 69 percent to 30 percent. The next day Hillary took Arizona with 58 percent of the vote but Sanders blew her out in Idaho and Utah, polling an unheard-of 79 percent in caucuses that shattered turnout records. On Saturday he’d chalked up three more wins in Alaska, Hawaii and Washington with average margins of 76 perfent. In a Times/CBS poll out this week the man who started the race 60 points down closed the gap to five. In a Bloomberg poll releasedSaturday he took a 1 point lead.
It raises a question that the elites who rig rules, stifle debate and call on Sanders to withdraw must answer: Who do you think you are? It also raises a question for Washington-based organizations allegedly safeguarding progressive values: What have you done? With all her money, contacts and celebrity and full, albeit covert support of her president and party, Clinton needed every last liberal endorsement to survive Iowa, Nevada, Missouri, Illinois and Massachusetts. How did she get them? If those endorsements don’t strike you as at least counterintuitive, ponder the record:
Clinton backed NAFTA and the TPP, dithered on the minimum wage and still doesn’t support a living wage. Why would labor help her defeat a man who never once left its side on these and countless other vital issues?
She backed the Defense of Marriage Act in the ’90s, opposed same-sex marriage till 2013 and recently recalled Nancy Reagan as a hero of the AIDS crisis. The Human Rights Campaign may be the bravest and most loyal of all liberal lobbies. Why abandon a stalwart ally like Sanders for one who dithered and dodged on every tough issue?
From Sister Souljah in 1992 to Barack Obama in 2008, the Clinton record on racial politics is highly mixed. She backed the Clinton/Gingrich welfare bill that left millions of African Americans in poverty and the Clinton crime bill that landed millions more in jail. Why did a PAC run in the name of the Congressional Black Caucus pick her over a guy who went to jail to protest segregated housing?
The answers are many and complicated. One is that some once great, grass roots movements pledged their troth to a political party and lost touch with their values and their members. Led by hired technicians and assorted other Washington lifers, many froze members out of their decisions. It’s a big part of the story but not the whole story. Another part pertains to ideology and the tyranny of tactical thinking.
Ideology is easy to spot in those we deem extremist; it’s harder to see in those we deem “centrist.” All ideologues think their ideology is empirical — Engels called his “scientific socialism” — but centrists get away with it. We call their shared ideology “neoliberalism.” Its adherents include deficit hawks, military interventionists, market deregulators, free traders and, the key to it all, pay-to-play politicians.
This ideology is bipartisan. Without the full support of Democratic elites, NAFTA, the TPP, the Iraq war, Wall Street deregulation, every revolving door and no bid contract, every cut ever made to Social Security or Medicare, would be impossible. The culture wars we so loudly deplore are mostly a sideshow staged by political elites to hold onto their base while conducting their business. This election exposes the real divide in American politics, the one separating us from them.
Neoliberal politics is entirely tactical and tactical thinking is static. Most people oppose Wall Street crooks, Mideast ground wars and cuts to Social Security so they talk endlessly about what the Congress they’ve corrupted won’t pass and what other voters allegedly won’t support. Neoliberals love horse-race politics because it never favors reform. Polls favor known quantities. Endorsements go to people in power; money to those willing to reward the investment. Tacticians rely on marketing tools made to manipulate, not illuminate.
Since global finance capitalism runs on pay to play politics, neoliberals promise “change” but can never deliver reform. They can’t talk us out of wanting a living wage or universal health care so they argue tactics: change is impossible because someone else doesn’t want it; we can’t afford it, even though it saves us money.
Read more here.
Larry Wilmore thinks the Media's biased reporting towards Bernie Sanders sounds like a conspiracy (Reich doesn't seem to totally agree but the pattern of hiding the truth at the cost of the people continues and thus should be classified as Treason);
EXTENDED - BERNIE SANDERS CHATS WITH LARRY JANUARY 5, 2016 - SEXIST DONALD TRUMP & BERNIE SANDERS CHAT - Bernie Sanders talks ISIS and climate change and ponders whether Donald Trump should be "schlonged." (18:16)
Larry Wilmore on the democratic debates;
Bernie Replies;
This stuff reminded of a previous coverup that was similar to this one but less smart, of a candidate no one on the left liked so they didn't care, but it reflects the stats of the media today;
Watch the first 50 seconds of the following video and you will notice that one particular person (Ron Paul) is CONTINUOUSLY ignored even though he came within 200 votes of winning the straw poll (Jon Stewart said he's been noticing this months)...
Media SHOULD be CONSTANTLY commenting on Hillary Clinton's dirty politics;
With allegations of voter suppression in Arizona, as well as questions about the Clinton campaign’s tactics in Iowa, Nevada, and other states, some historical context is needed. In 2008, The Atlantic published an article explaining “dirty politics” and voting “irregularities” titled “Obama Manager Accuses Clintons of Widespread Dirty Politics”:
“David Plouffe, in a succinct statement appended to a released quotation from his boss, Barack Obama, said the Obama campaign was investigating more than 200 reporters of irregularities in Nevada.‘We currently have reports of over 200 separate incidents of trouble at caucus sites, including doors being closed up to thirty minutes early, registration forms running out so people were turned away, and ID being requested and checked in a non-uniform fashion. This is in addition to the Clinton campaign’s efforts to confuse voters and call into question the at-large caucus sites which clearly had an affect on turnout at these locations. These kinds of Clinton campaign tactics were part of an entire week’s worth of false, divisive, attacks designed to mislead caucus-goers and discredit the caucus itself.’Plouffe asks Nevadans to call a toll-free number… and report any other problems.”
In addition to voting irregularities and 200 incidents of “trouble,” the Clinton campaign exhibited other examples of “dirty politics.” As stated in a 2008 Guardian article titled “Clinton aides claim Obama photo wasn’t intended as a smear,” “Barack Obama’s campaign team today accused Hillary Clinton’s beleaguered staff of mounting a desperate dirty tricks operation by circulating a picture of him in African dress, feeding into false claims on US websites that he is a Muslim.” Looking back, there’s simply no way to deny Clinton used racism against Barack Obama.
Yes, racism was used against Barack Obama in 2008, and Clinton’s 3 a.m. ad (that Harvard sociologist Orlando Patterson believed contained a “racist sub-message“) and Bill Clinton’s claim that “I’m not a racist” weren’t the only elements of a Republican-style strategy against America’s first black president.
President Obama’s campaign manager David Plouffe explained that the controversial photo represented “the most shameful, offensive fear-mongering we’ve seen from either party in this election.”
The words “from either party” speak volumes.
Plouffe also believed the picture was part of “a disturbing pattern” and stated “It’s exactly the kind of divisive politics that turns away Americans of all parties.”
As a testament to Democratic politics, most in the Democratic establishment have endorsed Hillary Clinton. These endorsement, in light of “dirty tricks” and “dirty politics” exhibited by Clinton’s campaign against Barack Obama, are also bizarre considering even “the kitchen sink” was thrown at Obama.
As for the secrecy behind these emails, David Axelrod stated his viewpoint of Hillary Clinton in a 2008 CNN piece titled “Obama camp slams Clinton for secrecy”:
“WASHINGTON (CNN) – Barack Obama’s campaign stepped up its effort Friday to target Hillary Clinton for delaying the release of her income tax returns, saying the New York senator has a ‘pattern of secrecy’ and has yet to be fully vetted by the American people.‘Senator Clinton is one of the most secretive politicians in America today,’ Obama Campaign Manager David Plouffe said in a conference call with reporters. ‘She has consistently refused to release her tax returns. They have said they are going to release them around [April] 15, but there is no reason why the prior six years of tax returns couldn’t be released right now.’…Obama strategist David Axelrod said Clinton is the least-vetted candidate in the presidential field because of her refusal to disclose the documents…‘Considering the huge amounts of money they have made in recent years, they’ve contributed their money to the campaign, some of those relationships financially have been with individuals who have come under quite a bit of scrutiny for possible ethics transgressions, its essential to know where the American people are getting there money from,’ Plouffe said Thursday.”
The righteous indignation from Hillary supporters would be heard throughout the universe if the Sanders campaign stated “Senator Clinton is one of the most secretive politicians in America today.”
Other articles & pointers;
(Source)
(Source)
Media should be talking about her atrocious records... on everything that she has done that is atrocious!
Salon: Hillary’s atrocious race record: Her stances over decades have been painful and wrong"The idea that she is or ever has been a stalwart advocate for black empowerment is absolutely ludicrous"
Then there’s the notion that Hillary Clinton is somehow preserving Barack Obama’s legacy: just a few short months ago she was going out of her way to distance herself from the Obama administration because she believed it was politically expedient to do so. Now, under threat from Sanders’ insurgency, she is cynically trying to sell herself as Obama’s right hand. But of course, the moment she locks down the nomination she’ll go back to drawing contrast–the Clintons have always been leaders at “vote capturing.”
But perhaps the most disturbing of all is the insinuation that Hillary Clinton has some kind of proud and storied legacy in the service of black empowerment. She doesn’t. Consider the comparative records of Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders:
The Chicago Years
While attending the University of Chicago, Sanders served as a chapter chairman for the Congress for Racial Equality. In this capacity, he worked to end segregation in schools and housing—activities for which he was arrested.
What was Hillary Clinton doing while Sanders was organizing sit-ins and demonstrations? Well, she was also living in Chicago at the time, but she was working for the other team: in 1963-64, Clinton was a volunteer and supporter for the campaign of Barry Goldwater.
For those who don’t know, Goldwater’s claim to fame is that he was the first Republican to win the Deep South since Reconstruction. He achieved this feat byvowing to undermine enforcement of the Civil Rights Act, and to prevent further erosion of white privilege. His campaign was so disgusting that many Republican leaders, such as George Romney and John Rockefeller, refused to endorse his candidacy even after he won his party’s nomination. A good deal of the Republican electorate, who had traditionally championed civil rights and civil liberties, also refused to support him. As a result, those aforementioned Deep South states were literally the only contests he won other than his home state of Arizona in one of the most dramatic landslide losses in U.S. presidential history. Yet, this is the man who inspired Hillary Clinton to get into politics. And she was campaigning for him while Bernie was campaigning for desegregation.
The trend continues: in 1984 and ’88, Bernie Sanders endorsed and supported Jessie Jackson’s bids for the White House, which would have made him America’s first African-American president. Rather than endorsing this movement, Bill Clinton infamously sought to elevate himself among white Southern and Rust Belt voters at the expense of Jackson and his Rainbow Coalition.
Of course, it’d be easy to write this off–after all, it was a long time ago. However, the Clintons’ tenure in the White House doesn’t look so great in hindsight either:
The Clinton Administration(s)
Bill Clinton’s deregulation of banks and Wall Street helped bring about the 2008 financial collapse that profoundly and disproportionately obliterated black wealth. In the wake of this disaster, and despite their long and sordid history of discrimination and predatory practices against people of color, Hillary Clinton continues to defend the institutions responsible (and is richly rewarded for doing so).
Bill Clinton’s welfare reform further contributed to extreme poverty—particularly for African-Americans and other communities of color. While Bernie strongly resistedthese measures, Hillary staunchly advocated for them—referring to people on welfare as “deadbeats” who were largely responsible for their own continued poverty.
And then, of course, there are the Clinton-era “tough on crime” measures, whichHillary Clinton actively lobbied for. While Sanders ultimately voted for the bill for the sake of its assault rifle ban and domestic violence protections, he first took to the senate floor to passionately denounce the draconian sentencing provisions contained therein, which he aptly predicted would be exercised primarily against America’s poor, largely people of color. In contrast, Hillary Clinton referred to the criminalized as animals, describing them as “super-predators” which have to be “brought to heel.”
More Americans were incarcerated under Bill Clinton than any previous president–almost all poor people, overwhelmingly black and brown. Yet as late as 2008, despite the by-then obvious effects of these policies on communities of color, Clinton stood by this record proudly and actually mocked Barack Obama’s opposition to mandatory minimum sentences.
Later in that same cycle, it would be Clinton supporters who first began circulating rumors that Barack Obama was not born in the United States and might be a secret Muslim (launching the “birther” movement). Not only did Clinton fail to denounce these claims from her supporters (then later hypocritically bash Donald Trump for doing the same), her campaign actively attempted to capitalize on this paranoia, dog-whistling that Hillary was “born in the middle of America to the middle class in the middle of the last century” and bragging about the edge she held over Obama among non-college-attending white Americans.
Little Has Changed
Then again, 2008 was almost eight years ago, right? What about today?
Consider that one of the people currently attempting to slime Bernie Sanders on Clinton’s behalf is her long-time friend and ally, David Brock, who infamously led the hatchet-job against law professor Anita Hill when she accused Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas of sexual harassment. For Hillary Clinton to sell herself as a champion of women and African-Americans while closely associating herself with someone like Brock is deeply unsettling…much like Clinton taking foreign policy and national security guidance from the same consulting firm that formulates strategy for Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio.
(Source)
Robert Reich: They’ve marginalized Bernie at every turnThe former secretary of labor breaks down our political press' lopsided coverage of the Democratic primary
“Bernie did well last weekend but he can’t possibly win the nomination,” a friend told me for what seemed like the thousandth time, attaching an article from the Washington Postthatshows how far behind Bernie remains in delegates.
Wait a minute. Last Tuesday, Sanders won 78 percent of the vote in Idaho and 79 percent in Utah. This past Saturday, he took 82 percent of the vote in Alaska, 73 percent in Washington, and 70 percent in Hawaii.
In fact, since March 15, Bernie has won six out of the seven Democratic primary contests with an average margin of victory of 40 points. Those victories have given him roughly a one hundred additional pledged delegates.
As of now, Hillary Clinton has 54.9 percent of the pledged delegates to Bernie Sanders’s 45.1 percent.That’s still a sizable gap – but it doesn’t make Bernie an impossibility.
Moreover, there are 22 states to go with nearly 45 percent of pledged delegates still up for grabs – and Bernie has positive momentum in almost all of them.
Hillary Clinton’s lead in superdelegates will vanish if Bernie gains a majority of pledged delegates.
Bernie is outpacing Hillary Clinton in fundraising. In February, he raised $42 million (from 1.4 million contributions, averaging $30 each), compared to her $30 million. In January he raised $20 million to her $15 million.
By any measure, the enthusiasm for Bernie is huge and keeps growing. He’s packing stadiums, young people are flocking to volunteer, support is rising among the middle-aged and boomers.
In Idaho and Alaska he exceeded the record primary turnout in 2008, bringing thousands of new voters. He did the same thing in Colorado, Kansas, Maine, and Michigan as well.
Yet if you read the Washington Post or the New York Times, or watch CNN or even MSNBC, or listen to the major pollsters and pundits, you’d come to the same conclusion as my friend. Every success by Bernie is met with a story or column or talking head whose message is “but he can’t possibly win.”
Some Sanders supporters speak in dark tones about a media conspiracy against Bernie. That’s baloney. The mainstream media are incapable of conspiring with anyone or anything. They wouldn’t dare try. Their reputations are on the line. If the public stops trusting them, their brands are worth nothing.
The real reason the major media can’t see what’s happening is because the national media exist inside the bubble of establishment politics, centered in Washington, and the bubble of establishment power, centered in New York.
And then the Clinton campaign has the audacity to say this;Clinton campaign to Bernie: Drop your negative tone and maybe Hillary will debate you in NYBoth campaigns seem to agree that a debate prior to the New York primary would help Sanders' cause
Hillary Clinton’s chief strategist refused to commit to a proposed presidential debate with Bernie Sanders in New York before the state’s April 19 primary. As reported by The Hill, Clinton staffer Joel Benenson accused Sanders of “running a very negative campaign” and suggested that a New York debate might not take place unless the Vermont senator changes his “tone.”
“I think the real question is what kind of campaign is Senator Sanders going to run going forward,” said Benenson, the Clinton campaign’s chief strategist, when asked about a potential debate by CNN’s Kate Bolduan on Monday.
“This is a man who said he’d never run a negative ad ever,” continued Benenson. “He’s now running them. They’re now planning to run more. Let’s see the tone of the campaign he wants to run before we get to any other questions.”
More information that the media doesn't like to talk about;
No comments:
Post a Comment