View article on FAIR's website Who Wants a Revolution? No One Who Owns a Major Media Outlet Julie Hollar Just a few weeks ago, early Bernie Sanders primary victories had media scrambling to turn winning into losing (FAIR.org, 2/24/20) and to find ways to discredit his rise (FAIR.org, 2/28/20, 3/6/20; Slate, 3/6/20). With a sudden turnaround in the race after Super Tuesday that finds Joe Biden in the lead both in polls and delegates, media have been quick to spin the reversal as a rejection of progressive politics. The Washington Post's Eugene Scott (3/12/20) argued that the losses of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) this week with demographic groups and in states he won in 2016 are prompting questions about whether there ever was as much support for his revolutionary politics as some previously believed.... Michigan’s white working-class voters — many of them men — backing Sanders in 2016 gave the impression that these voters might be more liberal politically on labor issues than they actually were. But in backing Biden on Tuesday, these voters communicated that if given a chance, they are more likely to support the centrist politics of the former vice president than the revolutionary worldview of a democratic socialist in Trump’s America. New York Times editorial board member Michelle Cottle (3/11/20) declared that Democratic voters "are tired of being scared, they are tired of being angry and they are not in the mood for a revolution." New York Times editorial board member Michelle Cottle’s column (3/11/20) was headlined "Democrats Aren’t in the Mood for Your Revolution": Another round of Democratic voters registered their presidential preferences on Tuesday, sending a message strikingly similar to the one from Super Tuesday: They are tired of being scared, they are tired of being angry and they are not in the mood for a revolution. While the argument that a vote for Biden is a rejection of Sanders' worldview is plausible on its face, it's simply not supported by the facts. As every pundit knows, votes are a very blunt instrument for communication of policy preferences; a more accurate instrument would be a poll that actually asks them for those preferences. And in fact, we have lots of those—including exit polls from the primaries that asked about the signature difference between Sanders and Biden: "a government plan for all or private health insurance." In Michigan, where voters backed Biden over Sanders 53% to 36%, exit polls showed those same voters picked the government plan over private health insurance by a remarkable 57% to 39%. In Texas, which also handed more delegates to Biden, voters supported a government plan by even more (64% to 33%), while even in conservative South Carolina, where Biden received more than twice as many votes as Sanders, private insurance still lost out (49% to 46%).  (Note that the polling question used the “government vs. private” formula promoted by the insurance industry—FAIR.org, 7/1/19—rather than the more neutral “public vs. private” or “government vs. corporate.”) Some pundits acknowledged the polls, but still wouldn't change their conclusions. The Washington Post's Dana Milbank (3/3/20) looked at exit polls, but instead of telling readers the numbers, offered his own interpretation of them: Super Tuesday revealed a party still divided by ideology and demographics. Democrats were split on Medicare for All. As usual, Sanders did well among the very liberal, Biden among moderates. The young voted by a lopsided margin for Sanders, while older voters turned out for Biden. Those divisions won’t disappear anytime soon, which is all the more reason for Democrats to focus on the one thing they all agree on: beating Trump. The voters just made clear they believe Biden is the one to do that. Obviously, calling Democrats "split" on Medicare for All is hardly a fair characterization of the exit polls, but a fair characterization would make it harder to argue, as Milbank did, that the solution is to simply ignore the preferences of a majority of Democrats and support Biden without criticism. The left keeps losing, says the New York Times' David Leonhardt (3/8/20), because it insists on wanting left-wing policies. The New York Times' David Leonhardt (3/8/20) took an ostensibly more charitable approach, offering advice to progressives under the headline, "The Simple Reason the Left Won't Stop Losing." While admitting that most Democrats identify as liberal and support Medicare for All, Leonhardt's takeaway from Super Tuesday was that "left-wing movements...have often prioritized purity over victory": Their answer to almost every question of political strategy is to insist that Americans are a profoundly progressive people who haven’t yet been inspired to vote the way they think. The way to win, these progressives claim, is to go left, always. He admitted that progressive policy positions are "often closer to the views of most Democratic voters than the moderate position is," but argued that since "many Democrats spurn the progressive candidate," the solution must be for progressives to "break with orthodoxy." What would this look like? Leonhardt suggested some possibilities, including a combination of "economic progressivism and cultural moderation," "a slowdown of future immigration," "announcing that fracking and nuclear energy are crucial to fighting climate change," and "finding more progressive candidates who hunt or talk about their relationship with Jesus Christ and have some related policy positions." "Cultural moderation"—also known as throwing the base under the bus—is beloved by media wonks (see, e.g., FAIR.org, 6/20/17, 11/7/19), but remarkably immune to logic. The idea is generally that by moving to the right on social and identity issues, you regain crucial swing voters. But looking at the data many of these arguments cite, the obvious strategy for a Democratic majority is to embrace (as Sanders does) the economically progressive positions that are appealing to many cultural conservatives—rather than backpedaling on the protection of rights and identities that are crucial to the party’s base. (Likewise, the Republican path to victory is to emphasize social issues without backing away from the conservative economic positions that are dear to its core voters—not to mention funders.) Little of Leonhardt’s specifics jibe with polling. Fracking is increasingly unpopular among the public, but especially among Democrats, who according to a recent poll oppose it 63% to 19% (HuffPost, 9/4/19). And the reference to hunting is particularly odd, given that Sanders has come under fire from his opponents for his history of being more pro-gun than most progressives, as a representative of a state with a strong hunting tradition. The New York Times' Jennifer Steinhauer (3/5/20) referred sarcastically to the idea that "Biden’s latest string of successes is because of the strong-arming of corporate lobbyists"—ignoring the existence of an $8 million pro-Biden Super PAC that was founded by corporate lobbyists. The Times' Jennifer Steinhauer (3/5/20) took this general argument to the congressional level, arguing that losses by progressive challengers like Jessica Cisneros, who challenged right-wing (or, in Steinhauer's words, "moderate") incumbent Democrat Henry Cuellar in Texas—like similar losses by progressives in the 2018 midterms—show that outside of "deeply blue areas," most Democrats "prefer more centrist candidates." There were some acknowledgments of the popularity of progressive policy positions. In the LA Times, for instance, a front-page article (3/15/20) was headlined, "Has Sanders Won the Ideological Battle?; Regardless of the Outcome, He Shaped the Policy Contours of This Democratic Race." Yet even while reporting that "polling backs up Sanders' claim that voters, particularly Democrats, look favorably on his call for broad policy change," the conclusion is roughly the same: "Electability, not progressive purity, appears to be the prime motivator for Democratic voters." Of course, that raises the question that is almost never answered in such outlets: Why do Democratic voters think Biden is the more electable candidate, even if they like Sanders' policy positions better? Why, if in head-to-head polling—our best available data on who is "electable"—Sanders has consistently done as well if not better than Biden over the months, have Democrats been convinced to vote against their own preferences? The pundits appear willfully ignorant of their own role in shaping electability narratives. In the debates, electability was a favorite topic of the journalists doling out questions, and the message (evidence be damned) was clear: Sanders is unelectable. As we reported after studying every debate question prior to Super Tuesday (FAIR.org, 2/29/20), Sanders' electability was questioned more than four times as often as Biden’s (21 to 5). While Biden's lackluster campaign performance had prompted much commentary about whether he could win the primaries, the chorus of pundits and "experts" in political coverage counseled that this year, as always, the center is the one and only place for Democrats to find electability (e.g., FAIR.org, 10/25/19). With Biden's victory in South Carolina, media doubts about his strength were quickly banished. He walked away with an "earned-media tsunami" of three days of almost entirely exuberant media coverage, worth in the neighborhood of $70 million (Vanity Fair, 3/5/20). By comparison, Sanders, whose massive grassroots fundraising outpaced all of his competitors, spent $50 million in the last three months of 2019 (Politico, 2/20/20). Which also brings us back to Steinhauer's argument about progressive losses signaling centrist leaning among voters. Texas' Cisneros faced a longtime incumbent who far outspent her and received the forceful support (and resources) of the centrist Democratic establishment. Most political observers saw it as remarkable, therefore, that she came within 4 percentage points of knocking off Cuellar (Politico, 3/4/20). The same goes for all progressive challengers; when the playing field is so wildly tilted to start with, loss is hardly indicative of being out of touch with voters' preferences. But in a media system that thrives under the current system, that's an analysis you'll rarely hear. Featured image: Washington Post headline over Dana Milbank column (3/3/20).

© 2020 Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting. All rights reserved. Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting Our mailing address is: FAIRNESS & ACCURACY IN REPORTING 124 W. 30th Street, Suite 201 New York, NY 10001 FAIR's Website FAIR counts on your support to do this work — please donate today.

Bernie needs your help

In last night’s debate, Bernie Sanders showed real leadership.

In this time of crisis, we need someone who has a track record of fighting for working people, of fighting for universal health care, and of refusing to back down when things got tough.

Tomorrow, voters in a series of critical primary states will head to the polls. COVID-19 has made in-person organizing next to impossible. That’s why we’re asking you:

Can you split a donation to help Bernie fund critical last-minute get-out-the vote efforts across the web? Any amount can make a big difference. 

This moment shows how badly working people need universal health care. Short term, emergency measures are only part of the solution. Millions of Americans will suffer for years as a result of COVID-19 unless Congress passes comprehensive, long-term solutions, like Medicare for All.

Our refusal to invest in preparedness and ensure that every one of our neighbors has access to quality health care has made this crisis so much worse. We need to learn from that mistake and act boldly.

Bernie Sanders will take that courageous action. Under his administration, no person will have to go without care just because they couldn’t afford it.

But to make that a reality, Bernie needs our help to win. Can you split a $15 donation to help his campaign fund a last-minute push to turn out voters in safe and effective ways – before tomorrow?

Thanks for your help. Stay safe.

- Team AOC

Donate $15

 

Donate

Paid for by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez for Congress

To contribute via check, please address to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez for Congress, PO Box 680080, Corona, NY 11368.

Email us: us@ocasiocortez.com

FOCUS: Bernie Sanders | Last Night’s Debate

16 March 20

It's Live on the HomePage Now:
Reader Supported News

WE ARE HURTING, AND YOU ARE HELPING - The March fundraiser is not doing very well overall so far, but people are starting to respond at this point and help out. Thank you sincerely for that. We’re still pretty far off the pace we need to be on. If you haven’t made a contribution recently now would be a great time. Thank you! - Marc Ash, Founder Reader Supported News

Sure, I'll make a donation!

---

FOCUS: Bernie Sanders | Last Night’s Debate

Bernie Sanders, Bernie 2020
Sanders writes: "One of the fundamental questions in this Democratic primary is who owns the power in this country and who can you trust to take it from those who have too much and deliver it to those who need it?"

ne of the fundamental questions in this Democratic primary is who owns the power in this country and who can you trust to take it from those who have too much and deliver it to those who need it?

Do you want the real thing — someone who has stood with working people in the fights that matter for his entire career?

Or do you want someone who has argued that we have to cut Social Security, voted for the war in Iraq, supported the Hyde Amendment that restricts poor women’s access to abortion, has threatened to veto legislation that will guarantee health care as a right, led the fight for the disastrous bankruptcy bill, and much more?

We have to make a choice. What kind of nation do we want to be?

Do we want to work together to tackle the problems facing this country, or be one where nothing fundamentally changes for the people with power who make huge amounts of money on greed and corruption?

At a time of such economic uncertainty, in addition to the coronavirus, it’s time for all of us to ask how we got here and who our best choice is to deliver the change we need.

I believe we are that campaign. Thank you for being such an important part of it.

In solidarity,

Bernie Sanders

READ MORE

---

Contribute to RSN 

Update My Monthly Donation

FOCUS: Bess Levin | Great News: Jared Kushner Doesn’t Think the Coronavirus Is a "Health Reality"

17 March 20

---

Attention RSN Faithful, Fundraiser in Progress!

Not getting any attention to the March fundraiser at all so far.

Your attention - as in “yours” - would be fantastic.

No interest at all in getting dire here.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

Sure, I'll make a donation!

---

Update My Monthly Donation

---

If you would prefer to send a check:
Reader Supported News
PO Box 2043
Citrus Hts
CA 95611

16 March 20

It's Live on the HomePage Now:
Reader Supported News

NOW A DEAD STOP ON MARCH DONATIONS - But not on readership. Readership continues stronger every day. Donations however have completely stopped. If everyone who visited RSN in the next hour donated just $30, we could stop fundraising for two months. These fundraising problems do not need to exist. Come on folks. / Marc Ash, Founder Reader Supported News

Sure, I'll make a donation!

---

FOCUS: Bess Levin | Great News: Jared Kushner Doesn’t Think the Coronavirus Is a "Health Reality"

Bess Levin, Vanity Fair
Levin writes: "Earlier this week a disturbing new development occurred on the coronavirus front when it was reported that Jared Kushner had paused his efforts solving the opioid crisis, bringing peace to the Middle East, and 'reinventing the entire government' to work on the administration’s response to the crisis."

In related news, Ivanka Trump has been exposed to an individual with a confirmed case.

arlier this week a disturbing new development occurred on the coronavirus front when it was reported that Jared Kushner had paused his efforts solving the opioid crisis, bringing peace to the Middle East, and “reinventing the entire government” to work on the administration’s response to the crisis. While you might not know it based on the many top-level assignments Donald Trump has entrusted his son-in-law with, Kushner is not actually a boy genius capable of succeeding where others have failed. He’s neither a public health expert nor a doctor. In fact, some might argue that he’s a barely functioning adult. Still, perhaps we were being too hard on the guy? Maybe he would be the one to finally get it through to Trump that this is an extremely serious issue? And that the government needs to get its act together, and fast? And that we’re literally talking about a matter of life and death here?

Of course, as it turns out, that hasn’t happened at all, and Kushner, if anything, is reportedly making the situation worse by feeding into the president’s impression that this whole thing is much ado about nothing. Here’s the New York Times on how the father-and-son-in-law duo from hell have been approaching the issue:

For weeks [Trump] resisted telling Americans to cancel or stay away from large gatherings, reluctant even on Thursday to call off his own campaign rallies even as he grudgingly acknowledged he would probably have to. Instead it fell to Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, the government’s most famous scientist, to say publicly what the president would not, leading the nation’s basketball, hockey, soccer, and baseball leagues in just 24 hours to suspend play and call off tournaments. Mayors and county executives, hospital executives, and factory owners received no further direction from the president as he talked about the virus in the Oval Office on Thursday than they did during his prime-time address to the nation the night before. Beyond travel limits and wash-your-hands reminders, Mr. Trump has left it to others to set the course in combating the pandemic and has indicated he was in no rush to take further action.

Among the advisers who share the president’s more jaundiced view is his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, who considers the problem more about public psychology than a health reality, according to people who have spoken with him.

According to the Wall Street Journal, despite the fact that Kushner was in charge of Trump’s Wednesday prime-time address to the nation, he hasn’t “attended a single task force meeting,” where he might’ve, y’know, gleaned some insight on the issue. (The task force, you may recall, is waiting for Kushner to finish his own “research” on the virus before making a recommendation to the president re: declaring a national emergency.)

To be fair, Kushner apparently is consulting with experts…via Facebook:

Just before midnight Wednesday, a doctor asked a group of fellow emergency room physicians on Facebook how they would combat the escalating coronavirus outbreak. “I have direct channel to person now in charge at White House,” Kurt Kloss wrote in his post. The next morning, after hundreds of doctors responded, Kloss explained why he sought the suggestions: Jared Kushner, President Donald Trump’s son-in-law and senior adviser, had asked him for recommendations.

Kloss, whose daughter is married to Kushner’s brother, sent Kushner 12 recommendations Thursday morning. The Facebook crowdsourcing exercise showed how Trump’s team is scrambling for solutions to confront the outbreak after weeks of criticism for the administration’s sluggish response, a shortage of tests, and the president’s own rhetoric downplaying the pandemic. It is now expected to consume the final year of Trump’s first term and threaten his campaign for a second term.

On the one hand, the phrase “Jared Kushner is getting coronavirus advice from Karlie Kloss’s father’s Facebook friends” is surreal and insane. On the other, at least he’s consulting with someone in the medical profession. Meanwhile, it appears that the disease may soon be hitting quite close to home for the Boy Prince of New Jersey:

A top government official from Australia said that he tested positive for the novel coronavirus, just days after he returned from a meeting with Ivanka Trump and a Justice Department event in Washington that was attended by U.S. Attorney General William P. Barr and acting U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf.

It’s not clear at this time if the first daughter has felt the need to be tested, though if she’s anything like her father, who’s been exposed to at least one person who tested positive for COVID-19, she likely has not.

READ MORE

---

Contribute to RSN 

Update My Monthly Donation