The New York Times reports that Bernie Sanders is drawing large crowds in Iowa—but warns that Iowans may find him “unelectable.” Bernie Sanders in Iowa (photo: Ryan Hendrikson/NYT)
Reporting on the large crowds attracted by Sen. Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign in Iowa, the New York Times‘ Trip Gabriel and Patrick Healy (5/31/15) stressed that former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is “far ahead in the polls, fundraising and name recognition,” and added:
Her mix of centrist and progressive Democratic views may yet prove more appealing to the broadest number of party voters as well, while some of Mr. Sanders’ policy prescriptions—including far higher taxes on the wealthy and deep military spending cuts—may eventually persuade Democrats that he is unelectable in a general election.
It sounds like it’s the New York Times that’s hoping to persuade Democrats that Sanders is unelectable.
As we’ve noted (FAIR Blog, 4/20/15), the idea of raising the taxes of the rich is quite popular with the US public. Gallup has been asking folks since 1992 how they feel about how much “upper-income people” pay in taxes, and 18 times in a row a solid majority has said the rich pay too little. For the past four years, either 61 or 62 percent have said the wealthy don’t pay enough; it’s hard to figure why Iowans would conclude that Sanders is “unelectable” because he takes the same position on tax hikes for the wealthy as three out of every five Americans.
Meanwhile, the position that upper-income people pay too little in taxes has never been endorsed by more than 15 percent of Gallup respondents—and it’s usually 10 percent or less. Yet you won’t see the New York Times declaring Republican candidates “unelectable” for advocating tax cuts for the wealthy.
Cutting the military budget isn’t as popular as taxing the rich, but it’s by no means unpopular. It’s not a question pollsters often ask about—almost as if levels of military spending aren’t seen as a fit subject for public debate—but in 2013 Pew asked which was more important, “taking steps to reduce the budget deficit or keeping military spending at current levels.” Fifty-one percent said reducing the deficit; only 40 percent chose maintaining the military budget.
In February 2014, the last time Gallup polled on whether spending “for national defense and military purposes” was “too little, about the right amount, or too much,” a plurality of 37 percent picked “too much.” Only 28 percent said “too little”—but again, you’re never going to see the New York Times declare a candidate to be “unelectable” for proposing to raise the Pentagon’s budget.
Moyers & Co. (6/1/15) carried a well-documented post by Juan Cole that challenged corporate media headlines about Sanders’ “odd views”:
But Sanders’ positions are quite mainstream from the point of view of the stances of the American public in general. Of course, the 1 percent, for whom and by whom most mainstream media report, are appalled and would like to depict him as an outlier.
Columbia Journalism Review (5/21/15) also had a piece by Steve Hendricks that challenged the conventional wisdom that Sanders “can’t win”—suggesting that establishment media like the New York Times were trying to make this a self-fulfilling prophecy:
The Times, for example, buried his announcement on page A21, even though every other candidate who had declared before then had been put on the front page above the fold. Sanders’ straight-news story didn’t even crack 700 words, compared to the 1,100 to 1,500 that Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, Ted Cruz and Hillary Clinton got. As for the content, the Times’ reporters declared high in Sanders’ piece that he was a long shot for the Democratic nomination and that Clinton was all but a lock. None of the Republican entrants got the long-shot treatment, even though Paul, Rubio and Cruz were generally polling fifth, seventh and eighth among Republicans before they announced.
Not convinced that the Times is trying to play down Sanders’ candidacy? That report from Iowa included this as an explanation for why he was drawing crowds: “Some Democrats also simply want to send a warning shot to Mrs. Clinton to get her to visit here more.”
Leave it to the New York Times to offer crowds at Bernie Sanders events as evidence of enthusiasm for Hillary Clinton.
You can send a message to the New York Times at letters@nytimes.com, or to public editor Margaret Sullivan at public@nytimes.com. Please remember that respectful communication is the most effective.
Sanders supports Israeli state while it kills civilians, violates human rights and slowly ethnically cleansing occupied territory.
Mirza,
Really, Sanders supports all of Israel’s apartheid like policies? Please quote.
And Ms Clinton is against these Likud policies, just like GWBush and Romney?
And while pretending “report” on big democratic presidential donors this May 30th Times article fails to mention Sanders entirely, and only names Clinton:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/31/us/politics/democrats-seek-a-richer-roster-to-match-gop-in-2016-election.html?_r=0
Times also called him Bernard Sanders when it “leaked” that he was going to run for president but before he officially announced.
Jay, I am not promoting Clinton or Bush. I am saying that Sanders is a fake. Here is more how fake Sanders is:
https://bullshitphilosophy.wordpress.com/2010/02/15/bernie-sanders-the-most-disappointing-senator/
The piece below is nearly four years old, but could have been written this morning, don’t you think?
That’s one goddamn rickety pedestal to be gazing up in admiration around.
The Myth of Bernie Sanders
Senator Bait-and-Switch
by Thomas H. Naylor
http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/09/30/the-myth-of-bernie-sanders/
“Meanwhile, the position that upper-income people pay too little in taxes has never been endorsed by more than 15 percent of Gallup respondents—and it’s usually 10 percent or less.” Where was FAIR’s proofreader?
Bernie Sanders, sheepdogging for Hillary. And, yes, Mirza is right, his foreign policy positions are no different than any other candidate’s; he, too, voted to support the murder of Palestinian children, which makes him a war criminal in my book.
Doug,
I read that piece back in 2011, not really news.
But whom would you rather have as president: Sanders or H. Clinton?
Mirza,
Not really news that Sanders has supported some corporatist democrat things–like the
“Affordable” Care Act.
But I’d still pick Sanders over Hillary Clinton.
Doug Latimer:
There’s just not a lot of evidence that Sanders is jumping up and down at the Likud policies in the west bank and Gaza.
A lot of American Jews object to those abuses. And yet many of them think the modern state of Israel has right to exist.
@ Doug Latimer: I guess you’d say changing the equation is up to the corpress, don’t you think?
“Meanwhile, the position that upper-income people pay too little in taxes has never been endorsed by more than 15 percent of Gallup respondents—and it’s usually 10 percent or less.”
Is it possible that’s a typo? I think the author meant to say “too MUCH in taxes.”
Alec, the corpress won’t change without being coerced to by us, but like the Democratic Party, I think it’s most likely a matter of trying to reform the irreparable.
If we want the intel we need to think for ourselves, then act for others, we’re going to have to produce it ourselves, and figure out a way to get it out as broadly as we can. What The Real News Network is doing in that respect is encouraging, but it reaches a fraction of the necessary audience.
That’s a consequence of the machinations of the MSM, to be sure, but as with all such equations, we have to cop to our complicity in it.
I grew up in apartheid Miss’ssippi in the ’60s — the antithesis of a “liberal bastion”. Yet I was able to put two and two together, and not come up with forty-nine. It was a progression that took some time, but it began with a refusal to be heedless to what was slapping me upside the head.
I ain’t nothin’ special — or maybe I am, which would be a sad commentary on the state of humanity — so if I can commit to that journey, I have to believe that a shit pot full of other folks can, as well.
Of course, “can” has to translate to “will”
Or this dance is done.
@ Doug Latimer: I was mostly mocking your style. Your long comments make more sense than most, but somehow I dislike the cuteness of your short ones. I think I’ll just shut up, though, because when you get going you do know what you’re talking about.
Doug,
You’ve inserted “ethnocratic” in there.
In 2008, did you really think Obama was going to ask Israel to withdraw from the west bank once in office, or offer every Palestinian in the west bank full Israeli citizenship?
We cannot trust any media (TV, newspapers, magazines, Internet) and therefore whatever they print we consider as misinformation with intentions to mislead the public. They are being paid by those who wants the public not to have own view on the political climate in our country and the world. We trust Bernie Sanders and will vote for him. He is basically the only candidate that is worth to bring to the White House. People should support him to give him a chance to beat Hillary Clinton and other republicans.
After the media drummed for unnecessary war with Iraq telling all kind of lies without proof of evidence and our elected officials including Clinton and all the republicans supported Bush to destroy over 500 years old culture and a country and killed millions of innocent Iraqis, created hate in the world against Americans, created ISIS, we believe that all media should close down their offices and find something else to do..
Mirza, have you kept count who kills more (moslem) civilians, violates more human rights, and occupies more territory by ethnically cleansing it of non Shia infidels, Israel or ISIS?
Sanders is no kook, but he would never win a general election because he’s too far left and lacks appeal to the common person, just like Mondale, Dukakis, and Kerry before him. It’s too bad really, because he would make an outstanding President.
The only advantage Sanders has over Hillary is that the right doesn’t hate him as much as they hate Hillary, so their turnout would be a bit lower in a general election.
As the special Senate election in Massachusetts in 2010 to replace Ted Kennedy showed us, turnout matters – the right were so motivated by fear of the Democrats controlling the Presidency and both houses of Congress that they elected a Republican Senator in Ted Kennedy’s district for the first time since 1952.
If Clinton is the candidate, expect turnout on the right to be higher than usual.