REGRESSIVELEFThow many states has Killary won all or all but 1 district? Zero I believe.
How many states has Sanders won all or all but 1 district? A handful or two?
This is is an example of Pro Bernie information that you will NEVER hear on "major news outlets", because it doesn't fit their AGENDA
you said yourself that Sanders policies will not be implemented. So if that is the case then bringing up how much his policies (that won't be passed) will cost is a bit redundant isn't it?
You are only anti Sansees because its the edgy thing to do. Your ego tells you not to agree with the popular opinion, which is why none of the candidates are good enough for you.
Maybe your should run for president? O that's right you are an economist, the worst people to listen to when it comes to humanity.
The media has been agenda driven for the last 30 years, it changed when the FCC removed the Fairness Doctrine in 1987 (I actually took a course on politics and the media, aptly named "The Media and Politics".). Is it fair? No. Currently the only solution is to look abroad for information ever since Colbert and Stuart left their posts. Want a good place to look? Try the BBC
But that is not what you are arguing for. You are arguing for a Pro-Bernie bias. Frankly, the news is going to report what matters, and what matters is who is actually winning the race. It isn't Bernie. Sure, he has had some great victories (Michigan) but when he is losing the race he will not generate the attention that is required to generate the $$$. Why do you think Trump dominates the airwaves? He generates $$$.
That being said, there is nothing wrong with discussing and picking apart proposals made by candidates. It happens to every candidate, Hillary, Trump, Rubio, Cruz, Bush, Sanders, etc. But you can't decry lack of coverage while also simultaneously getting upset about negative coverage. If you want coverage, it will go both ways.
There is also a lot of misinformation being thrown about by Sanders' supporters as well.
Sanders' supporters constantly throw out that he has won the majority of pledged delegates since March 1. He hasn't. Clinton has 1,112 to his 1,021. He HAS won since March 15, but only by 29.
Sanders' supporters say Super Delegates should be awarded proportionally and that would make it a fair race. Well, even if that were the case, he still would not be winning.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/04/12/what-would-happen-if-superdelegates-had-to-vote-for-the-candidate-who-won-their-state/
What about Voter's remorse? Well, RealClearPolitics has seen her polling support numbers among Democrats (which is what this Primary is for), above Sanders' the entire time.
Sanders' is not the popular candidate for the party he is running when he is losing the popular vote to Hillary. If he wanted to run as an Independent, he could have. It was his choice to run under the Democratic banner.
I am not anti-Sanders because it is "edgy", I am anti-Sanders' because I don't agree with his policies. I like his end goals, but not his path to get there. And you cannot call me misinformed or under-educated in regards to his policies. I have read through them, analysis done on them, and frankly come up with my own conclusions about them and decided I do not agree or support them. The same goes for Trump (sorry, not into a guy who wants to fuck with US Bonds), Cruz (Way too socially conservative), Hillary (Can't trust her, don't like her stance on a few economic issues), and any third party candidate (Stein is crazy).
So no, it is not my "ego" that tells me not to vote, but rather that I don't agree with any singular candidates' policies to actually want to vote for them. I will vote, probably for a 3rd party candidate but only in the hopes they garner the 5% needed to get Federal Funds for the next election period.
Sorry, lawyers and politicians take that title, not economists. Economists don't enact any policies, they just make recommendations.
