Wednesday, October 14, 2015

Bernie Sanders Throws Monkey Wrench in Media’s Plan to Rig Primary for Hillary Clinton!!

The commercial media has been trying to rig the primary election for Hillary since Obama won reelection in 2012 by starting to portray her as the front runner and the leading choice of voters. This was a time when the vast majority of voters weren't even thinking about who should be next; after all it is only political junkies that start pondering about the next election as soon as one is over.

They polled people that were hardly paying attention and didn't have strong preferences, so it was virtually guaranteed that they would make choices based primarily on name recognition; however by repeating the results over and over again they were clearly trying to present her as the presumptive nominee long before voters had any real say or chance to review candidates. They compounded this by simply refusing to cover any other potential candidate in a serious manner.

Ironically the evidence of their attempts to rig the coverage is even stronger against at least the four other leading Democratic candidates in the primary and probably more. This includes the three that were allowed to participate in the debates and Lawrence Lessig who wasn't. It is also even more obvious by the enormous amount of preferential treatment given to Joe Biden who isn't even running. If they're going to allow anyone to have enough coverage challenge Clinton by choice it will clearly be another establishment candidate that won't challenge the status quo!

It doesn't include dozens if not hundreds of other candidates that most people have never heard of who have declared they're running for president. The reason the public never heard of these people is because the media refuses to report on them. The Constitution doesn't say anything about excluding them, nor do they say that those that don't collect bribes thinly disguised as campaign contributions will not be eligible to run for president. However, for all practical purposes that is exactly the system the political parties, the media and multinational corporations is trying to impose on us.

In all fairness some of the candidates listed are satires, and ironically on the rare occasions that the media does mention these candidates they focus on the satires; however if they wanted to sort them out and figure out which ones are reasonably sincere, they could with a small fraction of the resources they use for propaganda.

But somehow Bernie Sanders managed to get much more attention from the grass roots and is now considered the winner of the debate; and Hillary Clinton is now switching positions on many issues, at least for the duration of the campaign to adopt Bernie's' positions.

It is virtually guaranteed that if the media and political establishment do manage to rig the election for Hillary she won't stick with her newfound positions any more than Obama kept many of his promises. It is hard to believe that Wall Street gave her all those donations and speaking fees over the years because they thought she would renege on any promises she might have made them behind closed doors.

How often do traditional candidates betray their campaign contributors in order to keep election promises to voters?

This doesn't appear to have happened because the media wanted to cover Bernie Sanders and if he didn't build up an enormous amount of grassroots support over the decades starting at the local level it is virtually guaranteed that they would have rigged the coverage so that he never would have had a chance to get this attention either.

When he first announced his candidacy they only provided a token amount of coverage for it, which was typical of the coverage they provided for him in the past. It wasn't until he got lots of grassroots support and they pressured the media to provide a minimal amount of coverage that they typically provide any coverage at all. On the rare occasions where grassroots candidates actually win elections, mostly at the local level the media has no choice but to cover them.

They're not even doing a good job pretending that this system is remotely democratic anymore, at least not if their target audience is paying much if any attention at all. In the 2008 election the Clinton Campaign got caught red handed planting a question now Jeb Bush appears to have been caught or at least one of his aides acting on his behalf. These kind of tricks are becoming standard operating procedure and they're so obvious that they can't even hide it anymore. The fact that they do these things doesn't seem to be the exception, the exception appears to be when they get caught.

Attempts to rig the debates or at least keep them to a minimum by Debbie Wasserman Schultz were even blown wide open by Tulsi Gabbard.

If they can't do a better job than this pretending to represent the public without actually doing so and enough people wake up then this could mean the greatest chance to elect a real reformer since I can remember.


  1. Yes. This is the way the media acts. It's long since lost all forms of objectivity and acts more like a 'King Maker' than it's traditional function of reporting the facts of 'who, what, when, where, how & why' they taught us back in grammar school.

  2. When the media first got started after the revolution many advocated diverse media and provided postal subsidies to ensure it; when radio and TV developed social advocates argued for educational requirements among other reforms, and got limited success while the business sector got better end but those regulations were eliminated over past thirty years.

    Now we have consolidated propaganda in MSM and under financed media from alternative sources that do a much better job with very little or no money.