WP article explains how "Sanders beat Clinton, 50-50"

[thesquanderer]

For those who don't understand how Sanders supporters see this as a win, from
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/02/02/its-about-to-get-very-real-for-bernie-sanders/

It might be the most famous headline in sports, yet it appears to make no sense: "Harvard beats Yale, 29-29."

This oxymoronic banner ran atop the Harvard Crimson student newspaper on Nov. 24, 1968, after the Harvard football team — an underdog in its annual showdown with rival Yale — staged a comeback for the ages, earning a draw after trailing by 16 points in the final minute. A clever editor's phrasing perfectly captured what everyone felt: The tie was so improbable and so impressive that it seemed like a victory for Harvard.

"Bernie Sanders beats Hillary Clinton, 50-50" might as well be the headline following Monday's first-in-the-nation Iowa caucuses. Technically, it appears that Clinton eked out a win by some decimal point, but she and the democratic socialist senator from Vermont were basically even. Which means Sanders basically won. It never should have been this close.

Just look at these actual headlines:

Des Moines Register: "Bernie Sanders finds victory in 'virtual tie' with Clinton"

Mashable: "Hillary Clinton barely won, but Bernie Sanders is the true champion"

New York Times: "In Iowa caucuses, victory extends beyond first place"

The Week: "Bernie Sanders declares 'virtual tie,' moral victory in Iowa caucuses"

The Guardian: "Iowa proved Bernie Sanders can win — and that Hillary Clinton is beatable"

Washington Post: "Marco Rubio and Bernie Sanders were the real winners in Iowa"

More at link, but that pretty much makes the point.

[DanTex]

1. So the media tries to spin Bernie's loss as a win, and Bernie fans still insist that the MSM

is in the tank for Hillary. Bizarre.

[Babel_17]

2. Afaik that opinion has more to do with the editors and owners having an agenda

Freelance writers, not so much. Media personalities who are multi-millionaires might have financial reason to want someone who promises not to raise their taxes.

Borchers covers media, technology and the business of sports. Previously he was editor of Citizen’s News in Naugatuck, Conn. and a political correspondent for the Globe. He holds a bachelor’s degree in journalism from Ithaca College and a master’s from Northeastern University.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/staff/borchers

https://www.linkedin.com/in/callum-borchers-1829037

Didn't see any real bio at The Washington Post. He wrote the article in question.

[thesquanderer]

3. I think you missed the point.

This was not a description of every headline, or every spin. There are plenty of "Hillary won" headlines -- and, it is indeed, the fact. She ended marginally ahead, and more importantly, ended up winning more delegates. But yes, many pieces--particularly opinion/analysis pieces--presented another way of looking at it.

But my point was that the more subjective "Bernie won" perspective is not some kind of self-delusion. Most of us know which numbers are bigger than which other numbers. It's a matter of beating expectations, of increasing his relevance, of proving he's a contender. An underdog who essentially ties has, in a sense, won... that's the point of the article I posted.

Whether the MSM is or is not going to be in the tank for Hillary from this point on is a whole other conversation. But for a long, long time, Bernie was simply not taken seriously by the mainstream media. He got little prime time news coverage, he was often buried in the papers... I even remember the talking heads before the ABC debate--the third debate, December 19, so already well into the process--dismissing him. Before the debate even started, they were saying good things about him but qualifying it with "though of course, he's not going to be the candidate." And you know what one of the biggest reasons people didn't vote for him was? They didn't think he was electable.* Gee, where do you think they got that idea from? So yeah, I'd say the media definitely was an obstacle for him.

* see thread at http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141333906

[reformist2]

6. You've been insisting that she "won" all day, and nobody is buying it. You better just let it go...

[Arazi]

7. Oh FFS, Google Pyrrhic victory

and maybe check out media blackout on Sanders.

It's a thing

http://mediamatters.org/video/2015/12/20/cnns-brian-stelter-highlights-network-news-bern/207621

At least HRC gets some press. Bernie has gotten virtually nil

[Cheese Sandwich]

4. yep

[WillyT]

5. K & R !!!