A link on MSNBC’s The MaddowBlog caught my eye this morning. I eagerly clicked on the article entitled, “The relevance of the South in the Democratic presidential race,” expecting an analysis of the strength and weaknesses of the Democratic Candidates in the South and why that matters.
What I got instead explains Rachel Maddow’s recent decline in credibility with Sanders Supporters.
To start, the article is written by Steve Benen, The Rachel Maddow Show’s current producer and an MSNBC contributor. An acclaimed journalist and analyst, Mr. Benen received a Masters in Politics from George Washington University while interning for Bill Clinton’s White House Office of Speech Writing. He’s written for many popular blogs and notably worked in the communications department at Americans United for the Separation of Church and State from 1997 to 2002. In 2009, he was named by The Atlantic as one of the top 50 most influential political commentators of the year. Which is why his recent string of lazy analysis is so glaring.
Steve begins his blog by referencing an exchange between George Stephanopoulos and Bernie Sanders over why the Senator is behind. Mr. Benen quotes the portion where Sanders says, “Well, she’s getting more votes. A lot of that came from the South.” He concludes that this,
“… is a provocative rhetorical pitch from Team Sanders: Clinton may be ahead, but her advantage is built on her victories in the nation’s most conservative region... [this] downplays Clinton’s success earning support from one of the Democratic Party’s most consistent and loyal constituencies: black voters.”
— Steve Benen, Producer of ‘The Rachel Maddow Show’ on MSNBC
No where in the article does Mr. Benen mention that both he and Stephanopoulos worked for the Clinton administration. He also choose not to bring up how Stephanopoulos was under fire just last year for donating over $75,000 dollars to the Clinton Foundation while failing to disclose it. For outsiders peering in, it’s another shadow cast upon shadow within long, dark corridors because Secretary Clinton is the third largest donor recipient of Comcast (who owns MSNBC) while Time Warner (who owns CNN) is Hillary Clinton’s 8th top campaign contributor of all time.
While all this speaks to an undercurrent of influence and familiarity, let’s turn away from the bias of the speakers and writers for a moment and focus on the substance of their claims. First, let’s look at Sanders claim — that Hillary’s lead comes from the South.
Mr. Benen agree’s as a matter of arithmetic, but takes a bizarre interpretation of Sanders argument by suggesting Bernie might be discounting those votes outright. It’s his logic's key internal link.
[sanders blames loss on south → erase the south he wins → sanders is erasing black voters]
”Remove her successes in the region from the equation and the race for the Democratic nomination would obviously be very different.” — Steve Benen
I cannot find Sanders arguing southern votes don’t or shouldn’t matter, especially in the transcripts of the Stephanopoulos exchange our author quotes.
I do see his surrogates making more-or-less two claims:
-
Democrats won’t win many southern states in the general election.
-
That he didn’t attempt to win the South
Saying either of those things is not the same thing as removing the South from the equation, and to take it that far is disingenuous, if not purposeful spin.
Steve Benen goes on to accurately address the first claim that Democrats won’t win the South in a General Election. He points out that Florida and Virginia are exceptions, and that Georgia and North Carolina are Democratic pipe dreams. He fails to mention the unique difficulty of winning those states for Secretary Clinton based on the democratic turn out being lower while republican turnout has gone up in states she has won. Never mind the effect of #bernieOrBust…
So, we look to the other major claim the Sanders campaign has made about the South — that he ‘didn’t attempt’ to win. I found myself agreeing with some of Maddow’s recent analysis about why Sanders did try to win down South, but it’s also clear the Bern did not make as many rally stops or spend the type of cash he did in States where he knew there was chance (the west, north, etc). So, the question becomes: Why did Bernie see campaigning in the South as a poor use of resources?
Rather than quote Jeff Weaver, Tad Devine or Sanders himself, our author chose to quote from a New York Times article that provides it’s own unsubstantiated reason Bernie didn’t campaign in the South. Namely, that he accepted and couldn’t change his weakness with black voters. A claim often repeated by CNN and MSNBC commentators during election night exit poll coverage.
Yet, that claim is an artfully crafted smear based on careful number play. It has been repudiated by minority voices themselves through the twitter hashtag #bernieMadeMeWhite and many other independent sources. Sure, Dr. Cornel West is correct to argue Sanders could have laid more groundwork throughout 2014 and 2015 — but there’s only so much a socialist Jew from New England can do in the deep south. So allow me to offer an alternative causation for the Sanders campaign choosing not to invest resources in the south:
Sanders is the first major non-christian candidate for President ever.
Not the most recent, not the least religious — the only person to both not be a Christian and receive major party delegates... ever.
She was always going to win the Bible Belt because he was never going to win there— and not exclusively because of black votes. Those same exit polls show Clinton winning many, if not all, demographics in the south. It is true that Clinton leads with about a 15-20% advantage with African Americans over the democratic voter base across the south (percentage of black voters in favor minus percentage of overall voters in favor). Yet in Alabama where Sanders won only 6% of the black vote, he also only won 12% of self identified Democrats. It’s called context — it matters.
I find it hard to believe that Mr. Benen, who worked for Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, failed to see the religious correlation between an unprecedented trait of a presidential candidate and existing regional bias and trends. I find it hard to believe that in an article entitled, “The relevance of the South in the Democratic presidential race,” Steve overlooked religions role on the Sanders campaigns southern losses and their strategy.
The exit polls are used frequently to dig a Senator Sanders. So let’s look more closely at the shameful discrepancies in the 2016 exit polling. Discrepancies that should give Producers and Pundits like Steve Benen and Chris Hayes pause about appeals to the monolithic nature of black voters:
1.) CNN and NBC did not conduct/release exit polls in most states where Sanders won huge
2.) CNN and NBC did not conduct exit polls in Hawaii
3.) CNN and NBC did not conduct exit polls in Washington
4.) CNN and NBC did not conduct exit polls in Alaska
5.) CNN and NBC did not conduct exit polls in Utah, Idaho, or Wyoming
6.) In Massachusetts, the CNN exit polls don’t breakdown the 15% of minority voters in the State
7.) In Missouri, Bernie only lost African american votes 39-61
8.) In Wisconsin, Bernie only lost African american votes 31-69
This is important because if there were going to be strong numbers to counter this media narrative at this stage, they would be found in those states exit poll numbers. A story is not always just what is said — often volumes can be written through careful omission. That seems to be exactly the case; makes one wonder who makes decisions at NBC and CNN over things such as exit polling. Yet, even with the numbers available we begin to see a trend among black voters that is either different in the north or starting to change— while the narrative from the media hasn’t.
Quote from Hillary Clinton during CNN Democratic Debate, March 6th
All this should not be taken or misconstrued to argue that southern voters, or black voters, have a negative bias AGAINST a non-christian candidate. That is taking the discussion to a negative place. If such prejudice does exist, I’d hope it to be an extreme minority. My claims are based on voter self identification — that voters in an electorate like South Carolina (where ~60% report attending church regularly) more readily self identify with a Methodist candidate who speaks in biblical terms about a creator God.
Finally, while writing on issues dealing with the Bible Belt I want to bring attention to how different the 2008 Democratic Primary calendar was from the 2016 calendar. Super Tuesday 2008 included states like California, Alaska, New York, New Jersey, and Delaware while lacking Texas and Virginia. 2016, by contrast, was heavily front loaded with southern states. When you couple that with the rampant calls for Sanders to drop out before the half way mark — it becomes hard to deny christian privilege that borders on anti-humanism or anti-agnosticism.
I find Steve Benen’s analysis lacking for many reasons. The most obvious is that his analysis is entirely racial and ignores both Age and Religion as factors. He relies upon a selective, unquestioned reading of exit polls to continue a narrative that has been actively challenged by voters. He tries to argue that Sanders is taking those black votes and voices out of the equation, and that he is diminishing, “Clinton’s success earning support from one of the Democratic Party’s most consistent and loyal constituencies...”
To that I respond: elevating Clinton’s early success among black voters is a purposeful spin tactic employed to shut down the first non-christian candidate for President that both insults secular thinkers and takes black voters for granted as monolithic.
Ultimately, the erosion of both Maddow’s and Benen’s credibility can be traced to careful omission and shadows of bias toward a Clinton coronation, despite knowing better.
Thanks for reading, Samuel Ross
Citizen and Bernie Sanders Supporter.
About the Author:
Samuel Ross is an independent drafting contractor who volunteer coaches High School Policy Debate in Virginia Beach, Virginia. He and his partner were the 2009 Virginia State AAA Policy Debate Champs. At 25, he barely clings onto calling himself a ‘young person’.
*edited 4/13 @ 12:57am to reflect accurate MSNBC and CNN ownership
