By now Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign is a desperate cry for help. Losing by a logistically insurmountable margin even before the final six states—California and its 475 pledged delegates amount them—vote on June 7, Sanders has gone so far as to challenge Donald Trump to a debate. (Trump, after pledging to do the debate, backed out when a Silicon Valley company offered to raise $10 million for the debate.)
Left with the growing knowledge that they won’t—and can’t—win the nomination, Sanders fans are lashing out in anger against the process, the Democratic Party, and the voters.
The Daily Beast’s columnist Keli Goff, who supports Clinton, wrote on May 26 about the vicious attacks she and other blacks backing Clinton have endured for backing Clinton. As she wrote in February, “[N]ot caring about which candidate is actually electable might be one of the greatest forms of privilege there is.”
For Sanders supporters, Sanders isn’t losing because voters like Goff rationally chose the more qualified, more electable candidate who could actually have a chance to get her agenda implemented as president. No, those who admit Sanders is losing the votes say, Clinton voters are stupid and need to get “educated,” but another vast coalition of Sanders voters don’t even accept the reality that Sanders is losing.
You might call them postmodern or “metamodern.” Those are the words “experimental journalist” Seth Abramson of the Huffington Post used two dozen times justifying his inaccurate reporting on the Sanders campaign. It’s the kind of commentary that writes, “Make No Mistake, Sandersism Has Defeated Clintonism” when Clinton is leading by 3 million votes.
Now he has summed up his style in a post charmingly titled “On Bernie Sanders and Experimental Journalism.” His style can best be summarized as making shit up. After you get through five turgid paragraphs about “experimental journalism,” “postermodernism,” and “metamodernism,” you get to where Abramson tries to connect it to the 2016 election.
Journalism is based on “master narratives,” he asserts, and master narratives necessarily influence the outcomes of what journalists report on. Two narratives emerged for the two primaries: 1.) that Jeb Bush would win the GOP nomination, and 2.) that Hillary would win the Democratic nod. Well, we all know how those narratives turned out.
Of course the fact that “narratives” existed is, to a Sandersnista, clearly an example of media bias. It couldn’t be because of the objective facts that Bush had $100 million behind him, a powerful family, and was, in the spring, leading in the polls. No, because there is no place for objective reality in this new postmodern world of Trump and Sanders. As Abramson wrote, “[T]his is the first metamodern political campaign, and not only have all the old rules of politics gone out the window, so too have all the old modes of thinking about the Real.”
Clearly if one looks at Sanders’ agenda, that would appear to be the case, and not in a good way…
Abramson admitted in his own words he covered the election with an intentional bias to skew the results: