I posted about a potential lack of critical pieces on Sanders and a lack of specificity of funding for his plans, as well as his electability, compared to these type of pieces on Warren, as a function of potential sexism.
But reflecting on this more I think the main driver of
But reflecting on this more I think the main driver of
this is that analysts and journalists have been afraid of being accused of being "unfair" or "establishment" by the Sanders crowd. I think the Sanders' crowd had legitimate anti-establishment complaints from '16 but those complaints have caused a lot of people to "soft glove" his
2020 candidacy. Does that mean there haven't been ANY pieces critical of Sanders, yes, there absolutely have been. The past week have seen a few of this "Sanders as the nominee will be the Apocalypse" type pieces. But in terms of the normal vetting and relentless scrutiny
normally heaped upon a surging frontrunner (think of the Warren and Buttigieg surges earlier this cycle), we really aren't seeing that. Now, some of that might be that Sanders is also a name ID frontrunner, so its not like he's coming from nowhere. He's simply solidifying
frontrunner status beyond that of the name ID primary (and thus far, Biden is still doing the same, outside of IA and NH). I would love to see someone quantify this. Could be entirely perceptional. Could be that even as a mainstream frontunner, Sanders is treated differently
