Thread by @SethAbramson

Media is *erasing* the top two women candidates from its New Hampshire primary coverage, and better get its act together quick

I can't watch another segment in which Sanders, Buttigieg, and Biden are featured and Warren and Klobuchar are brutally disappeared

RT if you see this

PS/ Two examples—both people I like—are @ChrisCuomo and @KatyTurNBC. Chris teased a segment in which he said he'd talk about Warren but it never happened, and Tur just asked Sanders' manager which of two people were his main concern: Buttigieg or Biden. I was like, what the hell?

@ChrisCuomo @KatyTurNBC PS2/ Warren was Top 3 in Iowa, and is polling Top 3 in New Hampshire. Her coverage should be *massive* right now. Meanwhile, Klobuchar is performing only *slightly* below Biden—but the big difference is that for her this is a great surprise, whereas Biden is headed the other way.

@ChrisCuomo @KatyTurNBC PS3/ Media, you're covering New Hampshire approximately 27 hours out of every 24—so how in the hell do you not have *ample* time to give *enormous* coverage to each of five candidates? And if you're going to ignore anyone, shouldn't it be Biden—for whom the bottom has fallen out?

@ChrisCuomo @KatyTurNBC PS4/ The final popular vote in Iowa:

2⃣6⃣.6⃣ Sanders
2⃣5⃣.0⃣ Buttigieg
2⃣0⃣.2⃣ Warren

In what universe does this justify Warren disappearing from media coverage of the upcoming New Hampshire primary? Sanders ran in IA in 2016 and Pete had IA to himself during impeachment, yeah?

@ChrisCuomo @KatyTurNBC PS5/ Buttigieg—who "won" Iowa—finished *2.9%* ahead of Warren in the first-round vote in Iowa (the vote *most analagous* to what an Iowa *primary* result would have been). Watching MSNBC or CNN, you might think Buttigieg outpaced Warren by *29%* in Iowa... not 2.9%.

Again: 2.9%.