The article was meant to point out the media’s incredulity at a candidate with a significant amount of support, and as reported by polling numbers at the time, leading in almost every demographic group, with the exception of voters over the age of 65.

It’s true that no longer having the establishment vote split, allowed it to consolidate around one candidate, but that doesn’t all take away from the observable fact that when the field was larger, Bernie polled the best.

While I appreciate your point of view, I don’t think you’re giving enough attention to the media narrative created after the South Carolina primary and its ability to get suburban voters to believe that a candidate who performed so poorly in the early contests, is now indeed the most electable. As such, this story, grounded in the polling data at the time wasn’t meant to “age” well, it was meant to illuminate the media’s inability to be objective.

I’m sure you’ve seen Biden’s verbal gaffe’s and problems speaking clearly on the campaign trail. Hence the reason for his poor performances in the first 3 contests. This, in addition to Biden’s record make him vulnerable to attacks from Trump in a general election, but my gut tells me this won’t get much attention by the media, similarly to how Clinton’s support for NAFTA, and the disgust it caused among the electorate of the Industrial Midwest, didn’t receive much attention either.

If Biden wins the nomination I certainly will vote for him. Unfortunately, the media ignoring his obvious flaws won’t help the cause of defeating Trump. The media’s lack of objectivity, and de facto role as spokesman for the establishment, means they are out of touch with the concerns of the electorate. That will make winning back the Industrial Midwest, with a candidate who is a vocal supporter of NAFTA, very difficult.

At any rate, I appreciate you reading the post, and responding earnestly. Thank you.