To the editor:

A conversation with a respected Republican friend of mine got me thinking about how voters in the Republican primary election picked the change agent, but voters in the Democratic primary chose the more traditional candidate. My hunch is, had Democrats chosen Bernie Sanders, he might have won.

So why didn’t they? There are probably a few reasons. One theory I have is the difference in the way many Democratic and Republican voters absorbed the media. Writers and show hosts gave thumbs down to both Trump and Bernie, even when both men were winning multiple primaries. Often the rhetoric was, “Yes, he won that one. But he can’t actually win.”

The big difference was how voters in each party reacted to their comments. Conservatives, long weary of a “liberal” press, ignored the media’s recommendation and voted for the change agent. Liberals, more reflective of media commentary, absorbed it and chose the more traditional candidate. Given one traditional candidate and one change agent at primaries’ end, swing voters, eager for action, went with the change agent.

I know there are likely many other reasons out there. And to be clear there was some excellent journalism throughout 2016. But I do stand by my notion that Bernie had a much greater shot at winning the presidency. And that the media, again and again, dampered his momentum with a denial or unawareness of the great surge for change welling up in our country.

Ross Freshwater

Eagle Harbor