In 2016, Bernie Sanders had virtually zero name recognition. Through his leadership towards the implementation social programs like Medicare for All and his dedication to not taking money from PACs or corporations, he was able to charm a large portion of the public and find himself head to head against Hillary Clinton by the end of the race. He did not win, but his prospects for 2020 are looking pretty good.

The popular media’s blackout of Bernie Sanders’ campaign is no secret. Recently, PBS did a 13-minute segment on the 2020 presidential race and failed to mention him once, despite his consistent top 3 placements in national and state level polls. MSNBC consistently twists numbers to make it seem as though Sanders is doing worse than he is, and regularly invites personalities on to present negative assertions, including the classic, “Bernie Sanders makes my skin crawl. I can’t even indicate for you exactly what it is.”

Andrew Yang’s campaign has sparked a unique cult of personality that is best known for promoting the idea of a universal basic income, meant to subsidize a public that is increasingly disenfranchised by automation. Universal basic income is an idea gaining traction around the world, but for some reason, the idea invites ridicule from establishment candidates at debates in the United States. Andrew Yang is so not-serious, MSNBC referred to him as John in one broadcast. One would immediately assume this was just a simple flub, but the mainstream media works hard to delegitimize threats to the establishment, and it would not be shocking if this was a tactic to demonstrate Yang’s irrelevancy.

Nancy Pelosi, Bashar Al-Assad

When you hear about Tulsi Gabbard in the media, it will generally be for one of two reasons. She met with Assad, and she used to hold anti-gay positions, both of which make her bad. Tulsi has explained that the meeting with Assad was in peace seeking pursuits, and has recanted her positions on the LGBTQ community to the tune of a flawless senatorial record defending it, but this does nothing to affect the tune of mainstream pundits. When you consider that Nancy Pelosi has also met with Assad, and Barack Obama entered office running on a platform that was anti-equal marriage, this might not seem entirely fair, but it happens regardless. It is rarely brought up that she wants to restore paper ballots to secure our elections, end wasteful regime change wars that cost the lives of our service members, or significantly alter the United States’ relationship with Saudi Arabia. Perhaps it is due to these positions, all of which if carried to fruition would harm monied interests at the top of our political system, that the media platforms taking money from these same interests choose to constantly remind the public that she is bad.