He didn't pay the entrance fee. Most media is owned by a few corporations who are closely tied with Hillary. Don't worry though, I'm sure that won't affect her policy decisions..

This is the correct answer, it was blatantly obvious he was being ignored by the media until he became too big to ignore. I haven't read any mathematical theory on how costly this was to his campaign, if anyone knows of one please link it.

Is Sanders benefiting from the halo effect? I'm apolitical and the few times I've seen Sanders on TV, I didn't get that impression.

> the few times I've seen Sanders on TV

Well, that's my point, that's passively. It's not like he's not getting reported on, of course, but kinda like the bare minimum. I found this speech after the Indiana win very interesting for example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fHjiYU6RQw

I don't mean charismatic as in super suave, but as in, a stand up normal person, not someone first and foremost in it for the power. I guess charisma is subjective. And he isn't trying to be anything he's not. He's not trying to be folksy, he's just himself. That's what I see and what I like. Sure he has to play politics, but he doesn't put on a mask on top of that.

I met Bernie Sanders personally and I can wholeheartedly say the man is incredibly charismatic. Sure, I'm a Sanders supporter and knew of him before meeting, but he is a very friendly and approachable fellow who travels with a very light security detail and encourages you to speak your mind with him. I think part of his charm is that he feels like the cool hippie grandpa everyone wish they had. He has a great handshake, too.

Sanders gets more positive media coverage and less negative media coverage than Clinton[1]. From the same source, Sander's current opponent receives the most negative coverage and the least positive coverage.

The reason Sanders is not getting as much positive media coverage as the internet likes is likely because no amount of pro-Sanders media coverage is enough for the internet.

[1] http://www.vox.com/2016/4/15/11410160/hillary-clinton-media-...

Who is "the internet"? How is that anything but an ad-hominem against a person you just made up? Granted, let's say my friends from the US who like Bernie and complain about lack of coverage are biased. But I also notice this in German and English discussions I see all the time, and there your argument works the other way -- though I don't hang out in Sander's forums or anything, let's say I also don't hang out in super conservative forums, so it still is somewhat of an echo chamber, right? So if the internet can't get enough of Sanders, and I'm in middle and left-of-center areas of the web, why are there so few people who take Sanders seriously, while with a straight face discussing Clinton's or Trump's merits?

Yes, it's totally subjective. But I brought it up because I saw yet another discussion with a whole lot of Trump and Clinton and no Sanders, and that technically there are a lot of "online articles published" really has no bearing on that. I'm talking about mainstream media and the people on non-political social media I see. Right now, many people pretend Bernie doesn't exist, is basically out of the race, same for watching German news yesterday, it was all about Trump's opponents dropping out.

Could the fact Clinton gets critical coverage and Bernie positive might have to do with their respective integrity, and what they are talking about. Just take this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDG9ekGLUfo I guess that's why the only way to not make Sanders look too good is to completely ignore hard facts, or ignore him completely. And Clinton is supposed to win on "the lesser evil" against Trump. Just another exciting chapter in the story of how we destroyed our future we'll get to tell our grandchildren. I mean, while I'm not American, it's not like it's not circus anywhere else, is it.

It has nothing to do with "pro-Sanders", I don't deal in tribalism, I am not interested in the man I'm interested in what he says, and not because I heard it from him for the first time either. One might ask why adults even spend one word on either Clinton or Trump. I know this is radical or something, but I mean this 100% seriously. Just because someone pays to be in front of our faces 24/7 doesn't mean what they say have merit. They both had plenty of time to prove that. Why are we paying more attention to them than to, say, some teenage kid whose parents paid to be in a music video?