Here is the extent of the deductive effort behind that attempted comparison:
- Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump each came in second in some polls; and,
- No one expected them to.
- Therefore, their campaigns are the same and should be treated as such in all analyses.
Sadly, this is the kind of reasoning many in the media often employ; which is, of course, the problem with American political coverage. Shallow, trite analysis, coupled with the condescending assumption that that's all people want or can handle. Never mind Sanders' and Trump's complete unlikeness in virtually every other respect, or the vast qualitative and quantitative differences between the Democratic and Republican fields; for some, two points of superficial similarity render Trump and Sanders identical.
This kind of shoddy reporting is in part what Sanders' candidacy is about; because the real problem with politics in this country is not simply that politicians themselves are lousy in so many ways (although many of them are very, very bad), it is that the press have failed us so completely. They do so little to help us weed out the scoundrels, the scum, the mendacious swine, the spineless panderers, the opportunistic sociopaths, the bought-and-paid-for. If the media were doing their jobs, those people wouldn't be able to get away with it. But the sad truth is, the media's industry is largely built on turning politics into soap opera -- as Sanders himself pointed out and had to live through on Sunday's typically egregious State of the Union. Hence the replay of Sen. Clair McCaskill's (D-MO) haplessly absurd, ostensibly deliberately obtuse remark that few in the media had called Sanders a socialist (even though almost every article and interview about him has, in fact, begun with that exact point. Just watching McCaskill desperately blink and gesticulate while she delivers that and other ill-aspected "observations" about Sanders is a painful reminder of what dishonest politicking looks like). Sanders had already responded to her comment a week and a half previously, which -- especially for a matter not related to policy -- should have been more than sufficient; but that didn't stop CNN's Jake Tapper from throwing it at Sanders in his lead question. Kind of like a soap opera; but really, more like a middle-school lunchroom.
The episode illustrates a fundamental contrast between Trump and Sanders: where Sanders' campaign finds success although the media tends to treat politics like soap opera, Trump's can find success only because they do so. It is also a prime example of precisely what any reasonable person is completely sick of in political coverage; and, ironically, a significant factor in Sanders' ever-more-rapidly growing popularity -- specifically in despite of some in the media's best efforts to trivialize his message and the burgeoning movement he leads.
That Sanders' movement does continue to grow, and more quickly, tells us something else, however: 2016 might well be the election that sees social media supersede conventional media's importance in politics. And not a moment too soon.