Elections 2020 Democratic Primary Thread: The Announcements

[Rob Battisti]

@Jack V Savage

I haven’t watched any MSM so I can’t say what they are doing to Tulsi. But, it’s not outrageous to say that MSM can discount candidates and that they have done so in the past. Ron Paul being the biggest and most obvious example.

I think it’s naive to think MSM gives all candidates equal representation.

 

[xcvbn]

I sense she'll do better than people like @Jack V Savage and Bari Weiss expect. That's because significant parts of the MSM seem to be engaging in a transparent attempt to undermine her candidacy. Very reminiscent of 2016 and the Sanders candidacy.

Biggest problem for Gabbard is that Sanders is probably running.

Wasn't Bari Weiss humiliated enough on JRE?

 

[Jack V Savage]

@Jack V Savage

I haven’t watched any MSM so I can’t say what they are doing to Tulsi. But, it’s not outrageous to say that MSM can discount candidates and that they have done so in the past. Ron Paul being the biggest and most obvious example.

I think it’s naive to think MSM gives all candidates equal representation.

They don't give all candidates equal representation, but they don't deliberately try to undermine anyone. Two main things influence how much and how seriously a candidate is covered: No. 1, by far, is an honest (and generally well-informed, though not perfect) assessment of the candidate's chances, and No. 2 is how well they and their team play the media. Like, does the campaign respond quickly and helpfully to communications from the media? Do they make the candidate available? Do they provide interesting angles and information? Etc. McCain was probably the GOAT at that second thing (Trump is way up there, too--and even now, the fact that his team cannot stop blabbing to the press makes the press love them, though it also leads to some negative coverage). Clinton's team and her were bad at it (pretty much openly hated the press, and it was mutual). From what it looks like, Gabbard's team is more just totally incompetent, and she also seems reluctant to make herself available. Ron Paul generally got favorable coverage but not much of it, which I think reflected weakness in the first factor and strength in the second. The press liked him but regarded him as a bit of a kook (though I bet he had more fans among the MSM than almost any politician of his time and that his support among that group would be higher than it was among the general public).

 

[Happy Man]

They don't give all candidates equal representation, but they don't deliberately try to undermine anyone. Two main things influence how much and how seriously a candidate is covered: No. 1, by far, is an honest (and generally well-informed, though not perfect) assessment of the candidate's chances, and No. 2 is how well they and their team play the media. Like, does the campaign respond quickly and helpfully to communications from the media? Do they make the candidate available? Do they provide interesting angles and information? Etc. McCain was probably the GOAT at that second thing (Trump is way up there, too--and even now, the fact that his team cannot stop blabbing to the press makes the press love them, though it also leads to some negative coverage). Clinton's team and her were bad at it (pretty much openly hated the press, and it was mutual). From what it looks like, Gabbard's team is more just totally incompetent, and she also seems reluctant to make herself available. Ron Paul generally got favorable coverage but not much of it, which I think reflected weakness in the first factor and strength in the second. The press liked him but regarded him as a bit of a kook (though I bet he had more fans among the MSM than almost any politician of his time and that his support among that group would be higher than it was among the general public).

Wiki leaks PROVED that media journalists colluded to help the Clinton campaign.

You are one of the worst shills on this board.

Continue posting nonsense like it's your job.

 

[Trotsky]

I think this kind of CT thinking isn't really worth responding to. Someone disconnected enough from reality to believe that the MSM is trying to undermine Gabbard's candidacy for some mysterious reason (maybe they just think she's great and that bothers them because of their evility?) and did the same to Sanders isn't someone a normal person can reason with.

There really isn't a rational basis to deny there were unfavorable coverage trends for Sanders. For cable news, it was low amount of coverage relative to his support. But that can be explained away, even if naively, as a symptom of inadequate information and outdated information gathering tools. But, for print journalism, it was a purposeful hit. The Times and it's liberal surrogates have still yet to even try to explain that phantom edit scandal.

 

[waiguoren]

Of that group, I've only heard of Greenwald (clown whose role is to be the "left-winger" the right loves because he's mostly trying to undermine the left), Rogan (comedian), Uygur (only know him because WRers post vids of him making a fool of himself), and Dore (only know him through you). If those are the people you think are "influential" commentators among the left, that explains your deep misunderstanding of the American left.

Lots of strawmen in this comment. Really low quality stuff from you. Your brain seems to break apart whenever the name "Glenn Greenwald" is mentioned.

When did I write that those people are "'influential' commentators among the left"?

It never happened.

I don't even use terms like "the left" and "the right", because these terms are very imprecise. You should improve on this point.

To repeat: my claim is that, among people who will vote in the Democratic primary, all those men I listed are more influential than @ocean size . The only way that could be false is if @ocean size is someone with a huge political platform outside of Sherdog. I doubt that's the case.

If you doubt that those people have significant influence, then you ought to examine the numbers they pull in on Youtube, Twitter and other platforms. I wonder if you can handle the fact that they are very influential.

 

[waiguoren]

Wasn't Bari Weiss humiliated enough on JRE?

Fair point. @Jack V Savage hasn't been humiliated enough, though.

 

[waiguoren]

I think this kind of CT thinking isn't really worth responding to. Someone disconnected enough from reality to believe that the MSM is trying to undermine Gabbard's candidacy for some mysterious reason (maybe they just think she's great and that bothers them because of their evility?) and did the same to Sanders isn't someone a normal person can reason with.

I think referring to a line of thinking as "CT thinking" and refusing to address it is usually evidence that the speaker is unable to argue his position effectively. I think that's what is happening with you.

You seem oblivious to the fact that the MSM colors the perceptions of millions of people through biased coverage on many issues.

I'm far from a Tulsi Gabbard supporter. I disagree with her on almost all commonly discussed policy. However, there is a reason professional commentators including Sam Harris and Bari Weiss don't like her but are unable to articulate why. It's because they trust uncritically the impressions that they get from browsing MSM sources.

 

[waiguoren]

phantom edit scandal

I missed this one, can you elaborate?

 

[Cake4Breakfast]

From: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...sanders/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.eb3c60886c4e
Brazile sums it up near the end: “If the fight had been fair, one campaign would not have control of the party before the voters had decided which one they wanted to lead. This was not a criminal act, but as I saw it, it compromised the party’s integrity.”

From your article:

"the op-ed doesn't break too much new provable, factual ground, relying more upon Brazile's own perception of the situation and hearsay."

and as far as the Wikileaks angle, again from your article:

"Many of those emails described above came after it was abundantly clear that Clinton would be the nominee, barring a massive and almost impossible shift in primary votes. It may have been in poor taste and contrary to protocol, but the outcome was largely decided long before Sanders ended his campaign. Brazile doesn't dwell too much on the timeline, so it's not clear exactly how in-the-bag Clinton had the nomination when the alleged takeover began. It's also not clear exactly what Clinton got for her alleged control."

 

[Jack V Savage]

Wiki leaks PROVED that media journalists colluded to help the Clinton campaign.

Jesus.

There really isn't a rational basis to deny there were unfavorable coverage trends for Sanders.

Well, he got more favorable coverage than anyone else in the race by far. Not sure what the rational basis for the CT is.

For cable news, it was low amount of coverage relative to his support. But that can be explained away, even if naively, as a symptom of inadequate information and outdated information gathering tools. But, for print journalism, it was a purposeful hit. The Times and it's liberal surrogates have still yet to even try to explain that phantom edit scandal.

Again, Sanders got very favorable coverage from print journalism, and it's absurd to think that there was a "purposeful hit." It's just not how the media operates. I don't know what this "phantom edit scandal" is. I'm surprised that someone as intelligent as you are can fall for such obvious nonsense.

If you doubt that those people have significant influence, then you ought to examine the numbers they pull in on Youtube, Twitter and other platforms. I wonder if you can handle the fact that they are very influential.

I suspect that you're just playing dumb here, but the last paragraph at least suggests that you understand the point. They absolutely are not influential. What's your prediction of Gabbar's peak polling number?

I think referring to a line of thinking as "CT thinking" and refusing to address it is usually evidence that the speaker is unable to argue his position effectively. I think that's what is happening with you.

No, I assure you that your model of how the MSM works (competing media businesses get in a room somewhere and collectively decide to take down certain candidates for unknown reasons) is so stupid that I don't even know how to respond to it except by laughing at you.

I'm far from a Tulsi Gabbard supporter. I disagree with her on almost all commonly discussed policy. However, there is a reason professional commentators including Sam Harris and Bari Weiss don't like her but are unable to articulate why. It's because they trust uncritically the impressions that they get from browsing MSM sources.

Er, if they actually looked into her, they could find plenty of reasons to reject her as a serious candidate, starting with her very obvious and undeniable lack of anything like a presidential resume, continuing with her lack of personal integrity, and moving to her lack of intelligence. No one with a comparable resume would be taken seriously as a Democratic candidate. The right is deliberately trying to boost her as a candidate to help Trump.

 

[gatchaman]

From your article:

"the op-ed doesn't break too much new provable, factual ground, relying more upon Brazile's own perception of the situation and hearsay."

and as far as the Wikileaks angle, again from your article:

"Many of those emails described above came after it was abundantly clear that Clinton would be the nominee, barring a massive and almost impossible shift in primary votes. It may have been in poor taste and contrary to protocol, but the outcome was largely decided long before Sanders ended his campaign. Brazile doesn't dwell too much on the timeline, so it's not clear exactly how in-the-bag Clinton had the nomination when the alleged takeover began. It's also not clear exactly what Clinton got for her alleged control."

It was "abundantly clear" that Clinton and not Trump would be President, but it didn't turn out that way.

The person in charge, of ensuring the Democrat Presidential candidate selection was a fair race, said it wasn't a fair race.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I missed this one, can you elaborate?

This is what Google is turning up:

https://www.salon.com/2001/11/05/phantom_edit/

Looks bad.

 

[Trotsky]

I missed this one, can you elaborate?

NYT writer wrote a benign story on how sanders had a good record in the senate of passing bipartisan trailer amendments. Sanders shared it. Then, after sharing the link, it was edited to be critical of sanders for only making modest successes during his career. Clearly word was passed down that favorable coverage was not acceptable.

 

[Cake4Breakfast]

It was "abundantly clear" that Clinton and not Trump would be President, but it didn't turn out that way.

The person in charge, of ensuring the Democrat Presidential candidate selection was a fair race, said it wasn't a fair race.

Also from your article:

"This is also somewhat self-serving for Brazile, given the DNC continued to struggle during and after her tenure, especially financially. The op-ed is excerpted from her forthcoming book, “Hacks: The Inside Story of the Break-ins and Breakdowns That Put Donald Trump in the White House.” Losses like the one in 2016 will certainly lead to plenty of finger-pointing, and Brazile's book title and description allude to it containing plenty of that."

and as far as finger-pointing, also from your article:

"The emails even cast plenty of doubt on Brazile's neutrality, given she shared with the Clinton campaign details of questions to be asked at a pair of CNN forums for the Democratic candidates in March 2016, before she was interim chair but when she was still a DNC official. Brazile, who was a CNN pundit at the time, lost her CNN job over that."

 

[waiguoren]

They absolutely are not influential.

You just claimed that Joe Rogan and Glenn Greenwald are not influential people.

Joe Rogan has ~5 million Twitter followers. His Youtube channel has 4.5 million subscribers. His podcast is currently the #5 most downloaded in the world.

Greenwald has ~1 million Twitter followers. He has multiple Youtube videos with over 500,000 views. He appears regularly on "Democracy Now!". He founded and edits The Intercept.

 

[xcvbn]

Two main things influence how much and how seriously a candidate is covered: No. 1, by far, is an honest (and generally well-informed, though not perfect) assessment of the candidate's chances, and No. 2 is how well they and their team play the media.

It's amazing how none of this was applied to the massive Trump promotion from all media sources

 

[gatchaman]

Also from your article:

"This is also somewhat self-serving for Brazile, given the DNC continued to struggle during and after her tenure, especially financially. The op-ed is excerpted from her forthcoming book, “Hacks: The Inside Story of the Break-ins and Breakdowns That Put Donald Trump in the White House.” Losses like the one in 2016 will certainly lead to plenty of finger-pointing, and Brazile's book title and description allude to it containing plenty of that."

and as far as finger-pointing, also from your article:

"The emails even cast plenty of doubt on Brazile's neutrality, given she shared with the Clinton campaign details of questions to be asked at a pair of CNN forums for the Democratic candidates in March 2016, before she was interim chair but when she was still a DNC official. Brazile, who was a CNN pundit at the time, lost her CNN job over that."

I think the fact that Brazile has also been shown to be pro-Clinton in the past makes her confession of an unfair Democratic Presidential candidate selection process, whereby Clinton was selected, even more damning.

 

[waiguoren]

What's your prediction of Gabbar's peak polling number?

RCP average will exceed 1.0%. Bet?

No, I assure you that your model of how the MSM works (competing media businesses get in a room somewhere and collectively decide to take down certain candidates for unknown reasons) is so stupid that I don't even know how to respond to it except by laughing at you.

Bad strawman, again. I think you get emotional at the mention of Glenn Greenwald and lose your ability to slow down and think.

I think that:

1) editoral boards are not unbiased and sometimes the higher-ups can influence them
2) journalists form a bloc of sorts and talk among each other, which biases them for and against certain candidates
3) MSM is mostly for-profit, so coordinated pressure to amend coverage tends to scare MSM into change

 

[Jack V Savage]

NYT writer wrote a benign story on how sanders had a good record in the senate of passing bipartisan trailer amendments. Sanders shared it. Then, after sharing the link, it was edited to be critical of sanders for only making modest successes during his career. Clearly word was passed down that favorable coverage was not acceptable.

OK, that was enough to look it up. The Times addressed the screeching from the left:

https://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes....-times-bernie-sanders-coverage-public-editor/

You just claimed that Joe Rogan and Glenn Greenwald are not influential people.

Joe Rogan has ~5 million Twitter followers. His Youtube channel has 4.5 million subscribers. His podcast is currently the #5 most downloaded in the world.

Greenwald has ~1 million Twitter followers. He has multiple Youtube videos with over 500,000 views. He appears regularly on "Democracy Now!". He founded and edits The Intercept.

Do you think those people have influence on Democratic primary voters? What is your expectation of Gabbard's peak polling performance?

It's amazing how none of this was applied to the massive Trump promotion from all media sources

It was. ???