Elections 2020 Democratic Primary Thread: The Announcements

[Jack V Savage]

I think we're going to have a bet. However, I want to change the polling to something more concrete, like actual votes. I think Gabbard will outperform her polling.

OK. I think who will outperform polling is inherently unpredictable (you should have learned a lesson not only from losing our actual bet but from being wrong on all issues that we discussed betting on but didn't).

Don't use weasel terms like "reputable paper". That really just means "papers that Jack Savage likes".

No, it means a paper that follows basic journalistic ethical guidelines.

Why?

Republicans will cut their taxes, favor them in disputes with workers, deregulate, etc.

Your addition of "deliberately trying" changes my original meaning. My view is that the writers and the editors don't like Gabbard and they form a type of echo chamber. This influences coverage of Gabbard in the negative direction. I never asserted that they meet in a dark back room and plot to kill candidates. I suspect a few corrupt people do this from time to time, of course.

"Don't like" makes you sound like a child. I'd guess that few in the MSM (or few non-idiots in any profession) regard Gabbard as qualified to be president or likely to win. I'm sure that the reasonable belief that she's an extreme longshot candidate with no qualifications informs coverage decisions, just as it has informed coverage decisions about Vermin Supreme or Lincoln Chafee. That's not bias, though. In fact, it would reflect bias to disregard the available information about the strength of her candidacy and cover her in the same way that real candidates get covered.

We could go one-by-one.

First:

NBC:

Russia's propaganda machine discovers 2020 Democratic candidate Tulsi Gabbard

So your view is that covering anything that the candidate would prefer be covered up is reflective of bias?

 

[Jack V Savage]

Either she was into underground hardcore rap or this is as pandering a moment as Killary always having hot sauce on her.

FYI, Clinton has been known to carry hot sauce everywhere since the mid-'90s (that is, the first of many stories about her love of hot sauce appeared at that time).

 

[Rob Battisti]

FYI, Clinton has been known to carry hot sauce everywhere since the mid-'90s (that is, the first of many stories about her love of hot sauce appeared at that time).

Thoughts on the Harris comment?

 

[waiguoren]

So your view is that it's some unusual quirk of mine to describe right-wingers as being part of the right. This is more obvious disingenuousness on your part.

Is an inclination toward military intervention a "Left" position or a "Right" position?

She's never taken a firm stance against Mideast intervention.

• "President Trump campaigned against regime-change wars when he ran for president. But now he bows to the wishes of the neocons who surround him, clamoring for wars that he claimed to oppose this time in Venezuela and in Iran. These powerful politicians dishonor the sacrifices made by every one of my brothers and sisters in uniform and their families as they pay the price for these wars. In fact, every American pays the price for these wars, which have cost us $1 trillion since 9/11."

• "So these are things that I'm committed to addressing as president and as commander-in-chief: end the regime-change wars, to de-escalate these tensions."
• "US foreign policy should not be that we are the world's police overthrowing dictators around the world. We've seen throughout history how this policy has been disruptive. It has increased the suffering and increased the loss of life and devastation for the people in these countries like Iraq, Libya, and Syria. It's also proven to be counter-productive to our national security and our interests here at home."

 

[Jack V Savage]

Thoughts on the Harris comment?

Don't know. That's not the kind of thing I really care about. But the idea that Clinton was pandering or something with her hot sauce comment is a good illustration of how bad the MSM coverage was. She just stated a well-known fact in response to a question, and the media presented it as some kind of outrageous pandering. What was worse was when the NYT did a story about her "trying out a new gesture" that it turned out there were pictures going back decades of her making. Never seen such a smear job from a reputed paper as that.

Is an inclination toward military intervention a "Left" position or a "Right" position?

Obviously I'm aware that she's recently tried to reinvent herself as a more typical left-wing politician (a "firm stance" seems odd when she just recently did a big reversal), but the suggestion that that's the reason for the far right's embrace of her is so obviously wrong that I do not believe you're making it in good faith.

 

[KeepItRealist]

Thoughts on the Harris comment?

It's just pitiful. As bad as the attempts by Elizabeth Warren to connect to people.

Actually I guess she couldn't say she smoked weed in the bed while Willie Brown was on the phone with his wife because she was his mistress around the time Tupac and Snoop became popular in the mid-90s, ten years after she graduated.

 

[waiguoren]

No, it means a paper that follows basic journalistic ethical guidelines.

No. A paper could be reputable without following basic ethical guidelines. For example, NYT did not follow basic ethical guidelines in its coverage of the Covington High School fiasco, but Jack V Savage says NYT is reputable.

Republicans will cut their taxes, favor them in disputes with workers, deregulate, etc.

You wrote that the editors and writers would have a bias in favor of Tulsi Gabbard, if anything. Republicans have nothing to do with this at such an early stage. The NYT/WaPo/NBC favor Gabbard's Democratic opponents.

I'd guess that few in the MSM (or few non-idiots in any profession) regard Gabbard as qualified to be president or likely to win.

What makes a person "qualified to be president"?

I don't see anyone saying Gabbard is likely to win. Looks like you're tilting at windmills again.

I'm sure that the reasonable belief that she's an extreme longshot candidate with no qualifications informs coverage decisions

"No qualifications"...now you're just making a fool of yourself.

So your view is that covering anything that the candidate would prefer be covered up is reflective of bias?

That NBC story is a prime example of MSM crafting a phony narrative to undermine a candidate. I doubt you're read the article carefully. Do you have any issue with NBC citing a disgraced group of deceivers ("New Knowledge") as its primary "experts" for Russia's alleged preference for Gabbard?

 

[Jack V Savage]

No. A paper could be reputable without following basic ethical guidelines. For example, NYT did not follow basic ethical guidelines in its coverage of the Covington High School fiasco, but Jack V Savage says NYT is reputable.

What guidelines did it violate there?

You wrote that the editors and writers would have a bias in favor of Tulsi Gabbard, if anything. Republicans have nothing to do with this at such an early stage. The NYT/WaPo/NBC favor Gabbard's Democratic opponents.

Favoring Gabbard would undermine more serious candidates and make Trump's re-election more likely.

What makes a person "qualified to be president"?

I don't see anyone saying Gabbard is likely to win. Looks like you're tilting at windmills again.

If you agree that they would judge her very unlikely to win, it would make sense that she wouldn't get covered as much as serious candidates. And I'm not responding to your bad-faith questions.

"No qualifications"...now you're just making a fool of yourself.

More bad faith.

That NBC story is a prime example of MSM crafting a phony narrative to undermine a candidate. I doubt you're read the article carefully. Do you have any issue with NBC citing a disgraced group of deceivers ("New Knowledge") as its primary "experts" for Russia's alleged preference for Gabbard?

I understand that people make honest mistakes. As I'm sure you do, though you think that there's advantage is pretending that there's a conspiracy against Gabbard (you surely wouldn't regard the NYT's story on Clinton's "new expression" that wasn't actually new as evidence of a conspiracy against her, for example, because your standards are inconsistent because you have no sincere interest in accuracy).

Anyway, ever since your humiliation that led to a self-imposed exile, you've been pettily and dishonestly sniping at me. Get over your grudge and at least try to take your loss like a man (some would say it's too late given that you fled the group, but you can still behave honorably going forward).

 

[waiguoren]

Obviously I'm aware that she's recently tried to reinvent herself as a more typical left-wing politician (a "firm stance" seems odd when she just recently did a big reversal)

What was the original position that you're referring to? Gabbard's one questionable tweet related to Assad, or something more substantial?

the suggestion that that's the reason for the far right's embrace of her is so obviously wrong that I do not believe you're making it in good faith.

You're confused. We were talking about David Duke. Duke believes that the US has harmed itself severely over the years by doing Israel's bidding in the Middle East. Duke expressed support for Gabbard precisely because Gabbard has expressed significant alignment with Duke's position:

I must make it clear that I did not endorse Tulsi Gabbard for President yesterday, but I do endorse her efforts to stop these insane Neocon Zionist wars for Israel in the Mideast and that even threatens us with a catastrophic war with Russia, a nation which has simply dared to oppose Israel and Zionist objectives in the Mideast and globally.

If you're familiar with Duke's views (I suspect you merely accept MSM characterizations instead of doing your own research), you'll know that this is Duke's #1 issue by a country mile. No other issue matters more to Duke than AIPAC's interference in our political process and alleged Jewish control of the MSM.

 

[Jack V Savage]

What was the original position that you're referring to? Gabbard's one questionable tweet related to Assad, or something more substantial?

She initially favored far more aggressive action in the Mid-East. That's actually the reason that a lot of the right embraced her (she "gets it" that we are at total war with Islam). Now that the winds have changed, she claims to be "non-interventionist" and some really dishonest Republicans (cough cough) are saying that *that* is the reason the right embraced her. Give us all a break.

 

[waiguoren]

What guidelines did it violate there?

Only the most fundamental guideline:

Reporters are expected to be as accurate as possible given the time allotted to story preparation and the space available and to seek reliable sources.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism_ethics_and_standards#Common_elements

Favoring Gabbard would undermine more serious candidates and make Trump's re-election more likely.

That's your opinion. I disagree strongly. I think Gabbard is a strong candidate to face Trump, except that I think MSM would undermine Gabbard unfairly. I think Klobuchar and Gabbard are the strongest options to beat Trump in 2020 if we ignore media bias. It might be impossible to disentangle media coverage from electoral outcomes, however. I think MSM would be very good to Klobuchar.

If you agree that they would judge her very unlikely to win, it would make sense that she wouldn't get covered as much as serious candidates. And I'm not responding to your bad-faith questions.

Not sure which questions you're referring to. All questions are asked in good faith.

More bad faith.

You claimed that Gabbard has no qualifications. That's a statement made in bad faith, since you know that:

1) Gabbard served in the Hawai'i House of Representatives
2) Gabbard served in the Honolulu City Council
3) Gabbard has served in the US House of Representatives for six years (elected 4x)
4) Gabbard served in the US Army including deployments to Iraq and Kuwait

I understand that people make honest mistakes. As I'm sure you do, though you think that there's advantage is pretending that there's a conspiracy against Gabbard (you surely wouldn't regard the NYT's story on Clinton's "new expression" that wasn't actually new as evidence of a conspiracy against her, for example, because your standards are inconsistent because you have no sincere interest in accuracy).

What's this "new expression" thing? Elaborate?

If the NBC article is an example of an "honest mistake", then why hasn't NBC retracted the story or revised it?

 

[waiguoren]

She initially favored far more aggressive action in the Mid-East. That's actually the reason that a lot of the right embraced her (she "gets it" that we are at total war with Islam). Now that the winds have changed, she claims to be "non-interventionist" and some really dishonest Republicans (cough cough) are saying that *that* is the reason the right embraced her. Give us all a break.

Could you cite some evidence for Gabbard's "initial [favoring] of far more aggressive action in the Mid-East" beyond that one strange tweet? I haven't seen it and am curious.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Only the most fundamental guideline:

Reporters are expected to be as accurate as possible given the time allotted to story preparation and the space available and to seek reliable sources.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism_ethics_and_standards#Common_elements

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism_ethics_and_standards#Common_elements

And how do you think that was violated?

That's your opinion. I disagree strongly. I think Gabbard is a strong candidate to face Trump, except that I think MSM would undermine Gabbard unfairly. I think Klobuchar and Gabbard are the strongest options to beat Trump in 2020 if we ignore media bias. It might be impossible to disentangle media coverage from electoral outcomes, however. I think MSM would be very good to Klobuchar.

I think we whiffed bad as a country electing an unqualified buffoon in 2016, and we're paying the price, but at least he was able to fool people into thinking he had been a good business guy. There's no way we're going to elect a 37-year-old with no education, limited gov't experience, and no relevant pre-gov't accomplishments. You know that, I know it, everyone knows it. The point of Gabbard's campaign is to undermine the eventual winner. And other than general double standards by party, why do you think the MSM would "undermine Gabbard unfairly" if she were the nominee?

Not sure which questions you're referring to. All questions are asked in good faith.

You know as well as anyone that no candidate as poorly qualified as Gabbard in recent history has been taken seriously.

You claimed that Gabbard has no qualifications. That's a statement made in bad faith, since you know that:

1) Gabbard served in the Hawai'i House of Representatives
2) Gabbard served in the Honolulu City Council
3) Gabbard has served in the US House of Representatives for six years (elected 4x)
4) Gabbard served in the US Army including deployments to Iraq and Kuwait

None of that qualifies her to be president of the U.S. Qualifies her to run to be a senator from Hawaii. I mean, serving in the reserves doesn't even do that.

What's this "new expression" thing? Elaborate?

The Times did a story on Clinton allegedly trying out a new facial expression, and it turned out that she'd been photographed with that expression many times over a period of decades.

If the NBC article is an example of an "honest mistake", then why hasn't NBC retracted the story or revised it?

If they were taken by a bad source, that doesn't necessarily mean that the story should be retracted, but that she be acknowledged.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Could you cite some evidence for Gabbard's "initial [favoring] of far more aggressive action in the Mid-East" beyond that one strange tweet? I haven't seen it and am curious.

You want more beyond the evidence that was already provided? Why? You can Google it as easily as I can, and I'd think the recent public call for more bombing is enough to prove the point.

 

[Trotsky]

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

This is a spurious and silly rebuttal. Spurious because the volume of his coverage, which is far more important, was unbelievably scant relative to his support and silly because it rests on the same basis as persons who say the media is biased against Trump because his coverage is negative. Sanders' coverage was positive because he didn't have much to report negatively about., just like Trump's coverage is negative because he's a hapless moron who can't do perfunctory things correctly or gracefully.

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.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politi...-york-times-sandbagged-bernie-sanders-189129/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...-about-bernie-sanders/?utm_term=.523531f58494

Your dismissive posture on this issue on the lone basis of the Shorenstein study is insulting.

And I think, with regard to cable news, the deliberateness of the selective blackout on left-populist causes became most obvious when Democracy Spring got almost zero coverage despite 1,000 people being arrested at the US Capitol and hundreds protesting outside CNN.

...converged on Capitol Hill on Monday, staging a nonviolent sit-in that resulted in over 400 arrests — a massive number by Washington sit-in standards.

While the action, dubbed #DemocracySpring, garnered wide coverage on social media and over 136,000 tweets...CNN did not devote any coverage to the actions. MSNBC mentioned the protests for approximately 12 seconds, while Fox News mentioned the arrests and discussed the protests for about 17 seconds.

https://theintercept.com/2016/04/12/democracy-spring-media-coverage/

 

[Trotsky]

FYI, Clinton has been known to carry hot sauce everywhere since the mid-'90s (that is, the first of many stories about her love of hot sauce appeared at that time).

This was probably one of the sadder moments for Clinton in the campaign, where she was being genuine but it came off horribly and fit in perfectly with his opponents' narrative.

 

[waiguoren]

And how do you think that was violated?

The NYT did not interview reliable sources before publishing the Phillips/Covington face-off story. That's a pretty fundamental violation of journalistic norms/ethics.

There's no way we're going to elect a 37-year-old with no education, limited gov't experience, and no relevant pre-gov't accomplishments.

Why would anyone take you seriously when you libel people as having "no education"?

Anyways, I disagree with you. I think Bernie Sanders's "pre-gov't accomplishments" are hard to identify yet I think he's one of the stronger Democratic candidates. What are Joe Biden's pre-gov't accomplishments other than law school?

The point of Gabbard's campaign is to undermine the eventual winner.

So Gabbard is running as a deliberate attempt to undermine the Democratic Party and help Trump win re-election? And you're accusing me of peddling conspiracy theories?

You know as well as anyone that no candidate as poorly qualified as Gabbard in recent history has been taken seriously.

Donald Trump.

None of that qualifies her to be president of the U.S. Qualifies her to run to be a senator from Hawaii. I mean, serving in the reserves doesn't even do that.

You're making up a definition of "qualified" and writing as if everyone agrees with your definition. Seems dumb.

My view is that the only qualification needed for the presidency is the ability to win more electoral votes than one's opponent. Some people will have spent more time in government, some will have spent more time in school, others will have more business experience. Some will have less of all but will have a message than inspires more people. Gabbard can fall into the last camp.

The Times did a story on Clinton allegedly trying out a new facial expression, and it turned out that she'd been photographed with that expression many times over a period of decades.

Lol. That seems ridiculous. Please send a link.

If they were taken by a bad source, that doesn't necessarily mean that the story should be retracted, but that she be acknowledged.

...and yet, that hasn't happened.

 

[waiguoren]

You want more beyond the evidence that was already provided? Why? You can Google it as easily as I can, and I'd think the recent public call for more bombing is enough to prove the point.

What evidence did you provide?

 

[Jack V Savage]

This is a spurious and silly rebuttal. Spurious because the volume of his coverage, which is far more important, was unbelievably scant relative to his support and silly because it rests on the same basis as persons who say the media is biased against Trump because his coverage is negative.

It's a highly relevant and serious rebuttal. You can't claim that the media was biased against him if he was covered more positively than anyone else. I get that you think he should have won and thus that he should have been covered as the preferred winner, but that's not how it works. He was always a large underdog and the fact that he was covered as such is indicative of a lack of bias.

Your dismissive posture on this issue on the lone basis of the Shorenstein study is insulting.

It's not the lone basis (frankly, the first basis is that the accusation is just ridiculous and isn't something that anyone with knowledge of how the media operates would make).

This was probably one of the sadder moments for Clinton in the campaign, where she was being genuine but it came off horribly and fit in perfectly with his opponents' narrative.

It "came off horribly" to people who were already swallowing the MSM characterization of Clinton. To normal people watching the exchange, it was just a normal person answering a fun question.

 

[Pride4ever101001000]

The deep state don't tweet their intentions they just get their plants to carry them out and a bunch of people here will argue about right and left and which side tweeted what