Elections 2020 Democratic Primary Thread: The Announcements

[Trotsky]

"You just deflected, doubled down, and then erected a pretty shameless straw man to boot."

After I had done no such thing. Why would any normal person even bother with that kind of thing?

So ignoring the point and saying, in substitution, "I get that you think he should have won and thus that he should have been covered as the preferred winner" is not a straw man?

That is a textbook definition of a straw man argument. Like if you present a point in favor of progressive taxation and I say, "listen, I get that you're jealous of rich people, but tough titties." Do you want to stick by the claim that it's not one? Because, worse, that's just a lie.

You've done nothing to dissuade me from the view that your view that Sanders was not covered enough (and note that there is no real dispute that the coverage he did get was overwhelmingly positive) is driven by your own view of the proper baseline, and you haven't addressed the points I've made suggesting that that baseline is flawed. You've used metrics that no responsible newsroom would use to make that kind of decision, and I think you wouldn't use them yourself if not for their utility in this particular argument. As a general matter, how do you decide how to cover a candidate? I'm saying that if the candidate has no realistic chance of winning and the race is not particularly close, they're the "other" candidate.

I referenced that metric as a (pretty on-point in my opinion) stand-in for popularity. Frankly it's a much more lax standard than, say, contributions (at the outset of the campaign or after its summation) or ultimate vote totals.

Now, *this* is a strawman. There's no mechanism for there to be a MSM-wide conspiracy to try to bury a candidate.

Yes, that is a straw man argument. I think it's considerably closer to your actual argument than your straw man was to mine, but you're still right. And your terming of the issue as widespread conspiracy between independent actors with no motivation is, in my opinion, silly. We're talking about an oligopoly representing private capital.

Even back in the days of Eugene Debs, your namesake, major newspapers were hostile to Debs and socialism. And that was before the corporate form even existed!

No one would have any motivation to do it, no one would be able to get away with it, there's no coordinating body that could direct it, etc. The risk (any journalist caught doing something like that would basically kill his career) is way out of line with the potential benefit. It's loopy.

I don't even know where to begin attacking this suggestion since it's so inconsistent with not only corporate fiduciary law and the basic setup of American newspapers where executives/executive editors are responsible to boards of directors, but also with just what we know about partisan outlets tailoring their coverage.

I mean, besides thinking that it's perfectly rational, and even grounded firmly in American history, that corporations are hostile to socialism (frankly, Ford Motor Company torturing and murdering union members sounds a lot more CT than saying a corporate newspaper might tailor its product away from causes that endanger its profitability), [that's motivation] I strain to understand how you think it's impossible for newspaper management to regulate themselves. It's not like we're talking about some huge complicated network of endless players. We're talking about 4-5 outlets: 4-5 executive editors or CEOs acting on behalf of 4-5 corporate boards.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I'll stay out of your duel with Jack here (entertaining to read btw) but I'm not sure the metric you're using here is the best one. I *think* that chart is measuring media hits relative to Google searches using the premise that google searches indicate popularity. If that's the case it's a bad one since google searches are obviously not indicative of support.

Do you know if the folks differentiated between google searches that would indicate support or something else?

I don't think this undermines your assertion that Bernie had a lot less coverage (that doesn't seem to be in dispute here anyway) but I was curious. It looks to me that Clinton had about 3x more media mentions which isn't nearly as skewed as the chart suggests.

Google searches are an indication that a candidate is less familiar. Good book on big data:

that sort of looks at that kind of thing. Fun fact from the book: A high level of Google searches for the N-word were a good predictor of unexpectedly strong performance for Trump in a district. Also, I believe (have to double check) that they estimate that Obama's race cost him 4 points in the national popular vote in 2008.

 

[killakoy]

There a lot of Tulsi support I’m seeing off the bat. Does anyone think she has the best chance of getting the nomination?

Gabbard is getting a percent right now if she's lucky. The only way her poll numbers improve significantly is if most of these candidates drop out. No one cares too much about her anti-intervention-yet-pro-quasi-intervention platform

We could turn this into a bet easily. I'll bet she polls over 1% in the RCP average while Harris/Booker/Gillibrand/Castro/Klobuchar are still in the race.

What's really interesting about Gabbard is she pulls out the unconventional. She has won every race that she has run in. You look at her entry into politics and she wasn't a serious contender. She was barely out of high school. She had absolutely no business winning that race. Here's an article from that time period that only mentions her as one of the candidates... yet she won.
http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2002/Sep/13/ln/ln13a.html

Then she ran for the House of Rep. Most people didn't know who she was. She was considered way too young and inexperienced. The former mayor of Honolulu was the only name candidate in the race and was considered a shoe-in to win. He had all the party support, unions, and political acumen. Yet here we are.

However, I doubt she wins - especially with all the negative media bias. But, I bet she'll make a better than expected showing. Here's to hoping she's Bernie's VP.

 

[Trotsky]

Tulsi Gabbard is clearly being falsely attacked by the MSM, that's undeniable at this pt

not sure how that can even be debated

I have not seen anything to suggest this, besides @xcvbn's link that excluded Gabbard, which while peculiar certainly didn't rise to the level of a smear.

I think this instance of what I could see being genuinely negative coverage is a more viable example of what JVS would represent as an organic reaction of professional journalists to a not-great candidate.

 

[HunterSdVa29]

I have not seen anything to suggest this, besides @xcvbn's link that excluded Gabbard, which while peculiar certainly didn't rise to the level of a smear.

I think this instance of what I could see being genuinely negative coverage is a more viable example of what JVS would represent as an organic reaction of professional journalists to a not-great candidate.

i'm at work so can't link YT videos on gov computers, but she called her an 'Assad Toadie' then when surpised that Joe didn't agree she asked 'wait, what does Toadie mean"?

it went on and got even worse, but that alone is patently absurd. Calling someone essentially a foreign agent/panderer, having no evidence to back it up, and then asking what the term even means is pretty smeartastic IMO. She even said 'let me come back when I've done more research' hahahahahahahahha

Jimmy Dore does a great live breakdown of it as well, and he's a very far left Progressive guy not some right leaner or neocon
edit: that being said, I definitely overgeneralized by saying 'MSM" it's not the entire mainstream media doing it

 

[Jack V Savage]

So ignoring the point and saying, in substitution, "I get that you think he should have won and thus that he should have been covered as the preferred winner" is not a straw man?

That is a textbook definition of a straw man argument. Like if you present a point in favor of progressive taxation and I say, "listen, I get that you're jealous of rich people, but tough titties." Do you want to stick by the claim that it's not one? Because, worse, that's just a lie.

I get the impression that you're going back and forth between defending that view and denying that you hold it. Can we make it clear that your view of how important or revolutionary or whatever Sanders' campaign was is irrelevant to how much coverage he should have gotten?

If so, I think we're back to looking at him as a guy whose betting odds peaked at, what, 4-1 against? And then I think we're already all the way home.

Yes, that is a straw man argument. I think it's considerably closer to your actual argument than your straw man was to mine, but you're still right. And your terming of the issue as widespread conspiracy between independent actors with no motivation is, in my opinion, silly. We're talking about an oligopoly representing private capital.

No, we're talking about a bunch of individual journalists who would have to be participating in the conspiracy and absolutely would not keep it quiet. That is, if CEOs were telling their executive editors to slant coverage, the executive editors would quit and publicize that, and if we assume that they'd give in, city editors would rebel, and if we assume it got through that layer, reporters would rebel. It's just asking way, way too much of a leap of faith, and the motivation isn't even plausible.

 

[Jack V Savage]

i'm at work so can't link YT videos on gov computers, but she called her an 'Assad Toadie' then when surpised that Joe didn't agree she asked 'wait, what does Toadie mean"?

it went on and got even worse, but that alone is patently absurd. Calling someone essentially a foreign agent/panderer, having no evidence to back it up, and then asking what the term even means is pretty smeartastic IMO. She even said 'let me come back when I've done more research' hahahahahahahahha

Jimmy Dore does a great live breakdown of it as well, and he's a very far left Progressive guy not some right leaner or neocon
edit: that being said, I definitely overgeneralized by saying 'MSM" it's not the entire mainstream media doing it

I'm surprised a top journalist (don't know who you're referring to, but I assume that it's one) would publicly say that she was an Assad toadie, but I don't think whoever said that is totally wrong.

 

[HunterSdVa29]

I'm surprised a top journalist (don't know who you're referring to, but I assume that it's one) would publicly say that she was an Assad toadie, but I don't think whoever said that is totally wrong.

well it was an Opinion journalist, tbf, but a NYT one. Bari Weiss
protip: her main cause is supporting Israel
edit: Opinion Editor, my bad

 

[Jack V Savage]

However, I doubt she wins - especially with all the negative media bias. But, I bet she'll make a better than expected showing. Here's to hoping she's Bernie's VP.

It's just baffling to me that the left would want to nominate their own unethical, unprepared, unintelligent candidate. The next president is going to have to do a major cleanup, not just of policy but getting the stench of corruption and incompetence out of the WH.

 

[Jack V Savage]

well it was an Opinion journalist, tbf, but a NYT one. Bari Weiss
protip: her main cause is supporting Israel

Oh, well, she sucks. And yeah, she's an opinion writer. Big difference.

 

[EL CORINTHIAN]

Like two gay lovers quarreling.

 

[Lead]

I don't know what JRE is

“How dare you” -Joe Rogan

 

[Bloody Pulp]

i'm at work so can't link YT videos on gov computers, but she called her an 'Assad Toadie' then when surpised that Joe didn't agree she asked 'wait, what does Toadie mean"?

it went on and got even worse, but that alone is patently absurd. Calling someone essentially a foreign agent/panderer, having no evidence to back it up, and then asking what the term even means is pretty smeartastic IMO. She even said 'let me come back when I've done more research' hahahahahahahahha

Jimmy Dore does a great live breakdown of it as well, and he's a very far left Progressive guy not some right leaner or neocon
edit: that being said, I definitely overgeneralized by saying 'MSM" it's not the entire mainstream media doing it

 

[Trotsky]

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.

Backtracking a bit to this: you don't think that Clinton has a somewhat cringey history of pandering?

Even if you don't (I think she's marginally worse than the average politician, but not by much) the optics of the moment were made worse by she and Bill's tortured history with what some (myself included) would describe as manipulating black support.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/21/hillary-clinton-black-millennial-voters
https://slate.com/news-and-politics...e-for-bill-clinton-is-built-on-a-fallacy.html
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/09/...perpredators-crime-welfare-african-americans/
https://www.thenation.com/article/hillary-clinton-does-not-deserve-black-peoples-vote
^All good reads (imo) on the matter

I get the impression that you're going back and forth between defending that view and denying that you hold it. Can we make it clear that your view of how important or revolutionary or whatever Sanders' campaign was is irrelevant to how much coverage he should have gotten?

At no point have I espoused or defended the view that the media should tailor its coverage to my personal preferences...obviously. And those metrics regarding his popularity, support, and interest were not meant to be a reflection of my support of the man. I believe that I can speak for myself on the matter.

If so, I think we're back to looking at him as a guy whose betting odds peaked at, what, 4-1 against? And then I think we're already all the way home.

I don't know that they ever got that high. But....how is that relevant?

No, we're talking about a bunch of individual journalists who would have to be participating in the conspiracy and absolutely would not keep it quiet. That is, if CEOs were telling their executive editors to slant coverage, the executive editors would quit and publicize that, and if we assume that they'd give in, city editors would rebel, and if we assume it got through that layer, reporters would rebel. It's just asking way, way too much of a leap of faith, and the motivation isn't even plausible.

I think you realize that your repeated points here boil down to conclusory statements.....and conclusory statements about normative behavior at that, i.e. "CEO's wouldn't do that," "editors wouldn't listen," and "writers would rebel if their pieces were edited" (the last one being particularly peculiar since, well, that's what happens to them every day [stories are rejected, prose is trimmed, messages are altered] and you have already been presented one case of the NYT editing a writer's piece after it was published to make it critical of Sanders). If we were talking about writers' words being edited to distort facts and further lies, that would be an entirely different conversation in which your assertions would be more valid.

 

[Trotsky]

i'm at work so can't link YT videos on gov computers, but she called her an 'Assad Toadie' then when surpised that Joe didn't agree she asked 'wait, what does Toadie mean"?

it went on and got even worse, but that alone is patently absurd. Calling someone essentially a foreign agent/panderer, having no evidence to back it up, and then asking what the term even means is pretty smeartastic IMO. She even said 'let me come back when I've done more research' hahahahahahahahha

Jimmy Dore does a great live breakdown of it as well, and he's a very far left Progressive guy not some right leaner or neocon
edit: that being said, I definitely overgeneralized by saying 'MSM" it's not the entire mainstream media doing it

Wait, who are we talking about? I.e. the woman interviewed by Rogan.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Backtracking a bit to this: you don't think that Clinton has a somewhat cringey history of pandering?

I think all decent politicians do. I don't think it's unusual from her, and that particular exchange didn't strike me as anything but a fun interview. Seemed very natural.

At no point have I espoused or defended the view that the media should tailor its coverage to my personal preferences...obviously. And those metrics regarding his popularity, support, and interest were not meant to be a reflection of my support of the man. I believe that I can speak for myself on the matter.

Not in so many words.

Stuff like this: "I thought that his coverage should have been commensurate with his (groundbreaking in terms of individual contributions) support."

Misses the point, though.

I don't know that they ever got that high. But....how is that relevant?

A fairly extreme underdog is never going to get as much coverage as a big favorite. And that also explains why he got more positive coverage (the general pattern is that the MSM covers less-known candidates with a more positive angle, then gives them a lot more scrutiny when they start looking like more plausible candidates which often turns negative). I think in very-online land, it was this neck-and-neck race that Sanders lost because everyone cheated and because the media didn't cover him enough, but in reality, the nomination was a forgone conclusion from the start, and Sanders never got close enough to change that accurate perception. There's no need for a crazy conspiracy theory to explain a perfectly ordinary set of circumstances and decisions.

I think you realize that your repeated points here boil down to conclusory statements.....and conclusory statements about normative behavior at that, i.e. "CEO's wouldn't do that," "editors wouldn't listen," and "writers would rebel if their pieces were edited" (the last one being particularly peculiar since, well, that's what happens to them every day [stories are rejected, prose is trimmed, messages are altered] and you have already been presented one case of the NYT editing a writer's piece after it was published to make it critical of Sanders). If we were talking about writers' words being edited to distort facts and further lies, that would be an entirely different conversation in which your assertions would be more valid.

I have enough direct experience here that I can draw on it, but I'd think that a basic familiarity with humans is sufficient. Top media CEOs wouldn't do it. Just a fact. If they were the type who would, they wouldn't get there unless they just started their own paper and ran it with a different set of ethics. Likewise for top editors. It's just not how the job works. It's not any more plausible than the belief that demolition crews would agree to plant bombs in the Twin Towers and keep their mouths shut afterwards. There is an extremely strong "no interference from management" ethos. I've seen it publishers interfere on a lower level, and it outrages everyone, but not enough to fight against it directly, but at higher levels, it just doesn't happen. I don't think you appreciate what kind of a scandal something like that would be if it were real, and you'd be counting on people who would make their careers by exposing it to keep quiet.

Also, did you read the "phantom edit" explanation? That theory seems to be a dead end, and in fact, the initial fawning story is a bigger problem for your theory than the subsequent revision.

 

[Lead]

Another implication with 2020 candidates that are currently in the Senate. McConnell is now going to put the resolution up for a vote to get those running on record about the Green New Deal. This usually is the con side of being a senator running for office. Obama may have been smart to run early and avoid too much of a track record to dig up and find attacks for.

Why Mitch McConnell is holding a vote on the Green New Deal
Vox

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell made a surprise announcement on Tuesday: He’s planning to hold a vote on the Green New Deal. But it’s not because he thinks it’s a good idea.

The sweeping joint resolution to tackle climate change aggressively was proposed by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) last week. McConnell now wants to put Senate Democrats on the record about whether they support it. It’s an especially prescient political move, given how many Democrats in the Senate are running for president in 2020.

“I’ve noted with interest the Green New Deal. We’re going to be voting on that in the Senate; it will give everybody an opportunity to go on record and see how they feel about the Green New Deal,” McConnell said during a Tuesday press conference.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Another implication with 2020 candidates that are currently in the Senate. McConnell is now going to put the resolution up for a vote to get those running on record about the Green New Deal. This usually is the con side of being a senator running for office. Obama may have been smart to run early and avoid too much of a track record to dig up and find attacks for.

Why Mitch McConnell is holding a vote on the Green New Deal
Vox

Yep. And then you have these lefty fanatics who will say that they'd rather re-elect Trump than have anyone who doesn't support this stupid plan in office. This is why quality control can't be ignored in favor of ideological flattery.

 

[Lead]

Yep. And then you have these lefty fanatics who will say that they'd rather re-elect Trump than have anyone who doesn't support this stupid plan in office. This is why quality control can't be ignored in favor of ideological flattery.

Most of the senators running co-sponsored the bill. Do you think they will vote in favor or begin to shift now that a vote is occurring?

 

[Jack V Savage]

Most of the senators running co-sponsored the bill. Do you think they will vote in favor or begin to shift now that a vote is occurring?

I have no idea what anyone's going to do. I assume that they have way more info than I do about the politics of it. From a policy standpoint, it's terrible, though, and anyone who votes in favor of it is diminished in my eyes.