Elections 2020 Democratic Primary Thread: The Announcements

[sickc0d3r]

My ranks of who I would want are in order
Tulsi
Yang
Mayor Pete
Bernie

The rest can be hurled into the sun.

Remember that Schultz is out there, promising a 3rd party spoiler run if he candidate is too far left.

I'll have to look into Yang, don't know much about him. Pete sounds like potentially the best of the rest, but he hasn't said about policy enough for me to bother rating him.

 

[HereticBD]

Funny, I think that you believing that the media was more hostile toward Trump than toward Hillary is about signalling that you're in the club to nutters here. How would you explain the MSM coverage of either Clinton's email thing or the DNC hack? It doesn't fit anywhere in your narrative.

This is where everyone disagrees with Jack, and he calls them all crazy.

 

[BarryDillon]

But the coverage she got was far more negative in tone

Meh. I disagree vehemently.

 

[Jack V Savage]

This is where everyone disagrees with Jack, and he calls them all crazy.

CTism is a real scourge on American thought, and it seems to be growing (might just be a message-board thing). Specifically media CTs are at the heart of the problems the country is facing now, IMO. People are living in different realities, and a big part of it is trust in different reporters of reality.

 

[spamking]

They'd cover a minor violation of State Dept. information security protocols as the crime of the century, constantly suggest or outright claim that she's inauthentic (something that they wouldn't be in a position to judge for anyone), run stories falsely exonerating her opponent of shady or criminal activity, etc.

Too bad this article costs $25 . . . might be worth the read on this particular topic.

Abstract:

Research on female politicians suggests that women face a double bind. Female politicians must embrace their femininity but not be too feminine, and they must demonstrate masculinity without deviating from gender norms. Hillary Clinton has often struggled with this balance, which has resulted in conflicting and inconsistent portrayals of her in the news. To examine the extent of this coverage, this study provides a longitudinal analysis of Clinton's personal and professional media coverage in the New York Times. A content analysis of news coverage of Clinton from 1969 to 2016 shows that she has largely not been bound to gender labels, gender traits, or mentions of physical appearance. In addition, Clinton was not overly discussed as a novelty or norm challenger. These findings contradict previous literature, demonstrating a potential trend away from using gender as a descriptor for or limitation to female politicians.

 

[MeatheadMike]

This always fascinates me about human beings ... the desire and ability to believe in the most ridiculous things imaginable. Believing the media wasn’t more hostile towards Trump than Hillary isn’t quite Ancient Aliens territory, but it’s close.

I think the media spent a disproportionate amount of time covering Trump's antics because it was good for ratings, not out of hostility towards him. Ironically, by putting Trump in the spotlight they gave him a platform... which was likely a big contributing factor in why he won the primary and possibly even the general election.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Too bad this article costs $25 . . . might be worth the read on this particular topic.

Abstract:

Research on female politicians suggests that women face a double bind. Female politicians must embrace their femininity but not be too feminine, and they must demonstrate masculinity without deviating from gender norms. Hillary Clinton has often struggled with this balance, which has resulted in conflicting and inconsistent portrayals of her in the news. To examine the extent of this coverage, this study provides a longitudinal analysis of Clinton's personal and professional media coverage in the New York Times. A content analysis of news coverage of Clinton from 1969 to 2016 shows that she has largely not been bound to gender labels, gender traits, or mentions of physical appearance. In addition, Clinton was not overly discussed as a novelty or norm challenger. These findings contradict previous literature, demonstrating a potential trend away from using gender as a descriptor for or limitation to female politicians.

One thing I'd challenge here is that they're presenting it as a messaging failure, which isn't totally wrong, but it's also a failure of the media, which ideally is supposed to puncture messaging and get to the truth.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I think the media spent a disproportionate amount of time covering Trump's antics because it was good for ratings, not out of hostility towards him. Consequently, by putting Trump in the spotlight they gave him a platform... which was likely a contributing factor in why he won the primary and possibly even the general election.

Yes, but also in general, the media love candidates who brand themselves as outsiders and hate "insider" candidates. Trump fits that, though his obvious corruption and dishonesty played against it. McCain illustrates the problem with that because he was an extreme insider but effectively branded himself as an outsider and got fawning coverage from the media for most of his career. Obama got great coverage in 2008 but slid over time (as he became less able to brand himself that way).

 

[Trotsky]

Believing the media wasn’t more hostile towards Trump than Hillary isn’t quite Ancient Aliens territory, but it’s close.

You see how "hostility" isn't a remotely rational measurement, though, right?

In terms of experience, honesty, behavior, policy knowledge, policy specificity, and the efficacy of those policies, being even remotely as hostile toward Clinton as toward Trump would be a grossly unprofessional and basically dishonest posture for a political journalist. This "the media has to find and talk about the same flaws in candidates of wildly disparate features is asinine. If one candidate is checking most boxes and prescribing mostly good policies, and the other is checking none of the boxes and prescribing childish fever dreams, you should be way, way more hostile to the latter.

 

[spamking]

One thing I'd challenge here is that they're presenting it as a messaging failure, which isn't totally wrong, but it's also a failure of the media, which ideally is supposed to puncture messaging and get to the truth.

Wouldn't that include a somewhat in-depth look at an issue regardless of how relevant the public might view it? At least on some level?

 

[Amerikuracana]

after collusion id be SHOCKED if trump lost.

dems best shot would be cannabis reform but trump could also play that card

That's what we are voting on? Gtfo.. Jesus they have made idiots out of this generation.

 

[Jack V Savage]

You see how "hostility" isn't a remotely rational measurement, though, right?

That's why it descended the way it did. @Zankou makes an outrageously stupid comment, I disagree, he insists that his position is obvious, I insist that mine is obvious. Precisely because it's *not* measurable, there's a tendency to use rhetorical force to make the point. But fuck it, I think it is obvious. For someone getting their news from the MSM, the 2016 election was a referendum on Clinton's past information-security practices (and note that Trump's even worse security practices didn't get any scrutiny, and haven't gotten any since he's been in office). I think the reality-based case here is difficult to make, but Zank's position is impossible to make. How would one who holds it explain the coverage decisions of the MSM? The closest thing I've seen is that the MSM assumed Clinton would win and so only she needed serious scrutiny, but that's just an alternative explanation for the biased coverage; it's not a denial of it.

Wouldn't that include a somewhat in-depth look at an issue regardless of how relevant the public might view it? At least on some level?

I'm not clear on what you're asking.

 

[Amerikuracana]

It's just nuts that anyone believes this. No major-party candidate has been more hated by the MSM than Clinton in my lifetime. Gore's the only one who was close.

It's nuts that anybody believes this.

You don't think Hillary got a push from the media.. There were psa ads with famous people begging people to vote for Hillary. CNN was a propaganda MACHINE for her, and the people that make up the network are obviously vast majority establishment dems.

I honestly can't believe you can post so well, so often, and be that blind or even delusional about something 80% of the country would say is common sense.

 

[Zankou]

You see how "hostility" isn't a remotely rational measurement, though, right?

In terms of experience, honesty, behavior, policy knowledge, policy specificity, and the efficacy of those policies, being even remotely as hostile toward Clinton as toward Trump would be a grossly unprofessional and basically dishonest posture for a political journalist. This "the media has to find and talk about the same flaws in candidates of wildly disparate features is asinine. If one candidate is checking most boxes and prescribing mostly good policies, and the other is checking none of the boxes and prescribing childish fever dreams, you should be way, way more hostile to the latter.

100% agree. I’m not suggesting it wasn’t deserved. This is the irony, that to believe that it was more favorable to Trump you’d essentially have to believe the entire MSM complex all conspired to shill for Trump over Hillary, and cover up for him, rather than just accurately and consistently reporting what a terrible person Trump is.

Which is, again, some Ancient Aliens action. Which, as far as I can tell, almost half of the American populace now believes, along with questioning evolution and dinosaurs.

 

[Victor Maitland]

Biden launches his campaign with some nonsense about Charlottesville , the day after this happens >>>
something that barely got any coverage and will be memory holed in 2 days

 

[Amerikuracana]

CTism is a real scourge on American thought, and it seems to be growing (might just be a message-board thing). Specifically media CTs are at the heart of the problems the country is facing now, IMO. People are living in different realities, and a big part of it is trust in different reporters of reality.

Everybody they have that works there wanted Hillary. It shines through brightly.

 

[Amerikuracana]

Biden launches his campaign with some nonsense about Charlottesville , the day after this happens >>>
something that barely got any coverage and will be memory holed in 2 days

You're just a conspiracy theorist, bro. Those blatent prooaganda double standards are just in your head.

 

[IGotAHugePeckah]

Do you guys think Biden will make it to the finish line? It seems like there's a lot of dirt on him floating around, as opposed to Bernie who seems to be squeaky clean.

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019...ustice-democratic-primary-2020-explained.html

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/04/poll-joe-biden-may-be-less-electable-than-he-looks.html

 

[Zankou]

CTism is a real scourge on American thought, and it seems to be growing (might just be a message-board thing). Specifically media CTs are at the heart of the problems the country is facing now, IMO. People are living in different realities, and a big part of it is trust in different reporters of reality.

You’re pushing a ridiculous media CT that Hillary was torpedoed by hostile MSM — like something out of a communist party manifesto, attempting to blame some shitty mass media conspiracy against your Chosen Party Candidate — while simultaneously expressing disbelief that people might think MSM and Trump are generally hostile towards each other, as though the latter is some crazy conspiracy theory only believed by enemies of the People.

And there’s no cognitive dissonance here for you. The former is just objective fact, after all, while the latter is lunatic falsity. Somehow the possibility that you are just a true-believer party hack never enters the equation, because my god, what then, what if god is dead?

 

[Happy Man]

Biden launches his campaign with some nonsense about Charlottesville , the day after this happens >>>
something that barely got any coverage and will be memory holed in 2 days

Lol happens every time.

Attempted mass murder? Whats the skin color. And that’s how the media acts