Jump to content

bad_teammate

Certifiably Surly
  • Content Count

    14,260
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

Everything posted by bad_teammate

  1. You cannot find anything at all like the CNN debate after the anonymous source about the Bernie/Warren women-running-for-president conversation. That was a straight-up hit job on Sanders and was universally acknowledged as such. Any other candidates' success was never compared to Nazi invasions. Nothing like that was ever thrown at a non-Sanders no matter what a candidate did. Something that's especially fucking annoying about this is that many of the same people who will pretend like there isn't a massive pro-corporate media bias also say that we have a corrupt relationship between corporate power and representative power that needs to be reformed. There is zero structural critique or understanding going on. They didn't go after Sanders because he's Bernie Sanders, they went after him because he was a legitimate threat to the institutional power of the billionaire class that pays the millionaires on TV (and in many other industries). If someone is just a straight-up cheerleader for oligarchy then I guess that person should keep lying about media narratives, but if someone actually realizes we need Big, Structural Change then downplaying the complicity of the media is idiotic. You're so desperate to #BothSides this that you listed a PAC to try and flesh out the list. lol Jacobin and Current Affairs are op-ed magazines. Their analogues aren't CNN and MSNBC, but The New Republic and Mother Jones. There is no leftist equivalent to CNN and MSNBC. The Intercept is investigative journalism (and wonderful, important work there) and some op-ed pages. CNN gets more eyeballs in a night than those op-ed outlets do in a year. A laughable #BothSides attempt.
  2. Obviously media narrative isn't the only factor in these things, but it's a very major factor that many are pretending either isn't real or isn't that big of a deal. It is. There are many other important factors involved. Maybe a fairer media landscape wouldn't have made a fundamental difference in the race. Maybe it would have. Impossible to know or control. However, we need to be critical consumers of media and not just assume that it doesn't matter.
  3. What am I saying now that I haven't been saying for a year? Not for months. Sanders led Biden in the RCP national average for the month of February. Not "everyone" was looking for a reason not to vote for Joe Biden. You're confusing yourself and your own class of people for "everyone". Highly educated white people of means were looking for a non-Biden. A class wildly over-represented in NH and Iowa. (Also, the media class, the corporate class, and most of the posters here.) As you say, the media punditry members were huge Warren boosters for a while, massive Pete boosters for even longer. And once it became obvious those shinier objects wouldn't cut it, they moved on smoothly to Biden. But the entire time, they were anti-Sanders. You can pretend that's meaningless, but if you were being honest with yourself you know that's bullshit. You know the results would be different if the media was as generous to Bernie as it was to Liz and Pete. You can feel about me however you want and think I'm a whining asshole, but you know the reality of how media narratives work and how determinative they can be. Would it have been enough to beat Biden? Maybe, maybe not. But it would've been a massive difference. Hell, the results would have wildly different with even neutral coverage of Sanders from the liberal media establishments. You can say, "He deserved what he got, because he's a bastard" or "He deserved it because you and your online friends are assholes", but that doesn't change the reality of the consent manufactured by the media. You can like what happened, but don't deny that it happened. Again, you're just confusing yourself and your own class position for the masses. But let's work with it anyway, what made them feel threatened? Was it Bernie's policy platform or was it the image of Bernie perpetuated in the media for years? He lost. I lost. I am defeated. I am owned. I have no idea what it profits you guys at this point to try and pretend like the media narrative being strongly against Sanders meant nothing.
  4. You say "the media establishment didn't turn the tide for him", then you parrot exactly the same line that the media establishment sold you for a year+. It's like a parishioner insisting on the mental independence of the flock by quoting the pastor's favorite lines verbatim. But if that is some kind of truly independent thought that you came to on your own and not just consent that was manufactured because it validates you, let me ask you... - Which of Bernie's ideas scared "the majority of D voters" as too much of a "revolution"? Which of his concepts or messages? None of them. Exit polls have all showed majority support for M4A and even positive feelings for the scary word "socialism". Surely, if people were frightened of the "revolution" organically, they would be rejecting Bernie's "revolutionary" ideas, right? - Why would voters think Bernie is dangerous to run against Trump? Bernie, who has beaten Trump consistently for 5 years at this point in head-to-head polling and had/(still has, probably) the most highly enthusiastic voter support and the biggest movement of organizers/donors/volunteers from coast to coast. An objective analysis of the race throughout 2019 wouldn't put Bernie as some huge risk relative to the rest of the field, but that's the line that was almost universally promoted by the media establishment. An unfortunate thing here is that the only actual substantive response I'll get to a media critique is, "SOUR GRAPES BERNIE BRO!", but media narratives matter tremendously and anyone being even slightly honest will admit that. You can't rationally go from claiming that name recognition is important to claiming that the media doesn't matter, at least not honestly. I agree 100% that voters were ready to get in line behind the candidate who could get behind Trump, but why did voters think it so much more likely that Biden would beat Trump than Sanders? It's not because they all pored over years worth of polling data, they went with who they have been told forever is the safer bet. Told by whom?
  5. I didn't say it was a sign of Bernie's strength. What are you talking about? I said that Bernie was a more successful vote-getter than anyone not named Biden, and that's true by a huge margin. Bernie built himself up over years to very high name recognition, it's true. He also had a national media that either ignored his existence or actively worked against him. He had a legion of dedicated followers. He had a legion of dedicated haters. Obviously Bernie's campaign suffered from a lot of factors, internal and external, and obviously it wasn't a winner. Perhaps it never could've been a winner even if perfectly run. We don't know and can't know. Maybe Buttigieg will run again in 2024/8 with universal name recognition and sweep it all. Maybe he disappears. Don't know yet. As for the 2020 race, there was only so much Pete could do. Does Pete sit in SC for months trying to build up black support and lose valuable time in Iowa/NH? Can he even make it to SC if he bombs in Iowa/NH by ignoring them for SC? Resources and candidate time are limited for everyone. Bernie, Liz, and Klob had basically the same calculation. Biden's game was to just give up on Iowa, NH, and Nevada and park in SC and build up on his biggest strength and count on a desperate media establishment to throw a never-ending parade for his victory there (or for anyone who could get ahead of Bernie). No one else could do that.
  6. Bernie's campaign was FAR more successful in picking up support than any other campaign that didn't have a de facto Obama imprimatur on it. Sanders built a massive and durable national movement as a DemSocialist independent from Vermont with the entire political and media establishment against him. Even now, at his most profound ebb and with every wind blowing against him, he's got ~30% of the Dem electorate firmly in his corner. Not enough to win, but waving it off as some kind of obvious joke is silly (and, ultimately, pyrrhic). Are all Biden votes "opposition" to Bernie? That's more based on feelings than on reality. I haven't seen polling on this in a few weeks, but Bernie has been extremely popular among mainstream Democratic voters for years at this point. The hatred of Bernie and his Bros is a Very Online phenomenon. I phonebanked for him for dozens of hours and the only time I ever heard of someone being mad about Bernie Bros was from a Buttigieg supporter who was extremely online. If I was to diagnose an outreach failure on the Bernie campaign it had nothing to do with the Very Online crowd who cares about Twitter, but about parking in South Carolina and reaching out to the on-the-ground black community and offering them the excellent vision of a more economically just vision of the world. Pointless, though, really, because Clyburn and the like were never going to endorse Bernie regardless of what Sanders did. Jim turned out to be a kingmaker more than basically anyone could have predicted, and that miscalculation was not Bernie's alone. Think about all the online support for Buttigieg and Warren and what that turned into? Vapor. It's fun to laugh at the Bernie Bros and their misguided activism, but there seems to be zero introspection from the Buttigieg and Warren crowds. All of it sublimated into "lol Bernie" trolling.
  7. I don't buy this at all. While it's true that a significant chunk of Buttigieg/Warren loyalists went to Biden because they hate online Bernie Bros, I don't think those have been a meaningful chunk of the post Iowa/NH electorate. Nevada: Sanders - 41% Biden - 19% Buttigieg - 14% Warren - 10% South Carolina: Biden - 49% Sanders - 20% Steyer - 11% Buttigieg - 8% Warren - 7% The Biden base isn't on Twitter and couldn't pick David Sirota and his home aquariums out of a lineup. While it might be true that Bernie Bros being nicer to NPR liberals online would have given Bernie 3-5% more votes along the margins, the idea that they are the difference between Bernie winning and losing SC-and-beyond is laughable.
  8. 1) The system he inherited was broken and shitty. 2) He has no concept why it was broken and shitty and he is only capable of making it worse. WOO!
  9. Silent and Asian? Come on Donald, The Ninja Flu is right there.
  10. "Pass the torch" is about one person appointing/anointing his successor, which isn't what that second sentence is. I am not into dynastics. Let a new champion rise on his/her own. Yeah dude progressivism is getting owned it's hilarious and cool.
  11. No idea. I don't even really know what "pass the torch" means in any practical sense aside from endorsing and maybe campaigning with. Hopefully some kind of progressive champion rises up, takes the best of Bernie's platform, improves on it, and gives the left someone new to rally behind.
  12. I'm entertaining myself by cutting Medicaid to avoid raising taxes on the insanely wealthy pedophiles and psychopaths that fund my campaign.
  13. I get the point that it indicates a vanishing likelihood of a Sanders victory, but what does it actually matter in terms of this conversation?
  14. Too soon? Nah. Postmortems are interesting if they are more than trolling. (That's all it is here, of course, but it interests me so I'll respond as if it isn't.) Iowa and NH aren't just all-white places, they are also heavily-involved places. They pay very careful attention and have essentially a year with the candidates to themselves to test them out and kick the tires. Biden, despite every advantage, couldn't get them because Biden is extremely weak. SC revealed that it was probably impossible for anyone who isn't Joe Biden to win the nomination on the backs of typical Democratic voters. It shouldn't be terribly surprising given Biden's eternal domination of the overall polling and no one in that "lane" every making a dent in Biden's hold on black voters and older voters. Also, he dominates among voters who aren't really paying attention to the primary competitors and choosing between them. He's likeable personally and Obama's VP, that's all it takes for low-info voters. Everyone who wasn't Joe was gambling. (From most to least successful...) - Bernie's gamble was on independents, non-voters joining what he could scrounge of the typical Democratic voterbase. It worked really well until it didn't. (It still could, technically, but we all know it's extremely unlikely.) - Pete gambled that he could eventually get voters who weren't white people making 6 figures. It didn't pay off. - Klobuchar hoped to steal conservative olds from Joe and that kind of worked for NH & Iowa and then it failed. - Warren tried to be an all-things-to-all-people candidate and ended up failing most spectacularly of all. For Bernie and Liz, however, it wasn't just about winning, but about a materially different platform than Biden's. They were never capable of doing the Pete or Klobuchar campaigns because to do so would mean abandoning what made them want to run in the first place.
  15. I'm not the one running for the presidency against Donald Trump.
  16. Writing off vast swaths of potential voters is not smart.
  17. That's true, which is no comfort because that means they are votes we aren't going to get. They are votes we aren't even going to try to get.
  18. Well this entire line of discussion was kicked off by an extremely prominent independent saying he would vote for Trump over Biden, so I don't think Newy's concern is entirely fabricated or off-base.
  19. Yes, this is my point. I know many here are just waiting for the heel-turn where I abandon everything I've claimed to believe to support Trump, and they'll read love of Donald into every criticism of any Democrat, but you're reading my point perfectly here. Donald Trump is a sharper communicator than Joe Biden. That isn't praise of Donald Trump, who is a liar and an idiot, it's an indictment of who Joe Biden is today versus who he was. Both have slowed down, but Biden hit a concrete wall.
  20. Biden is a better person with a better moral compass and a higher overall intelligence. But within the frame of their respective abilities and worldviews, I think Trump operates far more quickly, decisively, and smoothly. Also, Trump is a much more efficient and confident communicator. "Coherent" is very tough, because I don't think either one is very coherent. The bar these two are set to clear by their supporters (or, at least, the people who hate their opponents) are like limbo bars used as hurdles. It's fucking distressing.
  21. Do you think Biden is mentally sharper than Trump? I don't.
Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Recruiting ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Help ... For Sale ... Politics ... Board Discussion
×
×
  • Create New...