Political Discussion

DownIsTheNewUp said:
I know this is a very late response but articulating my response was tricky and I just didn't feel up to it at the time.

That said two things have happened this week that cause me to circle back around to this convo.

A) Clinton went onto Howard Stern and basically red-baited Bernie. She straight up blamed him for 2016' and then implied Russia was backing him. So basically, she attempted to do the same thing to Bernie that she did to Tulsi but in a much more subtle manner.



B) PBS just did a special where they talked about every candidate under the sun EXPECT Bernie Sanders.

www.commondreams.org

'He's Just...Erased': PBS 2020 Segment Finds Time for Klobuchar, Sestak, and Bullock--But Completely Ignores Bernie Sanders | Common Dreams

It was like watching "manufacturing consent in action,' said Current Affairs editor Nathan Robinson.
www.commondreams.org www.commondreams.org

Similarly, NPR did a story a few weeks back that was quite literally billed as a story about the Top 3 candidates. Bernie was firmly in 2nd or 3rd this story aired - **BUT**, the hosts managed to talk about Biden, Warren, and several other candidates outside the Top 3, without ever once mentioning the words “Bernie” or “Sanders”. Not even a passing mention of him being a candidate at all, let alone the candidate polling 2nd. In a story about the *top 3 candidates...

Which brings me back around to:

These things are directly related. The same media that is doing everything it can to dismiss and ignore Bernie Sanders just like they did in 2016. Meanwhile, they fan the flames about Russia because it's an effective deflection and side show that distract from very real issues that make the 1% look bad. It's McCarthyism and somehow educated liberals don't see it. That somehow? Probably has to do with that being the same demographic that refuses to criticize CNN or MSNBC (much less NPR or PBS) the way they do Fox News.

And by the way, Warren fucked herself with her handling of M4A. I don't necessarily view it as a good thing because she's easily my plan B, but she is nosediving in the polls and Bernie is picking up a lot of those people who jumped ship. A poll today had his him up in CA. His likely up in NH. He was up in Nevada and Colorado before the heart attack and could feasible recover there. Nobody knows what's happening in Iowa or whose supporters will show up.

In other words, this thing is wide open and the media is busy manufacturing consent. All while Bernie continues to crush Trump in head to heads and polling with independents (which is not true of either Warren or Pete).
Click to expand...


Is the Bernie-camp media conspiracy true? I don't know and personally I don't care, but I also assume that wealthy people that run media outlets, regardless of political team affiliation, would prefer a more status quo government.

I avoid the news because I don't need to be told the same thing over and over again by people that are (and I'll be kind here) not very good at telling a story... but I have been listening to the daily for a while now on my morning bus ride. It's been yet another sobering week of stories including the ongoing situation in Iran, the failure of public education, and today an interview with Bernie. A statistic during the education story got me. 86% of 15 year olds (i think it was 15 year olds) failed to be able to identify fact from opinion when presented with two stories about the same subject. 1 from an advocacy/advertising firm, and one from a journalist. If you had told me the population surveyed would have been over 65 I would've been less surprised. How do we have real conversations about ANYTHING when the average person, the average young person at that, can't tell facts from opinion? - but that's another conversation.

Bernie was less than impressive in his conversation with Michael Barbaro and the Bernie campaign's philosophy of media conspiracy was evident. This does the campaign no favors imo even if it's the truth. When questioned about his role in supporting the Sandinistas Bernie crumbled. He deflected and this will undoubtedly be seized upon by all of his detractors. Most importantly it's going to come out in any national election. I don't think that Bernie did anything morally incorrect, but this is the sort of, probably irrelevant, talking point that will make it difficult to build the enthusiasm his campaign is so dependent on in my part of the country. Leftist-rebels is a very dirty term across much of the U.S. and I have no-doubt that term will be thrown around quite a bit. Bernie was evasive but truthful in his responses but I'm not sure the truth matters in politics at all.

@DownIsTheNewUp when you post about Bernie your advocacy is clear, but so is the vitriol against any entity that doesn't "feel the Bern." the media and the democratic establishment being the too main targets of the campaign. I'm concerned that this attitude that seemed evident coming from the man himself in today's interview is antithetical to the ideals of the coalition that is supposedly being built. It still comes across as a very much with us or against us attitude. I'm not suggesting that attitude is wrong or even unjustified, but my concern stems from the reality of having to get things done, which always starts with buy-in from at least a few skeptics that are really just barriers to your goals. The attitude exhibited by Bernie today was more 'we'll drag you along kicking and screaming if we have to' than 'let me try to understand where you're coming from so that I can show you I understand and you can support me'.

There is probably wide support for Bernie. If you believe in the efficacy of polling-data there is no-doubt about that. I don't fully believe it because it suffers from the fundamental problem of self-selection, who is willing to answer their phone, and who wants to talk about it. Still, it is clear that many Americans want a different life and want a different government and Bernie is seen as a viable option by many. So as a sociologist, or at least someone who works with sociological data, why do you believe (I think) that Bernie has a greater advantage over any other blue candidate in defeating Trump who will have a base of 30% of the electorate? There's another 70% out there and the Bernie campaign is trying (as Trump did) to tap into non-traditional voter markets - perhaps wisely, but WHY not as an advocate but as a sociologist do you see Bernie as having the best chance.

Sorry I'm putting you on the spot here (feel free not to respond), but I'm genuinely interested. I think there is something that I'm missing - maybe.... and I'm also trying to find a glimmer of hope.
 
Last edited:
As someone who works in education I find this depressing, but at the same time surprising. Kids have tests on this all the time and pass.

jaycee said:
86% of 15 year olds (i think it was 15 year olds) failed to be able to identify fact from opinion when presented with two stories about the same subject.
Click to expand...

However, teachers and education in general are competing with a lot when it comes to students attention. It takes some much work sometimes to even get kids to comply with basic rules let alone understand content.

A lot has to get reformed in our school system, but a lot has to do with the general culture. It’s gonna take a lot of resources and the political willingness to do both. Bernie is the only candidate that has addressed this in any way. My union has recently enforced him and I was in support of it even though there was some vocal opposition amongst the people I represent.


Bernie media bias. I believe in it. I don’t think it’s a conspiracy. People always protect their power base. His policies threaten the Cooperate And Political Elite. I can see why they would put their thumb on the scales. Weather that is coordinated or not nobody can really tell.

Another thing I do like about Bernie is the way his campaign is funded. Grassroots should be the only way they are funded. I would want him to win just because of that. I’m sick of cooperations ruling us all. There is no government. There is only people who do the cooperations bidding.
 
Dtknuckles said:
As someone who works in education I find this depressing, but at the same time surprising. Kids have tests on this all the time and pass.



However, teachers and education in general are competing with a lot when it comes to students attention. It takes some much work sometimes to even get kids to comply with basic rules let alone understand content.

A lot has to get reformed in our school system, but a lot has to do with the general culture. It’s gonna take a lot of resources and the political willingness to do both. Bernie is the only candidate that has addressed this in any way. My union has recently enforced him and I was in support of it even though there was some vocal opposition amongst the people I represent.


Bernie media bias. I believe in it. I don’t think it’s a conspiracy. People always protect their power base. His policies threaten the Cooperate And Political Elite. I can see why they would put their thumb on the scales. Weather that is coordinated or not nobody can really tell.

Another thing I do like about Bernie is the way his campaign is funded. Grassroots should be the only way they are funded. I would want him to win just because of that. I’m sick of cooperations ruling us all. There is no government. There is only people who do the cooperations bidding.
Click to expand...

My comments weren't meant to discredit the job teachers are doing, but more a commentary on the failures of policy and how we behave in modern society, the convenience of screen time and associated advertising for instance, is potentially influencing education outcomes. I don't know how any teacher is actually able to do their job given the framework they are asked to do it within.

Also - I would happily vote for Bernie - if I vote - it continues to feel like a near pointless endeavor to me.
 
This typo on my part is
jaycee said:
My comments weren't meant to discredit the job teachers are doing, but more a commentary on the failures of policy and how we behave in modern society, the convenience of screen time and associated advertising for instance, is potentially influencing education outcomes. I don't know how any teacher is actually able to do their job given the framework they are asked to do it within.

Also - I would happily vote for Bernie - if I vote - it continues to feel like a near pointless endeavor to me.
Click to expand...


Yea, I didn't take it that way. I just come form an ED background so that is where my thoughts went.
I've recently run into this on the Intercept group when people are criticizing Nate Silver. People have a hard time understanding data and how to use and interpret it. I think he does a good job of expressing the limits of data, but I don't think people listen because they want everything to be so black and white and look for a boogie man to blame.

Anyway I really should be getting back to writing the Emotional Disturbance Eligibility for my 8:30 IEP. This kid just had call to DCFS because of suspected abuse. This is the stuff we deal with on a daily basis in Education.
 
Last edited:
Regarding Buttigieg vs. Warren debate. Does it change much? I don't care about those long ago taxes of hers or his opening of fundraisers. If he made crazy promises it would of been recorded by someones iPhone and posted.

Neither of these things mean much to anyone, except people that are already on a team and looking for ammo.
 
KenKaniff said:
Neither of these things mean much to anyone, except people that are already on a team and looking for ammo.
Click to expand...

I disagree with this statement. it's the other way around. Taking money from corporations creates the teams. It kind of disqualifies my support for him. I mean if my arm is twisted I'd vote for him, but there is going to be a lot criticism. Campaign finance is probably one of the biggest reasons our political system sucks.
 
Dtknuckles said:
This typo on my part is



Yea, I didn't take it that way. I just come form an ED background so that is where my thoughts went.
I've recently run into this on the Intercept group when people are criticizing Nate Silver. People have a hard time understanding data and how to use and interpret it. I think he does a good job of expressing the limits of data, but I don't think people listen because they want everything to be so black and white and look for a boogie man to blame.

Anyway I really should be getting back to writing the Emotional Disturbance Eligibility for my 8:30 IEP. This kid just had call to DCFS because of suspected abuse. This is the stuff we deal with on a daily basis in Education.
Click to expand...
From my perspective people criticize Silver now because he went from trying to illustrate data to becoming a very bad pundit.
 
Dtknuckles said:
I disagree with this statement. it's the other way around. Taking money from corporations creates the teams. It kind of disqualifies my support for him. I mean if my arm is twisted I'd vote for him, but there is going to be a lot criticism. Campaign finance is probably one of the biggest reasons our political system sucks.
Click to expand...

I'd argue it's THE reason.
 
BjorgenFjorgen said:
From my perspective people criticize Silver now because he went from trying to illustrate data to becoming a very bad pundit.
Click to expand...


Honestly I only listen to his podcast and read the occasional article if I'm particularly interested. I listened to the citations needed podcast where they criticized him, and found it lacking.
 
jaycee said:
Long post about Bernie
Click to expand...

So I'm gonna try and be as articulate as I can to your layered comment.

A) I listened to the Daily piece (The Candidates: Bernie Sanders) that you reference while driving around LA today. I actually thought it was a very well done piece. But I'm also not sure why the only aspect of it that stuck with you is when Sanders bristled at the Sanderistas being brought up. I've said many times that I agree that Sanders is sometimes too defensive around the media. Particularly in this election cycle. That said, much of it derives from a desire to avoid gotcha questions that generate headlines. Warren does the same thing ALL THE TIME. Particularly as it pertains to healthcare. Do I think the moderator's have a point that he could frame it through the the lens of now versus then or attempted to give a nuanced answer? Sure. But both you and @Indymisanthrope just brought up how critical thinking is lacking in this day and age. So I don't mind Sander's framing of it via as a symbolic rebuttal to Ronald and the politics of that time.

B) Peter Doa was a consultant / advisor for Clinton last go round who is fully on team Bernie this go-round because his takeaway from 2016 was that neoliberal policies have failed us. He has said on Twitter that he has seen the full book of opposition research that exists on Sanders and that nothing within would be problematic during a general election in his eyes. In other words, this and the Russia honeymoon stuff is as bad as it gets and I simply don't think it's that big of a deal in the current era. Not nearly as big of a deal as Hunter Biden. Not as big of a deal as the fact that Pete is a straight up no-go for a lot of progressives due to his fundraising and has real issues with older blacks due to his homosexuality (which would absolutely depress turnout among certain minority groups). Probably not as big of a deal as the fact that Warren misrepresented her ethnicity for decades either (even though that's not something I give a shit about).

C) To me, the big takeaway from the Daily piece should be the blueprint that Sanders used to overthrow the establishment in Burlington. To give you background on myself-- My mom grew up in rural Arkansas during the 50's and 60's. Her father would disappear for days at a time up to St. Louis in order to help organize activists during the civil rights movement. When he retired and moved the family to Denver, he became a lobbyist for the arts and for drug and alcohol counseling. The SCFD culture tax (which was just renewed last year) was his brain child and he helped orchestrate its passing. Denver has had some of the best Zoos, museums and parks in the entire country ever since. The point of this is not to brag about my family, but this: In his later years (he died at 73), my grandfather was crippled by arthritis, 3 bouts with skin cancer and sculiosis (sp?). When my dad asked his father-in-law why he continued to dedicate so much of his time to activism despite the amount of pain he was in- my grandfather replied something along the lines of "the minute we become passive within the process, is the minute the government stops working for us".

Somebody a couple of comments ago mentioned their belief that money in politics is the reason our political system is so fucked up. And it's certainly a very large part of it. But the other part of it is that so few people are actively engaged in the process. This country has become an oligarchy and the ONLY way we change that is by utilizing a mass movement that organizes the left and puts them to work fighting back against our government. That means running for office, protesting, founding political organizations on the ground level that fight for issues both local and national, empowering workers and unions, exc. Sanders is the ONLY person running who consistently talks about that. And he doesn't just talk. He walks the walk. And the organizations that came out of his 2016 campaign are continuing to make an impact.

Obama came out of community organizing. He understood it's power which is why he ran such an effective campaign in 2008. Yet the minute he had been elected, he completely abandoned that grassroots infrastructure. It was the predictable outcome when you consider that 20 of his 25 cabinet positions were chosen by Citigroup. But the reality is that Obama is the one who set all of this in motion- whether that means the anger on the far left or the election of Donald Trump. Pushing the TPP, bailing out the banks and then not jailing the white collar criminals who broke the law and wrecked lives, foreclosing on 9 million homes (most of which wound up in the hands of real estate tycoons or the banks when it came to big cities), expanding the power of the president in ways that Trump is now exploiting, mass surveillance... it's not what Obama didn't get done- but what he did (or attempted) to get done that drove people under 35 to the far left and white working class voters to Trump while setting an environment where half of the country wants to burn the status quo the the ground.

And yes, I am part of that group. And yes my " vitriol" towards people like Diane Feinstein, Hillary and Chuck Shumer is VERY real. But no, that vitriol is not about people who don't support Sanders. I've said many times that I would gladly vote for Warren (though her waffling on M4A has removed the gladly from that statement). It is, however, sometimes aimed at people who continue to support corporate tools like Pete and Biden. Because those people are a part of the problem and in a post-Trump world my patience has worn thin. But we are also on the internet in a group that is merely shooting the shit. That disdain is usually masked in my real day to day- and has to be in instances where I am canvassing or working with those people on common causes (like a city counsel race or homelessness advocacy). After all- those people may be a huge part of the problem but that doesn't make them inherently bad people.

D) As to why I believe Bernie would win... We've already had this conversation in depth.

I worked on his campaign in three separate states in 2016. Other than the time I was in LA, it was all spent in rural areas. Without a voter registration list. I was knocking on EVERY door because that's how Bernie does it. And in that time I quickly realized that the socialist label didn't matter for 2 reasons. 1) Regardless of ideology, disillusioned voters trusted him and found him authentic. 2) Even if they didn't agree with all of his policies, they believed that he would fight for them and the American people. Partially because of his track record and partially because he was waging a war on money in politics and was funded by the people.

Bernie went on to absolutely TRASH Clinton among independent and newly registered voters. He often dominated her in rural areas (for the record, this is a guy has managed to win 25% of the vote in Vermont year over year)... In fact, his entire campaign was predicated around turning out rural areas. Whether that be the Western Slope of CO (which carried him to victory), Northern Nevada (which was very close) or Michigan (also a victory). The places where he lost big were either in the south or were closed primaries (often with early registration deadlines).

Which brings me to what has ALWAYS been Bernie's biggest problem- the type of voter who views being a Democrat as a huge part of their identity. The type of person who loathes Sanders because criticizing the DNC amounts to an attack on their soul and blames him for Clinton's loss. Do you really think that person is going to stay home if Bernie is the nominee and Trump is the alternative? I sure don't. I think they'd accept his nomination and unite to be rid of Trump. Same time, I don't think that's necessarily true for portions of Bernie's coalition- the disillusioned, working class, independent leaning, millennial portions of his coalition that want the system torched are far more fickle. I think most of them would get behind Warren, but Pete or Biden is a more complicated scenario. Of note though, is that those demographics are well represented in key mid-west and rust belt swing states. In other words, typical DNC voter + strong under 40 turnout + strong independent support + strong Latino support + new voter turnout = clear path to victory.

Will there be people who get red baited? Sure- but those people are likely to be the Fox News watching type anyways. Meanwhile, there are people like my cousin (or my roommates father) who have registered as a Democrat for the first time in their life in order to vote for Bernie.
The question is there are enough of them to make up for all the DNC die-hards, people who have crossed him off due to age or who are worried his electability (again) to get Bernie out the primary this time. And there may not be. Especially because the media thing is NOT a conspiracy. And that reality is a function of the elite protecting the status quo, plain and simple.
 
Last edited:
DownIsTheNewUp said:
So I'm gonna try and be as articulate as I can to your layered comment.

A) I listened to the Daily piece (The Candidates: Bernie Sanders) that you reference while driving around LA today. I actually thought it was a very well done piece. But I'm also not sure why the only aspect of it that stuck with you is when Sanders bristled at the Sanderistas being brought up. I've said many times that I agree that Sanders is sometimes too defensive around the media. Particularly in this election cycle. That said, much of it derives from a desire to avoid gotcha questions that generate headlines. Warren does the same thing ALL THE TIME. Particularly as it pertains to healthcare. Do I think the moderator's have a point that he could frame it through the the lens of now versus then or attempted to give a nuanced answer? Sure. But both you and @Indymisanthrope just brought up how critical thinking is lacking in this day and age. So I don't mind Sander's framing of it via as a symbolic rebuttal to Ronald and the politics of that time.

B) Peter Doa was a consultant / advisor for Clinton last go round who is fully on team Bernie this go-round because his takeaway from 2016 was that neoliberal policies have failed us. He has said on Twitter that he has seen the full book of opposition research that exists on Sanders and that nothing within would be problematic during a general election in his eyes. In other words, this and the Russia honeymoon stuff is as bad as it gets and I simply don't think it's that big of a deal in the current era. Not nearly as big of a deal as Hunter Biden. Not as big of a deal as the fact that Pete is a straight up no-go for a lot of progressives due to his fundraising and has real issues with older blacks due to his homosexuality (which would absolutely depress turnout among certain minority groups). Probably not as big of a deal as the fact that Warren misrepresented her ethnicity for decades either (even though that's not something I give a shit about).

C) To me, the big takeaway from the Daily piece should be the blueprint that Sanders used to overthrow the establishment in Burlington. To give you background on myself-- My mom grew up in rural Arkansas during the 50's and 60's. Her father would disappear for days at a time up to St. Louis in order to help organize activists during the civil rights movement. When he retired and moved the family to Denver, he became a lobbyist for the arts and for drug and alcohol counseling. The SCFD culture tax (which was just renewed last year) was his brain child and he helped orchestrate its passing. Denver has had some of the best Zoos, museums and parks in the entire country ever since. The point of this is not to brag about my family, but this: In his later years (he died at 73), my grandfather was crippled by arthritis, 3 bouts with skin cancer and sculiosis (sp?). When my dad asked his father-in-law why he continued to dedicate so much of his time to activism despite the amount of pain he was in- my grandfather replied something along the lines of "the minute we become passive within the process, is the minute the government stops working for us".

Somebody a couple of comments ago mentioned their belief that money in politics is the reason our political system is so fucked up. And it's certainly a very large part of it. But the other part of it is that so few people are actively engaged in the process. This country has become an oligarchy and the ONLY way we change that is by utilizing a mass movement that organizes the left and puts them to work fighting back against our government. That means running for office, protesting, founding political organizations on the ground level that fight for issues both local and national, empowering workers and unions, exc. Sanders is the ONLY person running who consistently talks about that. And he doesn't just talk. He walks the walk. And the organizations that came out of his 2016 campaign are continuing to make an impact.

Obama came out of community organizing. He understood it's power which is why he ran such an effective campaign in 2008. Yet the minute he had been elected, he completely abandoned that grassroots infrastructure. It was the predictable outcome when you consider that 20 of his 25 cabinet positions were chosen by Citigroup. But the reality is that Obama is the one who set all of this in motion- whether that means the anger on the far left or the election of Donald Trump. Pushing the TPP, bailing out the banks and then not jailing the white collar criminals who broke the law and wrecked lives, foreclosing on 9 million homes (most of which wound up in the hands of real estate tycoons or the banks when it came to big cities), expanding the power of the president in ways that Trump is now exploiting, mass surveillance... it's not what Obama didn't get done- but what he did (or attempted) to get done that drove people under 35 to the far left and white working class voters to Trump while setting an environment where half of the country wants to burn the status quo the the ground.

And yes, I am part of that group. And yes my " vitriol" towards people like Diane Feinstein, Hillary and Chuck Shumer is VERY real. But no, that vitriol is not about people who don't support Sanders. I've said many times that I would gladly vote for Warren (though her waffling on M4A has removed the gladly from that statement). It is, however, sometimes aimed at people who continue to support corporate tools like Pete and Biden. Because those people are a part of the problem and in a post-Trump world my patience has worn thin. But we are also on the internet in a group that is merely shooting the shit. That disdain is usually masked in my real day to day- and has to be in instances where I am canvassing or working with those people on common causes (like a city counsel race or homelessness advocacy). After all- those people may be a huge part of the problem but that doesn't make them inherently bad people.

D) As to why I believe Bernie would win... We've already had this conversation in depth.

I worked on his campaign in three separate states in 2016. Other than the time I was in LA, it was all spent in rural areas. Without a voter registration list. I was knocking on EVERY door because that's how Bernie does it. And in that time I quickly realized that the socialist label didn't matter for 2 reasons. 1) Regardless of ideology, disillusioned voters trusted him and found him authentic. 2) Even if they didn't agree with all of his policies, they believed that he would fight for them and the American people. Partially because of his track record and partially because he was waging a war on money in politics and was funded by the people.

Bernie went on to absolutely TRASH Clinton among independent and newly registered voters. He often dominated her in rural areas (for the record, this is a guy has managed to win 25% of the vote in Vermont year over year)... In fact, his entire campaign was predicated around turning out rural areas. Whether that be the Western Slope of CO (which carried him to victory), Northern Nevada (which was very close) or Michigan (also a victory). The places where he lost big were either in the south or were closed primaries (often with early registration deadlines).

Which brings me to what has ALWAYS been Bernie's biggest problem- the type of voter who views being a Democrat as a huge part of their identity. The type of person who loathes Sanders because criticizing the DNC amounts to an attack on their soul and blames him for Clinton's loss. Do you really think that person is going to stay home if Bernie is the nominee and Trump is the alternative? I sure don't. I think they'd accept his nomination and unite to be rid of Trump. Same time, I don't think that's necessarily true for portions of Bernie's coalition- the disillusioned, working class, independent leaning, millennial portions of his coalition that want the system torched are far more fickle. I think most of them would get behind Warren, but Pete or Biden is a more complicated scenario. Of note though, is that those demographics are well represented in key mid-west and rust belt swing states. In other words, typical DNC voter + strong under 40 turnout + strong independent support + strong Latino support + new voter turnout = clear path to victory.

Will there be people who get red baited? Sure- but those people are likely to be the Fox News watching type anyways. Meanwhile, there are people like my cousin (or my roommates father) who have registered as a Democrat for the first time in their life in order to vote for Bernie.
The question is there are enough of them to make up for all the DNC die-hards, people who have crossed him off due to age or who are worried his electability (again) to get Bernie out the primary this time. And there may not be. Especially because the media thing is NOT a conspiracy. And that reality is a function of the elite protecting the status quo, plain and simple.
Click to expand...

Where Bernie fucked-up in that interview wasn't the only thing that stuck with me, and I'm not sure why you chose to frame it like that. I asked about it because, as I stated, I think it could be a problem for him come general election time.

I specifically asked about the vitriol directed at the media - not about the Bernie vs the rest of the political world thing you describe.

I won't ask again. I wasn't looking for more campaign advocacy... I don't know what I expected.

I continue to think your takes about the part of the country I live in are waaaaaay of base. I guess we'll see.
 
Last edited:
jaycee said:
Where Bernie fucked-up in that interview wasn't the "only" thing that stuck with me, and I'm not sure why you chose to frame it like that. I asked about it because, as I stated, I think it could be a problem for him come general election time.

I specifically asked about the vitriol directed at the media - not about the Bernie vs the rest of the political world thing you describe.

I won't ask again. I wasn't looking for more campaign advocacy... I don't know what I expected.

I continue to think your takes about the part of the country I live in are waaaaaay of base. I guess we'll see.
Click to expand...

"So as a sociologist, or at least someone who works with sociological data, why do you believe (I think) that Bernie has a greater advantage over any other blue candidate in defeating Trump who will have a base of 30% of the electorate? There's another 70% out there and the Bernie campaign is trying (as Trump did) to tap into non-traditional voter markets - perhaps wisely, but WHY not as an advocate but as a sociologist do you see Bernie as having the best chance."

That is what I was responding to. I added the portion about movement building because it was the focus of the podcast / interview you specifically brought up. The thing was an examination of the ways in which mayor Bernie overcame a government that was determined to obstruct him by working to organize and empower his community.

The media side of it was wrapped into @Indymisanthrope's comment so I was going to tackle it in that response (tomorrow). Because it's a complex issues that I have complicated feelings about. But the short of it is to say that the media did this to themselves, and there have been many steps along the way. The is not just about Sanders but about the way that they cover (or fail to cover) issues like foreign policy, climate change and health care. It's about Ron Paul (which was the first time I remember noticing it), Yang, and Gabbard or anyone whose message pushes back against the status quo. It's about the push for Iraq, the ways in which Google's search engine buries good essays on the causes of the recession while pushing think tank publications to the top of the pile, the fact that climate change deniers are still given a platform to ham it up as merchants of doubt. It's about the fact that important issues go uncovered while sensationalist nonsense of little consequence it given hours and hours of coverage if it drives up ratings. It's about the the vast majority of our media is owned by like 5 outlets and PBS and NPR. It's about manufacturing consent.

I have no problem with Sanders alluding to that even if I wish he were better at not bristling at certain questions. It is not close to the same thing that Trump is doing with his "fake news" (if it isn't his news) narrative and his attacks on individual journalists.

And by the way, because I think this is part of what @Indymisanthrope is alluding to... that is not to say that there aren't good journalists at institutions that I have deep problems with or that those places don't also do very good work at times. But it is to say that far too much over the (older) left simply nods their head to whatever MSNBC or the NYT is feeding them (while they shake their fists at Fox without seeing the hypocrisy). Similarly, the hypocrisy is thick when that same crowd labels Greenwald or Tabbai as a Russian asset while praising somebody like David Brooks, Anderson (Vanderbilt) Cooper or Rachel Maddow.
 
Last edited:
DownIsTheNewUp said:
"So as a sociologist, or at least someone who works with sociological data, why do you believe (I think) that Bernie has a greater advantage over any other blue candidate in defeating Trump who will have a base of 30% of the electorate? There's another 70% out there and the Bernie campaign is trying (as Trump did) to tap into non-traditional voter markets - perhaps wisely, but WHY not as an advocate but as a sociologist do you see Bernie as having the best chance."

That is what I was responding to. I added the portion about movement building because it was the focus of the podcast / interview you specifically brought up. The thing was an examination of the ways in which mayor Bernie overcame a government that was determined to obstruct him by working to organize and empower his community.

The media side of it was wrapped into @Indymisanthrope's comment so I was going to tackle it in that response (tomorrow). Because it's a complex issues that I have complicated feelings about. But the short of it is to say that the media did this to themselves, and there have been many steps along the way. The is not just about Sanders but about the way that they cover (or fail to cover) issues like foreign policy, climate change and health care. It's about Ron Paul (which was the first time I remember noticing it), Yang, and Gabbard or anyone whose message pushes back against the status quo. It's about the push for Iraq, the ways in which Google's search engine buries good essays on the causes of the recession while pushing think tank publications to the top of the pile, the fact that climate change deniers are still given a platform to ham it up as merchants of doubt. It's about the fact that important issues go uncovered while sensationalist nonsense of little consequence it given hours and hours of coverage if it drives up ratings. It's about the the vast majority of our media is owned by like 5 outlets and PBS and NPR. It's about manufacturing consent.

I have no problem with Sanders alluding to that even if I wish he were better at not bristling at certain questions. It is not close to the same thing that Trump is doing with his "fake news" (if it isn't his news) narrative and his attacks on individual journalists.

And by the way, because I think this is part of what @Indymisanthrope is alluding to... that is not to say that there aren't good journalists at institutions that I have deep problems with or that those places don't also do very good work at times. But it is to say that far too much over the (older) left simply nods their head to whatever MSNBC or the NYT is feeding them (while they shake their fists at Fox without seeing the hypocrisy). Similarly, the hypocrisy is thick when that same crowd labels Greenwald or Tabbai as a Russian asset while praising somebody like David Brooks, Anderson (Vanderbilt) Cooper or Rachel Maddow.
Click to expand...

That's all well and good and is not new information about "the media" or the blindness of the blue and red team members. I fail to see how Bernie and his campaign staff threatening to leave and interview and effectively cutting it short because they didn't want to explain his support for a leftists rebel group that was 'less bad' than the people the Reagan administration was propping-up isn't deeply hypocritical of his campaign's ideals. Particularly when the interview was being conducted in an incredibly friendly setting.

That approach does nothing to expose the conspiracy that you are describing (because it literally wasn't discussed) and only persuades potential voters to doubt his authenticity. It also creates an easy attack ad for opponents come general election time. The conspiracy theories, regardless of their accuracy, are probably not going to do the campaign any good. It comes across to people as another "fake news" even if it is factual. It makes Bernie look less competent than he is.

All of the non-status quo politicians you mention are still free-market capitalists. Personally I feel that is still very status quo. You mentioned Obama earlier too (Another free market believer), but I thought it was interesting that you put the blame for the bank bailout and recession on him and his administrations approach. I have no doubt that different decisions should have been made, but the bank bailout was occurring before he ever took office and certainly the collapse of the housing and securities scam was well underway.

If you are representing the lens through which the Sanders campaign views recent history... btw there is a clear recent history bias by the social-democracy movement that is ignoring so much of what has occurred throughout America's past and past social movements... then I fear what will happen in a general election with Bernie as the candidate.

I think appearances matter, particularly in politics, and for Bernie maybe more-so than other candidates. He is going to need all of the positive optics he can get. The establishments that you have described are not about laying down their weapons and raising the flag of the opposition.

Maybe the conspiracy propaganda will work for the Sanders campaign as it did for Trump. I don't know but it's all a deeply troubling approach to me.

I'm not trying to say there is something wrong with Bernie. I think I'm trying to say that there are some big blind-spots from the campaign and from the man himself, and I think they could cause him trouble in the general.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top