Mega-Thread: Democratic 2020 Primaries

[Elegiac]

https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...ty-pledge.html

Wow I can't believe Bernie sold his soul to the DNC. Do his supporters know?

[Lenonis]

Seems fine to me. Am I missing something?

Yes, there was one article that was not fully cheerleading for Sanders thus all media is a total blackout on any pro-Sanders coverage.

-- - - Updated - - -

https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...ty-pledge.html

Great and the second he loses the nomination he'll drop the party like a hot potato. Let's not pretend this isn't pure opportunism. Honestly I'm not even convinced if he won he wouldn't drop the party once in office.

[starlord]

isn't it amazing how bernie can win a primary and still bernie bros insist there's a conspiracy against him?

[Drutt]

Great and the second he loses the nomination he'll drop the party like a hot potato. Let's not pretend this isn't pure opportunism. Honestly I'm not even convinced if he won he wouldn't drop the party once in office.

Perhaps he will. That remains to be seen.

At the moment, though, he's a Democrat. Saying he isn't is objectively wrong. They asked him to join the party, he joined the party.

[Edge-]

isn't it amazing how bernie can win a primary and still bernie bros insist there's a conspiracy against him?

Wins primary
Gets tons of headlines calling out his primary win unequivocally

"There's still a media conspiracy against him!"

Everyone else: Wat

[Yoshingo]

Wins primary
Gets tons of headlines calling out his primary win unequivocally

"There's still a media conspiracy against him!"

Everyone else: Wat

I mean this isn't exactly true or fair. The Iowa headlines were all about Pete and then the waters were muddied further and further and further on that topic.

In New Hampshire, even though he won, across CNN and ABC and MSNBC, the three I was watching last night, all were talking about how "Pete closes the gap with Sanders" and/or falling over themselves to credit Klobuchar for her 3rd place win. MSNBC had an entire segment about how Klobuchar coming in 3rd was arguably even better than Sanders winning 1st.

Yes people were saying Sanders came in first, but almost all the stories were editorialized with stuff about Pete and/or Klobuchar. Compare that to Iowa where the media headlines were, "PETE DEFIES EXPECTATIONS TO WIN IOWA!" or the 8 hour stint where Klobuchar was being said to "pull ahead early on" in New Hampshire because she came out 1 vote ahead when 1% of the votes were in.

I don't think there's a conspiracy but I think the optics show some kind of media fuckery and I could at least kind of see why some of the craziest Sanders supporters might think there IS one.

[Edge-]

I mean this isn't exactly true or fair. The Iowa headlines were all about Pete and then the waters were muddied further and further and further on that topic.

Even if Sanders had won Iowa outright, Pete nipping at his heels and leapfrogging Biden hard is significantly more newsworthy than "Sanders, who was predicted to have a strong showing, had a less strong showing than anticipated."

In New Hampshire, even though he won, across CNN and ABC and MSNBC, the three I was watching last night, all were talking about how "Pete closes the gap with Sanders" and/or falling over themselves to credit Klobuchar for her 3rd place win.

Klobuchar is big news. She's been largely non-existent, and that she's polling close to or beating Biden is significant.

Same goes for Pete. Folks were curious as to if he could carry the momentum.

Sanders though? Not remotely as newsworthy as it was pretty predictable stuff.

MSNBC had an entire segment about how Klobuchar coming in 3rd was arguably even better than Sanders winning 1st.

For her campaign, it is. Anything less than a Sanders win would have been a huge loss for him, and the fact that she came in a solid third ahead of both Warren and Biden, who have been far ahead of her until recently, is a bigger win for her campaign than eeking out a narrow victory is for Sanders.

Context. Matters.

I don't think there's a conspiracy but I think the optics show some kind of media fuckery and I could at least kind of see why some of the craziest Sanders supporters might think there IS one.

They show that media want to find the most sensational story to drive clicks. Sanders predictably winning, even by a narrow margin, isn't a hot story. A "nobody" candidate coming out with damn strong results, is.

[Endus]

I mean this isn't exactly true or fair. The Iowa headlines were all about Pete and then the waters were muddied further and further and further on that topic.

In New Hampshire, even though he won, across CNN and ABC and MSNBC, the three I was watching last night, all were talking about how "Pete closes the gap with Sanders" and/or falling over themselves to credit Klobuchar for her 3rd place win. MSNBC had an entire segment about how Klobuchar coming in 3rd was arguably even better than Sanders winning 1st.

Sanders placing high is expected, frankly. It isn't really a surprising revelation.

Klobuchar's gains in NH, however, was a bit of a surprise, and hence worth specific mention.

Yes people were saying Sanders came in first, but almost all the stories were editorialized with stuff about Pete and/or Klobuchar. Compare that to Iowa where the media headlines were, "PETE DEFIES EXPECTATIONS TO WIN IOWA!" or the 8 hour stint where Klobuchar was being said to "pull ahead early on" in New Hampshire because she came out 1 vote ahead when 1% of the votes were in.

I watched out latest election results here in Canada pretty closely, and we had people saying "So-and-so is off to an early lead in their riding, but if you look, it's one station reporting in, with a a total of 14 votes, so that doesn't really mean anything". This is just standard election reporting. It isn't somehow "fuckery" because it isn't slobbering over Sanders 24/7.

[Yoshingo]

I mean I just thoroughly and completely disagree. I think its obvious that the media organizations prop up these status quo candidates while they underplay a Sanders victory at every possible chance. Had Warren been 1st they'd be doing the exact same thing.

It isn't somehow "fuckery" because it isn't slobbering over Sanders 24/7.

Not what I said at all lol.

In fact the slobbering was over Klobuchar and the slobbering has been over Pete since Iowa and continued into New Hampshire despite him not even winning.

[Edge-]

I mean I just thoroughly and completely disagree.

That's fine, but this is very standard stuff. This is how elections have been covered for years.

Hillary comes ahead in 2008 in a state she's predicted to win? Not news.

Obama coming out with a surprise win? Big news.

Obama coming close and closing a huge gap in a surprise finish? Big news.

That doesn't mean they're "anti-Hillary", it's just that "Predicted candidate predictably wins primary" isn't terribly interesting news, or terribly newsworthy beyond a mention.

I think its obvious that the media organizations prop up these status quo candidates while they underplay a Sanders victory at every possible chance.

As I've said elsewhere, it's nowhere near as planned or nefarious.

For profit media companies, who drive a lot of the media landscape even for non-profits, are going to prioritize stories that get them clicks/eyeballs. If you look at the arc of primary coverage to-date, it all very much fits.

Look at Beto.

He was a darling leading into his announcement, and got tons of coverage while he was doing stuff like livestreaming dental appointments. But guess what? Quickly the luster wore off and there wasn't much about him to drive traffic, so he fell off the planet. Hence his multiple relaunches for his campaign.

He was a firmly establishment, centrist candidate. He wasn't rocking boats. He relied heavily on corporate media to boost his campaign. But they didn't "drop" him because of some grand plan, but simply because he wasn't making them money anymore.

Had Warren been 1st they'd be doing the exact same thing.

No, that'd be a big story. Just like when Warren was briefly leading the pack. But the big story for her now are how her campaign is struggling and doing poorly even in her own back yard in NH. Not because she's a progressive, but because that's reality.

[Lenonis]

Perhaps he will. That remains to be seen.

At the moment, though, he's a Democrat. Saying he isn't is objectively wrong. They asked him to join the party, he joined the party.

And the sky is blue and water is wet.

However your simplistic statement is also ignoring decades of him not being a democrat for the 2 seconds he is to try to ride the party to the white house.

I really don't know why people defend this. It's clear opportunism full stop. If Bernie wanted to be a democrat he'd have stayed in the party.

[Wyrt]

And the sky is blue and water is wet.

However your simplistic statement is also ignoring decades of him not being a democrat for the 2 seconds he is to try to ride the party to the white house.

I really don't know why people defend this. It's clear opportunism full stop. If Bernie wanted to be a democrat he'd have stayed in the party.

Did you miss him campaigning for democrats in 2018? He's been working with the DNC since 2016. You're basically whining about a label.

And would you rather him run as an independent and be a spoiler candidate that ensures 4 more years of Trump? Or do you want him to work within the system we have in the US?

[Elegiac]

Did you miss him campaigning for democrats in 2018?

I remember him shitting on the Blue Wave while Perez was busy making sure y'all don't have Kevin McCarthy as Speaker.

[Lenonis]

Did you miss him campaigning for democrats in 2018? He's been working with the DNC since 2016. You're basically whining about a label.

And would you rather him run as an independent and be a spoiler candidate that ensures 4 more years of Trump? Or do you want him to work within the system we have in the US?

Labels matter in politics. I've already said my peace that cooping party labels solely to try to get the presidency does a massive disservice to people who are actual members of that party.

Let's say you join a sports team when you are 18 hoping to one day be the head coach of the team by working your way from water boy to towel boy to benchwarmer to starter to star play to assistant coach. Now you are finally interviewing for head coach decades later. Suddenly this guy walks in -- you recognize him as a free agent who you know is a fan of your team but never played for it but popped up here and there over the years. He's all like "Oh hey, fancy meeting you here -- I joined your team last night so I could interview for the job. If I don't get it I'm quitting the team the next day but if I get it then I might actually stick around. We'll see!"

That doesn't strike you as perhaps not the right way to go?

If Sanders is such a fan of the team he should just join it already.

[Blur4stuff]

I see we're entering the phase where Bernie haters are just going to randomly spew venom about whatever pops into their head. The ones on cable tv having meltdowns is especially entertaining. They truly need to get a grip.

Bernie isn't the enemy. Dems would not only be perfectly fine with him in office, but they'd do quite well and grow as a party. It's not something to fear. The level of animosity is uncalled for.

[Edge-]

I see we're entering the phase where Bernie haters are just going to randomly spew venom about whatever pops into their head. The ones on cable tv having meltdowns is especially entertaining. They truly need to get a grip.

*sigh*

Critiques of Sanders doesn't make one a Bernie hater.

Someone coming in surprise third being a bigger story than someone coming in a predictable first doesn't mean someone is having a meltdown.

This "Sanders is always a victim of everyone" narrative isn't a particularly good one.

[Themius]

I remember him shitting on the Blue Wave while Perez was busy making sure y'all don't have Kevin McCarthy as Speaker.

And if they don't believe you:

[Blur4stuff]

Calling bernie supporters brown shirts and ranting about being executed are irrational meltdowns.

I'm perfectly fine with people pointing out that Klobuchar's performance was impressive since I also think that's true.

Some of the stuff we're seeing is not just regular critiques being made. People both online and in the media are acting very irrationally when it comes to Sanders. It's completely ridiculous.

[Trandwithd]

*sigh*

Critiques of Sanders doesn't make one a Bernie hater.

You obviously have some kind of agenda and are projecting some kind of "sensible unity sentiment" to cover yourself, unfortunately no one believes it except you.

[Elegiac]

*sigh*

Critiques of Sanders doesn't make one a Bernie hater.

Someone coming in surprise third being a bigger story than someone coming in a predictable first doesn't mean someone is having a meltdown.

This "Sanders is always a victim of everyone" narrative isn't a particularly good one.

They say shit like this and then freak out when people point out that's exactly the sort of mindset Trump voters are known for.

- Insisting their leader is the only one who can fix the country's ills.
- Gaslighting people who have negative experiences with his supporters.
- Getting upset at negative media attention.
- Getting upset at insufficiently positive media attention.
- Conflating loyalty to their candidate with ideological purity.
- Their candidate turning a blind eye to his supporters' behavior when it benefits them.
- Insisting all mainstream media is out to get their candidate.
- Actively circulating conspiracy theories to undermine the legitimacy of opponents.
- Actively circulating conspiracy theories to undermine the legitimacy of the system.