Election 2020

[Sour Masher]

Two more toss their hat into the very crowded ring: Reps. Eric Swalwell of California and Tim Ryan of Ohio.

What is the record for number of official candidates for one side of the aisle? Are we getting there?

[Teenwolf]

What is the record for number of official candidates for one side of the aisle? Are we getting there?

I'm hoping the minimum debate requirements knock a few of these guys out. 65K individual donors is quite a lot for the minimum threshold. Tulsi Gabbard still hasn't gotten there, and the first debates are only 2 months away.

[Sour Masher]

I'm hoping the minimum debate requirements knock a few of these guys out. 65K individual donors is quite a lot for the minimum threshold. Tulsi Gabbard still hasn't gotten there, and the first debates are only 2 months away.

After the last election, I am hesitant to be for limiting the field, but I too hope the field will narrow just a bit. With so many overlapping voices, some ideas and people will inevitably be drowned out. I really hope the process this year helps candidates be heard and helps inform voters. I also hope it helps the party find itself. There are a lot of folks who disagree on some things in the tent right now and I hope we can all see debate on these issues that leads to consensus and unity in the face of a foe that needs to be defeated, for the good of us all.

[The Feral Slasher]

WaPo seems to be anti-Sanders.

Check out @davidsirota’s Tweet: https://twitter.com/davidsirota/stat...743787008?s=09

It doesn't really matter much, and there is nothing anyone can do about it - but isn't it pretty obvious that the corporate media would have a bias against a democratic socialist who speaks strongly against large corporations ? It shouldn't be a conspiracy theory, anyone who understands corporate structures and incentives would agree that it is likely there is an anti-Sanders bias in the main stream/corporate media, right ? Am I missing something ? (not directed at you DMT, just responded to your post)

[Sour Masher]

It doesn't really matter much, and there is nothing anyone can do about it - but isn't it pretty obvious that the corporate media would have a bias against a democratic socialist who speaks strongly against large corporations ? It shouldn't be a conspiracy theory, anyone who understands corporate structures and incentives would agree that it is likely there is an anti-Sanders bias in the main stream/corporate media, right ? Am I missing something ? (not directed at you DMT, just responded to your post)

Call me naive, but while I get corporate heads like Bezos bring anti-sanders, all ive ever heard from media people, even retired ones, is that the big corporate powers usually dont directly command or direct news or even editorial voices. I know there have been exceptions, but I'mskeptical of it being the norm, although that does preclude people writing in ways they assume will appease their employers, even if direct commands are not given.

[Judge Jude]

I never experienced any interference from the 'powers-that-be' in my 35 years - and sometimes the comfortable got afflicted, as the saying goes (even ones that, um, wound up with pretty powerful jobs. too bad.).

is that changing? I'd like to think not. I'd like to think not.
have I mentioned that I'd like to think not?

[The Feral Slasher]

Call me naive, but while I get corporate heads like Bezos bring anti-sanders, all ive ever heard from media people, even retired ones, is that the big corporate powers usually dont directly command or direct news or even editorial voices. I know there have been exceptions, but I'mskeptical of it being the norm, although that does preclude people writing in ways they assume will appease their employers, even if direct commands are not given.

Certainly possible, but clearly from looking at MSNBC and Fox there is a bias. And I would expect that flows down thru the organization in spoken and unspoken ways. If I was a senior manager in corporate media and I knew that a Sanders presidency would affect my bottom line and that of all my bosses I am sure I'd think about that. Maybe I'm unusual in that, but I doubt it. In general Sanders isn't very popular with wealthy people compared to middle and lower class, so I think it is likely that upper class people in corporate media aren't fans of his.

[The Feral Slasher]

Certainly possible, but clearly from looking at MSNBC and Fox there is a bias. And I would expect that flows down thru the organization in spoken and unspoken ways. If I was a senior manager in corporate media and I knew that a Sanders presidency would affect my bottom line and that of all my bosses I am sure I'd think about that. Maybe I'm unusual in that, but I doubt it. In general Sanders isn't very popular with wealthy people compared to middle and lower class, so I think it is likely that upper class people in corporate media aren't fans of his.

I guess in simplest terms what i am saying is that corporate media is essentially news from the perspective of the wealthy and upper class perspective. How could it not be ?

[The Feral Slasher]

I never experienced any interference from the 'powers-that-be' in my 35 years - and sometimes the comfortable got afflicted, as the saying goes (even ones that, um, wound up with pretty powerful jobs. too bad.).

is that changing? I'd like to think not. I'd like to think not.
have I mentioned that I'd like to think not?

That's great. I have a really hard time believing that no one working in corporate media considers their career in choosing what they report on. Do you think people at Fox and MSNBC don't consider this when they choose what topics and what perspective to promote ?

[The Feral Slasher]

Call me naive, but while I get corporate heads like Bezos bring anti-sanders, all ive ever heard from media people, even retired ones, is that the big corporate powers usually dont directly command or direct news or even editorial voices. I know there have been exceptions, but I'mskeptical of it being the norm, although that does preclude people writing in ways they assume will appease their employers, even if direct commands are not given.

To have a bias you don't need to have someone directly tell you what to report on. And I would expect that editorials are chosen by management. Maybe I'm a conspiracy theorist, but I just have a hard time believing that self-interest and personal connections don't play a large part in what is reported, even if there is no direction from management.

[The Feral Slasher]

Really should move this to the main stream media thread - but what do people think of the reporting from the Iraq war for example. Was the media unbiased and looking for truth ? Or was the news all centered around what was "acceptable" to the folks that mattered. I'd like to hear an argument that it was not biased and based on objectivity and truth.

[The Feral Slasher]

I never experienced any interference from the 'powers-that-be' in my 35 years - and sometimes the comfortable got afflicted, as the saying goes (even ones that, um, wound up with pretty powerful jobs. too bad.).

is that changing? I'd like to think not. I'd like to think not.
have I mentioned that I'd like to think not?

So what do you think of reporting from the Mueller investigation and "Russiagate" Was it all based on reporters doing their best to uncover truth ? Or did biases and play into it at all ?

[onejayhawk]

Go away few days and ten pages of nothing much pops up.

UVa has an article by Alan Abramowitz attempting to predict the electoral vote based on two primary factors--the economy and His approval rating. Results range from certain defeat to landslide victory, as one might expect. This is not new, but here is his version

http://crystalball.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/assessing-trumps-chances-forecasting-the-2020-presidential-election/

The most plausible prediction at this point, however, is for a very close contest. Given a net approval rating of -10, approximately where Trump’s approval rating has been stuck for most of the past year, and real GDP growth of between 1% to 2%, in line with most recent economic forecasts, the model predicts that he would receive between 263 and 283 electoral votes. Of course, it takes 270 electoral votes to win.

I am skeptical for three reasons. First and most important is the unique level of media opposition. Second is the generational divide within the Democratic party. Third is the quality, or lack of it, of the eventual opponent. Still, all of that probably slides the scale only 20 votes or so.

J

[The Feral Slasher]

Call me naive, but while I get corporate heads like Bezos bring anti-sanders, all ive ever heard from media people, even retired ones, is that the big corporate powers usually dont directly command or direct news or even editorial voices. I know there have been exceptions, but I'mskeptical of it being the norm, although that does preclude people writing in ways they assume will appease their employers, even if direct commands are not given.

I guess I'll make one more post to clarify - I never claimed that corporations are directing people how to report on Sanders. I said that it should be obvious that media entirely composed of wealthy people would who have benefited from the current capitalist system would be biased against a democratic socialist. I wouldn't think that would be something people would argue against, because it seems obvious. All the large media corporations are written entirely from the perspective wealth and upper class. If you don't think that creates a bias I guess we will just disagree. I'm explicitly not commenting or claiming there is a conspiracy or direction from management about how to write, just noting what I think should be obvious.

[Sour Masher]

I guess I'll make one more post to clarify - I never claimed that corporations are directing people how to report on Sanders. I said that it should be obvious that media entirely composed of wealthy people would who have benefited from the current capitalist system would be biased against a democratic socialist. I wouldn't think that would be something people would argue against, because it seems obvious. All the large media corporations are written entirely from the perspective wealth and upper class. If you don't think that creates a bias I guess we will just disagree. I'm explicitly not commenting or claiming there is a conspiracy or direction from management about how to write, just noting what I think should be obvious.

I can see that, but a lot of these folks I'm reading and viewing and listening to are progressive/left leaning, or people who claim to be, even while also being well off.