The Future of the Democratic Party

[Dr. Medulla]

Dukaki, please.

A little too close to bukake for my liking.

I wish I was closer to bukkake.

It's a shame your birthday just passed. I would have arranged for you to visit the Gentleman's Relish Ranch.

It's the thought that counts.

The biggest misconception about me is that I don't care.

[eumaas]

[Dr. Medulla]

Confirmation of Sanders being the nominee will be understood when the name Hunter Biden drops from Republican lips in the media. Concern about corruption in Ukraine will be replaced by concern about corruption in Vermont.

[Silent Majority]

Confirmation of Sanders being the nominee will be understood when the name Hunter Biden drops from Republican lips in the media. Concern about corruption in Ukraine will be replaced by concern about corruption in Vermont.

Unlike the UK system, where the slow erosion of trust in the leader of the opposition is possible over years, it's going to be to Sanders' benefit that the forces against us haven't had a chance to start moving properly against him at as late a date as this.

[Dr. Medulla]

Confirmation of Sanders being the nominee will be understood when the name Hunter Biden drops from Republican lips in the media. Concern about corruption in Ukraine will be replaced by concern about corruption in Vermont.

Unlike the UK system, where the slow erosion of trust in the leader of the opposition is possible over years, it's going to be to Sanders' benefit that the forces against us haven't had a chance to start moving properly against him at as late a date as this.

That's an interesting point. If Hillary Clinton hadn't established some 25 years of public skepticism-to-loathing, would the various charges lobbed at her have been as effective? That is, less misogyny and fealty to corporate interests, was her long presence on the scene the thing that should have given Democratic leaders pause because it made it easier to craft credible attacks on her character? In that respect, our media-saturated society makes the relatively unknown politician more appealing because they don't carry the stink of a long list of attacks and insinuations. Which, I suspect, explains a lot of Buttagieg's appeal.

[Silent Majority]

Confirmation of Sanders being the nominee will be understood when the name Hunter Biden drops from Republican lips in the media. Concern about corruption in Ukraine will be replaced by concern about corruption in Vermont.

Unlike the UK system, where the slow erosion of trust in the leader of the opposition is possible over years, it's going to be to Sanders' benefit that the forces against us haven't had a chance to start moving properly against him at as late a date as this.

That's an interesting point. If Hillary Clinton hadn't established some 25 years of public skepticism-to-loathing, would the various charges lobbed at her have been as effective? That is, less misogyny and fealty to corporate interests, was her long presence on the scene the thing that should have given Democratic leaders pause because it made it easier to craft credible attacks on her character? In that respect, our media-saturated society makes the relatively unknown politician more appealing because they don't carry the stink of a long list of attacks and insinuations. Which, I suspect, explains a lot of Buttagieg's appeal.

I absolutely believe there has been an intentional conspiracy of silence in the reportage of Bernie's campaign up to this point, which shows how dumb the Dem establishment has been in choosing tactics. That was just the wrong thing to do. The treatment of Corbyn's Labour shows they should have ramped the smears immediately. Sanders is personally tougher than Corbyn, more willing to fight, which will help him too.

[Dr. Medulla]

Confirmation of Sanders being the nominee will be understood when the name Hunter Biden drops from Republican lips in the media. Concern about corruption in Ukraine will be replaced by concern about corruption in Vermont.

Unlike the UK system, where the slow erosion of trust in the leader of the opposition is possible over years, it's going to be to Sanders' benefit that the forces against us haven't had a chance to start moving properly against him at as late a date as this.

That's an interesting point. If Hillary Clinton hadn't established some 25 years of public skepticism-to-loathing, would the various charges lobbed at her have been as effective? That is, less misogyny and fealty to corporate interests, was her long presence on the scene the thing that should have given Democratic leaders pause because it made it easier to craft credible attacks on her character? In that respect, our media-saturated society makes the relatively unknown politician more appealing because they don't carry the stink of a long list of attacks and insinuations. Which, I suspect, explains a lot of Buttagieg's appeal.

I absolutely believe there has been an intentional conspiracy of silence in the reportage of Bernie's campaign up to this point, which shows how dumb the Dem establishment has been in choosing tactics. That was just the wrong thing to do. The treatment of Corbyn's Labour shows they should have ramped the smears immediately. Sanders is personally tougher than Corbyn, more willing to fight, which will help him too.

If it were intentional—as in a planned strategy—it was rooted in the idea that taking him serious in any way validates his campaign. That's a classic justification—ignore them because their positions or critiques don't merit a response. Which makes some sense with fringe candidates, but it takes serious bubbled insularity to consider Sanders and his constituency as fringe and irrelevant. Which reveals the contempt for Democratic elites for the concerns of the base. Ignore the fact that the structure of the economy is rigged to create more have-nots, and premise your party on the upwardly mobile and well-educated. This has been really good for revealing that the media is far more comfortable with the right than somebody actually left of centre. In the end, elites would rather hang out with other people with power. That's a real duh statement, but corporate liberals like to think that they are so tolerant and accepting. Here's the moment that reveals their basic contempt.

[Dr. Medulla]

If this is actually true—and it's quite surprising if so—Sanders is the first candidate of either party to win the popular vote of the first three competitive primaries: https://www.newsweek.com/bernie-sanders ... ly-1488638

Hard to believe that's never happened before, even with candidates who were basically anointed going in.

[Flex]

I can definitely believe an intentional conspiracy of silence around Sanders. Water flows downhill and the lowest effort/easiest to agree on action is to deliberately take no action at all. Some of that is probably a result of getting high on your own supply and actually believing some of the bullshit about what voters will and won't respond to.

[Low Down Low]

One thing i felt with corbyn wasnt the viciousness of the right wing media towards him, that was merely par for the course, it was the sustained opposition of usually supportive leftist outlets like the guardian/observer group, new statesman and others when he really could have done with a break. The quite palpable bias of cnn and msnbc seems cut from the same cloth to me, though perhaps for different reasons, but i also think Sanders seems more organised and determined than corbyn ever was so I'd be hopeful he'd brush it off, or ship minimal damage at the least.

[Flex]

One thing i felt with corbyn wasnt the viciousness of the right wing media towards him, that was merely par for the course, it was the sustained opposition of usually supportive leftist outlets like the guardian/observer group, new statesman and others when he really could have done with a break. The quite palpable bias of cnn and msnbc seems cut from the same cloth to me, though perhaps for different reasons, but i also think Sanders seems more organised and determined than corbyn ever was so I'd be hopeful he'd brush it off, or ship minimal damage at the least.

I don't know enough of the Dynamics in UK media to comment on how it works there, but in the US so much of that cable news bullshit is built around access, that once Sanders becomes inevitable a fair few of them will fall in line. Ownership and donors may still wage a war, but if your cushy job as a pundit depends on being a reliable stenographer for those in power, and Sanders seems the best bet, you'll want to ingratiate yourself. The Sanders camp will be more prickly to deal with for people like that, but not impossible, imho. There will be financial incentives for most of these folks to, as the Chapo folks like to put it, "bend the knee". That's what I hope, anyways.

[Dr. Medulla]

One thing i felt with corbyn wasnt the viciousness of the right wing media towards him, that was merely par for the course, it was the sustained opposition of usually supportive leftist outlets like the guardian/observer group, new statesman and others when he really could have done with a break. The quite palpable bias of cnn and msnbc seems cut from the same cloth to me, though perhaps for different reasons, but i also think Sanders seems more organised and determined than corbyn ever was so I'd be hopeful he'd brush it off, or ship minimal damage at the least.

I don't know enough of the Dynamics in UK media to comment on how it works there, but in the US so much of that cable news bullshit is built around access, that once Sanders becomes inevitable a fair few of them will fall in line. Ownership and donors may still wage a war, but if your cushy job as a pundit depends on being a reliable stenographer for those in power, and Sanders seems the best bet, you'll want to ingratiate yourself. The Sanders camp will be more prickly to deal with for people like that, but not impossible, imho. There will be financial incentives for most of these folks to, as the Chapo folks like to put it, "bend the knee". That's what I hope, anyways.

That's exactly it. The mainstream media is a collection of courtiers seeking masters to serve. Sure, they may divide themselves in general tribal groups based mostly on tolerance for diversity, but their own status and celebrity depends upon their proximity to formal power. The idea that the journalist's role is always in opposition to power is dead except for the most overtly ideological media outlets. The Sanders camp can manipulate them without needing to convert them.

[Low Down Low]

One thing i felt with corbyn wasnt the viciousness of the right wing media towards him, that was merely par for the course, it was the sustained opposition of usually supportive leftist outlets like the guardian/observer group, new statesman and others when he really could have done with a break. The quite palpable bias of cnn and msnbc seems cut from the same cloth to me, though perhaps for different reasons, but i also think Sanders seems more organised and determined than corbyn ever was so I'd be hopeful he'd brush it off, or ship minimal damage at the least.

I don't know enough of the Dynamics in UK media to comment on how it works there, but in the US so much of that cable news bullshit is built around access, that once Sanders becomes inevitable a fair few of them will fall in line. Ownership and donors may still wage a war, but if your cushy job as a pundit depends on being a reliable stenographer for those in power, and Sanders seems the best bet, you'll want to ingratiate yourself. The Sanders camp will be more prickly to deal with for people like that, but not impossible, imho. There will be financial incentives for most of these folks to, as the Chapo folks like to put it, "bend the knee". That's what I hope, anyways.

That's exactly it. The mainstream media is a collection of courtiers seeking masters to serve. Sure, they may divide themselves in general tribal groups based mostly on tolerance for diversity, but their own status and celebrity depends upon their proximity to formal power. The idea that the journalist's role is always in opposition to power is dead except for the most overtly ideological media outlets. The Sanders camp can manipulate them without needing to convert them.

Cheers for the replies. Sounds like a very different dynamic to me. I dont think its entirely coincidental that the only election labour won in 40 years was when rupert murdoch backed them, depressingly its actually hard to imagine an election can be won without him. Maybe the states is just too diverse and vast for anyone to wield that level of influence.

[Dr. Medulla]

Cheers for the replies. Sounds like a very different dynamic to me. I dont think its entirely coincidental that the only election labour won in 40 years was when rupert murdoch backed them, depressingly its actually hard to imagine an election can be won without him. Maybe the states is just too diverse and vast for anyone to wield that level of influence.

I wonder how much the presence of a state-funded news media option—the BBC and, in Canada, CBC—has limited the access-oriented media in our two countries. Less concerned about ratings and with mandates to serve the public interest (however slippery that concept might be), the journalists are more free to play those oppositional roles (despite the regular conservative complaint that these institutions are always in the pocket of the government that funds them; but ask any government how much they control those organizations).

[Flex]

Cheers for the replies. Sounds like a very different dynamic to me. I dont think its entirely coincidental that the only election labour won in 40 years was when rupert murdoch backed them, depressingly its actually hard to imagine an election can be won without him. Maybe the states is just too diverse and vast for anyone to wield that level of influence.

Going out on more of a limb, but I think this is right and partly because there's such an American intolerance towards collective action built into the psyches of our ruling classes. An amusing Achilles heel in the American class conflict. James' observation about a coordinated conspiracy of silence rings true partly because some of the alternatives would run against the grain of American one upsmanship and treachery. Sure, all the media class could work together to freeze out a Sanders administration but what if CNN gets some key scoops that boost ratings during sweeps?!?! So MSNBC needs their people to be in good with a Sanders presidency and so forth. We're too phsycially diffuse and economically balkanized for all of these different interests to effectively coordinate in a scenario like you may see in the UK. Someone will see too much financial gain to be made out of normalizing Sanders and then the dam will burst, at least among the chattering classes. Again: hopefully.