What we can expect from the mass media: two lessons
I think that what we'll be seeing over the next twenty months will be epitomized by a piece in Vanity Fair, "“It’s Going to Be a Guerrilla War”: The Sanders Left Opens Fire on Biden." This is a bit of punditry such as what we're going to see repeated endlessly through October of next year.
You can see from reading the article that the author Tina Nguyen can't really find anything in Joe Biden's record that would indicate that he would do anything meaningfully differently than what we see with Donald Trump. Sure, as a Democrat Biden would be a little less obvious and a little less brazen than Trump, and, sure, the style of a Biden presidency would also be different. But the Democratic Party is basically a collaborationist institution. It exists to keep the opposition quiet while maintaining rule according to the Republican Party's playbook. So any American can be sure that if a policy the 1% sees as necessary is viewed as too hot for the Democrats to handle, a way will be found to blame said policy on the Republicans, if necessary by handing over the whole of government to the Republicans themselves, which is what happened in 2010 and 2014.
So the media strategy to obscure this reality is to play with the terms of the political spectrum. This can be seen in Nguyen's thesis:
Underlying the debate over strategy and tactics are philosophical divisions on the far left between operatives who want to beat Donald Trump, and activists who see Biden as hardly any better.
The "far left"? Huh? We should be asking these people what counts as the "far left," a term designed to marginalize anyone, for instance "who see(s) Biden as hardly any better" than Trump. Biden IS hardly any better than Trump. So there's Lesson #1: if you actually want something for your hard-earned tax dollars from government besides continued subsidy for the already-rich, be prepared to be characterized as part of the "far left."
At any rate, it's easy to see how Biden would lose to Trump. Nguyen likes to quote polls saying that:
Most head-to-head polls show that Biden could dispatch Trump handily, including in the swing states of Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. But according to Data for Progress, those numbers reverse when voters are first read statements summarizing Biden and Trump’s policy positions, such as Biden’s support for the Iraq War or Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal.
-- thus suggesting a strategy. If the Dems can keep it quiet about who Biden really is, he can beat Trump. The "far left" is to be blamed by the media pundits if this strategy does not work. It's obvious, however, that the Trump campaign is itself going to inform the public as to who Biden really is, anyway. Lesson #2: expect the media to invent, and blame, the "far left" if Joe Biden does not become President-elect next year.
Comments
You've cracked the code!
If you talk about Biden's record, or Beto's record, and Harris' record, (you know, facts) then you are engaging in a civil war, a smear campaign, helping Trump, etc.
However, when you make up sh*t about Bernie that is untrue, well, that's just politics.
when I first read the title
I read what can we expect from mass extinction.
the mass media is at the core of the problem. both for Climate Breakdown and for the upcoming election. it influences how people think and spoon feed them as it sees fit.
Biden will get plenty of media attention. regardless.
Stop Climate Change Silence - Start the Conversation
Hot Air Website, Twitter, Facebook
You get a clear choice between Biden and Trump
On the one hand, you get endless war, climate destruction, and neoliberal economics; while on the other hand you get endless war, slightly slower climate destruction, neoliberal economics, with extra Identity Politics.
Or, the establishment can get out of the way.
EDIT: corrected phone-related typo
You've got something special
...when it comes to electoral politics, Cassiodorus: Subtle Precision. One can feel the sting but they can't see what bit them.
You should be a campaign consultant, if you are not one already. In this era of post modern politics, candidates should hire a consultant who tells them "how to lose" so they can make adjustments, instead of hiring "how to win" consultants. After all, nine out of ten "How to Win" consultants turn out to be the big losers in any given election. No?
An inexperienced commenter might think your observations are deeply cynical, but not I. Any American voter who can make an EEG needle bounce, knows the truth of this deep inside:
"Winning..."
The term "Far Left" has been deliberately deconstructed and misapplied over the past year or so, as I myself have pointed out repeatedly (along with several other trigger terms that are introduced and reinforced in the daily brainwashing of the American People). For example, since 2017 "progressive" has been rode hard and put up wet by every ideology on the political spectrum.
(A clever political strategist could double-cross boobytrap this, if they were of a mind to. But no one is playing on that side of the net.)
Moving on... Let them blame the far Left for Biden's loss. At this point, no one in America has the slightest idea who the Far Left saboteurs are. Unless they're looking in a mirror.
::
All typos belong to y cat.
____________________
The political system is what it is because the People are who they are. — Plato
Thank you Pluto!
Yeah that "rule" thing was some extra verbiage. I've got so many tangents floating around in my head that sometimes they all pop out at once.
Would you be willing to elaborate upon "rode hard and put up wet"? Sounds kind of like sex, but I'm not sure.
"The war on Gaza, backed by the West, is a demonstration that the West is willing to cross all lines. That it will discard any nuance of humanity. That it is willing to commit genocide" -- Moon of Alabama
Not sex. (Allthough there were certain salacious rumors
about Catherine the Great, they were probably false.)
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-origin-of-the-phrase-rode-hard-and-put...
True true true
The media treats the 2 parties as separate religions. They can't call out anyone directly because it's a matter of faith. Can't insult anyones religion. But the left, we're the anti religion socialists communists spouting heresy against the political gods.
Religions.
Yeah that's a good concept.
"The war on Gaza, backed by the West, is a demonstration that the West is willing to cross all lines. That it will discard any nuance of humanity. That it is willing to commit genocide" -- Moon of Alabama
What we can expect from the mass media:
via GIPHY
Same o'l nasty Bernie Bro smears.
Trying to paint Biden as a victim by quoting sweary language from unwashed Progressive meanies.
The goal is to take the shine of Bernie's 'halo' by depicting him as 'just another politician' who will resort to anything to win, in an attempt to un-differentiate Bernie from the rest of the crowded field.
Good luck with that VF.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
Every time Hillary began an initiative, whether it was
her 2008 run, her Hard Choices book tour or her 2016 run, her approval numbers were almost stratospheric, as political poll numbers go. (We all remember a 30 plus point lead against Obama, for example.) However, as the run or the book tour proceeded, her numbers went down. (We all also remember the delusional, "Why aren't I fifty points ahead?")
IMO, Biden will face the same kind of diminution. And Biden is not starting out 30 plus points ahead of Sanders.
Gaudy, almost unreal
high polling numbers are common with unannounced contenders far out from an election or primary voting. Ted Kennedy back in 1979 had very impressive numbers, beating Jimmy Carter in the polls as I recall. Then things happened as it got closer to the election year -- the Roger Mudd interview, the hostages being taken, Ted looking rusty and clunky on the campaign stump. Things always happen, the media coverage becomes more nitpicking and cynical, the candidate's past suddenly becomes a topic for further criticism. (Exceptions to the sudden hyper scrutiny by the MSM usually involve Republicans of recent vintage, Nixon in 1968 -- the "New Nixon" image unchallenged by the MSM, and most famously George Whitewash Bush of 2000.)
Happens in our personal lives too. For me, I've had many a paying guest who looked great on paper as I read their profile. Then they had to ruin that nice glowing portrait by showing up.