46
The idea that that the process of jettisoning Biden & choosing someone else will go well -- will be allowed to go well -- is a deeply deranged fantasy. [ David Roberts ] (threadreaderapp.com)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/usa@midwest.social
11 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

cross-posted from: https://slrpnk.net/post/11185857

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 5 points 2 years ago (8 children)

Gaslighting worried Democrats is in no way a method of building support for whoever the Democratic nominee is. This isn't a media issue. This isn't a "always happens" issue. This was 50 million people watching the oldest president ever shit the bed on TV, fail to counter his fascist opponent, and throw every possible explanation against the wall to explain it. Whatever you think of the media and their motivations, this isn't business as usual and isn't fake, and pretending it is just makes the rank and file more suspicious of and less engaged with the Democratic party, the absolute worst thing you can be doing in the lead up to an election.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 5 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    The debate, and the ensuing conversation isn’t the media reaction he’s talking about. If you don’t want to read it I can go pull those relevant sections, but it's just a bunch of tweets or, whatever it is now.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago* (3 children)

    I read it, but the subtext of it (and explicit text at the end) is that this is a Dems shitting on their own problem. There are a lot of words battling a straw man of complainers who think the replacement wouldn't get attacked, but the message of "shut up and support Biden" is very clear.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 4 points 2 years ago* (2 children)

    Well, no. For two reasons: the first is that other quote i pasted in where he says he explicitly doesn’t care if it’s Biden (or Harris, or “warm vomit”) he’s voting for who - or, theoretically what-ever it is. So “shut up and vote Biden” doesn’t fit. I think you’re reading that where it’s not warranted.

    The second is the following where he talks about “centrists, journalists, and pundits” (and yes, elected Dems) and what drives their commentary about politics:

    For centrists, journalists, pundits, *even Dem electeds*, the way you prove you are a Reasonable, Serious Person in DC is by shitting on Dems. For the left, the way you prove you are a true radical is by shitting on Dems. For the right ... well, obviously. 

    Everyone's professional incentives are to shit on Dems. Dwelling on Trump & his fascist movement -- however justified by the objective facts -- just doesn't bring that juice, doesn't get the clicks & the high-fives, doesn't feel brave & iconoclastic. It's just ... no fun. 

    So, say Biden stepped aside in favor of Harris tomorrow. How long until the vapid gossips we call political reporters find something wrong with her, *some alleged flaw they just have to write 192 stories about? How long until the hopped-up mediocrities we call pundits ... 

    ...find some "counter-intuitive" reason that the new Dem ticket is flawed after all?* How long until the irredentist left gets over the temporary thrill of its new Harris memes & remembers that she's a cop & turns on her? How long before the ambient racism & misogyny in the US... 

    ... lead center-leftists to conclude that, sure, they'd support a black woman, just not *this* black woman? In other words: how long before everyone reverts to their comfortable, familiar identity & narratives? 

    About 30 f'ing seconds, is my guess. 

    (italics added)

    So I read it as, the media are not inclined to actually do their jobs and put paid to trumps constant lying and his grotesque unqualifiedness, despite nominally having held the position before. They won’t do it because it’s less profitable, but more importantly, it’s no fun.

    People dig into trumps mania because you either love it or hate it - if you ignore it, that defaults to the ‘love’ category. Like people who ignore a raging house fire they’re in.

    Any change to the ticket - in fact no change to the ticket - means more of the same. Commentators and journalists will not help save democracy. It doesn’t get clicks, and it’s just “no fun”.

    I think he’s got a good point.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Well, no. For two reasons: the first is that other quote i pasted in where he says he explicitly doesn’t care if it’s Biden (or Harris, or “warm vomit”) he’s voting for who - or, theoretically what-ever it is.

    This just reads to me as the standard "while I too would love to have progressive policy, here's my 25 passionately argued reasons we should just pursue centrist policies". It's a sentence to say "I'm with you, now let me spend all my effort arguing against you" that mainstream Dems trot out.

    So I read it as, the media are not inclined to actually do their jobs and put paid to trumps constant lying and his grotesque unqualifiedness, despite nominally having held the position before. They won’t do it because it’s less profitable, but more importantly, it’s no fun.

    People dig into trumps mania because you either love it or hate it - if you ignore it, that defaults to the ‘love’ category. Like people who ignore a raging house fire they’re in.

    Any change to the ticket - in fact no change to the ticket - means more of the same. Commentators and journalists will not help save democracy. It doesn’t get clicks, and it’s just “no fun”.

    Oh, I agree with all of that, but this isn't coming out in a void. He didn't write this thread a month ago. It's not like only now have the media followed this pattern. He wrote it when the thing they're doing is (admittedly happily) covering a real campaign to swap Biden. The implication to me is that this is just evergreen shitting on Dems, not a real issue for true Democrats, and a change would somehow generate just as damaging coverage so why are you letting them cause discord.

    And if the argument is really just "the media will be harsh to the new candidate", yes, everyone knows that and no one is arguing otherwise. But there's a difference between picking at trivialities and not ignoring one of the biggest election stories of the cycle, and the former is far better for us. And it can't happen with Biden.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] [S] 2 points 2 years ago

    Well, agree to disagree on his motives, I guess.

    I took it to mean “Harris (or whoever) will be under the boot of corporate news in a flash, and we’ll be - electorally, percentage-wise, and all the other horserace materials that so stress us the fuck out - right back where we are now.”

    To me, that reads like an indictment of corporate news, or perhaps a sort of DC status quo, and specific to the presidential election. But it doesn’t seem like he’s even interested in any part of progressive/centrist politics other than he specifically calls out centrists as being part of the problem. Like there’s no mention of issues.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 2 points 2 years ago (2 children)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    Nobody is saying Trump is "just fine," we're saying Biden is not a compelling alternative.

    If Trump is an existential threat that requires every possible effort be expended against him, sticking with grampy (as bets are placed whether he'll reach the election or the reaper) is gross negligence and really undermines the argument.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent