7 ms·
> This sort of analysis is helpful and needed. It's just more noise. It's one reporter's take on current events. There's no attention given to history, or even
by vinceguidry 11y ago
> This sort of analysis is helpful and needed.
It's just more noise. It's one reporter's take on current events. There's no attention given to history, or even a reasoned take on the economics involved. It's pure narrative, a bunch of facts strung together with nothing tying them together but opinion.
What we're seeing is another evolution in the media-driven political cycle. Political candidacy has changed immensely in the last few years. Social media turned out to be way more politically useful than anybody ever thought it would. So candidates that use it effectively are going to be able to manipulate the news cycle more.
It doesn't give them an overwhelming advantage over the traditional power base, but they have been caught flat-footed.
That Americans are currently receptive to populist platforms shouldn't be surprising. We're still in the primary phase, and primaries are conducted in rural areas where the most provincial Americans live. The messaging needs to be kept simple.
Once the primaries are over, the nominees are going to move to the center for the real race. Happens in every single presidential election. We're just paying more and more attention to it these day. Nobody used to care about primaries.
- maxerickson 11y agoClay Shirky recently tweeted (yeah, that's right) an interesting analysis of this: https://storify.com/cshirky/republican-and-democratic-parties-are-now-host-bod https://storify.com/cshirky/republican-and-democratic-partie...
- vinceguidry 11y agoThanks, this is much better. The "quasi-parliamentarianism" bit was fascinating.
- cdent 11y agoI'll think you'll find that Robert B. Reich's expertise extends a bit further than "reporting".
- bsbechtel 11y agoI'd argue he's part of the 'establishment' he's purporting to analyze from the outside, however.
- cylinder 11y agoWhat is your point? Who better to tell us how the establishment thinks and perceives than someone inside of it?
- bsbechtel 11y agoWell if someone from the perceived establishment presents an analysis saying the establishment's thinking is flawed, wouldn't their own analysis be questionable, given they are a part of the group they are claiming has flawed thinking?
- AnthonyMouse 11y agoThe form of your argument is: Tesla says 19th century scientists have flawed thinking about alternating current, Tesla is a 19th century scientist, therefore Tesla has flawed thinking about alternating current.
- AnimalMuppet 11y agoMore generally, no member of any group can ever say that the group is wrong, because they're a member of the group. But stated differently, the flaw becomes apparent: "No member of any group can ever say that the group consensus is wrong, because they are a member of the group." But the one criticizing isn't a member of the group who shares the consensus, and the contradiction evaporates.
- mc32 11y agoRight but he can only tell us what he thinks from that framework but that framework is failing to understand what is actually happening, so the conclusions are only useful knowing they are incorrect.
- minsight 11y ago>It's one reporter's take on current events. Where "one reporter" was once Secretary of Labor.
- vinceguidry 11y agoFine, whatever. It's still bad analysis. He makes sweeping conclusions built on little but a smattering of incoherent facts. He's pandering to an audience.
- narag 11y agoThere's something different this time, though. I have paid some attention to the last three or four of your primaries and there has always been a guy in the role that Sanders is playing now. Sanders still seems to have a chance after a handful of states. That's a change for sure. And the explanation seems plausible. Unless you think Sanders is charismatic leader, worshipped by the masses, it must be a change in the voters part.
- vinceguidry 11y agoSure, something's different. It's the nature of politics. The game is changing. This guy makes the argument that America has changed. It hasn't. Still the same ole' 'Murica. What's changed is social media. Everybody gets excited over their pet independent candidate every single election. But now these indies can get their issues taken seriously by end-running establishment control over the news cycle. The media creates the perception of who is winning and who is losing. Politicians trick the media into giving them coverage. They can build momentum by building awareness. Voters can only choose who they're aware of, for the reasons the media gives them. American voters are only a fraction of the population, only a quarter of Americans vote. Three quarters of Americans don't care enough about politics to cast a vote. I'm one of them. This 4 year endeavor to place someone in the most powerful office in the world better resembles a bush-league pro wrestling circuit than anything like Serious Business. But that's not even the strangest part. The strange part is that this is how it's been running for decades. Sanders is not worshipped by the masses. He's merely running a flashier campaign than Hillary, so we see him more in the media. Ditto for Trump. America is the same, it's politics that's changing. I'd prefer Hillary over Trump or Sanders, but any of them would do a decent job. Trump's basically a liberal anyway, if you look at his positions over time, he actually looks fairly reasonable. I'd prefer Hillary because she'd be able to actually get things done with Congress.
- notahacker 11y agoTo which you could add that Trump and Cruz are benefiting from a large number of relatively low-profile candidates vying for the role of the "establishment candidate" which will soon be pared down, and the rules of the Democratic contest mean that Sanders either has to persuade a lot of party grandees to nominate him or win the caucus votes by a large margin. The chances of both of them being on the ballot are pretty slim, and the likelihood of one of them being able to win an election in a head-to-head race with a non-alarming establishment candidate is slimmer still. Radical candidates can shift the political agenda, but the closer they get to actual power, the more likely they are to shift it in the opposite direction to the one they intend.
- venomsnake 11y agoThat is the conventional wisdom. This cycle conventional wisdom has lower than usual predicting power. The way I see Nevada - 52-47 is bad news for Hilary. She not only has to win by delegate count - she should win legitimacy with the Bernie supporters
- maxerickson 11y agoYeah, its hard to believe that the super delegates will override a popular victory. It would destroy the party.
- burkaman 11y ago>We're still in the primary phase, and primaries are conducted in rural areas where the most provincial Americans live. The messaging needs to be kept simple. Primaries are conducted everywhere, so I don't understand this part. And wouldn't "provincial" people be less likely to vote in the primary than they would be to vote in the general?
- vinceguidry 11y agoFascinating article about stumping for primaries: http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jan/10/white-man-pathology-bernie-sanders-donald-trump http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jan/10/white-man-pat...
- pc2g4d 11y agoSo rural voters are more susceptible to populism than urban voters?