2020 Presidential Election

[Voronwë the Faithful]

It does appear that rumors of Sanders' demise were premature. He seems to have bounced back from his heart attack with a vengeance. He had his strongest performance yet at the last debate, and a major rally with the very popular (among progressives) AOC at his side. It remains to be seen whether that will last.

x-posted with yov. More surprising to me is that his latest rise has coincided with the constant news about his son's work for foreign companies. While it seems clear to me that neither Hunter nor Joe Biden have done anything illegal, I'm surprised that the constant attacks haven't damaged him more. Instead, it seems to have invigorated his campaign (much like Sander's heart attack seems to have invigorated his, contrary to expectations).

[Cerin]

It does appear that rumors of Sanders' demise were premature.

I thought he looked so much better physically in the last debate than he had been looking recently. He must have really benefited from that few days rest. I still think that campaigning for the Presidency and being President are not sensible occupations for someone looking to reduce stress (which I assume all heart attack survivors would want to do) but maybe I have an out-dated understanding of heart attacks.

[Alatar]

It does appear that rumors of Sanders' demise were premature.

Is it wrong that I read that as Sauron on first glance? No reflection on Mr Sanders, just a recognition of the speaker and board!

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Meanwhile, the Quinnipiac University National Poll shows a very different picture.

Warren opens up 7-point lead over Biden nationally: poll

[yovargas]

I'm with Túrin, following individual poll results is a futile exercise. Too much noise to follow the race that way.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I don't disagree, though I find the differences in different polls to be interesting and educational. Nate Silver has shown us the value of looking at polling averages, but also the limitations of doing so (though to be fair, he was at least more cautious in his predictions of Clinton prevailing over Trump than others were).

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Gabbard stokes fears among Democrats

I thought exactly this when I heard she was not running for reelection.

Sent from my LG G6 using Tapatalk

[yovargas]

[semi-random pondering]

I wonder how news organizations covered political races before polling became a regular thing that they covered.

[/semi-random pondering]

[Túrin Turambar]

[semi-random pondering]

I wonder how news organizations covered political races before polling became a regular thing that they covered.

[/semi-random pondering]

There was far more reporting on where the candidates were, what they said, and how the audience reacted, including verbatim accounts of their speeches. Particularly before radio and TV, when a candidate traveling somewhere to give a speech was a major event. E.g.

https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn ... d-1/seq-2/

[yovargas]

Hah. That was pretty fun to read. Turns out it wasn't especially substantive either. Rather long article that mostly amounts to "Roosevelt came here and lots of people went to see him speak for a few minutes." Though can't say that biased reporting has gotten worse when they were printing stuff like this!

Capture.JPG (23.94 KiB) Viewed 5110 times

(Also, make sure to keep your babies fat. A fat baby is a good baby.)

Capture1.JPG (56.38 KiB) Viewed 5107 times

[Túrin Turambar]

Hah. That was pretty fun to read. Turns out it wasn't especially substantive either. Rather long article that mostly amounts to "Roosevelt came here and lots of people went to see him speak for a few minutes." Though can't say that biased reporting has gotten worse when they were printing stuff like this!

Capture.JPG

Yes, there's a tendency to idealise the past as the time of 'sensible' and substantative politics which isn't always warranted.

A couple of other major differences from today:

There was no nation-wide media, so you got all your news from local papers, carrying whatever editorial line the editor took. Today, if a candidate gives a major speech in LA it gets immediately reported everywhere else, e.g. in Boston. Back then the Boston paper would still probably lead with Boston news.

There were few contested primaries prior to the 1970s, so the campaign only really began in convention season in June.

[yovargas]

"Beto drops out, nobody seems to care"

My headline for my imaginary newspaper.

[Frelga]

"Beto drops out, nobody seems to care"

My headline for my imaginary newspaper.

Thanks for the laugh.

[Inanna]

Lol!

[elengil]

Yes, there's a tendency to idealise the past as the time of 'sensible' and substantative politics which isn't always warranted.

A couple of other major differences from today:

There was no nation-wide media, so you got all your news from local papers, carrying whatever editorial line the editor took. Today, if a candidate gives a major speech in LA it gets immediately reported everywhere else, e.g. in Boston. Back then the Boston paper would still probably lead with Boston news.

There were few contested primaries prior to the 1970s, so the campaign only really began in convention season in June.

There also might be the sense that news was expected to give the news, not opinions (as much). There also was, as you said, pretty much only local news, so they didn't have the competition for attention. They didn't 'need' to become entertainment stations to keep people's business. Now there are so many news organizations all vying for your viewership/readership that they artificially keep attention through sensationalizing and even downright fabricating.

[Túrin Turambar]

Yes, there's a tendency to idealise the past as the time of 'sensible' and substantative politics which isn't always warranted.

A couple of other major differences from today:

There was no nation-wide media, so you got all your news from local papers, carrying whatever editorial line the editor took. Today, if a candidate gives a major speech in LA it gets immediately reported everywhere else, e.g. in Boston. Back then the Boston paper would still probably lead with Boston news.

There were few contested primaries prior to the 1970s, so the campaign only really began in convention season in June.

There also might be the sense that news was expected to give the news, not opinions (as much). There also was, as you said, pretty much only local news, so they didn't have the competition for attention. They didn't 'need' to become entertainment stations to keep people's business. Now there are so many news organizations all vying for your viewership/readership that they artificially keep attention through sensationalizing and even downright fabricating.

Although as yov points out from the article upthread, there was a lot of "it is undeniable that..." followed by opinion disguised as fact and column-filling inches back then as well.

[elengil]

Although as yov points out from the article upthread, there was a lot of "it is undeniable that..." followed by opinion disguised as fact and column-filling inches back then as well.

True, that's why I did qualify it with "as much". Though oddly there didn't seem to be constant accusations of misinformation in media. Though admittedly, that could be as much because there were no other sources to fact check it against, too.

[Sunsilver]

And as most of you from the U.S. SHOULD know, even 'back then', the newspapers didn't always get it right!

This certainly had to be one of the most embarrassing moments in journalism history, but it also shows the Trib was certainly not neutral in its reporting:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dewey_Defeats_Truman

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Here comes Bloomberg. Maybe.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/election ... spartanntp

[Cerin]

Bloomberg had said previously that he wouldn't get in unless Biden dropped out.

I have trouble seeing Democratic voters rallying around a formerly Republican billionaire. I wonder if he would instantly become the media and establishment favorite.