I think the most interesting divide in commentary about the Democratic primary isn't between Warren/Sanders fans but between those who think the outcome was contingent and those who think the outcome was structurally determined
-
-
There is not enough reckoning by folks like Matt y about the role of cable news like msnbc which was either active or passively hostile to Bernie’s candidacy the entire way. Seems to me it influenced more normie self IDing Dems than twitter and podcasts
-
to me the major difference between 2020 and 2016 is that partisan cable news got on the trump train.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
The odds are against beating the house, but sometimes it happens, and strategy matters
-
Nearly every pundit at every major media outlet and publication hated them. People whose job it is to fill the silence between pharmaceutical ads covered nearly every aspect of his campaign negatively for years. It was absolutely institutional.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Yes — as always, this is a false dichotomy. Questions arise within the both/and answer that are worth pursuing. But we should take special care w/ purported “knowing” of the (im)possible — especially b/c Biden’s support from establishment & media relied/relies on this pretense
-
This is my position also: there are some things I know that other people don't know, which affect my views of this matter. But there are a lot of things that others know that I don't know that I would need to know to give a good answer
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Part of the contingency is who the candidate is too. Because given candidates will engage structural context in different t ways.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.