***Official Political Discussion Thread***

cherry pick a bunch of polls and decide that Harris has this locked up? people really want to re run 2016.

He definitely undermined a decent idea by making “Harris is Winning” so foundational when he didn’t need it.

I think the broader point that the Times may have sanwashed and false-equivalences itself into political irrelevance is the bigger idea here. If the Harris campaign wins, and does so without capitulating to mainstream media demands for access, I think it erodes at the traditional position of the Times as the paper of record.

Before you come for me, I absolutely agree with you that Harris needs more media engagement. But I’m not sure she should be allocating much to the Times as opposed to meeting her skeptics where they are at. Does she play sax? And I also think that it’s not a great thing long-term if the lesson from this campaign becomes “don’t engage with the Times’
 
He definitely undermined a decent idea by making “Harris is Winning” so foundational when he didn’t need it.

I think the broader point that the Times may have sanwashed and false-equivalences itself into political irrelevance is the bigger idea here. If the Harris campaign wins, and does so without capitulating to mainstream media demands for access, I think it erodes at the traditional position of the Times as the paper of record.

Before you come for me, I absolutely agree with you that Harris needs more media engagement. But I’m not sure she should be allocating much to the Times as opposed to meeting her skeptics where they are at. Does she play sax? And I also think that it’s not a great thing long-term if the lesson from this campaign becomes “don’t engage with the Times’

There are good criticism to make of the NY Times and the media in general, he doesn't make any of them.
Most of his criticisms imo are of the braindead variety.


1727281029882.png


Go through the links here.

His article on Maggie Haberman is vapid nonesene, again there are criticism to be made of "access journalism", he doesn't make any of them.
it's the usual curse word filled im a cool blogger act margery has been running with since 09.

The idea that an op-ed section shouldn't run an article by a sitting senator is goofy. The controversy was insane then, it's insane now.
The trans panic thing is extra stupid, his article again makes no attempt to grapple with the arguments, just the usual "look at these losers im so much smarter and say more blogger curse words"

and there is definitely a cottage industry of obsessive left wing attacks of NYTimes, you need only look at the Biden age coverage.
The NYtimes was 100% right to cover it, and all the left wing critics slink away and pretend it never happened.


I think the broader point that the Times may have sanwashed and false-equivalences itself into political irrelevance is the bigger idea here

I think this idea is dumb,
the media landscape has changed where traditional media doesn't have as much power over candidates, it has ZERO to do with the times not being left enough for Drew Margery.
and the obsession people have with NY Times headlines suggest their influence is still pretty strong.



Drew Margery is bully, he was a bully back in the day when it was cool to be "edgy"
and then he realized if you brand yourself as left wing, and go after the right targets, you can bully to your hearts content and be celebrated for it.

it's a faux radicalism I find totally detestable.
 
The good thing about podcasts is no one is going to debate you. They'll let you say whatever.


Kamala is charming and telegenic.
when non political people are exposed to her, they will like her.

non traditional media is the best way to reach those people.
 
Back
Top Bottom