Do you feel like the left leaning media is really pushing for Kamala Harris?

I kept track of the time everyone got, and while Yang and Williamson got less, they got plenty.
Harris was electric, and all her answers were memorable, making it seem like she got more time.
I am a moderate, and I am currently pulling for Kamala.

The left hates Kamala and would never vote for her. Corporate media is certainly playing her up as a backup for Biden.

I think it is way too early to day. I disagree with @hmmmmmm – I don’t think that the left hates Harris. But you have to define what the left is. I am a liberal leftist, but I am not a wacko leftist like Sanders or AOC.

My guess is that Biden showed that he’s not really a contender – he shot himself in the foot. So the press is looking for a new story, and this week, Harris is it.

Too early to prognisticate. As @elbanditoroso it will be a new story every week.

I just mean left leaning mainstream media vs right leaning. I’m not talking about extremes. That’s why I used the word leaning.

Not only the specific network or show, but the commentators also. No need to get caught up in how I define it, that’s partly why I asked what news outlets you watch and read. I usually watch MSNBC and they seem enamored with Kamala the little I watched. I also watch shows like The View. They acknowledge other candidates they’re liking, but were very favorable to Kamala after the debate.

I think people were very unfair to Mayor Pete when he said to a concerned citizen in his town after the recent shooting that he wasn’t worried about her vote. Isn’t it obvious he meant he was worried about the issue at hand and not worried about the selfish venture of playing politics? I mean seriously, I really do t understand how the media twisted that.

It felt like Kamala and Gillibrand were allowed to talk a lot. Gillibrand actually interrupting a lot. I didn’t see the actual minute count. There were two men that also seemed to get a lot of time. Can’t think of their names now.

I have seen a lot more positive coverage of Elizabeth Warren than I have of Harris, even though Harris is from where I live.

Odd, though, that the GOP viewed Harris as neck and neck with Warren after Thursday. Trump Jr started in on some malicious attacks on Harris yesterday.

It isn’t the media as much as who the GOP gets most concerned about that I use as an indicator.

Harris has done the best job of seizing the initiative. Her elocution is electric and she is a superb master at traditional politics. The media might indeed be flocking around her, but it isn’t so much a matter of favoritism as it is the pull of show biz “star power”.

I think the most we can conclude from the second debate is that Biden’s chances of getting the nomination were severely weakened. Harris was strong in the debate but there’s a long way to go and she has numerous strikes against her, especially in California. Warren is still in a good position and Mayor Pete cane across very well too.

I get what the media is doing. Its natural capitalistic instinct is to showcase the loudest and the brightest. In the end it depends on which campaign manager is the most brilliant in deploying their candidate.

I feel like I want to know a lot more about how the democratic candidates will handles various international issues and situations.

@zenvelo I actually would agree with that up until the debate, and now I feel a shift. It seemed before the debate the media was making it Biden or Warren.

@janbb I agree with what you wrote also. I really like Mayor Pete, although I worry about him being young. Most people I talk to worry he would never win because he’s gay, but I don’t think it will matter. A gentleman who I talk to here where I live is from somewhere in the Deep South and he insists even the Democrats down there won’t vote for a gay man. I don’t know if it matters, are Democrats even focused on a state in the Deep South? With the electoral college it doesn’t matter if you lose be 3 court or 3 million within a state.

@JLeslie You’re asking us to read a shift in the thirty six hours since the second debate. An overnight response to one night’s excellent presentation is not really indicative of a shift in the collective media interest.

Will the Sunday talk shows demonstrate a different take?

@JLeslie “I just mean left leaning mainstream media”

The you mean the media owned by AT&T, Comcast, Bezos, etc.?

I can assure you that the media is center-right to far right. You guys have been gaslit into thinking people like Pelosi and Schumer are on the “left.” In today’s politics, Reagan would be considered a communist (He’s certainly further left than many Democrats in the presidential primary). It’s difficult to respond to questions like these because they’ve been framed so poorly. Case-in-point is @elbanditoroso‘s response:

“I am a liberal leftist, but I am not a wacko leftist like Sanders or AOC.”

Was FDR a wacko leftist? Is Medicare, Social Security, Unemployment etc. “wacko?”

An example of actual left media would be the TYT Network. And there are plenty of people to the left of them.

To answer the original question, I think the corporate media very much wants to fight an return to FDR-style policies. AT&T doesn’t want it, Comcast doesn’t want it, Bezos, doesn’t want it, their advertisers don’t want it. They will focus on wedge-issues, smear actual progressives, frame things in ways that confuses the electorate, pretend fake progressives are actual progressives. The goal is to either have Trump or a fake progressive who will “say the right things” but ensure the status quo isn’t changed. Kamala Harris is one of these people that will pull a Hillary Clinton and have the public and private (actual, donor-friendly) positions. I have concerns that Warren may be in this camp too.

I think the media tends to be moderate and both Kamala Harris and Biden fall into that category. So they are going to promote the candidate they believe will bring things back to norms and not be extreme either way. Also Harris is equal to Biden in every way but she has other things that can favor her for the win. She is younger, (will draw a younger crowd) a minority (will draw people who are minority and white), a female,( will draw women who believe it’s time to put women in power), and lastly, she is more current. Biden draw is he was Vice President, and in government a lot longer, and has better name recognition. However, I think he is a bit more conservative than Harris, and Harris is a bit more of a moderate. Of the top candidates favored for the win, they are far from left and will have a better chance of winning against Trump.

You’re missing the way it works. The media isn’t driving The coverage of Harris The favorable moonlight bathing her is because she is both razor sharp and most importantly, the furthest left candidate acceptable to mainline entrenched Democratic power. She is just feisty enough to appeal to young, educated, disaffected youth, yet dependable in reliably certain not to upset the applecart from which ALL politicians comfortably dine. Both Bernie and Trump threatened the trough from which our political piggies feast. The democratic machine recognized the threat from Sanders and literally stole the election from him. Trump was a choice so absurd, that neither party actually believed the country housed enough dummies to actually put him over the top. It turns out that Trump is so impossibly ignorant of the way anything works that not only is all threat to the trough or apple cart eliminated, but all and any restraint on looting the country has been rendered meaningless. Harris is going to garner media coverage to surpass that of other democrats NOT because the press favors her. She is going to get that coverage through turning Trump’s handicaps against him. She will beat him through implementation of his own tactics. And she will have what amounts to the cream of the writing staff of basically the entire country at her disposal. Watch and see. By the way, what to your mind constitutes “the left leaning media”? Do you imagine Harris the preferred candidate of the Daily Worker or the Spartacist League?

I hate to say it, but I think Kamala Harris would likely cause more strife in the country. I don’t want to let racists control who we elect, but I think part of the reason we got Trump was because we had Obama. It’s a pendulum swing. Maybe it doesn’t matter? The Republicans will be all revved up no matter which Democrat gets elected I guess. I’m not in love with Kamala anyway, but I’m still waiting to see more at the next debates. I hope they ask more geo political questions.

I won’t vote for Kamala. If it’s her or Trump, I’m going for the Green Party again.

Of course part of the reason we have Trump is because of Obama. And what do You suppose it is about Obama that turns CERTAIN people to Trump? Perhaps it’s his birth certificate, or his superb Harvard education, his presidency of that school’s law review. How about the fact that he is the only President I can name who is an acknowledged expert on constitutional law? We ALL Know what it is about Obama that determines why the miserable excuse replacing him was a must. And if such people are allowed to determine our fate for THAT reason WE & I DO include your Jewish ass are in SERIOUS trouble.

@stanleybmanly “And what do You suppose it is about Obama that turns CERTAIN people to Trump. Perhaps it’s his birth certificate, or his superb Harvard education, his presidency of that school’s law review. How about the fact that he is the only President I can name who is an acknowledged expert on constitutional law?”

Obama is the reason why we have Trump, but your analysis is completely flawed. It’s because Obama was inauthentic. He pretended to push for progressive change, but when in office we got the status quo. His big policy “win” of “Obamacare” was a rebranding of the Republican plan. That’s why I’m done voting for corporate Democrats.

The real reason Trump won is because Obama did something absolutely unforgivable: he created political apathy on the left (in addition to Clinton being a piece of shit). People stop voting when they learn that their votes don’t make a difference. The reason why big money donates so much to the Democratic party is because it’s the job of the Democratic establishment to prevent an actual political movement for political change. They’re being paid to take all of that positive energy from the working class and redirect it into a brick wall of hopelessness. Trump gave desperate people hope (it was false hope and bullshit, but that was more compelling than their reality).

Kamala is one of these politicians. You can tell because CNN (i.e. AT&T), NBC (i.e. Comcast), ABC (i.e. Disney), etc. all love her. That’s a major red flag. She’s a wolf in sheep’s clothing, just like Obama. If she were to win (and I certainly have major doubts), I know she won’t fight for change, and that’s going to drive even more Americans into political apathy. It’s also going to lead us back to the next Trump who likely won’t be as incompetent and therefore much more effective at ruining the country.

To a large extent I concur with your analysis. Harris is indeed a play with the team Democrat. The difference is that she has a mouth on her, and is going to shred Trump in a style to which he has yet to be subjected. I too fervently believe that the Democratic party is but a pale imitation of its Republican counterpart when it comes to the bread & butter issues, but if you believe Trump’s election had nothing to do with bigotry or racism, think again.

I really don’t have confidence that Harris will shred Trump in the eyes of the people who matter. I think a lot of Democrats think Harris will shred him, especially the media like MSNBC seems to be on board with that, but I find a lot of Democrats are completely clueless when it comes to estimating how the public will react to politicians and politics, especially in trying to guess how Republicans will react. If Harris speaks to you, and you hate Trump, then you can be pretty sure she doesn’t speak to the vast majority of people who voted for Trump. I think the biggest chance is to attract the Catholic vote in the swing states. Buttegeig speaks their language, but I doubt he will be the Democratic pick in the primary and since he is gay, that probably has some people who would otherwise like him not bother to even entertain him.. Biden can speak their language also, but for some reason I just don’t see him getting the nomination either, and I have serious doubts he can win against Trump. I don’t think Warren speaks to them, unless I am missing something. Very possible I am missing something.

Bill Clinton was a Southern Democrat, I think that helped a lot. I used to think a Southern Democrat is the way to go to get a win. Now, I think someone from OH, FL, MI, any of the swing states would give it an extra nudge. The Democrats already have California, having a candidate from there doesn’t help swing the electoral vote from a purely geographical familiarity stand point.

Trump is a reaction to Obama, partly because Obama was black. It’s like what I have always said about Bush beating Gore. Bill Clinton has an affair in office, and next you get family values Bush. Put in a black president and it’s no surprise the next president will be someone who speaks to the racist people in the country.

As far as constitutional law, I thought Bill Clinton was well versed in that too, wasn’t he?