According to Rolling Stone's coverage of the latest Washington Post-ABC News Poll, no other candidate in the field is rising in popularity rankings so quickly as Andrew Yang. It's time to include Andrew Yang in the discussion.
I am a regular podcast listener and typically find The Daily to consistently provide a poinient, fair-minded and cerebral take on the most pressing issues of the news cycle. I stay informed, but I don't typically make the time to comment. The following quote from this episode infuriated me and struck me as notably tone-deaf: "Alex, more broadly, it feels like the risk here in the Democratis building their message and their platforms around the economy in running against President Trump, is that the economy is doing pretty well" In this analysis you've laid bare the blatant and pervasive privileged, establishment bias found among all the elite media opinion makers at The NYT and others of similar ilk (Wash Po, Wall Street Journal, Politico, etc). Whether you choose to acknowledge it or not, the vast majority of Americans have been left behind in this economy and a reckoning is upon us. By labeling Bernie a quasi Marxist who wants to "blow up" the system you reveal your fear of the effectiveness of his message. Beware, while your bread continues to be buttered, the masses are coming for you in 2020. Soak the rich!!
Quasi Marxist? Am I to believe that a reporter from the NYT does not know the distinction between Marxist, Socialist and Social Democrat or that this is somewhat intentional? And no mention of Tulsi of course. You'd think after all these years and all these glaring mistakes the Times would cease to be the interventionist and corporatist tool. At this rate what is the difference between the Times and Fox News anyway? Is it subtlety? Film criticism?
Good job, paper of record.
2
Tulsi, the most clear and consistent anti-war voice in the Democratic party doesn't even get a mention? You reveal yourself and your so called journalism. At this point I am not surprised. Shame.
I understand the legitimacy, even the importance, of covering politics as politics, but I hope we are not descending into the pattern so prominent in 2016 of covering the presidential race as a horse race. Framing each candidate in terms of their position along a spectrum of ideas isn't enough. I hope as the campaign moves forward you will dig into the policy proposals being presented by the candidates and the potential of those policies to solve problems and improve the lives of people rather than simply focusing on how these policies might appeal to various segments of the electorate. Voters need reliable, thoughtful, fair coverage of these proposal in order to know how to respond at the ballot box. Your prejudging the electoral appeal of these ideas should be replaced by an attempt to explain, analyze, and assist in the evaluation of them by the voters themselves.
Why does Michael Barbaro have to equate Warren with Trump as a "Democratic Trump-like candidate" as far as intending to fix the system. It's an easy but poor categorization for Barbaro to make. The equivalency is practically an insult to Warren. Warren has much more integrity than Trump and would probably indeed try to fix things. As we all know and should be to no one's surprise, Trump has done nothing of the sort. He's made it worse.
2
Interesting overview. Why were there so many others left off of the discussion? Like Andrew Yang. Is this because the media picks front runners and everyone else isn't worth mentioning? I don't like it when others trash the media and call it fake news etc. I believe media more than I do politicians. The media needs to take Yang seriously. He doesn't sound like a politician and he has real solutions not just lofty ideas. I'm still deciding, but maybe you could do another follow-up segment to this informative conversation.
Andrew Yang's Universal Basic Income proposal is in many ways more innovative than Sanders older-school democratic socialism. Please consider exploring Yang's candidacy: https://www.yang2020.com/meet-andrew/
Michael, Re-listening to this podcast I actually got more irritated as I caught more of the mendacious nuances and misrepresentations of Sanders and Warren and how the 2020 election is shaping up.
Firstly, it is important to be clear about who is referred to when "democrats" are talked about. Is it the party elite? the grassroots organizers? the voters? You seem to evade that clarity and slip back and forth between voters and the party establishment elite when saying "democrats".
There is a huge difference between the democratic party, an financial elite funded political organization, and democratic voters or democratic would-be voters. Portraying voter sentiments is very different from the machinations and underlying motives of the party elite establishment.
So when you label Sanders a quasi-marxist, and "revolutionary" and imply in comparison to Warren, Cleaning it up(Warren) not blowing it up(Sanders) you are working for the financial elite with those prevarications. You are referring to how democrats as ' Elite Funded Establishment party functionaries' fear Sanders and not how democrats, as voters, understand the things he promotes as things they want and the country needs. His positions, from a voter perspective are sensible and centrist. As are Warren's.
Sanders aims to restore the founders vision of the sovereignty of the citizens in government. Corporate power and the power of the financial elite are anathema to the intent of the constitution. That revolution.
3
How come you guys didn't mention Tulsi Gabbard? She's running for president too.
To add to the point by Kmart, disappointing that the NYT also has no interest in covering Julian Castro who is the only Latino in the race and was on the short list for VP in 2016.
1
No mention of Tulsi? How is this even possible...I will be unsubscribing to your podcast today. This is a great shame that the fact that you would ignore her says a lot. An Anti-War candidate that checks all the boxes: Female, a person of color, a Iraq war veteran...Just remember the NYT fired Judith Miller for her stories empowering the buildup for the Iraq War. You folks should be championing Tulsi.
This discussion, though very relevant, seems oddly irrelevant to me. Personally, as a Democrat, I am not concerned whether a particular candidate can beat Trump, primarily because Trump's universe of ideas is completely uninteresting to me.
More to the point concerning this episode, while listening it occurred to me that the problem with journalists offering up their point of view (on whether, for example, a candidate has the appropriate message that can appeal to voters) is they speak like journalists with journalists' concerns ("the message"), though they attempt to talk as if these are everyone's concerns. And, journalists to do this ubiquitously, so as a listeners we don't question this.
@Wasted the largest issue with today's episode was the fact that they just blatantly gave a cold shoulder to candidates that they don't want to push.
You would think after the leaked 2016 emails catching the media working with the Clinton campaign they would be be weary about showing their bias.
No mention of John Delaney, Tulsi Gabbard, or Andrew Yang. All are more than likely making it to the first debate.
I think the NYT needs to answer for this blatant negligence, but they've been doing this type of stuff for decades and they never seem to stop even when their emails get leaked
1
With all due respect I thought that today's daily was way off the mark. Economics 10 be a major issue in the 20/20 campaign beat was even though the time we looks like it's doing well the average person is not doing well as being left behind. Wages are stagnant healthcare costs are rising and bank accounts are empty. In addition another major issue will have to be corruption and thirdly Healthcare and today's discussant hardly mention those at all as valid issues for the campaign.
Tulsi Gabbard being omitted is a glaring omission. If you don’t want me to think the Times is engaging in the corporate media shadow primary that makes biased editorial decisions to focus on percieved “viable” candidates (read: the one’s we the media declare worthy before hand to influence the voters), then I better hear some analysis of this incredible, intelligent, young, attractive, compelling condidate. I’m a center-right voter and Tulsi is literally the only candidate I like on the Democrat side on account of her military service, calm steady temperment, and respectful attitude towards the other side. Think carefully about ignoring her!
1
Alexander Burns' opinions were for the most part infuriating. Why refer to some of the candidates as Marxist when clearly several countries in Europe have similar policies and no one would accuse them of Marxism? Why say that the candidates don't have a plan for economic development (implying that the only way to do so is with corporate tax cuts and deregulation). Development of green industries is certainly good policy long term, nothing to sneeze at. Why say that the big obstacle to major health care reform is "most people like the plans" when that is not the point at all. The point is: how many people does a status quo system exclude from getting health care, and how much does it cost taxpayers? Finally, focusing more on workers and less on big corporations can have positive social and economic effects. It's not an either/or.
Why no mention of Tulsi Gabbard? She used to be a “rising star” in the Democrat party and still is in the eyes of many. Yet NYT seems disinterested in covering her (an Iraq War veteran, youngest woman in the presidential field, and a sitting Congresswoman) unless coverage is critical. Please change. We need fair, unbiased coverage from NYTs.
5
@Kmart Seems like they just blatantly give a cold shoulder to candidates that they don't want to push.
You would think after the leaked 2016 emails catching the media working with the Clinton campaign they would be be weary about showing their bias.
No mention of John Delaney, Tulsi Gabbard, or Andrew Yang. All are more than likely making it to the first debate.
I think the NYT needs to answer for this blatant negligence, but they've been doing this type of stuff for decades and they never seem to stop even when their emails get leaked
I'm not sure any of these candidates know how to deal with trump.
Trump is a liar and a bully, who doesn't know or care about policy issues. Trump calls names and tries to define his opponents negatively.
Dems focus on facts and policy, and just aren't prepared for these relentless ad hominem attacks and blatant lies of the Bully and Chief. Right now the Democratic field is letting trump define them as radical socialists akin to Maduro - An obvious distortion and lie, but it works on people who know no better.
Nancy Pelosi gets it - She stands right up to him, and gives him a verbal punch in the nose. The Dems need someone who can do that, AND talk policy intelligently.
3
@S B Sanders mopped the floor with Trump in pre-primary polls in 2016. The question is not who will 'stand up' to Trump's behavior, but who will represent what voters actually truly crave. That is, Their interests being reflected by the candidate along with integrity. Their interests includes specifically taking political power away from the financial elite so the government will address the voters' interests in favor of the voters. Trump campaigned on that. Obviously not actually meaning it but the choice between a con man who actually said he puts the interests of the average Joe ahead of the financial elite and Clinton, who was understood to be in the pocket of that financial elite led the the choice of the con man.
The point being, That is how Powerful the anti-establishment sentiment is. And that sentiment is increasing. Sanders made that position not only plausible, but now a critical litmus test for integrity in standing up for the Average Joe. Sanders will crush Trump if the democratic financial elite, through the party and the media, does not thwart him in the primary.
@S B, Spot on!