The turnaround in New Hampshire for both Buttigieg and Klobuchar, more for Klobuchar as Mayor Pete had risen far earlier, the rise of Bloomberg in national polls, and the stunning collapse of Biden and Warren, proved something that truly does concern me: Too many Democratic Party voters continue to be susceptible to corporate cable news propaganda and political advertisements on television and radio. Unlike Republican voters, who turned back even FoxNews' and other conservative media attacks on Trump in 2015 and the early part of 2016, Democratic Party voters still appear to trust corporate cable news narratives, and believe commercials are real indicators of support; which make the narratives and commercials self-fulfilling prophecies. Even some younger Democratic Party voters are falling for this combination.*
The woman at the Iowa caucus who did not know Buttigieg was gay, the vast majority of Democrats, starting in New Hampshire, who did a last minute, and panicked rush to Amy Klobuchar--without knowing of her record as a prosecutor being even worse than Kamala Harris' record as a prosecutor, or Klobuchar's carrying water for insurers and medical device manufacturers to weaken the ACA/Obamacare--are part of a piece. It is sad to see this, as the corporate cable news narrative loves to tell Democratic voters how "smart" and "practical" they are, which goes to show how far flattery can get us to do someone else's bidding. The numbers have long shown 80% of Democratic Party voters like Bernie and consistent polling shows Bernie wins over Trump better than anyone else--because he gets white working class Republican voters better and independents, too--something Republican strategists understand. And many Democratic Party voters trust Bernie the most on the issues which matter the most to those voters, compared to every other candidate running. Yet, the fear mongering word about Bernie's supposed lack of "electability," when Bernie has the most diverse coalition among any of the candidates, works to an extent that does concern me when considering the plight of our species' ability to reason our way out of the existential crises of global climate chaos and global economic inequality.
On television, nobody is talking about Bloomberg being too old, though I hope Bloomberg's birthday this Valentine's Day, making him now the same age as Bernie Sanders (Sanders was born less than six months earlier than Bloomberg)** will cause a few Democratic Party voters to wonder: How come media punditry land are not worried about age anymore? Bernie is old, old, old, but not Bloomberg? On television, MSNBC thinks it is too harsh to refer to Bloomberg as an oligarch, when Bloomberg fits the very definition of the term, and two Princeton political scientists produced a study showing the US fits the definition of a functioning oligarchy than a republic.*** And, really, did Republicans care when corporate media pundits said Trump was a Democratic Party registered voter for most of his adult life? Not in the least. Yet, there are still voices saying Bernie is not a "Democrat," right up to the present when Bloomberg, a guy who only recently left the Republican Party, and still had Republican Party views on taxes, the minimum wage, and foreign policy, is now moving up in the polling among Democratic Party voters with no argument about his being essentially a Republican Before Trump.
When Republicans and the corporate media tried to talk about Trump's natural "ceiling" in early 2016, Republican voters simply didn't care. Too many Democratic Party voters, however, continue to be quick to accept that analysis, as if too many Democratic Party voters are seeking permission to vote for Bernie before doing so. Again, look at the numbers above about Bernie being the most popular candidate in the race and how many Democratic Party voters trust Bernie the most on issues they care about the most. There appears to remain a stubborn belief, not based on factual analysis, that the other candidates--flavors of the month--are essentially the same as Bernie in the degree to which Bernie fights for what he believes, and, worse, somehow these candidates are sufficiently trustworthy to do so. And of course, there is never mention of the fact only Bernie speaks about the military-industrial complex or speaks consistently about building a movement to counter the oligopoly that rules our nation. He knows what he would be up against as president, contrary to those who continually say, "Well, he'll never get anything passed in Congress." He says, quite clearly, but somehow filtered out from most of corporate broadcast media punditry land, that only a movement has the best chance to defeat the oligopoly which controls Congress and now the courts. Exactly how Warren, Biden, Mayor Pete, and Klobuchar expect to get what they claim to want passed is never remarked upon for being naive. Remember when Obama thought he could get Republicans to sign onto his health care/insurance plan by embracing the Republican plan and cutting an early deal with BigPharma not to challenge Big Pharma's hegemony? Remember Obama's offer of a "Grand Bargain" to cut Social Security and Medicare benefits only caused Republicans in Congress to seek something far more draconian? As Gore Vidal said to the Clintons twenty odd years ago, when the Clintons visited Vidal in Vidal's home in Ravelo, Italy, you can't negotiate with the owners of the country (some things are simply not on the Internet, folks). You must defeat them, he said to the naive Clintons. Wait. See how hard it was to read that last remark about the "naive Clintons?" That is corporate media training, to think the Clintons are hard-boiled, cynical, practical, realists, when they had no idea how to challenge corporate power, even when they sought a mere compromise.
What I hope is Latino voters in Nevada and California continue to show they are less reliant on corporate cable newspeak, and continue to reject cable news narratives. However, we may see a spike in Latino support for Bloomberg after Bloomberg's Spanish speaking commercials air, just as African-American voters of a certain older age are flocking away from Biden to Bloomberg, despite Bloomberg's racist policies against African-Americans and Puerto Ricans during Bloomberg's tenure as mayor of New York City. And maybe white suburban women voters who call themselves proud feminists may wish to consider Bloomberg's history with women and how he views women. Just try to imagine Bernie saying that and behaving that way, and how CNN, MSNBC, and FoxNews would have covered that, and how well Bernie would do with women voters.
It remains remarkable to me how Democratic Party voters can vote for a guy who has already spent $350 million in his own money, yet decry big money in politics. Again, Democratic Party voters in the main continue to be too credulous and trusting of corporate media narratives and presentations, which do not speak to the majority of Democratic voters' economic interests any more than to Republican working class voter interests. So, Democratic Party voters, please consider the following proposition: The corporate media punditry are not your friend. The woman who shocked NBC's Ari Melber yesterday got it right, but she admits to what sounds like all-day watching of television cable news. Please, Democratic Party voters--turn off corporate cable news. If anything, watch The Hill: Rising. Read The Nation. Common Dreams. Anything like those, but not corporate owned cable news.
The only caveats one can say to this analysis is there are, in fact, largely economically well-off Democratic Party voters who truly believe we merely need to tinker around the edges and get back to Obama "normalcy," or who still think in Cold War terms when they hear Bernie say he is a "democratic socialist," as Chris Matthews emotionally enunciated. I find that last bit laughable in the face of Donald Trump, who more fits the definition of a Russian asset than Henry Wallace ever did. But those caveats do not apply to the majority of what people call the Democratic Party's base. The base is past the Cold War. The base is past just wanting a return to Obamaville. The base says they want "fundamental change," but somehow keep rushing toward flavors of the month for what looks like a fear of upsetting Chris Matthews, Chuck Todd, and Wolf Blitzer--and your 62 years old or older well-off suburban white woman friend who is still bitter over the Sanders-Clinton primary of 2016.
As I said, these are existential times. And it is time, past time really, for the majority of Democrats to embrace a reality beyond corporate cable narratives. The majority of our children understand this. As I said in a FB post last night, I stand with the working class and the poor. I stand with the kids. I stand with the other creatures on the planet. How about you?
_____________________
* Never mind, for this analysis, that New Hampshire's new law requiring students who live at school for nine months out of the year had to change their drivers' licenses or else could not vote may have depressed the turnout among first time and younger voters, who were overwhelmingly for Bernie. However, we learned the overall turnout was the highest ever, which shows, one hopes, Democratic Party members are motivated to defeat Trump in New Hampshire at least.
** How many Democratic Party voters know Nancy Pelosi is a year and a half older than Bernie Sanders? I guess Sanders should have dyed his hair, as do or did Pelosi, Bloomberg, and Reagan. :(
*** Don't believe the Vox analysis of those criticizing that study. The argument against the findings fail to take into account how corporate media herds voters into accepting a very limited Overton Window, how money compromises politicians, and what issues are deemed worthy of discussion. I remember understanding this for the first time during the NAFTA/WTO fights in the early 1990s, where the vast majority of Americans were against the agreements, but the elite wanted what they wanted, and got it. It is not enough to look where middle class voters and wealthy voters overlap on policy. It is more enlightening to see where the difference arises, and who most often wins. It is akin to the argument about AIPAC. AIPAC wins most of the time, but only when the US national security state apparatus wants what AIPAC wants, too. Otherwise, AIPAC will lose when up against the US national security state apparatus. See here and here for support for this point.
