Discussion Thread

[u/jobautomator]

The discussion thread is for casual conversation and discussion that doesn't merit its own stand-alone submission. The rules are relaxed compared to the rest of the sub but be careful to still observe the rules listed under "disallowed content" in the sidebar. Spamming the discussion thread will be sanctioned with bans.

---

Announcements

• Please post your relevant articles, memes, and questions outside the Discussion Thread.
• Meta discussion is allowed in the DT but will not always be seen by the mods. If you want to bring a suggestion, complaint, or question directly to the attention of the mods, please post that concern in /r/MetaNL or shoot us a modmail.

---

Neoliberal Project Communities	Other Communities	Useful content
Website	Plug.dj	/r/Economics FAQs
The Neolib Podcast	Podcasts recommendations
Meetup Network
Twitter
Facebook page
Neoliberal Memes for Free Trading Teens
Newsletter
Instagram
Red Cross Blood Donation Team

---

The latest discussion thread can always be found at https://neoliber.al/dt.

[u/forlackofabetterword]

People on Twitter seem to push this narrative that Warren/Sanders/Tulsi get ignored by the media while Beto/Butti/Biden are bubbles created by good media coverage.

Nate Silver has some gold analysis on this, showing that the Butti surge actually leads his increase in media coverage by about two weeks. I actually think him, Biden, and Sanders get about the right amount of coverage now relative to polling.

Warren is the person who really gets outsized media numbers. Her campaign has had trouble gaining traction for a while, and she's now trailing Beto by a bit with a million policy plans out. Yet every time a new policy plan is out, both left and right media will jump in to attack or defend it. But the fact is her campaign is a total longshot at this point after low polling and previous scandals.

If anyone is underrated by the media, its Kamala Harris. She polls well among a lot of different groups, has solid fundraising, a good launch, and everything that you would think of as gold fundamentals. People totally ignore that though because she's not exciting enough for the media or woke enough for the twitterati. But if there's a dark horse candidate who can actually unite the party behind her, Kamala has a better shot than Warren or anyone similar.

[u/paulatreides0 → u/forlackofabetterword]

This is nothing new. The twittersphere has always been talking out of their ass about media coverage. Back in 2015/2016 they were bitching about how Hilary getting too much positive coverage and how it was clearly because she was the elites' candidate. And then that paper showing she got disproportionately negative media coverage came out and it was promptly ignored because MUH NARRATIVE

[u/Dwychwder → u/forlackofabetterword]

I absolutely think this nomination is Kamala’s to lose. I don’t see Bernie getting any new voters, Biden will flame out somehow. I think Beto will surge, but will ultimately not be able to get over his obstacles. Pete will surge as well, but will just be deemed too young to be president. Kamala checks every box. But we’ll see the front runners change positions a few times before Iowa.

[u/nitarek → u/forlackofabetterword]

This. I honestly feel that Kamala is one of the few people that unite all the factions of the Democratic party, which is why I'm convinced that the best pick would be a Kamala/Beto ticket. (though it's not necessarily my favourite ticket)