No, no. I was literally only thinking of "ordinary people" as those who do not own/control television/newspapers. Nothing more. It's just a phrase. Not an attack or judgment or whatever.
Did I say you had made an attack or judgment? Or did I say I was trying to make one myself?? You're losing me here, but on both counts: I really don't think so. And I certainly wasn't trying to make one on you. It's a bit like the sort of discussion GV has been tossing in the immigration thread. Really, if I actually have that much of an objection to something that I think it's simply dangerous to believe stuff (or racist, or whatever fiery word is being attributed to me that I never even had in mind that day), then I'll probably air the adjective out and I'll at least try to say something about why. But this one? "Attack"? Huh
There seem to be so many times in here when people don't want to hear anything at all about anything they'v'e said, unless it comes with a direct quote and claims about which words the OP said that will be picked at how exactly, and then there's this initial presumption that "debate" being possible, means it's only about setting up a conflict. It's also sometimes getting hard in here to venture much of an opinion about the desirability or sellability of candidate policies at all, without someone shouting 'uncalled for attack!' out of the blue... But really, that was not the kind of discussion I was trying to have. So sorry. It doesn't all have
to be some personal vendetta, you know?
If you want to pontificate on something, fine. But don't try to make me the embodiment of your enemy/whatever cause you want to rail against. Seriously, I'll have to block you if you do it again.
I was not "railing" against anything. Essentially, what I was trying to do was analyze: Let's assume you're quite correct and in some way, Trump and Sanders feed audiences who connect more by word of mouth. Okay, then how do such audiences, within the bounds of what is still an election cycle with rules and (I think still to a fairly significant extent, no matter who
drives them) plenty of messages likely going around about character, policy claims and the like, make decisions to support people or not? How the heck is that an invective against you? You're surely imagining something I was not.
I imagine a lot of women and Latinos would have good reasons NOT to support Trump. (And not that it really matters for this, but just because you
probably want some "personal" position given that you're already pretty much insisting I must immediately be read as for or against you
here somehow or other: Personallly, I hope they don't support him. I hope Trump fails utterly, if that wasn't already clear from stuff I posted earlier.) So I wondered, how might you then be correct that just by word of mouth or whatever positive action not
being beholden to the mainstream media results in people actually going through a process of... How might Trump be able to stay afloat and win -- that is, because you said he might shirk all expectations? And conversely, how might Sanders or Trump run into trouble over time and with the various demographics?
Cycle, I'm sorry if it annoys you that I didn't somehow go on about very precisely
what you wanted to emphasize for whatever arbitrary length of time. And you are of course welcome to block whoever you feel like. But I really feel like you're looking for some huge fight that I never intended. If it bothers you so much that people don't quote block and recycle exactly
whatever particular detail you wanted, then by all means do as you will. But I honestly don't see what in the world you are so upset about.
I also don't see what is especially "pompous" (pontificate you say?!) about asking how likely
it would be that various groups of people would actually vote for a candidate, over the course of an election cycle which still does have a year to go, in a thread all about the prospects of presidential candidates. Yes even given that not all candidates or their consituencies are equally beholden to mass media narratives. Perhaps you're upset that I pointed out you aren't the first to talk about what "ordinary" people might or might not do -- the media does it, the campaigns do it all the time? Well, I'm only doing the same thing and trying to say a little bit more about why I guess what they might actually do.
And I've tried to allow that you might be basically right on the idea that Sanders and Trump are at least in some ways
a bit of new breed, but you didn't really say however that might change (just for example) how many Latinos would probably vote for Trump, or how people might see the word "socialist" applied to Sanders or whatever really over the course of a campaign. So I was saying sure you may be right on some angle about the media etc., but then what: How could that result in Trump winning, or Sanders for that matter? How might the demographics play out? Would it be much different because of that and how, I'm trying to imagine? Cause this is how I imagine them playing out (more or less, maybe, with a year still to go - it's guesswork). That's all really.