General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Platner: Astro-Turfed Authenticity [View all]Sympthsical
(11,394 posts)If this is new to you, well, today you learned.
It's not whether or not things are known. It's whether or not they care - and it's whether or not it gets out and gains traction. Like most politicians don't have seedy things in their background. They all do. They just don't all get play due to connections and influence, particularly with the media.
Can you honestly - honestly - say Platner wasn't vetted? Because from my perch, he was all a large swath of DU and the online chattering classes could talk about for months. A billion other races happening in this country, but some days would read like Platner Underground (and I would argue the past two days of its dominance of discussion serves to illustrate that nicely). Not only was Platner vetted, I was stone cold sick of hearing about the guy by the time the primary rolled around. People knew. It was all out in the air before the election.
Voters still picked him anyway. What does that tell you about what you were selling?
You seem to be arguing that we just didn't discuss him enough.
Oh, we did. Quite enough. To the point I'm not even sure if there were other primaries this year. I think I vaguely recall my own state's. Oh right, California. Where half the party knew about Swalwell and pushed him anyway.
You mean that kind of leadership and vetting? You should explore that one, because that mess was institutional and far more disturbing in just what the people in power were very comfortable with.
But I guess that's not as interesting. For reasons.