2016 Postmortem

The realities of campaigning sucks. The amount of money required to advertise etc. Trump didn't need to spend much with the coverage he got because he could manipulate the media and he was ratings gold, and the coffers of the Koch Brothers supported the GOP along the flanks.

As for our party and corporate influence: Our best bet, in my view, is understanding why certain positions are taken. I saw no evidence of collusion in any of the policy positions this year. There are two major areas I pay attention to where corporate influence is concerned: subsidies and legislation.

I'll use trade as an example of influence and subsidies:
Trade often exposes the collusion between politics and industry. Now I'm big on trade - I love it. I think trade brings people together, it's pure commerce, a pathway between nations to exchange ideas and goods. However, while I'm pro-trade and defend it, I'm also aware that these same subsidies I just mentioned favor big corporations- it's not really "free trade" in its purest form. For instance NAFTA caused Mexico to completely change her corn policy. Subsidized US Agribusinesses flooded the mexican market with cheap corn, killing off small Mexican producers in these countries - some varieties of corn disappeared and thousands of mexican farmers were displaced. So while there were benefits to trade deals that help lift people out of poverty, there were also SERIOUS drawbacks, felt here as well of course. Which agribusinesses funded republican and democratic campaigns at the time it was drawn up? And while I support the TPP broadly, it seeks to implement an artificial monopoly on intellectual property which worries me. Which is why demonizing the entire deal distracts us from focusing on the parts of it that have merit and the parts which don't - always follow the money and see who benefits from a clause or a provision.

Another thing I ask is what kind of friendships between my politicians and industry or wall st types are influencing certain bills introduced to the house. Legislative politics is complicated, cutthroat, but we all need to take more than a passing interest in what gets passed on our behalf. Again understanding why and what purpose --

"Getting them to distrust the messaging they've always relied on requires tying that messaging to the corporations and tying their suffering to corporate greed. Take away for them the lie that the media is liberal, not by saying it is conservative, but by showing them that it is wholly owned by corporations, which have a vested interests against supporting the middle class and the poor. "

Yes. But not all media - I think some of the more traditional media, like WaPo, and to a lesser extent New York times, did great work this year.

There's mainstream media and fringe media and pop media and every hybrid in between, spanning a wide ideological spectrum. To keep this media jungle alive, profits and ratings are important. For Cable News Media, I think this is even more obvious: It is about profit and ratings. Unfortunately, as we complain we still watch these same networks we complain about.

Bannon, Trump & Co. would love for an all out assault on the Media and the fourth estate. I do believe they wish want to de-legitimize our institutions. So we have to pierce through their noise somehow with intense grassroots activism.

Somewhat related to the story and your post, give this a read- it's interesting. :http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1048&pid=362