Has right wing media pushed conservatives further right

[superrific]

And I’ve seen nothing to show that it wasn’t the economy.

The fact that Trump didn’t campaign very heavily on the economy doesn’t tell us anything. Until I see some detailed political science analysis on the 2024 Latino working class vote switch, I am going with the assumption that it was the economy stupid.

I also think there was a segment of the Latino voting population that was still upset about Covid shutdowns, which manifested itself a bit in 2020 exit polling. That population needs the economy to be open to make ends meet. And they think the democrats don’t care about the working person because of Covid shutdowns.

1. You're right, we will know more after people who know how to get good data and make sense of it weigh in. That's none of us here.
2. I'm not sure why Trump not campaigning on the economy doesn't tell us much. Here's what I see:

A. Trump runs virulently racist campaign for president in 2016. Wins. People look at the data. It was actually about race, and not about "economic anxiety."
B. Trump runs less virulently racist campaign in 2020. That's because most of the racism was aimed at China and Americans just don't respond to that distant racism nearly as much. Loses, although for a number of different reasons.
C. Trump runs the most vitriolic, racist campaign for president we've ever seen. Spends almost all of his time with incredibly nasty, mean-spirited and outright racist lies that would make Bull Connor blush. Wins, by a bigger margin than 2016.

So I predict that the data is going to show something similar to A in situation C. I don't know it for sure, obviously, but I'll bet that's what we find.

3. I can't comment on your point about Covid shutdowns. nycfan made a similar point some time ago. It's an interesting thought. I'm ill-equipped to evaluate it.

 

[superrific]

The Democratic Party’s brand is shot. They are not trusted messengers for a lot of voters on these issues.

This, I agree with. Of course, it probably doesn't help all that much that the folks who are supposed to be our base are always complaining about how bad Democrats are.

I mean, look at the Pubs. They are ALWAYS more devoted to whatever idiot they put on the top of the ticket. When they lose, it was stolen. Or we purchased the election with Obamaphones. Etc. etc. And then their base always turns out. Which is why they can win elections with policies nobody likes.

By contrast, when Dems lose an election, it's a circular firing squad. Even before losing, there are always grumblings from one wing of the party about how their issues are being ignored, etc. Black people think we only give lip service to their issues. Working class people say the same, but their pet issues are in many ways directly opposed. Fiscal hawks worry that we don't do enough to cut the deficit. So on and so forth.

How about this: if you're a liberal, rally around the liberal party! That's not to say that there can't be disagreements or discussions or strategy brainwashing, but talking shit about the party is not helpful. This is what the Bernie Bros didn't understand about 2016 and still don't. HRC would have won the election but for the way Bernie was trashing her in the primary. He started talking about issues, but as soon as he smelled a chance to actually win, he went into negative campaigning mode. HRC was corrupt; she was sold out to Goldman Sachs; she was rigging the process. And that set the stage for Trump to pick up those themes and carry them through.

Stop. Trashing. The. Party. You. Want. To. Win. It's really that simple. It's not hard to understand.

 

[Paine]

This, I agree with. Of course, it probably doesn't help all that much that the folks who are supposed to be our base are always complaining about how bad Democrats are.

I mean, look at the Pubs. They are ALWAYS more devoted to whatever idiot they put on the top of the ticket. When they lose, it was stolen. Or we purchased the election with Obamaphones. Etc. etc. And then their base always turns out. Which is why they can win elections with policies nobody likes.

By contrast, when Dems lose an election, it's a circular firing squad. Even before losing, there are always grumblings from one wing of the party about how their issues are being ignored, etc. Black people think we only give lip service to their issues. Working class people say the same, but their pet issues are in many ways directly opposed. Fiscal hawks worry that we don't do enough to cut the deficit. So on and so forth.

How about this: if you're a liberal, rally around the liberal party! That's not to say that there can't be disagreements or discussions or strategy brainwashing, but talking shit about the party is not helpful. This is what the Bernie Bros didn't understand about 2016 and still don't. HRC would have won the election but for the way Bernie was trashing her in the primary. He started talking about issues, but as soon as he smelled a chance to actually win, he went into negative campaigning mode. HRC was corrupt; she was sold out to Goldman Sachs; she was rigging the process. And that set the stage for Trump to pick up those themes and carry them through.

Stop. Trashing. The. Party. You. Want. To. Win. It's really that simple. It's not hard to understand.

Your analysis makes no fucking sense. Trump got the nomination by relentlessly
attcking the failed elites within the Republican Party. Bernie called out existing problems with Clinton and everything he called out was borne out in her 2016 loss. It didn’t happen because of Bernie calling out the real issues. He was trying to warn everyone, but the party sandbagged him instead of listening.

There’s an entire segment of the Republican Party that was pushed out by Trump’s win. They are still attacking him and it hasn’t affected him one lick. Keep your solace in thinking that Democratic staffers are just so smart. That’s why they keep fucking losing huh? The popular vote doesn’t win elections. Even if it did: they just lost it to Donald fucking Trump. But sure, let’s try the failed strategy of tacking to the center once again.

I have a different read on 1992 than you, obviously. Even if you take it at face value that Democrats won in 1992 by tacking to the center, that doesn’t mean that’s the case THIRTY + years later.

 

[superrific]

It’s rich to hear you lecture progressives about glossing over parts of political history.

I'm not doing anything of the sort. You're young. I don't know what you really know about the pre-DNC Dems. I don't know what you've studied about that era. I don't know the content of those studies. So I'm speaking to this audience and it's perfectly fair for me to spell things out given that I don't know your frame of reference.

What I do know is 1992. I was something of a star organizer in college the year. Got commendations from the national campaign, even a handwritten note from Carville. It was the only time in my life that I showed any talent for politics. Well, it wasn't really talent -- it was that I never took any goodies for myself. I would get VIP tickets for events, give them to my volunteers instead of myself or the other leaders of college Dems, and let the volunteers bask in the glow of shaking Bill or Al's hands. Anyway, we produced tons of volunteers, and basically the entire GOTV effort in my area of the city was staffed with the students I recruited. I thought maybe I had a future in politics. LOL. Then I worked on a campaign in 93. Not so great.

Anyway, I can tell you with 100% certainty that everyone in the state office was terrified throughout 1992. In February of that year, we had been going through the motions again, to get our asses handed to us again, and then things changed over the summer. When the kids came back to school, we were rocking. But even through Election Day, even though we were winning by a lot, there was this terrible feeling that they were going to win again. Because they always won. And won big. Except we finally did. And in part the transition was chaos because, in part, we were still stunned at having won.

That was a reality. I'm telling you about it because I was there. You can disregard it if you choose. That experience doesn't make me right about everything; it doesn't make me an oracle of politics; it doesn't mean that you don't have any good points. It just means that the Dems got to where we are for good reasons, and it's worth considering those reasons when taking stock of what comes next.

 

[superrific]

Your analysis makes no fucking sense. Trump got the nomination by relentlessly
attcking the failed elites within the Republican Party. Bernie called out existing problems with Clinton and everything he called out was borne out in her 2016 loss. It didn’t happen because of Bernie

He got the nomination by promising to make Mexico pay for "the Wall." And all the Pubs fell in line when he did. Almost all of them, anyway.

Your latter point is perfectly circular. If I say that Bernie was harping on things that would be liabilities for her and that cost her the election, it is literally no answer to say, "everything he called out was borne out in the general." Hey, maybe he shouldn't have been calling them out.

For all you like to champion the authentic experience of the middle class, you have an odd view of how they consume politics. People don't just hear something once and respond to it. It's when they hear it over and over that it sticks. That's why we talk about amplifying messages. If Bernie had not been amplifying the "HRC is corrupt; we have a uniparty" then I believe she would have won. THAT is why I came to dislike the Bernie Bros. Not because I thought they were wrong about everything, but because they were more interested in purity than winning.

To his credit, Bernie -- though he evidently fucking hates Kamala -- did not take any shots at the nominee this year or in 2020. He learned. And some of the anti-HRC stuff may have been sparked by him but really carried through by his supporters. It wasn't Bernie who Sarah Silverman said was being ridiculous.

Anyway, when I want to figure out what motivates voters, I think it's useful to start with the things they chant relentlessly at rallies. When they go to rallies dressed up like walls, and chant Build The Wall non-stop except when they are chanting "Lock Her Up" -- I don't know. Maybe those are the things that are exciting them?

That's my major problem with your analysis. It's like you didn't watch anything that happened in the campaign, or anything that Trump supporters say on a regular basis -- even on these message boards. I know you did. I know you know it. I just don't understand why you discount as if it's meaningless. The idea that "well, if we gave them something to be excited about in their lives, they wouldn't turn to hate" isn't implausible, but it's not convincing given the relative paucity of the evidence supporting it.

 

[Paine]

He got the nomination by promising to make Mexico pay for "the Wall." And all the Pubs fell in line when he did. Almost all of them, anyway.

Your latter point is perfectly circular. If I say that Bernie was harping on things that would be liabilities for her and that cost her the election, it is literally no answer to say, "everything he called out was borne out in the general." Hey, maybe he shouldn't have been calling them out.

For all you like to champion the authentic experience of the middle class, you have an odd view of how they consume politics. People don't just hear something once and respond to it. It's when they hear it over and over that it sticks. That's why we talk about amplifying messages. If Bernie had not been amplifying the "HRC is corrupt; we have a uniparty" then I believe she would have won. THAT is why I came to dislike the Bernie Bros. Not because I thought they were wrong about everything, but because they were more interested in purity than winning.

To his credit, Bernie -- though he evidently fucking hates Kamala -- did not take any shots at the nominee this year or in 2020. He learned. And some of the anti-HRC stuff may have been sparked by him but really carried through by his supporters. It wasn't Bernie who Sarah Silverman said was being ridiculous.

Anyway, when I want to figure out what motivates voters, I think it's useful to start with the things they chant relentlessly at rallies. When they go to rallies dressed up like walls, and chant Build The Wall non-stop except when they are chanting "Lock Her Up" -- I don't know. Maybe those are the things that are exciting them?

That's my major problem with your analysis. It's like you didn't watch anything that happened in the campaign, or anything that Trump supporters say on a regular basis -- even on these message boards. I know you did. I know you know it. I just don't understand why you discount as if it's meaningless. The idea that "well, if we gave them something to be excited about in their lives, they wouldn't turn to hate" isn't implausible, but it's not convincing given the relative paucity of the evidence supporting it.

You’re ignoring countless things that I’ve said about what I think motivates voters. Go back and read my posts or don’t, I’m tired of typing the same shit over and over and you just ignoring what I’m actually saying to service your own point.

 

[Callatoroy]

He got the nomination by promising to make Mexico pay for "the Wall." And all the Pubs fell in line when he did. Almost all of them, anyway.

Your latter point is perfectly circular. If I say that Bernie was harping on things that would be liabilities for her and that cost her the election, it is literally no answer to say, "everything he called out was borne out in the general." Hey, maybe he shouldn't have been calling them out.

For all you like to champion the authentic experience of the middle class, you have an odd view of how they consume politics. People don't just hear something once and respond to it. It's when they hear it over and over that it sticks. That's why we talk about amplifying messages. If Bernie had not been amplifying the "HRC is corrupt; we have a uniparty" then I believe she would have won. THAT is why I came to dislike the Bernie Bros. Not because I thought they were wrong about everything, but because they were more interested in purity than winning.

To his credit, Bernie -- though he evidently fucking hates Kamala -- did not take any shots at the nominee this year or in 2020. He learned. And some of the anti-HRC stuff may have been sparked by him but really carried through by his supporters. It wasn't Bernie who Sarah Silverman said was being ridiculous.

Anyway, when I want to figure out what motivates voters, I think it's useful to start with the things they chant relentlessly at rallies. When they go to rallies dressed up like walls, and chant Build The Wall non-stop except when they are chanting "Lock Her Up" -- I don't know. Maybe those are the things that are exciting them?

That's my major problem with your analysis. It's like you didn't watch anything that happened in the campaign, or anything that Trump supporters say on a regular basis -- even on these message boards. I know you did. I know you know it. I just don't understand why you discount as if it's meaningless. The idea that "well, if we gave them something to be excited about in their lives, they wouldn't turn to hate" isn't implausible, but it's not convincing given the relative paucity of the evidence supporting it.

nobody, except a few off the wall liberals afflicted with terminal tds took him literally about making Mexico pay for the wall but it’s cute and telling and a little sad that you did and can’t seem to let it go. I mean that’s like a major theme with you. Hopefully there are tds support groups where you live

 

[MendotoManteo]

There was a study done that showed Americans prefer left policies. But only when there's no D or R attached. Once the D or R attached, they prefer Republican policies. I think another one found that people love Biden's policies, but only when his name not associated with it.

Let's be frank: the American people are dumbasses. They don't know their heads from their rectums.

American media is right-friendly, despite what the right thinks. They help create this alternative universe.

 

[MendotoManteo]

It's the same thing how the universal narrative is Republicans work best for the economy, despite almost every objective statistic refuting the fact.

So, to answer the question posed by Sooner, yes, our media has pushed America further right.

Why, I speculate, is that conservatives are, by their nature, bullies. They're the assholes from our schoolyards, just grown up. So, they pressure and punk media outlets to do their bidding. Liberals just think logic and reason will work. But they don't.

 

[Mulberry Heel]

So apparently the Dems are out of touch because we don't understand cultural issues. And also because we don't understand the financial struggles. Gee, I guess we just suck all around, huh? I know that you're here talking about trans and not inflation, and I'm not accusing you of hypocrisy. I'm just saying, oof. Why do we flagellate ourselves like this? If we must, can we just use a single-lash whip and not a cat o' nine tails?

I'm guessing that the reason Kamala didn't respond is that there's no good option there. If she had responded, then trans would be the issue people were talking about, which is inherently favorable to Pubs. There's no way to rebut that without throwing trans kids under the bus, and maybe we should have done that a little bit. Give up 20% to save the other 80. But that would have created a lot of pushback from other Dems and really wouldn't have needed to be a larger conversation.

We just lost an election in which we lost more Senate seats than was expected and even lost the national popular vote, which almost no one anticipated. To be perfectly blunt, maybe some flagellation is both necessary and justified. Clearly the tactics Democrats followed didn't work, and I don't buy that there is nothing that can be done to address these issues. You praised Bill Clinton in another post on this thread and he apparently told the Harris campaign that they needed to address that transgender commercial directly and rebut it. I happen to think he was right and knew what he was talking about.

 

[superrific]

nobody, except a few off the wall liberals afflicted with terminal tds took him literally about making Mexico pay for the wall but it’s cute and telling and a little sad that you did and can’t seem to let it go. I mean that’s like a major theme with you. Hopefully there are tds support groups where you live

Oh, good. Now we enter the "Trump is an inveterate liar and that's why I support him" part of the chat. Of course, there's also the matter of the thousands of people at his rallies shouting "Mexico will pay" to cast doubt on your assertion here.

Anyway, the point of Mexico paying was never about money. It was all about projecting domination over brown skinned people. Just like he does with tariffs. They will pay us to do business in our country, he says. They will pay, not us. So are we supposed to take him literally or seriously or neither? Will be bookmarking your answer. Do you think it's a coincidence that he has run three presidential campaigns with the following messages:

1. Mexico should pay us for a wall
2. China should pay us for Covid
3. Tariffs mean foreign countries will pay us to sell stuff to us.

It's almost as if there's pattern there. Now is the time for you to throw more tantrums about how arrogant I am. Or you could try to think a little bit and read a bit more.

 

[HeelYeah2012]

Agreed.

She should have pulled a JD Vance and said she was wrong then and she has since changed her mind. I thought ignoring it was a terrible strategy. Not outcome determinative, but bad politics.

Yep. This kind of self-reflection is necessary from democrats on several issues, but the transgender stuff is a good place to start

 

[superrific]

We just lost an election in which we lost more Senate seats than was expected and even lost the national popular vote, which almost no one anticipated. To be perfectly blunt, maybe some flagellation is both necessary and justified. Clearly the tactics Democrats followed didn't work, and I don't buy that there is nothing that can be done to address these issues. You praised Bill Clinton in another post on this thread and he apparently told the Harris campaign that they needed to address that transgender commercial directly and rebut it. I happen to think he was right and knew what he was talking about.

I'm not arguing against any and all flagellation, LOL.

I don't know what Bill told the Harris campaign. It's possible that two things are correct: a) Bill was right that we needed to address it and b) there was no really good way to address it. I think he's right on the strategy here for sure. The tactics maybe were out of his control a bit.

I also don't buy that there's nothing that can be done. I just know that I don't have any good answers right now, and that the things I'm reading don't sound convincing to me either. I suspect the answer is that we are going to have to campaign more on hate than we do now. In 2008, Obama won on uniting the country. That day has passed. The reason that liberalism is retreating and authoritarianism is rising is largely because the authoritarians sell hate and hate sells better than love.

 

[superrific]

There was a study done that showed Americans prefer left policies. But only when there's no D or R attached. Once the D or R attached, they prefer Republican policies. I think another one found that people love Biden's policies, but only when his name not associated with it.

This is such a good point. And this is the problem. And there could be a number of reasons for it, but my gut says it's about racism and hating the right people.

 

[CFordUNC]

Looks like our board Republicans are going to continue to have TDS (Transgender Derangement Syndrome) even after winning this election, huh?

The Democrats should never mention the word “transgender” ever again under any circumstance. Not because it’s not a good idea to try to support and protect the marginalized (and the population group with the highest propensity for suicide), but because Republicans literally won this election by running a bunch of “Kamala Harris is for they/them and wants all conservatives to personally pay for transgender surgeries on illegal immigrants and moldy tangerines in prison.” Can’t help the marginalized if you can’t win elections.

 

[Mulberry Heel]

I'm not arguing against any and all flagellation, LOL.

I don't know what Bill told the Harris campaign. It's possible that two things are correct: a) Bill was right that we needed to address it and b) there was no really good way to address it. I think he's right on the strategy here for sure. The tactics maybe were out of his control a bit.

I also don't buy that there's nothing that can be done. I just know that I don't have any good answers right now, and that the things I'm reading don't sound convincing to me either. I suspect the answer is that we are going to have to campaign more on hate than we do now. In 2008, Obama won on uniting the country. That day has passed. The reason that liberalism is retreating and authoritarianism is rising is largely because the authoritarians sell hate and hate sells better than love.

Well, in your post you wrote "Why do we flagellate ourselves like this? If we must, can we just use a single-lash whip and not a cat o' nine tails?" It certainly didn't sound like you were supporting any flagellation or criticism of the party and its tactics. Just suffice it to say that I think addressing the transgender commercial directly would have been a better idea than completely ignoring it. As we will never know whether that would have worked given that it wasn't tried, I have no interest in continuing what is a relatively minor disagreement.

 

[superrific]

We just lost an election in which we lost more Senate seats than was expected and even lost the national popular vote, which almost no one anticipated. To be perfectly blunt, maybe some flagellation is both necessary and justified. Clearly the tactics Democrats followed didn't work, and I don't buy that there is nothing that can be done to address these issues. You praised Bill Clinton in another post on this thread and he apparently told the Harris campaign that they needed to address that transgender commercial directly and rebut it. I happen to think he was right and knew what he was talking about.

Also, the Senate performance appears not as bad as it did a few days ago. Unless something strange happens in AZ, we will have lost only one seat we expected to win -- Casey (and that contest isn't actually over yet). We should have won several of those races by more, so your point isn't wrong. I'm just saying it wasn't as bad as it looked.

 

[superrific]

Well, in your post you wrote "Why do we flagellate ourselves like this? If we must, can we just use a single-lash whip and not a cat o' nine tails?" It certainly didn't sound like you were supporting any flagellation or criticism of the party and its tactics. Just suffice it to say that I think addressing the transgender commercial directly would have been a better idea than completely ignoring it. As we will never know whether that would have worked given that it wasn't tried, I have no interest in continuing what is a relatively minor disagreement.

I don't know if the single-lash whip is the right terminology. Not an expert on whips or flagellation, lol. What I meant was, can we castigate ourselves one direction at a time? And it wasn't a serious request so much as an expression of frustration. I'm hearing equal parts (and not just on this board): Dems are out of touch because they don't understand women; they are out of touch because they don't understand culture; they are out of touch because they don't offer any economic policies to the working class (as if policy decided this election, LOL). It's suffocating. I don't think that all Dems are inveterate idiots who can't ever do anything right. And that's not aimed at you specifically, of course.

I don't even think we are disagreeing on that point. I was merely offering something of a sympathetic counterweight.

 

[superrific]

Looks like our board Republicans are going to continue to have TDS (Transgender Derangement Syndrome) even after winning this election, huh?

The Democrats should never mention the word “transgender” ever again under any circumstance. Not because it’s not a good idea to try to support and protect the marginalized (and the population group with the highest propensity for suicide), but because Republicans literally won this election by running a bunch of “Kamala Harris is for they/them and wants all conservatives to personally pay for transgender surgeries on illegal immigrants and moldy tangerines in prison.” Can’t help the marginalized if you can’t win elections.

We also need to never put forth actual policy proposals. Those are for suckers. Those require us to make choices instead of promising everything to everyone by magic.

Plans are so 2008. Concepts of a plan are where it's at.

 

[CFordUNC]

I remember when Democrats should have abandoned abortion access because as soon as Roe vs Wade was gone all the social conservatives would no longer have anything to motivate them.

Inching rightward to court Republicans has not been effective since 1996 and it comes with risk.

I think that’s a totally fair and valid point but I think that it’s a little different with the transgender stuff, because even Republicans recognize (and oftentimes have) the need for abortion access, whereas they don’t believe that transgender individuals are really even worthy of basic human rights.