Has right wing media pushed conservatives further right

[NCK9]

Please explain to me how Dems went “all in on trans rights.” Harris said nothing about trans people at all. This is a fabrication by the same consultant class that has now lost two elections against Trump. They’re looking for a scapegoat.

Exactly - she had to address her comments from the interview in the 'trans prisoner' commercial that ran 4x an hour and never did.

 

[Mulberry Heel]

Exactly - she had to address her comments from the interview in the 'trans prisoner' commercial that ran 4x an hour and never did.

Um, the fact that her campaign was so surprised that ad was so effective is symbolic of the Democratic Party leadership being out of touch with what's happening outside of reliably blue states. Given how much Republicans hate transgenders it should not have been a surprise at all to any Democrat that the ad would be effective, especially if there was no rebuttal whatsoever from the Harris campaign. It doesn't surprise me that Bill Clinton advised the Harris campaign that they had to respond - he was always a shrewd and effective politician - but the fact that they apparently didn't listen is concerning. It does seem as if much of the party leadership is just clueless as what moves voters in much of the country.

 

[superrific]

You need to take my posts in context all together. You tend to respond to the points in making in individual posts instead of taking everything I’ve said together in terms of parsing my argument.

It’s not like Democrats in 2004 were running the kind of campaign I’m talking about. Perhaps they would’ve won in 2004 if they had. John Kerry is not a populist, and the Democratic Party of 2004 wasn’t a populist party.

The Republican Party is, once again, able to win on cultural issues because the Democrats don’t address the economic issues that are at the base of people’s situation.

You just made a post about a trans kid getting bullied and committing suicide. The Democratic Party passing a bill to prevent trans kids from playing in sports would be a major othering of them. How many trans kids are playing sports? It’s not a real issue.

We shouldn’t give oxygen to this anymore than we should the immigrants eat cats and dogs bs. It is all a distraction.

1. Of course trans kids playing sports isn't a real issue. It's a wedge. But I'll bet that kid doesn't commit suicide if she wasn't allowed to play sports but Kamala won. These days, winning is the only thing that matters, because the other side is inhumane. For the other side -- and most of the voters who you think are gettable and I'm not sure are -- cruelty is the point.

You say it's a distraction, but look at the posts around this one. I've been reading about how devastating that ad was. Now, was it really devastating? No idea. I'm not sure how they are measuring that. Maybe they are focus grouping it. But if Kamala is now saying they really needed to counter it, maybe we should have not let them make it into a major issue.

2. I get that you're a materialist in politics, but there is really not much evidence that, in post-industrial societies and especially in post-internet society, economic issues motivate people more than cultural issues. "It's the economy" stupid was the famous line, but cultural issues loomed large in that election as well. And of course what that line really meant was, "hammer the Pubs on the recession."

And the reason that economic policy doesn't really matter is outrage and negative partisanship. The economy isn't something that happens. It's something you experience. Even when it's going poorly for you, it's more of a daily slog than an "OMG I hate this" sort of thing. The cultural stuff engages and outrages people. "OMG they are letting men play women's sports" or "OMG they are vandalizing the library" or "OMG some migrant killed a girl in Georgia." That's what gets people going.

3. American politics has centered around race, and to a lesser extent gender, ever since 1968. That's what has defined the parties. That is what caused the great realignment. If black people could not vote, then the Dems would run on the Jacksonian white man's democracy populist line as they did for a century. New Deal programs would be popular. Great Society programs would be popular. I mean, I used to agree with your take when I was your age. And then in the last 30 years I have seen ugly racial politics over and over and over again. That's how it works.

4. I just saw that the Pubs won the state house in Michigan. As far as I know, the Michigan Dems have been pursuing a vehement pro-worker policy ever since 2022. They got rid of the right-to-work law, for one thing. And how well did that work? It didn't.

And the EV plant up in the north of Michigan. The Gotion plant. I don't think that project is a go anymore. They attracted a huge investment from an EV battery manufacturer, that would have created a lot of mfg jobs with good wages. Exactly the sort of thing the Pubs say they want. Rural area, factory, solid work. But OMG it's got ties to communist China!!!! And so they have been trying to defeat it.

This is what we are up against, and it's why I get tired of the complaints that "Dems don't care or understand working people." I mean, WTF? Every time we do help those communities, they punch back at us for it. Did they appreciate Obamacare? They did not. Even now a lot of them complain about it. What about all the manufacturing plants and subsidies in the IRA and CHIPs acts, which are now going to be killed? Did that help us? No, because brown people.

5. And another anecdote. I recently got solar panels. The solar installer had a Trump flag on his vehicle. I mean, what does he think is going to happen when Trump pulls all support for solar. He literally voted to eliminate his job, or at least jobs like it. I just don't understand why people think bread-and-butter will work when it so obviously and commonly fails.

 

[superrific]

Um, the fact that her campaign was so surprised that ad was so effective is symbolic of the Democratic Party leadership being out of touch with what's happening outside of reliably blue states. Given how much Republicans hate transgenders it should not have been a surprise at all to any Democrat that the ad would be effective, especially if there was no rebuttal whatsoever from the Harris campaign. It doesn't surprise me that Bill Clinton advised the Harris campaign that they had to respond - he was always a shrewd and effective politician - but the fact that they apparently didn't listen is concerning. It does seem as if much of the party leadership is just clueless as what moves voters in much of the country.

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.

 

[Calheel]

Exactly - she had to address her comments from the interview in the 'trans prisoner' commercial that ran 4x an hour and never did.

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.

 

[Calheel]

It wasn't a terrible campaign strategy. If it had been the strategy from the beginning, maybe so. But they didn't start campaigning together until the last couple of weeks, and that was an attempt to pick off as many straggling votes as possible.

I think the campaign knew better than we did that it was behind. nycfan said David Plouffe seemed nervous on TV the day before. I didn't see it, but maybe she was right. Maybe the emails about being behind -- the ones that we thought were running through the tape -- were not.

Anyway, if people were really voting on economic issues, it was baked a long time ago. Inflation is gone. The economy is great. People were voting based on 2022. There's nothing we can do about that now.

As you know, I've seen nothing to lead me to believe that it was the economy that sunk her. This election was all about cultural shit -- racism, trans, etc. That "Kamala is for they/them" ad was unfortunately very well done, in that it resonated with people who don't know better.

The biggest mistake Dems made was going all-in on trans rights. I said as much a while ago. I completely understand that we feel that it's important to stand up for everyone's rights, but the reality is that now everyone has fewer rights and will be in much worse shape than if we had shut up about trans. We should have at least been like, "no biological males in women's sports." Draw a line. Yes, it's ridiculous but if we want votes of idiots then we have to speak to them in their language.

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.

 

[superrific]

You’re completely missing the point about bread and butter issues when it comes to the messaging around it. The Democratic Party’s brand and authenticity is absolutely shot. They are not trusted messengers for a lot of voters on these issues. We have to win back trust that the Democratic Party once had to handle these issues. You do that by running the correct candidates who can connect with people. I know it’s not about issues, I’ve said that repeatedly. It’s about optics.

Look, it’s getting frustrating to continue responding to your same points in post after post. I’m just going to hope the party does not take away the same conclusions you have because I think you’re flat wrong on this, frankly. The way you think about these issues is how the party has thought about them for at least 40 years. And we have zilch to show for it.

Sure, you're allowed to think I'm wrong. But maybe, maybe, it's worth wondering WHY the Democrats have thought this way for 40 years. Maybe everyone in the party is just an idiot. We do win the popular vote most of the time, but whatever, they are all idiots. Or maybe they know more than we do. That isn't to say that they will always get everything right, or that they don't have blind spots, or that they can't improve. But I just don't understand your strident insistence that everyone is corrupt and/or stupid.

There was a time, of course, when the Dems ran on almost nothing BUT bread-and-butter issues for the working class. That was called the 80s, and it went badly for us. Bill Clinton didn't form the DNC because he was on the take and was just dying to get his greedy hands on corporate donations. They formed the DNC because we won 173 EVs COMBINED in the three presidential elections before WJC. Kamala is getting 220 EVs at least this cycle, and we're talking about a rout. She is literally doing four times better than Mondale, Carter and Dukakis.

The reason the Dems tacked to the center is that we were getting absolutely pummeled by staying left. This is the part of the political history that the progressives just gloss over or forget. The world didn't start in 1992.

 

[superrific]

There’s a ton of evidence that it was the economy, but super will ignore all that since the GDP was high and unemployment is low.

Child poverty up, income inequality up, wage growth barely outpacing price increase if at all. There are a number of indicators that people are struggling in this economy, but a lot of wealthy liberals are insulated from this.

Wage growth barely outpacing price increases if at all? Oh, wonderful. Now we're hearing this disinformation from you as well? Why?

My primary data points are not GDP or unemployment. It's consumer spending and consumer confidence. How much economics did you study in college? I take you to be a history/poli sci type of guy. Are you familiar with the idea of revealed preferences? When I see that data, I'm looking at revealed preferences. Preferences that are harder to lie about. But even what people say casts doubt on this narrative. In polls, a large majority of people say a) their finances are great and b) the economy sucks. Idk.

Obviously people are struggling, because there are always people who are struggling. But in 2016, Trump voters were by and large not struggling, and I have a feeling we're going to find out the same thing this time around.

And if they are struggling so much, why are they fighting new manufacturing investment so vehemently?

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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.