The media sucks. Wikileaks sucks. Comey sucks. Third party candidates suck. Racism and sexism were huge factors. You will get no disagreement from me, and they all contributed quite a lot to what happen. Any one of them might have tipped the election.
But they are not all of it. And they are not fixable. Finding a better candidate, making better targeting decisions, improving messaging, and yes, countering voter suppression are things that are workable and they are the things we need to be worrying about. Right now.
You had a better candidate though. Your candidate was amazing.
president-elect donald j. trump
Tell me with a straight face that he was the better candidate.
I mean, can you be a better candidate and lose?
Just for fun, let's give the Trump campaign some credit: they earned an amazing amount of free airtime. You can say this is the result of a shitty media environment, but both sides play in the same media environment and Trump et al were much better at it. Trump is also a better speaker than he gets credit for, in the sense that he commands attention: what he says is word salad, but he's kinda mesmerizing about it. His campaign's messaging was surprisingly effective considering how scattershot they always seemed to be about other things: 'Crooked Hilary' stuck for most of the election, and he had two or three themes that he was nearly always able to tie back into.
contra, the clinton campaign: it never felt to me as though Clinton et al could articulate the raison d'etre of her candidacy. Sanders (for example) never struggled with this, even if you thought his 'eat the rich' message was facile. Trump did it right from the beginning (build a wall!) I never felt like I would be able to be able to begin the sentence 'vote for Clinton because X Y Z' without immediately doing a bunch of clarification afterwards.
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
I'm glad so many people know exactly what the stupid, failing DNC that got Obama elected twice did wrong this time around. I hope everyone calling for the DNC to be gutted is ready to sign up to replace them and lead the charge into 2020.
I'm a little concerned that the first mention I've heard of Clinton wilfully neglecting the Midwest is in this thread though, but I may have missed it back in the other threads in the good old days when we were all broadly on the same side.
They did not get Obama elected. Obama got Obama elected.
He would strongly disagree.
I don't mean to underplay the efforts of Obama's team, which by all accounts was amazing.
Rather, I mean to say that charisma is a necessary but not sufficient prerequisite for winning. If you have the best staff in the world but not enough charisma where it counts you won't win.
How charismatic was George "Dubaya" Bush? Or his father, for that matter?
I don't know about HW, but Bush was plenty charismatic! He's got the whole simple Texan charm thing going.
If that's your bar for charismatic enough then Clinton was plenty charismatic enough.
No seriously, from all accounts, W was a super likable guy.
guys the whole "I can't believe they'd vote for someone because they'd like to have a beer with him" came from George W Bush's first campaign
he was charismatic
unquestionably
Oh I know he was likeable, but can you think of a single speech he gave that got anybody excited about him? Most of the time he couldn't stop stumbling over his own words.
I mean for pity's sake when you mention him the very first phrase that comes to mind is "a hopefuller country."
his 9/11 speech was pretty universally recognized as a good one
hindsight colors a lot of memories about bush i think
he was well liked when he took office
It was? "We will find those folks who committed this act" - that one?
It's entirely possible that sounds clunky to my Irish ears, mind you.
that's a normal, folksy sounding construction here
some of us talk a little funny
Huh. Genuinely always thought that was clunky and weird.
I sort of have an urge to go watch his speeches again now.
i would rather we not continue to make the mistake of driving alt-right and other type elements underground
No. You have to. You have two options
Either you normalize and accept it or you drive it underground. You cannot let racism operate in the open and also combat it.
Fox News existed for two Obama victories
Ok? I don't understand what you're arguing.
Look think of combatting something like making it illegal. It will never go away completely. What is not reduced will go underground. This is true regardless of whether or not it's prison or rehab or simple social ostracization for offenders.
And well while i would agree that rehab is the best option I don't understand how you can pursue that type of option with a shite tonne of money and a national effort.
The truth, though, is that we are ignoring rural America.
And when I say this, I don't mean we need to pander to the policies they think they want. We need to educate them. We need to show that we even care what they think at all! Treating them like the enemy will never work.
What they claim they want is:
- Banning abortions
- Keeping minorities out of their communities
- No restrictions on guns, ever
If we bend on these, are we still liberals/progressives?
If we bend on these, why would they vote for is over the party that's always promised these?
Oh, and they hate when "liberal elites" try to educate them. They already know everything they want to know.
How, exactly, do you expect this situation to change?
You encourage turnout of people who agree with you, you continue to educate children, and you wait for racists and sexists to die.
We already outnumber them, we just need turnout.
The media killed turnout, and you know it. The media blew up the Comey shit.
The media fucked up everything. The media needs to change. I don't know how anyone cannot see this. We have to do something.
You're flipping cause and effect. The media covered what people wanted them to cover
0
Options
Dhalphirdon't you open that trapdooryou're a fool if you dareRegistered Userregular
in order to win a presidential election, a very small percentage of them need to vote dem. that is it. the question is not "how do you change the mind of every republican voter", but "how do you change the mind of the people who previously voted obama but then voted trump / the latinos and african americans who switched to trump". presumably they are not irredeemable people immune to all reason
it would be impossible to persuade all rural types everywhere to change their minds, but there are plenty of reasonable ones who could be reached
For the umpteenth time, Trump got roughly the same total votes as Obama.
Seriously, why are you people so focused on changing the minds of the people who did vote??
Half your fucking country didn't vote! Focus on that, not on fighting tooth and nail to win over seventeen votes from Republicans!
You can't just look at the total numbers, though. If Hillary got a greater number of votes in California but less in the places she needed them, short of a rebalance of the Electoral College it literally doesn't matter.
You need to look at the places where she lost votes, either because of lack of turnout, voter suppression or people just switching to Trump and ask 'why?'
It's a whole bunch of problems combined that all need to be properly examined.
The economy tanks and they remember their pocketbooks. Or enough of their kids get killed in the sand or jungle. And eventually they die off.
This sure sounds like a winning strategy for 2018.
The 2018 strategy is "they took away your healthcare".
Also: "Trump is an incompetent, scandal-ridden joke who none of the Republican legislature is brave enough to disavow" (he will be and they won't be), possibly along with "we are better than this, now we get to prove it".
Fox News is probably shitting themselves right now, I assure you.
Fox News does best when some large part of the government is controlled by democrates. That way they can endlessly parade democrate failure 24/7 to their die hard right wing audience.
Their audience doesn't want to hear the republicans did good things today, they don't want to hear the republicans messed up. They want to hear how someone who looks different acts different and thinks differently wants to do something bad and how the good guys will sweep in to save the day.
A republican led government for them is a potential ratings nightmare.
They care about audience share that drive profits, and this is their gimmick.
The media fucked up everything. The media needs to change. I don't know how anyone cannot see this. We have to do something.
you're being naive and you know it
what "something" do we do?
you're railing like an idealistic teenager here. you can't give the government the tools to control what the media says. for obvious reasons. so who gets the tools to control the media?
Again, does requiring news outlets to be non-profit actually interfere with free-speech? Or does it aid it?
in order to win a presidential election, a very small percentage of them need to vote dem. that is it. the question is not "how do you change the mind of every republican voter", but "how do you change the mind of the people who previously voted obama but then voted trump / the latinos and african americans who switched to trump". presumably they are not irredeemable people immune to all reason
it would be impossible to persuade all rural types everywhere to change their minds, but there are plenty of reasonable ones who could be reached
For the umpteenth time, Trump got roughly the same total votes as Obama.
Seriously, why are you people so focused on changing the minds of the people who did vote??
Half your fucking country didn't vote! Focus on that, not on fighting tooth and nail to win over seventeen votes from Republicans!
You can't just look at the total numbers, though. If Hillary got a greater number of votes in California but less in the places she needed them, short of a rebalance of the Electoral College it literally doesn't matter.
You need to look at the places where she lost votes, either because of lack of turnout, voter suppression or people just switching to Trump and ask 'why?'
It's a whole bunch of problems combined that all need to be properly examined.
I meant Trump got the same votes as Romney.
Nobody new voted Republican this election. Just too many Democrats plain didn't vote.
The economy tanks and they remember their pocketbooks. Or enough of their kids get killed in the sand or jungle. And eventually they die off.
This sure sounds like a winning strategy for 2018.
The 2018 strategy is "they took away your healthcare".
Also: "Trump is an incompetent, scandal-ridden joke who none of the Republican legislature is brave enough to disavow" (he will be and they won't be), possibly along with "we are better than this, now we get to prove it".
God damn do we need the midterm bump. We might not be able to get anything back, but we need to control the narrative from that point on.
Maybe we'll even level up into a hero unit we can run for President in 2020.
in order to win a presidential election, a very small percentage of them need to vote dem. that is it. the question is not "how do you change the mind of every republican voter", but "how do you change the mind of the people who previously voted obama but then voted trump / the latinos and african americans who switched to trump". presumably they are not irredeemable people immune to all reason
it would be impossible to persuade all rural types everywhere to change their minds, but there are plenty of reasonable ones who could be reached
Specifically, I think it's 106,000 people in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.
The truth, though, is that we are ignoring rural America.
And when I say this, I don't mean we need to pander to the policies they think they want. We need to educate them. We need to show that we even care what they think at all! Treating them like the enemy will never work.
What they claim they want is:
- Banning abortions
- Keeping minorities out of their communities
- No restrictions on guns, ever
If we bend on these, are we still liberals/progressives?
If we bend on these, why would they vote for is over the party that's always promised these?
Oh, and they hate when "liberal elites" try to educate them. They already know everything they want to know.
How, exactly, do you expect this situation to change?
You encourage turnout of people who agree with you, you continue to educate children, and you wait for racists and sexists to die.
We already outnumber them, we just need turnout.
The media killed turnout, and you know it. The media blew up the Comey shit.
The media fucked up everything. The media needs to change. I don't know how anyone cannot see this. We have to do something.
You're flipping cause and effect. The media covered what people wanted them to cover
I don't see how that can be true. People don't even know about things like Comey's "maybe there's more e-mails" until it's being screamed from every parapet without context and with shadowy implications that don't exist. How many people do you think believed that the investigation was reopened because of how it was reported? That's a falsehood, yet it's what was reported. The media misrepresented the truth, and people believed what they were told.
Anti-media sentiment is at an all-time high right now among everyone. Surely we could come up with a piece of legislation that would get pushed through even a GOP-dominated legislature if it was backed by all the pressure of anti-establishment sentiment.
i am 100% not interested in anti-media legislation
it would go against the very foundation of our society's ideals
you fight ideas, you don't silence them
Legislation that is against profit-motive-driven twisting of information is pro-media, in the sense of actually making sure truth is delivered to the people.
I seriously wonder what a world would be like if all media was non-profit.
so then everyone just goes to blogs
you can't silence the opinions you disagree with, even if they're wrong or fabricated
you have to overcome them
What do you think the blogs will be like once they become non-profit as well?
The fundamental concept behind for-profit news media is flawed: how can you tell people what's important when what makes them buy it is telling them what they want to hear?
winky you're not going to make it so every possible form of communication available is non-profit
You can prosecute any for-profit outlet that gets big enough to warrant it, which is all you really need anyway.
Who does the prosecuting? Who decides what's "big enough"? Who watches the watchmen?
The truth, though, is that we are ignoring rural America.
And when I say this, I don't mean we need to pander to the policies they think they want. We need to educate them. We need to show that we even care what they think at all! Treating them like the enemy will never work.
You cannot educate them. They do not want to educated.
We cannot afford to throw our allies - who suffer from discrimination and violence - under the bus just to appease racists and sexists. We can make outreach to people who voted for Obama, yet we somehow lost this time. We can focus on finding out who stayed home and why. We can try to energize our party and harness the populist anger.
But under no circumstances should we sacrifice the people who we desperately need to protect, to pick up votes in rural areas.
Bullshit. This is defeatist.
I don't think it's defeatist. We do not need them to win a national election. There are people on the margins that we can win back. But many rural voters are beyond our grasp.
The media fucked up everything. The media needs to change. I don't know how anyone cannot see this. We have to do something.
you're being naive and you know it
what "something" do we do?
you're railing like an idealistic teenager here. you can't give the government the tools to control what the media says. for obvious reasons. so who gets the tools to control the media?
Again, does requiring news outlets to be non-profit actually interfere with free-speech? Or does it aid it?
The media sucks. Wikileaks sucks. Comey sucks. Third party candidates suck. Racism and sexism were huge factors. You will get no disagreement from me, and they all contributed quite a lot to what happen. Any one of them might have tipped the election.
But they are not all of it. And they are not fixable. Finding a better candidate, making better targeting decisions, improving messaging, and yes, countering voter suppression are things that are workable and they are the things we need to be worrying about. Right now.
You had a better candidate though. Your candidate was amazing.
president-elect donald j. trump
Tell me with a straight face that he was the better candidate.
Hillary was the better candidate for America.
Trump was the better candidate for those parts of America that the Electoral College decided he needed to win.
Not exactly. He won Wisconsin by 27,000 votes. 300,000 voters were turned away because of the state's strict new ID laws.
The truth, though, is that we are ignoring rural America.
And when I say this, I don't mean we need to pander to the policies they think they want. We need to educate them. We need to show that we even care what they think at all! Treating them like the enemy will never work.
What they claim they want is:
- Banning abortions
- Keeping minorities out of their communities
- No restrictions on guns, ever
If we bend on these, are we still liberals/progressives?
If we bend on these, why would they vote for is over the party that's always promised these?
Oh, and they hate when "liberal elites" try to educate them. They already know everything they want to know.
How, exactly, do you expect this situation to change?
You encourage turnout of people who agree with you, you continue to educate children, and you wait for racists and sexists to die.
We already outnumber them, we just need turnout.
The media killed turnout, and you know it. The media blew up the Comey shit.
The media fucked up everything. The media needs to change. I don't know how anyone cannot see this. We have to do something.
You're flipping cause and effect. The media covered what people wanted them to cover
I don't see how that can be true. People don't even know about things like Comey's "maybe there's more e-mails" until it's being screamed from every parapet without context and with shadowy implications that don't exist. How many people do you think believed that the investigation was reopened because of how it was reported? That's a falsehood, yet it's what was reported. The media misrepresented the truth, and people believed what they were told.
People want Clinton scandals. They keep proving that
The truth, though, is that we are ignoring rural America.
And when I say this, I don't mean we need to pander to the policies they think they want. We need to educate them. We need to show that we even care what they think at all! Treating them like the enemy will never work.
What they claim they want is:
- Banning abortions
- Keeping minorities out of their communities
- No restrictions on guns, ever
If we bend on these, are we still liberals/progressives?
If we bend on these, why would they vote for is over the party that's always promised these?
Oh, and they hate when "liberal elites" try to educate them. They already know everything they want to know.
How, exactly, do you expect this situation to change?
You encourage turnout of people who agree with you, you continue to educate children, and you wait for racists and sexists to die.
We already outnumber them, we just need turnout.
The media killed turnout, and you know it. The media blew up the Comey shit.
The media fucked up everything. The media needs to change. I don't know how anyone cannot see this. We have to do something.
You're flipping cause and effect. The media covered what people wanted them to cover
Media agenda setting is incredibly powerful.
But the answer is just don't watch, don't give them clicks. Fuck them, especially the TV goliaths. Support good independent media with your money instead (TPM, for example) or even big papers that did a reasonable job like the Washington Post.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Anti-media sentiment is at an all-time high right now among everyone. Surely we could come up with a piece of legislation that would get pushed through even a GOP-dominated legislature if it was backed by all the pressure of anti-establishment sentiment.
i am 100% not interested in anti-media legislation
it would go against the very foundation of our society's ideals
you fight ideas, you don't silence them
Legislation that is against profit-motive-driven twisting of information is pro-media, in the sense of actually making sure truth is delivered to the people.
I seriously wonder what a world would be like if all media was non-profit.
so then everyone just goes to blogs
you can't silence the opinions you disagree with, even if they're wrong or fabricated
you have to overcome them
What do you think the blogs will be like once they become non-profit as well?
The fundamental concept behind for-profit news media is flawed: how can you tell people what's important when what makes them buy it is telling them what they want to hear?
winky you're not going to make it so every possible form of communication available is non-profit
You can prosecute any for-profit outlet that gets big enough to warrant it, which is all you really need anyway.
Who does the prosecuting? Who decides what's "big enough"? Who watches the watchmen?
The government departments that already exist to do these things?
I'm not drafting the legislature here, I'm saying "here's an idea that could work".
I can't even with the insistence that clinton isn't a flawed candidate
how many trump terms do we want to go through as we figure out that we should change course? 2? 3?
Of course it's going to change, that's not even up for discussion.
What you have to acknowledge is that it is going to change for the worse.
You had someone who would have unquestionably been an incredible president. Someone who would have made a real difference to your life and the lives of every American. Someone with a long and proud history of getting things done.
But that wasn't important. The flashy blowhard who lied every time he opened his mouth got in instead.
Competence and dedication to the role and a history of accomplishments that have helped millions of Americans will never, ever matter in your election process again.
Now go check out the celebrity president 2020 list and pick your slick new candidate for the cameras.
alright, we'll just wait around for racists and old people to die i guess
maybe we'll beat him in time to stop him from turning the washington monument into a dick and renaming it after himself
Fox News is probably shitting themselves right now, I assure you.
Fox News does best when some large part of the government is controlled by democrates. That way they can endlessly parade democrate failure 24/7 to their die hard right wing audience.
Their audience doesn't want to hear the republicans did good things today, they don't want to hear the republicans messed up. They want to hear how someone who looks different acts different and thinks differently wants to do something bad and how the good guys will sweep in to save the day.
A republican led government for them is a potential ratings nightmare.
They care about audience share that drive profits, and this is their gimmick.
Fox isn't fucked because of this, they're fucked because there's an emerging media apparatus to their right which is poised to cut into their demographic, and Brietbart et al are not constrained by even the loose standards of decorum Fox feels obligated to maintain. I actually kinda expect Fox to 1) retain Megyn Kelly and 2) lurch 'center'-ward over the next year or so
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
The truth, though, is that we are ignoring rural America.
And when I say this, I don't mean we need to pander to the policies they think they want. We need to educate them. We need to show that we even care what they think at all! Treating them like the enemy will never work.
What they claim they want is:
- Banning abortions
- Keeping minorities out of their communities
- No restrictions on guns, ever
If we bend on these, are we still liberals/progressives?
If we bend on these, why would they vote for is over the party that's always promised these?
Oh, and they hate when "liberal elites" try to educate them. They already know everything they want to know.
How, exactly, do you expect this situation to change?
You encourage turnout of people who agree with you, you continue to educate children, and you wait for racists and sexists to die.
We already outnumber them, we just need turnout.
The media killed turnout, and you know it. The media blew up the Comey shit.
The media fucked up everything. The media needs to change. I don't know how anyone cannot see this. We have to do something.
You're flipping cause and effect. The media covered what people wanted them to cover
Media agenda setting is incredibly powerful.
But the answer is just don't watch, don't give them clicks. Fuck them, especially the TV goliaths. Support good independent media with your money instead (TPM, for example) or even big papers that did a reasonable job like the Washington Post.
Media consumption is more diverse than ever. It has no agenda-setting power
0
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
I'm glad so many people know exactly what the stupid, failing DNC that got Obama elected twice did wrong this time around. I hope everyone calling for the DNC to be gutted is ready to sign up to replace them and lead the charge into 2020.
I'm a little concerned that the first mention I've heard of Clinton wilfully neglecting the Midwest is in this thread though, but I may have missed it back in the other threads in the good old days when we were all broadly on the same side.
They did not get Obama elected. Obama got Obama elected.
He would strongly disagree.
I don't mean to underplay the efforts of Obama's team, which by all accounts was amazing.
Rather, I mean to say that charisma is a necessary but not sufficient prerequisite for winning. If you have the best staff in the world but not enough charisma where it counts you won't win.
How charismatic was George "Dubaya" Bush? Or his father, for that matter?
I don't know about HW, but Bush was plenty charismatic! He's got the whole simple Texan charm thing going.
If that's your bar for charismatic enough then Clinton was plenty charismatic enough.
No seriously, from all accounts, W was a super likable guy.
guys the whole "I can't believe they'd vote for someone because they'd like to have a beer with him" came from George W Bush's first campaign
he was charismatic
unquestionably
Oh I know he was likeable, but can you think of a single speech he gave that got anybody excited about him? Most of the time he couldn't stop stumbling over his own words.
I mean for pity's sake when you mention him the very first phrase that comes to mind is "a hopefuller country."
his 9/11 speech was pretty universally recognized as a good one
hindsight colors a lot of memories about bush i think
he was well liked when he took office
It was? "We will find those folks who committed this act" - that one?
It's entirely possible that sounds clunky to my Irish ears, mind you.
that's a normal, folksy sounding construction here
some of us talk a little funny
Huh. Genuinely always thought that was clunky and weird.
I sort of have an urge to go watch his speeches again now.
i mean don't get me wrong
he wasn't a brilliant orator
but he was charismatic and he said the right things in his speech after 9/11 to make people feel like he did a good job
he blew it all away fairly quickly, but he had a good couple month run
The economy tanks and they remember their pocketbooks. Or enough of their kids get killed in the sand or jungle. And eventually they die off.
This sure sounds like a winning strategy for 2018.
House races will be more local. Senate races are more candidate based. There no central figure in offyear or midterm elections except the sitting President.
Anti-media sentiment is at an all-time high right now among everyone. Surely we could come up with a piece of legislation that would get pushed through even a GOP-dominated legislature if it was backed by all the pressure of anti-establishment sentiment.
i am 100% not interested in anti-media legislation
it would go against the very foundation of our society's ideals
you fight ideas, you don't silence them
Legislation that is against profit-motive-driven twisting of information is pro-media, in the sense of actually making sure truth is delivered to the people.
I seriously wonder what a world would be like if all media was non-profit.
so then everyone just goes to blogs
you can't silence the opinions you disagree with, even if they're wrong or fabricated
you have to overcome them
What do you think the blogs will be like once they become non-profit as well?
The fundamental concept behind for-profit news media is flawed: how can you tell people what's important when what makes them buy it is telling them what they want to hear?
winky you're not going to make it so every possible form of communication available is non-profit
You can prosecute any for-profit outlet that gets big enough to warrant it, which is all you really need anyway.
Who does the prosecuting? Who decides what's "big enough"? Who watches the watchmen?
The government departments that already exist to do these things?
I'm not drafting the legislature here, I'm saying "here's an idea that could work".
And we understand the situation better and are explaining to you why it can't
+3
Options
SurfpossumA nonentitytrying to preserve the anonymity he so richly deserves.Registered Userregular
Yeah, I'm waiting for more info but feel I should chime in with My Opinion as well:
It's not MI voters. It's not WI voters. It's not a Them.
Does Trump have a core of actively racist supporters? Yes. Did he have passively racist supporters? Yes. Did we have unenthusiastic should-have-been-supporters? Yes. Did we have racist should-have-been-supporters crossing the aisle? Yes.
There's not one big group that we lost or now need to win over. We don't need to massively swing left or right (whether or not we could, dunno). We need to generate enthusiasm.
Long term, we need to humanize Democrats, and to do that we'll need to socialize with people who demonize us. But as long as we let Limbaugh describe us rather than being real people that other real people know, there is no "educating" that will happen. It is a non-starter. You become not The Enemy, and people will figure the rest out themselves.
Nonprofit status essentially gives the government the ability to fuck with your budget by revoking that status based on some violation you may or may not have made. Especially if you are in a field where that status is legally required for you to do business, as with your media proposal.
You cannot regulate the press on that level and have it remain free in any meaningful sense.
in order to win a presidential election, a very small percentage of them need to vote dem. that is it. the question is not "how do you change the mind of every republican voter", but "how do you change the mind of the people who previously voted obama but then voted trump / the latinos and african americans who switched to trump". presumably they are not irredeemable people immune to all reason
it would be impossible to persuade all rural types everywhere to change their minds, but there are plenty of reasonable ones who could be reached
Specifically, I think it's 106,000 people in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.
And Stein had 120K votes in those states.
cool we'll flick the magic wand that makes third party voters vote 100% for our candidate instead of staying home
+11
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
Anti-media sentiment is at an all-time high right now among everyone. Surely we could come up with a piece of legislation that would get pushed through even a GOP-dominated legislature if it was backed by all the pressure of anti-establishment sentiment.
i am 100% not interested in anti-media legislation
it would go against the very foundation of our society's ideals
you fight ideas, you don't silence them
Legislation that is against profit-motive-driven twisting of information is pro-media, in the sense of actually making sure truth is delivered to the people.
I seriously wonder what a world would be like if all media was non-profit.
so then everyone just goes to blogs
you can't silence the opinions you disagree with, even if they're wrong or fabricated
you have to overcome them
What do you think the blogs will be like once they become non-profit as well?
The fundamental concept behind for-profit news media is flawed: how can you tell people what's important when what makes them buy it is telling them what they want to hear?
winky you're not going to make it so every possible form of communication available is non-profit
You can prosecute any for-profit outlet that gets big enough to warrant it, which is all you really need anyway.
Who does the prosecuting? Who decides what's "big enough"? Who watches the watchmen?
The government departments that already exist to do these things?
I'm not drafting the legislature here, I'm saying "here's an idea that could work".
if speech is free and money is speech you're not going to get legislation passed that prohibits people from making money off speech
Anti-media sentiment is at an all-time high right now among everyone. Surely we could come up with a piece of legislation that would get pushed through even a GOP-dominated legislature if it was backed by all the pressure of anti-establishment sentiment.
i am 100% not interested in anti-media legislation
it would go against the very foundation of our society's ideals
you fight ideas, you don't silence them
Legislation that is against profit-motive-driven twisting of information is pro-media, in the sense of actually making sure truth is delivered to the people.
I seriously wonder what a world would be like if all media was non-profit.
so then everyone just goes to blogs
you can't silence the opinions you disagree with, even if they're wrong or fabricated
you have to overcome them
What do you think the blogs will be like once they become non-profit as well?
The fundamental concept behind for-profit news media is flawed: how can you tell people what's important when what makes them buy it is telling them what they want to hear?
winky you're not going to make it so every possible form of communication available is non-profit
You can prosecute any for-profit outlet that gets big enough to warrant it, which is all you really need anyway.
Who does the prosecuting? Who decides what's "big enough"? Who watches the watchmen?
The government departments that already exist to do these things?
I'm not drafting the legislature here, I'm saying "here's an idea that could work".
And we understand the situation better and are explaining to you why it can't
No, you're not explaining anything to me. In fact, you refused to.
Fox News is probably shitting themselves right now, I assure you.
Fox News does best when some large part of the government is controlled by democrates. That way they can endlessly parade democrate failure 24/7 to their die hard right wing audience.
Their audience doesn't want to hear the republicans did good things today, they don't want to hear the republicans messed up. They want to hear how someone who looks different acts different and thinks differently wants to do something bad and how the good guys will sweep in to save the day.
A republican led government for them is a potential ratings nightmare.
They care about audience share that drive profits, and this is their gimmick.
I wish this were true, but it isn't. Murdoch is an absolute master at providing enemies to pillory to cover a corrupt government fucking up over and over.
The truth, though, is that we are ignoring rural America.
And when I say this, I don't mean we need to pander to the policies they think they want. We need to educate them. We need to show that we even care what they think at all! Treating them like the enemy will never work.
What they claim they want is:
- Banning abortions
- Keeping minorities out of their communities
- No restrictions on guns, ever
If we bend on these, are we still liberals/progressives?
If we bend on these, why would they vote for is over the party that's always promised these?
Oh, and they hate when "liberal elites" try to educate them. They already know everything they want to know.
How, exactly, do you expect this situation to change?
You encourage turnout of people who agree with you, you continue to educate children, and you wait for racists and sexists to die.
We already outnumber them, we just need turnout.
The media killed turnout, and you know it. The media blew up the Comey shit.
The media fucked up everything. The media needs to change. I don't know how anyone cannot see this. We have to do something.
You're flipping cause and effect. The media covered what people wanted them to cover
I don't see how that can be true. People don't even know about things like Comey's "maybe there's more e-mails" until it's being screamed from every parapet without context and with shadowy implications that don't exist. How many people do you think believed that the investigation was reopened because of how it was reported? That's a falsehood, yet it's what was reported. The media misrepresented the truth, and people believed what they were told.
People want Clinton scandals. They keep proving that
At least 60 million people wanted anything but. Don't mistake attention for desire. Screaming "fire" will get you attention, but it's sure as fuck not what people want.
Posts
The 2018 strategy is "they took away your healthcare".
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
I mean, can you be a better candidate and lose?
Just for fun, let's give the Trump campaign some credit: they earned an amazing amount of free airtime. You can say this is the result of a shitty media environment, but both sides play in the same media environment and Trump et al were much better at it. Trump is also a better speaker than he gets credit for, in the sense that he commands attention: what he says is word salad, but he's kinda mesmerizing about it. His campaign's messaging was surprisingly effective considering how scattershot they always seemed to be about other things: 'Crooked Hilary' stuck for most of the election, and he had two or three themes that he was nearly always able to tie back into.
contra, the clinton campaign: it never felt to me as though Clinton et al could articulate the raison d'etre of her candidacy. Sanders (for example) never struggled with this, even if you thought his 'eat the rich' message was facile. Trump did it right from the beginning (build a wall!) I never felt like I would be able to be able to begin the sentence 'vote for Clinton because X Y Z' without immediately doing a bunch of clarification afterwards.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Huh. Genuinely always thought that was clunky and weird.
I sort of have an urge to go watch his speeches again now.
Ok? I don't understand what you're arguing.
Look think of combatting something like making it illegal. It will never go away completely. What is not reduced will go underground. This is true regardless of whether or not it's prison or rehab or simple social ostracization for offenders.
And well while i would agree that rehab is the best option I don't understand how you can pursue that type of option with a shite tonne of money and a national effort.
You're flipping cause and effect. The media covered what people wanted them to cover
yeah okay man
You can't just look at the total numbers, though. If Hillary got a greater number of votes in California but less in the places she needed them, short of a rebalance of the Electoral College it literally doesn't matter.
You need to look at the places where she lost votes, either because of lack of turnout, voter suppression or people just switching to Trump and ask 'why?'
It's a whole bunch of problems combined that all need to be properly examined.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Also: "Trump is an incompetent, scandal-ridden joke who none of the Republican legislature is brave enough to disavow" (he will be and they won't be), possibly along with "we are better than this, now we get to prove it".
Fox News does best when some large part of the government is controlled by democrates. That way they can endlessly parade democrate failure 24/7 to their die hard right wing audience.
Their audience doesn't want to hear the republicans did good things today, they don't want to hear the republicans messed up. They want to hear how someone who looks different acts different and thinks differently wants to do something bad and how the good guys will sweep in to save the day.
A republican led government for them is a potential ratings nightmare.
They care about audience share that drive profits, and this is their gimmick.
Again, does requiring news outlets to be non-profit actually interfere with free-speech? Or does it aid it?
I meant Trump got the same votes as Romney.
Nobody new voted Republican this election. Just too many Democrats plain didn't vote.
God damn do we need the midterm bump. We might not be able to get anything back, but we need to control the narrative from that point on.
Maybe we'll even level up into a hero unit we can run for President in 2020.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Because the media is biased. The media is biased towards profit.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
I don't see how that can be true. People don't even know about things like Comey's "maybe there's more e-mails" until it's being screamed from every parapet without context and with shadowy implications that don't exist. How many people do you think believed that the investigation was reopened because of how it was reported? That's a falsehood, yet it's what was reported. The media misrepresented the truth, and people believed what they were told.
Who does the prosecuting? Who decides what's "big enough"? Who watches the watchmen?
I don't think it's defeatist. We do not need them to win a national election. There are people on the margins that we can win back. But many rural voters are beyond our grasp.
Interferes. A lot.
The problem is they can take away healthcare without people realizing it by making policies that cover nothing legal again.
Not exactly. He won Wisconsin by 27,000 votes. 300,000 voters were turned away because of the state's strict new ID laws.
People want Clinton scandals. They keep proving that
Media agenda setting is incredibly powerful.
But the answer is just don't watch, don't give them clicks. Fuck them, especially the TV goliaths. Support good independent media with your money instead (TPM, for example) or even big papers that did a reasonable job like the Washington Post.
The government departments that already exist to do these things?
I'm not drafting the legislature here, I'm saying "here's an idea that could work".
maybe we'll beat him in time to stop him from turning the washington monument into a dick and renaming it after himself
Fox isn't fucked because of this, they're fucked because there's an emerging media apparatus to their right which is poised to cut into their demographic, and Brietbart et al are not constrained by even the loose standards of decorum Fox feels obligated to maintain. I actually kinda expect Fox to 1) retain Megyn Kelly and 2) lurch 'center'-ward over the next year or so
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Media consumption is more diverse than ever. It has no agenda-setting power
i mean don't get me wrong
he wasn't a brilliant orator
but he was charismatic and he said the right things in his speech after 9/11 to make people feel like he did a good job
he blew it all away fairly quickly, but he had a good couple month run
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
And we understand the situation better and are explaining to you why it can't
It's not MI voters. It's not WI voters. It's not a Them.
Does Trump have a core of actively racist supporters? Yes. Did he have passively racist supporters? Yes. Did we have unenthusiastic should-have-been-supporters? Yes. Did we have racist should-have-been-supporters crossing the aisle? Yes.
There's not one big group that we lost or now need to win over. We don't need to massively swing left or right (whether or not we could, dunno). We need to generate enthusiasm.
Long term, we need to humanize Democrats, and to do that we'll need to socialize with people who demonize us. But as long as we let Limbaugh describe us rather than being real people that other real people know, there is no "educating" that will happen. It is a non-starter. You become not The Enemy, and people will figure the rest out themselves.
But short term: enthusiasm.
You cannot regulate the press on that level and have it remain free in any meaningful sense.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
"Has anyone seen any *insert minority group* recently?"
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
if speech is free and money is speech you're not going to get legislation passed that prohibits people from making money off speech
it's just not going to happen
No, you're not explaining anything to me. In fact, you refused to.
I wish this were true, but it isn't. Murdoch is an absolute master at providing enemies to pillory to cover a corrupt government fucking up over and over.
See British tabloids in the 80s for reference.
At least 60 million people wanted anything but. Don't mistake attention for desire. Screaming "fire" will get you attention, but it's sure as fuck not what people want.