Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:I'll take that as a 'no' then.
- Doc
I just gave you an example and explained it in detail. Are you saying you are unaware of the voters in diners genre of election coverage?
Not sure how you're getting there from here:
Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:
EAllusion wrote:I think part of the reason why is that Democrats in the media significantly overestimate how popular conservative narratives actually are. Their desire to appear fair combined with a thirst for Democratic success causes them to constantly second guess and criticize Democrats for not doing enough to appeal to conservative narratives.
Can you give a few examples of this?
- Doc
I mean, if you want to do that thing you do where you create some sort of nuanced claim that exists in your head, assert it as fact, and then go into detail supporting your self-made assertion without actually being factual that's your prerogative. I don't really care. I just asked for a few examples which caused you to go full-on Robot EA Monologuer.
Whatevs.
- Doc
In the face of madness, rationality has no power - Xiao Wang, US historiographer, 2287 AD.
Every record...falsified, every book rewritten...every statue...has been renamed or torn down, every date...altered...the process is continuing...minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Ideology is always right.
honorentheos wrote: So a few "ors" in relation to the question being discussed.
I don't think it is this person or that person or that person. It's not Pelosi or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez or Sanders or Schumer or Biden or Obama or any combination thereof. I don't think any person or group of people have that status. Representation of the party is diffuse. There are politicians you can point to as what people think of when they think of specific coalitions within the Democratic party, but I don't think any analysis would bear out that that there is an actual "face" of the Democratic party to speak of.
This is normal though. That'll change when there's a Democratic nominee for President or Democratic president.
House Democrats were united in their vote to condemn President Donald Trump's racist tweets this week, but some Democratic lawmakers are quietly expressing concern that far-left progressives have outsized influence in their caucus.
Several Democrats -- from across the ideological spectrum -- are growing tired of the repeated headlines involving four progressive congresswomen as the caucus tries to push its agenda. In conversations that took place before the President hosted a rally in North Carolina Wednesday night where the crowds chanted "send her home" in reference to Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, Democrats said they want to keep the spotlight on the issues that got them elected, not a fight with the President.
"The President's words and actions speak for themselves. We need to focus on the issues that got (Democrats) here: jobs, health care ... instead of the issues the President brings up deliberately," said one House Democratic lawmaker, who asked for anonymity to speak freely. "Anything that takes away from bread-and-butter issues is playing into his hands."
"The President won this one," said another House Democratic lawmaker of the showdown. "What the President has done is politically brilliant. Pelosi was trying to marginalize these folks, and the President has now identified the entire party with them."
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, along with many in the caucus, repeatedly described the President's attacks as a distraction this week -- as did members of "the Squad," a nick name for the group made up of Reps. Alexandira Ocasio-Cortez of New York, Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts, Rashida Tlaib of Michigan and Omar.
"I encourage the American people and all of us in this room and beyond to not take the bait," Pressley said at a news conference Monday with the other three congresswomen. "This is a disruptive distraction from the issues of care, concern and consequence to the American people."
Given the blistering nature of the President's comments about the congresswomen, leadership felt a strong need to forcefully condemn his words.
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, who controls the floor, argued this week that responding "in a collective way" with a vote was "absolutely essential for us to do," describing it as an "opportunity to tell America we do not agree. This is offensive. This is wrong in America."
I don't suppose that will aid in communicating but it may help show the idea arguing one shouldn't let the Republicans define the Democratic message isn't letting Republicans define the Democratic message. Well, unless one views the narrative the same as the one Republicans want to mainstream and just don't like them coopting it I guess.
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth? ~ Eiji Yoshikawa
I gave you an example Doc. In what way do you think my example does not count? One possibility is that you are news illiterate and are unaware of a genre of story that has literally hundreds of examples to the point that writing about the genre is itself its own genre. (I am far from the first to notice that these stories seem to come from the biases of cosmopolitan liberal journalists.) Having given you (perhaps too much) credit, I assumed you were aware of it. But if you are, then what are you on about? Is it that you don't understand how the maniacal focus on patrons of small-town diners stories that often contain the message that Democrats need to do more to reach them tend to bias conservative views? I don't know. I gave you an example of what you referred to. You'll have to fill in the blanks of what you don't understand about that being an example.
House Democrats were united in their vote to condemn President Donald Trump's racist tweets this week, but some Democratic lawmakers are quietly expressing concern that far-left progressives have outsized influence in their caucus.
Several Democrats -- from across the ideological spectrum -- are growing tired of the repeated headlines involving four progressive congresswomen as the caucus tries to push its agenda. In conversations that took place before the President hosted a rally in North Carolina Wednesday night where the crowds chanted "send her home" in reference to Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, Democrats said they want to keep the spotlight on the issues that got them elected, not a fight with the President.
"The President's words and actions speak for themselves. We need to focus on the issues that got (Democrats) here: jobs, health care ... instead of the issues the President brings up deliberately," said one House Democratic lawmaker, who asked for anonymity to speak freely. "Anything that takes away from bread-and-butter issues is playing into his hands."
"The President won this one," said another House Democratic lawmaker of the showdown. "What the President has done is politically brilliant. Pelosi was trying to marginalize these folks, and the President has now identified the entire party with them."
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, along with many in the caucus, repeatedly described the President's attacks as a distraction this week -- as did members of "the Squad," a nick name for the group made up of Reps. Alexandira Ocasio-Cortez of New York, Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts, Rashida Tlaib of Michigan and Omar.
"I encourage the American people and all of us in this room and beyond to not take the bait," Pressley said at a news conference Monday with the other three congresswomen. "This is a disruptive distraction from the issues of care, concern and consequence to the American people."
Given the blistering nature of the President's comments about the congresswomen, leadership felt a strong need to forcefully condemn his words.
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, who controls the floor, argued this week that responding "in a collective way" with a vote was "absolutely essential for us to do," describing it as an "opportunity to tell America we do not agree. This is offensive. This is wrong in America."
I don't suppose that will aid in communicating but it may help show the idea arguing one shouldn't let the Republicans define the Democratic message isn't letting Republicans define the Democratic message. Well, unless one views the narrative the same as the one Republicans want to mainstream and just don't like them coopting it I guess.
There's a coalition of 40ish moderate Democrats that are currently controlling the caucus agenda by being a block veto that have been putting messages into the media complaining about the progressive wing of the party's influence. It's an internal squabble over power in the party where the big-guns are complaining that their opponent is helping Trump. Helping Trump is the worst thing a Democrat can do in the eyes of a Democrat.
Gerrymandering is probably a factor in why this is happening. You have a bunch of Democrats in heavily gerrymandered districts where a liberal is a strong favorite to win. Then you have a minority, most of whom took power in 2018, who are sitting in swing districts or Republican districts. You have to seem more moderate to win those, and you have to govern more moderately to keep them. This produces a smallish wing of moderates vs. a larger wing of more progressive people vs. people who need to keep them together.
I think the idea that Trump saying hugely unpopular racist things is "politically brilliant" is laughable. Maybe whomever wrote that story shouldn't have let that comment be made anonymously.
I admit it. I'm far more illiterate than you even give me credit for.
EAllusion wrote:
I think part of the reason why is that Democrats in the media significantly overestimate how popular conservative narratives actually are. Their desire to appear fair combined with a thirst for Democratic success causes them to constantly second guess and criticize Democrats for not doing enough to appeal to conservative narratives.
I asked for a few examples of:
constantly second guess and criticize Democrats for not doing enough to appeal to conservative narratives
Literal examples. That all I asked for, and now we're witnessing a typical EA robot dance hoping his beep beep'ing and boop boop'ing and, "DANGER WILL ROBINSON!" detracts from the fact that he couldn't provide a few examples of:
constantly second guess and criticize Democrats for not doing enough to appeal to conservative narratives
At first I was genuinely curious about that particular observation, but now I realize you're just doing the thing you do where you say some crap and then get all bent out of shape when you suspect your shtick of 'knowing everything better than everyone else' isn't panning out.
Whatevs. I don't care about your opinion on the matter any more.
- Doc
In the face of madness, rationality has no power - Xiao Wang, US historiographer, 2287 AD.
Every record...falsified, every book rewritten...every statue...has been renamed or torn down, every date...altered...the process is continuing...minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Ideology is always right.
But in unifying House Democrats against him, Trump unified them around the Squad, and raised their profile — the four women are getting even more coverage this week than they were last week, exactly what Pelosi was trying to avoid, and exactly what conservative media has been trying to achieve.
There are two ways of thinking about this outcome. One cuts American politics into the traditional Republican-Democrat divide. In this telling, Pelosi and the Democrats are Trump’s foremost antagonists, and in bridging their divides, he weakened himself. The other views American politics through the lens of demographic change and the white identity politics it triggers. In this view, by uniting Democrats in defense of the Squad and against his racist attacks, Trump rescued a narrative crucial to his political appeal and the reactionary politics he represents.
Let’s back up. This controversy started with a series of calculated comments by Pelosi meant to diminish the Squad. “All these people have their public whatever and their Twitter world,” Pelosi told the New York Times. “But they didn’t have any following. They’re four people and that’s how many votes they got.” Unlike Trump, Pelosi chooses her words with care, so notice the argument she was actually making. The idea was that their centrality in social media, and on cable news, is misleading. They get retweets, but they can’t command votes. Their power is illusory, and thus their coverage unmerited.
This reflects a particularly deep source of frustration House Democrats feel toward the Squad. From the perspective of most House Democrats, who claw and scrap for press coverage, and the House Democratic leadership, which tries desperately and ineffectually to coordinate messaging, the Squad is composed of four backbench, first-term members who don’t lead committees, represent swing districts, or control big blocs of votes. And yet every time you turn on the TV, or read an op-ed, or fire up Twitter, there’s the Squad.
Much of this — and this is important — reflects the Squad’s appeal in conservative media circles. In February, Media Matters analyzed Fox News coverage and found that Ocasio-Cortez, then a brand-new member of the House, received four times the mentions of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. In a separate study, they found Fox News mentioned Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez more than 3,000 times in a six-week span.
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth? ~ Eiji Yoshikawa
It's not about being concerned about what Conservative voters think. It's about political strategy and this week Trump's tweets were effective in moving his political agenda forward and the Democrat leadership's agenda backwards.
It's that simple.
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth? ~ Eiji Yoshikawa
honorentheos wrote:It's not about being concerned about what Conservative voters think. It's about political strategy and this week Trump's tweets were effective in moving his political agenda forward and the Democrat leadership's agenda backwards.
It's that simple.
I don’t think the President doing very unpopular things is as effective as you imagine.