a thoughtful web.
Good ideas and conversation. No ads, no tracking.   Login or Take a Tour!
comment by b_b
b_b  ·  4309 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: This is why Obama can’t make a deal with Republicans

I've written on here a few times--and I think this article supports my claim--that all these fights have nothing whatsoever to do with math or economics; Republican calculators don't return a different result than Democratic ones when you press enter. Its fundamentally about gutting the government. They have been chipping away at all New Deal reforms for three decades now, and they finally see an opportunity to deliver it the coup de grace. They are smart enough to know that they have to do it in a way that makes it look like poor leadership by the President is to blame, and not their intransigence, or they won't win another election for thirty years like after the Depression. What they have now that they didn't have then is a giant, international media machine on their side.





kleinbl00  ·  4308 days ago  ·  link  ·  

It's fundamentally simpler than that in my opinion. The Daily Show had a nice roundup of how in 2008, most every member of Republican Party that could find a camera stated that their goal for the next four years was to oppose Obama in everything he did. They followed up in 2012 with a similar video. If you view the Republicans as an "opposition party" instead of a "minority party" their behavior is wholly logical - "anything you do we will try to stop you."

As to the "giant, international media machine" Gene Lyons & Joe Conason lay out a great case as to how it was built in The Hunting of the President. I would argue, however, that the Bush administration turned that scalpel into a knife into an axe into a cudgel into a wiffle-ball bat over the course of 8 years of Global War on Terror. The biggest problem the Republican Party faces is that their chosen media organ is one ignored by everyone under 50. I linked to it a few weeks ago, but the median age of television viewers increases by a year, every year, and has since 2003. Kids just aren't consuming media the way their parents did.

Republican handling of media relations indicates that they are largely in denial of this fact. Their media buys and message focus remains one of traditional media. Whereas democrats and progressives focus pretty concisely on "getting out the vote" and all things Internet, republicans and conservatives remain committed to broadcast, mail, etc. This is one reason Nate Silver ends up looking like Hari Seldon - most of the pollsters are stuck in 1987 because most of their money comes from Republicans who don't really care about the new fangled shit like the tweeter and the readits and the wibberly wobberly web. As a result, Nate Silver is one of the few people actually paying attention to the available data.

You end up with a great echo chamber effect - the Republicans have Republican data repeated on Republican media to Republican voters about how Obama is a secret muslim and 80% of viewers polled disapprove of Obamacare. Meanwhile, their grandkids just nod patiently and don't tell grandma about voting by mail and we all wait patiently for them to die.

America. Fuck Yeah.

Riley  ·  4296 days ago  ·  link  ·  

I'm fully aware of the tendency of older people to lean conservative, but I've never really made the connection with

    we all wait patiently for them to die
I don't mean to sound macabre, but do you think that will mean a considerable democratic swing within the next... 10-20 years if the republicans don't try to reach an earlier audience? I know plenty of young people who are frustratingly conservative, but I also know that those older people make up a very large portion of the republicans votes. I wonder if we'll see a shift in the GOP's message to reflect the need to replace those old votes. It'll be interesting to see if they ride it out, straight into the ground (heh) or if they don't, whether they will try for the new group of old folks or the youth. The former seems much more likely
kleinbl00  ·  4295 days ago  ·  link  ·  

We're experiencing it. It's slow - people don't drop out of the rolls in waves, they trickle out. That's the big problem the Republican Party is facing right now: they're squarely aimed at a diminishing demographic. That's what the big battles in the party are about right now - excising the Tea Party faction because they're so rabid they're driving away the center.

thenewgreen  ·  4309 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Tangential to the conversation but...

    What they have now that they didn't have then is a giant, international media machine on their side.

Do you think right wing media does better when there is a DEM in office? I would wager that they do. I often wonder if Murdoch doesn't see Obama as a much better vehicle by which to sell copy. So long as he is in office, I'm guessing FOX and the like are far more appealing to watch. Same with MSNBC, when Bush was in office my guess is that they were watched more, peoples passions are inflamed when the other is in office, not when your guy is.

b_b  ·  4309 days ago  ·  link  ·  

It makes sense, but I'm not sure the numbers support it. FOX had their peak during Bush's second term, I believe. Their ratings have been dropping recently. I don't know the reason, but I like to think that some of their audience are getting wise and some are dying of old age and type II diabetes.

cliffelam  ·  4309 days ago  ·  link  ·  

"I like to think that some of their audience are getting wise and some are dying of old age and type II diabetes."

That's nice.

-XC

b_b  ·  4309 days ago  ·  link  ·  

I'm not prejudiced. Some of my best friends are Fox news viewers.

thenewgreen  ·  4309 days ago  ·  link  ·  

I'm just guessing here, but perhaps they're cannibalizing their own audience? There is so much conservative radio etc these days.

b_b  ·  4309 days ago  ·  link  ·  

I think its more likely that they have alienated the part of their audience who had at least a semblance of a functioning cerebral cortex. My guess is their average viewer is more conservative now, because that's all they have left.

cliffelam  ·  4309 days ago  ·  link  ·  

"audience who had at least a semblance of a functioning cerebral cortex"

That's a bit nicer.

=XC

b_b  ·  4309 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Nicer than saying they're dying of old age and type II diabetes? I kid the Fox news viewers. But really, I'll never understand why anyone willingly subjects themselves to that level of propaganda. Maybe there's no such thing as unbiased reporting, but they're on a plain all by themselves.

cliffelam  ·  4309 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Do you find Rachel Maddow much different from Bill O'reilly?

I only see them in waiting rooms, bars, and quick oil change shops and they both raise a rash, but, for well educated people, well, jebus.

-XC

cgod  ·  4309 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Rachel Maddow is easily as full of shit as anyone.

Fox is more full of shit then any other domestic network.

b_b  ·  4309 days ago  ·  link  ·  

No. You couldn't pay me to watch MSNBC. Well educated has nothing to do with it. My gf loves Rachel Maddow and she always says, "She's a Rhodes scholar." To which I say, "Who gives a shit? O'Reilly went to the Kennedy School, so its a wash." Neither cares about 'truth', which is what interests me, even if I can't really define it myself.

cliffelam  ·  4309 days ago  ·  link  ·  

So why not make fun of MSNBC viewers? I'm sure they could use "some kidding." Their political commentary is at least as far left as Fox's is right.

-XC

b_b  ·  4309 days ago  ·  link  ·  

MSNBC has a strong ideological bent. Fox News is straight up laughable with their level of ridiculousness. For example, you would never see an MSNBC reporter literally reading Democratic talking points on air. Plus MSNBC is a small fish compared to Fox so they aren't that dangerous to begin with.

Edit: And admittedly I'm exposed to a lot more of Fox ridiculousness because I watch Jon Stewart and Colbert.