Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
98 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Why is SBS on Fox News Sunday for the first time ever this morning? (Original Post) ProgressiveEconomist Feb 2016 OP
Good question Awknid Feb 2016 #1
SBS just slammed HRC as ProgressiveEconomist Feb 2016 #2
What do you think of Democrats who use FOX to bash other Democrats?/nt DemocratSinceBirth Feb 2016 #3
They all go on Fox News....even Obama. Punkingal Feb 2016 #7
But they don't go on Fox to co-sign Fox/Gop talking points smearing other Dems ... Empowerer Feb 2016 #15
Hillary and Wall Street is hardly a GOP talking point. Punkingal Feb 2016 #22
Hillary smeared herself with this one. Broward Feb 2016 #27
Facts are not Gop talking points. Autumn Feb 2016 #62
They are the most cynical ProgressiveEconomist Feb 2016 #26
You know almost nothing about either Bernie Sanders or George McGovern to make that statement. Zen Democrat Feb 2016 #36
Read my GDP thread at ProgressiveEconomist Feb 2016 #52
Accusations aren't irresponsible when they are true Matt_in_STL Feb 2016 #37
bern enid602 Feb 2016 #41
Jury results.. I particularly like #4.. Cha Feb 2016 #43
THANK YOU so much for posting ProgressiveEconomist Feb 2016 #49
Thank you for your OP, PE. Cha Feb 2016 #61
You are insulting two fine Americans. Punkingal Feb 2016 #54
The loudmouth nobody from nowhere making irresponsible accusations is not Bernie. kristopher Feb 2016 #56
Thanks for that Gilens ProgressiveEconomist Feb 2016 #97
George McGovern was a good man who suffered a poor result. DemocratSinceBirth Feb 2016 #58
For some of us who have been around to remember, you are correct. Sancho Feb 2016 #72
People who refuse to see that we need a democratic party are asking for disaster. Punkingal Feb 2016 #79
...and that's the same argument we heard in the 1970s!! Sancho Feb 2016 #87
Santa Claus? Makes no sense. Punkingal Feb 2016 #92
Only during primary season Zambero Feb 2016 #30
Speaking of Faux Democrats.. Rocky the Leprechaun Feb 2016 #32
Maybe he needs the money badly...That is the only instance where I could see making an exception./nt DemocratSinceBirth Feb 2016 #44
What did you think in 2008? (This is like fish in a barre)l Armstead Feb 2016 #39
My principles aren't malleable. DemocratSinceBirth Feb 2016 #91
Okay as long as you're consistent about it Armstead Feb 2016 #93
HRC shouldn't go on FOX. PBO shouldn't go on FOX... DemocratSinceBirth Feb 2016 #95
Too bad she doesn't add MSNBC to the mix Armstead Feb 2016 #96
He answered a question honestly. Do you think Wall Street's vast sums of money will influence her? think Feb 2016 #50
I question why any Democrat would go on FAUX NEWS in the first place. DemocratSinceBirth Feb 2016 #53
To reach an audience that normally doesn't hear what he has to say? To promote the Democratic think Feb 2016 #55
In doing so that person lends credibility to FOX. DemocratSinceBirth Feb 2016 #59
At the cost of lending legitimacy to a news organization that is not worthy of it./nt DemocratSinceBirth Feb 2016 #81
Obama and Hillary have been on Fox News. Punkingal Feb 2016 #80
For the same reasons Bernie went to Liberty University. Rocky the Leprechaun Feb 2016 #82
FOX is the enemy. They get no quarter from me. DemocratSinceBirth Feb 2016 #83
Prove it SBS* .On FOX bashing Hillary- nice move. livetohike Feb 2016 #13
Prove it didn't. Get your candidate to release the transcripts. 99Forever Feb 2016 #51
Did I miss something? People say HRC will work across the isle, won't go on FOX like Obama does! TheBlackAdder Feb 2016 #98
Sanders needs Republicans to crossover and vote for him wyldwolf Feb 2016 #4
Who's saysJeb is dumb. CentralMass Feb 2016 #6
Randi Rhodes used to call him 'Bush the Smarter.' wyldwolf Feb 2016 #9
What do you think of this analogy? DemocratSinceBirth Feb 2016 #8
I think it has merit. wyldwolf Feb 2016 #11
All our candidates are fair game but real Democrats don't use FAUX NEWS to air their disagreements DemocratSinceBirth Feb 2016 #16
Real Dems don't play the race card against each other TTUBatfan2008 Feb 2016 #64
We are discussing Democrats appearing on FOX DemocratSinceBirth Feb 2016 #68
So why did Hillary go on Fox News? TTUBatfan2008 Feb 2016 #70
None of them should go on FOX. DemocratSinceBirth Feb 2016 #71
What do you think of THIS analogy? Armstead Feb 2016 #17
says the guy who formerly hated Fox News wyldwolf Feb 2016 #25
Still do....But your gotchya is a fail Armstead Feb 2016 #28
so your siding with the 'establishment' on this one? LOL wyldwolf Feb 2016 #31
I agree with the "establishment" on a lot of things Armstead Feb 2016 #34
Good! Hillary's coming victories will be easier for you to accept. wyldwolf Feb 2016 #35
+1 dchill Feb 2016 #33
My thoughts on FOX can be found in Post 83 DemocratSinceBirth Feb 2016 #90
Run it the flag pole.. frylock Feb 2016 #88
To paraphrase what the ProgressiveEconomist Feb 2016 #14
I'm going to take a wild guess that he was invited on. CentralMass Feb 2016 #5
of course, and it provides both with an opportunity to bash Hillary. It is no surprise that faux still_one Feb 2016 #10
He is going to delivera right wing message to pander to Republicans Armstead Feb 2016 #12
IMO he's already doing it, ProgressiveEconomist Feb 2016 #18
he is not delivering "right wing" attacks Armstead Feb 2016 #21
Moi? Never. I criticize his ProgressiveEconomist Feb 2016 #40
His proposals are the same as all campaign proposals Armstead Feb 2016 #47
I disagree vigorously ProgressiveEconomist Feb 2016 #63
This is some crazy talk. RiverLover Feb 2016 #66
That is a new low cosmicone Feb 2016 #19
Here's a towel that you can use to remove that egg from your face after reading this Armstead Feb 2016 #24
Older voters. RDANGELO Feb 2016 #20
That's all he has and he knows she is going to win. leftofcool Feb 2016 #23
Probably because they finally asked him due of his incredibly strong showing in first contests peacebird Feb 2016 #29
Same reason Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton did in 2008 Armstead Feb 2016 #38
There was a time when Chris ProgressiveEconomist Feb 2016 #45
You can't move this goalpost Armstead Feb 2016 #48
I'm talking about Chris Wallace, ProgressiveEconomist Feb 2016 #65
That may be true, but not relevant to Sanders appeance Armstead Feb 2016 #75
Hillary appeared on Fox News Sunday on Februnary 3rd 2008 during the primary. CentralMass Feb 2016 #42
Senator Obama appeared on FBS on April 27th 2008 CentralMass Feb 2016 #46
Because they asked him to. daleanime Feb 2016 #57
Can someone post the video? nt quantumjunkie Feb 2016 #60
Ya See, Bernie CAN get some republicans to cross over and vote for him - Because Ferd Berfel Feb 2016 #67
His motives are clear. South Carolina has an open primary. Alfresco Feb 2016 #69
Thsnk you. Finally, at post ProgressiveEconomist Feb 2016 #73
Ah Bernie's nefarious plan revealed at last! Armstead Feb 2016 #76
Only 1% of Fox viewers are black Arazi Feb 2016 #85
THERE IT IS! as Krispy Kreme would say ProgressiveEconomist Feb 2016 #94
Conservatives who pray that America goes backward Iliyah Feb 2016 #74
Just because Hillary is afraid of Chris Wallace doesn't mean everyone is. Motown_Johnny Feb 2016 #77
Bingo...He went into the belly of the "vetting" beast Armstead Feb 2016 #78
I find it baffling. My republican relatives are leaning toward Sanders Matariki Feb 2016 #84
Why not?? Fearless Feb 2016 #86
Oh, the humanity! frylock Feb 2016 #89

ProgressiveEconomist

(5,818 posts)
2. SBS just slammed HRC as
Sun Feb 14, 2016, 10:45 AM
Feb 2016

"bought" by Wall Street.

Chris Wallace: Did campaign contributions and speaking fees buy influence from her?

SBS: "Of course"

ProgressiveEconomist

(5,818 posts)
26. They are the most cynical
Sun Feb 14, 2016, 11:04 AM
Feb 2016

of sleazy pols, IMO.

Just like George McGovern in 1972, SBS is a loudmouth nobody from nowhere who faces no blowback from his irresponsible accusations because he's never been accountable for anything except bloviating. (And for being mayor of Cabbageville in the 80s).

 

Matt_in_STL

(1,446 posts)
37. Accusations aren't irresponsible when they are true
Sun Feb 14, 2016, 11:12 AM
Feb 2016

If poor Hilly thinks it's a smear, maybe she shouldn't be doing the things he talks about. As far as a nobody, if it wasn't for coat tails, Hilly would still be fighting the good fight against unionizing at Walmart.

It would bring many for her to try to use the victim card when foreign leaders treat her worse than spreading the truth about what she does/has done.

enid602

(8,620 posts)
41. bern
Sun Feb 14, 2016, 11:20 AM
Feb 2016

And I find it interesting that someone who claims to be an expert on breaking up banks and righting Wall Street is someone who has never spent time in the private sector, except for an occasional carpentry job between unemployment gigs in Northern Vermont in the early '70's.

Cha

(297,304 posts)
43. Jury results.. I particularly like #4..
Sun Feb 14, 2016, 11:24 AM
Feb 2016

They are the most cynical
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1230126

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Over the top

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Feb 14, 2016, 10:18 AM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: If you don't agree with the poster's characterization, disprove it, don't try to hide it. Just because an opinion isn't one you agree with doesn't make it "over the top".
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Oh get over your old petty self. Get a fuggen hobby. Alerting on this takes the cowardly way out, hoping to hide a contrasting opinion. Put your thoughts in a meaningful reply. Meanwhile, I'll clutch my pearls on the alerter's behalf. LEAVE IT
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Am I missing something?
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Leave it.. worse is said about Hillary and her supporters.

Punkingal

(9,522 posts)
54. You are insulting two fine Americans.
Sun Feb 14, 2016, 11:33 AM
Feb 2016

This irrational hatred of George McGovern is one reason we don't even have a Democratic party anymore.

kristopher

(29,798 posts)
56. The loudmouth nobody from nowhere making irresponsible accusations is not Bernie.
Sun Feb 14, 2016, 11:36 AM
Feb 2016

We didn't get into this situation because the contributions are not paid back with influence over policy.

Progressive economist my ass.

APRIL 18, 2014
Is America an Oligarchy?
BY JOHN CASSIDY
From the Dept. of Academics Confirming Something You Already Suspected comes a new study concluding that rich people and organizations representing business interests have a powerful grip on U.S. government policy. After examining differences in public opinion across income groups on a wide variety of issues, the political scientists Martin Gilens, of Princeton, and Benjamin Page, of Northwestern, found that the preferences of rich people had a much bigger impact on subsequent policy decisions than the views of middle-income and poor Americans. Indeed, the opinions of lower-income groups, and the interest groups that represent them, appear to have little or no independent impact on policy....
http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/is-america-an-oligarchy


The original study:

From the Sept 2014 journal "Perspectives on Politics"

Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens
Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page

ABSTRACT

Each of four theoretical traditions in the study of American politics—which can be characterized as theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy, Economic-Elite Domination, and two types of interest-group pluralism, Majoritarian Pluralism and Biased Pluralism—offers different predictions about which sets of actors have how much influence over public policy: average citizens; economic elites; and organized interest groups, mass-based or business-oriented.
A great deal of empirical research speaks to the policy influence of one or another set of actors, but until recently it has not been possible to test these contrasting theoretical predictions against each other within a single statistical model. We report on an effort to do so, using a unique data set that includes measures of the key variables for 1,779 policy issues.
Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence. The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic-Elite Domination and for theories of Biased Pluralism, but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy or Majoritarian Pluralism.


The last paragraph of their findings:

Despite the seemingly strong empirical support in previous studies for theories of majoritarian democracy, our analyses suggest that majorities of the American public actually have little influence over the policies our government adopts. Americans do enjoy many features central to democratic governance, such as regular elections, freedom of speech and association, and a wide-spread (if still contested) franchise. But we believe that if policymaking is dominated by powerful business organizations and a small number of affluent Americans, then America’s claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened.
https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf

"...America’s claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened."

ProgressiveEconomist

(5,818 posts)
97. Thanks for that Gilens
Sun Feb 14, 2016, 10:10 PM
Feb 2016

reference. He's written many fine studies.

My question is: has anybody shown convincingly that the relative influence of the wealthy has changed BECAUSE of Scalia's hideous Citizens United ruling. Such a study would not be impossible. Many economists are talking about a study ou t of ucsd.edu that measures the substantial causal effect of voter ID laws on the relative turnout of POC vs whites and of Ds vs Rs.

DemocratSinceBirth

(99,710 posts)
58. George McGovern was a good man who suffered a poor result.
Sun Feb 14, 2016, 11:37 AM
Feb 2016

His quixotic presidential campaign is a wholly different discussion. I doubt any Democrat could have beat Nixon in 1972, but that is a wholly different discussion.

Sancho

(9,070 posts)
72. For some of us who have been around to remember, you are correct.
Sun Feb 14, 2016, 12:12 PM
Feb 2016

I've listened to Bernie for years on Thom Harmann, and I clearly remember 1972 (some of us who had been A1 in the draft became interested in politics in the 60's!). Bernie yells and complains and pontificates, but rarely has a possible solution to problems while focusing on a single issue: Wall Street.

I was on the front lines to gain the 18 year old vote, which we achieved in 1972 - and many thought that the youth vote would carry McGovern. Young people don't vote! McGovern's plan to feed the world was noble, but lost on most of the country outside of rural northern plains states.

If Bernie was the nominee, and he won't be, he would lose badly in the GE. People who refuse to see history are bound to repeat the disaster. Rubio or Jeb or even Trump would pound Bernie into a massive loss.

The parallel is there - even though it's not Vietnam; it's Iraq. Bernie has weak or little support of most of the Democratic party, and Bernie is too liberal for most of the country. Bernie cannot win.

Punkingal

(9,522 posts)
79. People who refuse to see that we need a democratic party are asking for disaster.
Sun Feb 14, 2016, 01:16 PM
Feb 2016

And with Hillary we will get it.

Sancho

(9,070 posts)
87. ...and that's the same argument we heard in the 1970s!!
Sun Feb 14, 2016, 01:55 PM
Feb 2016

so you must think that Nixon and Reagan weren't disasters?

Sorry, there really is no Santa Claus in politics.

Zambero

(8,964 posts)
30. Only during primary season
Sun Feb 14, 2016, 11:06 AM
Feb 2016

As pull-out-the-stops jungle rules come into play with all candidates from both parties as competitors.

 

Armstead

(47,803 posts)
39. What did you think in 2008? (This is like fish in a barre)l
Sun Feb 14, 2016, 11:15 AM
Feb 2016



http://articles.latimes.com/2008/may/02/entertainment/et-foxnews2


Democrats find new outlet in Fox News
May 02, 2008|Matea Gold | Times Staff Writer
Email
Share

NEW YORK — Just a year ago, Fox News Channel was considered a pariah in many Democratic circles. But it appears that the cable news network is no longer in the doghouse.

Consider this week: On Sunday, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) made a long-awaited appearance on "Fox News Sunday," a booking that host Chris Wallace had been seeking for more than two years. (The show airs on both the Fox broadcasting network and its sister cable channel.) On Wednesday, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) granted her first interview to Bill O'Reilly, a commentator viewed with antipathy by much of the left, in no small part because of his denunciations of the Clintons in the 1990s. And this coming Sunday, Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean plans to sit down with Wallace for the first time since November 2006.

Last year at this time, liberal activists pressured Democrats to stay off the news channel, which they termed a "Republican mouthpiece," successfully scuttling plans for two Fox-hosted debates. Obama and Clinton, wary of offending the party's base, largely steered clear of Fox News interviews.

These days, the candidates are not so standoffish.

"Fox has given Hillary Clinton better coverage than all the other cables," Clinton campaign Chairman Terry McAuliffe said during a radio interview last week with Fox News' John Gibson.

DemocratSinceBirth

(99,710 posts)
91. My principles aren't malleable.
Sun Feb 14, 2016, 02:17 PM
Feb 2016

No Democrat should lend his or her credibility to FOX, regardless of whether I like him or her or not. My thoughts on FOX are caught in Post 83.

I know one of the denizens of this board appears on FOX. He has mouths to feed and presumably needs the money so I will make an exception in his case.


DSB

DemocratSinceBirth

(99,710 posts)
95. HRC shouldn't go on FOX. PBO shouldn't go on FOX...
Sun Feb 14, 2016, 06:12 PM
Feb 2016

Last edited Sun Feb 14, 2016, 10:15 PM - Edit history (2)

I am exposed to FOX much more than I would like to because there is one TV and my gf switches between FOX and CNN.

I literally put cotton balls in my ears at times.

 

think

(11,641 posts)
50. He answered a question honestly. Do you think Wall Street's vast sums of money will influence her?
Sun Feb 14, 2016, 11:30 AM
Feb 2016

I sure do.

Everyone knows Hillary is Wall Street's chosen one on the Democratic side. It doesn't take a crystal ball to see the large amount of factual information that this is the case.



DemocratSinceBirth

(99,710 posts)
53. I question why any Democrat would go on FAUX NEWS in the first place.
Sun Feb 14, 2016, 11:33 AM
Feb 2016

They are the enemy. They are a wholly owned subsidiary of the GOP or alternatively the GOP is a wholly owned subsidiary of FOX.

 

think

(11,641 posts)
55. To reach an audience that normally doesn't hear what he has to say? To promote the Democratic
Sun Feb 14, 2016, 11:36 AM
Feb 2016

message to a larger audience?

 
82. For the same reasons Bernie went to Liberty University.
Sun Feb 14, 2016, 01:22 PM
Feb 2016

They invited him. It helps to get known, and spread the word of the Bern, and give Republican *a* saner choice than the clowns who seems to think the more right they go, the more voters they'll get.

Little do they know that they're just turning them towards Bernie. Getting a lot of stories from Republicans who see a honest candidate in Bernie, and decide to go for the better alternative. That is why Bernie won in a blowout in NH. It didn't matter if the turnout was low on the Democratic side, it was the independents and Republicans who helped deliver the big bang that Bernie was hoping to bring.

It's now brought, and now it's Clinton's turn to prove that she is can be the electable and trustworthy candidate. The majority of NH voters trusted Bernie 93% more than Clinton's 6%. It told me the true story, and I expect to see the same patterns in other states, starting with Nevada this Saturday.

DemocratSinceBirth

(99,710 posts)
83. FOX is the enemy. They get no quarter from me.
Sun Feb 14, 2016, 01:35 PM
Feb 2016

I wouldn't urinate down Roger Ailes' throat if his heart was on fire.

99Forever

(14,524 posts)
51. Prove it didn't. Get your candidate to release the transcripts.
Sun Feb 14, 2016, 11:30 AM
Feb 2016

Otherwise it's completely logical to believe that she has something to hide in them.

DemocratSinceBirth

(99,710 posts)
8. What do you think of this analogy?
Sun Feb 14, 2016, 10:51 AM
Feb 2016

A Democrat bashing another Democrat on FOX is like an American bashing America in North Korea.

DemocratSinceBirth

(99,710 posts)
16. All our candidates are fair game but real Democrats don't use FAUX NEWS to air their disagreements
Sun Feb 14, 2016, 10:54 AM
Feb 2016

If I have grievance with America I am not jumping on a plane to Pyongyang to air them.

TTUBatfan2008

(3,623 posts)
64. Real Dems don't play the race card against each other
Sun Feb 14, 2016, 11:57 AM
Feb 2016

Hillary has now done it twice, first against Obama in 2008 and now against Sanders in 2016.

DemocratSinceBirth

(99,710 posts)
68. We are discussing Democrats appearing on FOX
Sun Feb 14, 2016, 12:03 PM
Feb 2016

If you want to start a race thread that is your prerogative.

Friends don't let friends go on FOX.

DemocratSinceBirth

(99,710 posts)
71. None of them should go on FOX.
Sun Feb 14, 2016, 12:10 PM
Feb 2016

It is not a legitimate news organization.

FOX is to the GOP what Russia Today is to Russia.

 

Armstead

(47,803 posts)
17. What do you think of THIS analogy?
Sun Feb 14, 2016, 10:55 AM
Feb 2016

A presidential primary candidate going onto a news outlet that a lot of people watch, to make his case.

Unprecedented.

 

Armstead

(47,803 posts)
28. Still do....But your gotchya is a fail
Sun Feb 14, 2016, 11:05 AM
Feb 2016
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/may/02/entertainment/et-foxnews2

Democrats find new outlet in Fox News
May 02, 2008|Matea Gold | Times Staff Writer
Email
Share

NEW YORK — Just a year ago, Fox News Channel was considered a pariah in many Democratic circles. But it appears that the cable news network is no longer in the doghouse.

Consider this week: On Sunday, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) made a long-awaited appearance on "Fox News Sunday," a booking that host Chris Wallace had been seeking for more than two years. (The show airs on both the Fox broadcasting network and its sister cable channel.) On Wednesday, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) granted her first interview to Bill O'Reilly, a commentator viewed with antipathy by much of the left, in no small part because of his denunciations of the Clintons in the 1990s. And this coming Sunday, Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean plans to sit down with Wallace for the first time since November 2006.

Last year at this time, liberal activists pressured Democrats to stay off the news channel, which they termed a "Republican mouthpiece," successfully scuttling plans for two Fox-hosted debates. Obama and Clinton, wary of offending the party's base, largely steered clear of Fox News interviews.

These days, the candidates are not so standoffish.

"Fox has given Hillary Clinton better coverage than all the other cables," Clinton campaign Chairman Terry McAuliffe said during a radio interview last week with Fox News' John Gibson.


MORE

DemocratSinceBirth

(99,710 posts)
90. My thoughts on FOX can be found in Post 83
Sun Feb 14, 2016, 02:11 PM
Feb 2016

I was going to use the well worn colloquialism for urinate but it is the Lord's day.

ProgressiveEconomist

(5,818 posts)
14. To paraphrase what the
Sun Feb 14, 2016, 10:53 AM
Feb 2016

Billy Dee Williams character proposed as a brilliant strategy when his team (TBLTASAMK) got into a jam, What is it that the South's never going to run out of?

CentralMass

(15,265 posts)
5. I'm going to take a wild guess that he was invited on.
Sun Feb 14, 2016, 10:48 AM
Feb 2016

Also, that is the idea with elections, you try to to get as many. Votes as possible .

I belive he is also on the other two shows as well.

still_one

(92,219 posts)
10. of course, and it provides both with an opportunity to bash Hillary. It is no surprise that faux
Sun Feb 14, 2016, 10:51 AM
Feb 2016

would push the Hillary bashing anyway they can

 

Armstead

(47,803 posts)
12. He is going to delivera right wing message to pander to Republicans
Sun Feb 14, 2016, 10:52 AM
Feb 2016

:sarcasm

Do you ever get tired of posting these questions filled with innuendos?

 

Armstead

(47,803 posts)
21. he is not delivering "right wing" attacks
Sun Feb 14, 2016, 10:58 AM
Feb 2016

Hard to take that seriously coming from peope who also accuse him of "left wing" positions as a commie.

ProgressiveEconomist

(5,818 posts)
40. Moi? Never. I criticize his
Sun Feb 14, 2016, 11:19 AM
Feb 2016

Last edited Sun Feb 14, 2016, 12:07 PM - Edit history (1)

priorities because they are ignorant of brilliant research that supports affordable alternatives HRC and BHO have proposed. For example, making CC as free as high school for working commuters, but not wasting hundreds of billions on four-years away at a State U people who can go there already can afford, is "GENIUS", according to TheAtlantic.com. Unlike the unaffordable SBS plan, apparently a cynical ploy to buy the votes of naive millenials, the HRC BHO ACP already is in place and popular in a very Red state (TN), and expansion nationwide would cost only $6B a year.

See http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1214225

 

Armstead

(47,803 posts)
47. His proposals are the same as all campaign proposals
Sun Feb 14, 2016, 11:26 AM
Feb 2016

They are "wish lists" that all candidates propose to outline what they will do if elected. A chicken ion every pot.

Once a candidate gets elected, those wish lists almost never are proposed exactly as presented. Or when they are, they usually get picked apart and changed in the process. (Example: Bill Clinton's plan to end discrimination against gays in the military, and the resulting Don't ask don't tell)

So they are useless as a detailed blueprint.

They are useful as a description of overall goals, and suggested roadmap of how to achieve them.







ProgressiveEconomist

(5,818 posts)
63. I disagree vigorously
Sun Feb 14, 2016, 11:53 AM
Feb 2016

Most EFFECTIVE politicians LISTEN to what their constituencies want most, and prioritize those issues above all.

With which power-brokers among African-American, Latino, Native American, Women, LGBT, and other Democratic constituencies have you seen SBS consulting, and when?

IMO, SBS is WAY too busy listening to his own robotic broken record for that. IMO he is a demagogue targeting well-off white millenials, not a true Democratic leader.

 

cosmicone

(11,014 posts)
19. That is a new low
Sun Feb 14, 2016, 10:57 AM
Feb 2016

Campaigning for other side's votes is great for the GE but it should be a no-no in the primaries.

That is almost like our family's decision whether to move or renovate the house is determined by neighbors across the street.

 

Armstead

(47,803 posts)
24. Here's a towel that you can use to remove that egg from your face after reading this
Sun Feb 14, 2016, 11:02 AM
Feb 2016

2008

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/may/02/entertainment/et-foxnews2


Just a year ago, Fox News Channel was considered a pariah in many Democratic circles. But it appears that the cable news network is no longer in the doghouse.

Consider this week: On Sunday, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) made a long-awaited appearance on "Fox News Sunday," a booking that host Chris Wallace had been seeking for more than two years. (The show airs on both the Fox broadcasting network and its sister cable channel.) On Wednesday, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) granted her first interview to Bill O'Reilly, a commentator viewed with antipathy by much of the left, in no small part because of his denunciations of the Clintons in the 1990s. And this coming Sunday, Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean plans to sit down with Wallace for the first time since November 2006.

Last year at this time, liberal activists pressured Democrats to stay off the news channel, which they termed a "Republican mouthpiece," successfully scuttling plans for two Fox-hosted debates. Obama and Clinton, wary of offending the party's base, largely steered clear of Fox News interviews.

These days, the candidates are not so standoffish.

"Fox has given Hillary Clinton better coverage than all the other cables," Clinton campaign Chairman Terry McAuliffe said during a radio interview last week with Fox News' John Gibson.

RDANGELO

(3,433 posts)
20. Older voters.
Sun Feb 14, 2016, 10:58 AM
Feb 2016

He is doing so well with the younger voters that now he is expanding to get the older voters. Fox news has an older viewing audience.

 

Armstead

(47,803 posts)
38. Same reason Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton did in 2008
Sun Feb 14, 2016, 11:12 AM
Feb 2016
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/may/02/entertainment/et-foxnews2

Democrats find new outlet in Fox News
May 02, 2008|Matea Gold | Times Staff Writer

NEW YORK — Just a year ago, Fox News Channel was considered a pariah in many Democratic circles. But it appears that the cable news network is no longer in the doghouse.

Consider this week: On Sunday, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) made a long-awaited appearance on "Fox News Sunday," a booking that host Chris Wallace had been seeking for more than two years. On Wednesday, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) granted her first interview to Bill O'Reilly, a commentator viewed with antipathy by much of the left, in no small part because of his denunciations of the Clintons in the 1990s. And this coming Sunday, Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean plans to sit down with Wallace for the first time since November 2006.

Last year at this time, liberal activists pressured Democrats to stay off the news channel, which they termed a "Republican mouthpiece," successfully scuttling plans for two Fox-hosted debates. Obama and Clinton, wary of offending the party's base, largely steered clear of Fox News interviews.

These days, the candidates are not so standoffish.

"Fox has given Hillary Clinton better coverage than all the other cables," Clinton campaign Chairman Terry McAuliffe said during a radio interview last week with Fox News' John Gibson....

MORE

ProgressiveEconomist

(5,818 posts)
45. There was a time when Chris
Sun Feb 14, 2016, 11:25 AM
Feb 2016

Wallace's professional journalism would not have made his dad Mike rotate in his grave. That time ended, IMO, about January 2009, when "Take our country back" became the rallying cry at Faux Snooze.

ProgressiveEconomist

(5,818 posts)
65. I'm talking about Chris Wallace,
Sun Feb 14, 2016, 11:59 AM
Feb 2016

who, along with Megan Kelley, used to buck the system occasionally at Faux. But now all their questions are almost completely predictable.

daleanime

(17,796 posts)
57. Because they asked him to.
Sun Feb 14, 2016, 11:37 AM
Feb 2016

Because what he represents can't be denied any more.

Definitely, Bernie's cross-over appeal has been well documented.

Ferd Berfel

(3,687 posts)
67. Ya See, Bernie CAN get some republicans to cross over and vote for him - Because
Sun Feb 14, 2016, 12:02 PM
Feb 2016

his positions are mainstream. And MSM has, until recently, been ignoring him. And let's not kid ourselves that Hillary would pass on this opportunity if offered.

However, She is probably aware that she can only get the republican base motivated to come out to vote against her.

ProgressiveEconomist

(5,818 posts)
73. Thsnk you. Finally, at post
Sun Feb 14, 2016, 12:33 PM
Feb 2016

69, someone had addresses the questing I posed in the OP. This sounds like the explanation I suspected.

Arazi

(6,829 posts)
85. Only 1% of Fox viewers are black
Sun Feb 14, 2016, 01:43 PM
Feb 2016
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/only-1-of-fox-news-viewers-are-black/

SC has approximately 32% POC.

So he's not reaching the AA's in SC by appearing on Fox

Also Fox viewers are more than 50% over 68 years old white guys - HRC's group.

Who is he really reaching that might be voting in SC by going on Fox?

Very few. The bigger reason he's on Fox is that he's unafraid to take his message anywhere (like Liberty U).

That's leadership
 

Motown_Johnny

(22,308 posts)
77. Just because Hillary is afraid of Chris Wallace doesn't mean everyone is.
Sun Feb 14, 2016, 12:42 PM
Feb 2016

He is finally getting media coverage. Don't you want him to be "vetted"?




 

Armstead

(47,803 posts)
78. Bingo...He went into the belly of the "vetting" beast
Sun Feb 14, 2016, 12:44 PM
Feb 2016

And held his own without changing his message at all.

Matariki

(18,775 posts)
84. I find it baffling. My republican relatives are leaning toward Sanders
Sun Feb 14, 2016, 01:43 PM
Feb 2016

I can't explain it. They want things like a flat tax and to privatize Social Security. So it's certainly not his platform. I think they like his call for campaign finance reform. In the case of my relatives anyway, it's not some voting strategy to set up Sanders for an unsuccessful run against the Republicans. They hate all the Republicans in the race. And they really hate Clinton in a way I just don't understand. They think she's 'phony'. I don't think they really think politics through so much but just respond to the news with 'gut feelings. I shouldn't complain, it's making family gatherings this year a little less onerous.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Why is SBS on Fox News Su...