2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumWhy is SBS on Fox News Sunday for the first time ever this morning?
Why now? Can white Republican voters cross over to vote for him in the SC primary?
Awknid
(381 posts)ProgressiveEconomist
(5,818 posts)"bought" by Wall Street.
Chris Wallace: Did campaign contributions and speaking fees buy influence from her?
SBS: "Of course"
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)Punkingal
(9,522 posts)Empowerer
(3,900 posts)Punkingal
(9,522 posts)Broward
(1,976 posts)Autumn
(45,106 posts)ProgressiveEconomist
(5,818 posts)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).
Zen Democrat
(5,901 posts)ProgressiveEconomist
(5,818 posts)for chapter, verse, and link supporting everything I just summarized here
Matt_in_STL
(1,446 posts)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)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)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.
ProgressiveEconomist
(5,818 posts)that. I never bother looking for alerts or jury results.
Cha
(297,304 posts)Punkingal
(9,522 posts)This irrational hatred of George McGovern is one reason we don't even have a Democratic party anymore.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)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
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:
"...Americas claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened."
ProgressiveEconomist
(5,818 posts)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)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)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)And with Hillary we will get it.
Sancho
(9,070 posts)so you must think that Nixon and Reagan weren't disasters?
Sorry, there really is no Santa Claus in politics.
Punkingal
(9,522 posts)Zambero
(8,964 posts)As pull-out-the-stops jungle rules come into play with all candidates from both parties as competitors.
Rocky the Leprechaun
(222 posts)I see we have one on DU. (Not you, obviously)
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)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
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)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
Armstead
(47,803 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)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.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)It's not great either, but somewhat better.
think
(11,641 posts)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)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)message to a larger audience?
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)FAUX is to news what a blow up doll is to sex.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)Punkingal
(9,522 posts)Rocky the Leprechaun
(222 posts)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)I wouldn't urinate down Roger Ailes' throat if his heart was on fire.
livetohike
(22,145 posts)Super Tuesday can't get here soon enough.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)Otherwise it's completely logical to believe that she has something to hide in them.
TheBlackAdder
(28,208 posts)wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)CentralMass
(15,265 posts)wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)A Democrat bashing another Democrat on FOX is like an American bashing America in North Korea.
wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)If I have grievance with America I am not jumping on a plane to Pyongyang to air them.
TTUBatfan2008
(3,623 posts)Hillary has now done it twice, first against Obama in 2008 and now against Sanders in 2016.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)If you want to start a race thread that is your prerogative.
Friends don't let friends go on FOX.
TTUBatfan2008
(3,623 posts)Why did Bill? Why did Barack?
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)It is not a legitimate news organization.
FOX is to the GOP what Russia Today is to Russia.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)A presidential primary candidate going onto a news outlet that a lot of people watch, to make his case.
Unprecedented.
wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)Democrats find new outlet in Fox News
May 02, 2008|Matea Gold | Times Staff Writer
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
wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)Sorry to disappoint you
wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)Something about goose & gander...
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)I was going to use the well worn colloquialism for urinate but it is the Lord's day.
frylock
(34,825 posts)I bet it really resonates with the 65+ crowd.
ProgressiveEconomist
(5,818 posts)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)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)would push the Hillary bashing anyway they can
Armstead
(47,803 posts):sarcasm
Do you ever get tired of posting these questions filled with innuendos?
ProgressiveEconomist
(5,818 posts)more and more every day.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Hard to take that seriously coming from peope who also accuse him of "left wing" positions as a commie.
ProgressiveEconomist
(5,818 posts)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)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)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.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)nt
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)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)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)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.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)Faux Snooze, Bernie? Whatever.
peacebird
(14,195 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)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)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.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Fox has always been Fox. Never any better than now.
ProgressiveEconomist
(5,818 posts)who, along with Megan Kelley, used to buck the system occasionally at Faux. But now all their questions are almost completely predictable.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)CentralMass
(15,265 posts)CentralMass
(15,265 posts)daleanime
(17,796 posts)Because what he represents can't be denied any more.
Definitely, Bernie's cross-over appeal has been well documented.
quantumjunkie
(244 posts)Ferd Berfel
(3,687 posts)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.
Alfresco
(1,698 posts)ProgressiveEconomist
(5,818 posts)69, someone had addresses the questing I posed in the OP. This sounds like the explanation I suspected.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)He's trying to win primaries! OMG!
Arazi
(6,829 posts)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
ProgressiveEconomist
(5,818 posts)Iliyah
(25,111 posts)Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)He is finally getting media coverage. Don't you want him to be "vetted"?
Armstead
(47,803 posts)And held his own without changing his message at all.
Matariki
(18,775 posts)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.