Fox News Democratic Town halls

[rogue emissary]

Just want to see what everyone thought about our candidates going on the network.

For the record not trying to attack Bernie. He may be the first but won't be the last.

Honestly, surprised he beat Gabbard to a town hall on the network.

29 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Time expired
	Our candidates should do fox and any other platform.
	18 (62%)
	Our candidates should stay away from propaganda outlets.
	11 (38%)
	What's fox network?
	0 (0%)
	Who cares, I want to fight about Biden!
	0 (0%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[Beakybird]

1. Bernie, WTF?

What's next? Breitbart?

[Sherman A1]

3. Why not?

A great many progressive ideas actually ring true to the folks watching or listening to these propaganda platforms. Getting the message out and building consensus isn't the worst of things to do after all.

[ehrnst]

30. Ask some of the folks on DU who just last month flame broiled Donna Brazile

for agreeing to be a contributor to FoxNews:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100211930979

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10142288082

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1017535983

[Sherman A1]

36. Apples and Rutabagas

One is a candidate reaching an audience of potential voters to make their case. The other is a paid employee of the network.

[ehrnst]

47. So you think if someone is a regular contributor on FoxNews, then that's suspect.

Is that what you mean by apples?





What about if they are promoting their book? Would you consider that making money by being on FoxNews?

[Sherman A1]

50. Don't really care,

Don’t watch any of the cable noise Infotainment Channels anyway. I believe we would all be better off if none of them existed as they in my opinion do a great disservice to the level of debate, civility and level of information.

[ehrnst]

51. So you've changed your mind from Wednesday when you said this?

3. Why not?

A great many progressive ideas actually ring true to the folks watching or listening to these propaganda platforms. Getting the message out and building consensus isn't the worst of things to do after all.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/128751702#post3

Did my post have anything to do with that?

[TheFarseer]

15. The alternative is

Fox viewers never see any different point of view and the stupid nonsense they see on that network goes totally unchallenged. Some of them I talk to act like they’ve never seen a counterpoint to the dumbest of Rightwing arguments.

[George II]

35. Well, a few years ago he held what was later billed as a "rally" at Liberty University!

[stuffmatters]

37. I was fascinated by his appearance at Liberty.He actually broke through to some kids on climate esp

I viewed Bernie at Liberty University as Democratic missionary work for those brainwashed kids. I found it moving and
memorable.

[ehrnst]

49. Where did you hear about LU students changing their minds on climate change?

Not challenging you, but I didn't know that there are surveys of LU students, and I'd be interested in learning more about them.

[stuffmatters]

54. I watched the speech and the MSM interviews with some of the students afterward.

There seemed to be some piercing of the bubble going on. No, they didn't become Democrats overnight, but Bernie seemed to have made some inroads. In the interviews, many seemed to say they liked him, which they all admitted was a surprise. And definitely
they sat & listened, nobody walked out that I saw. He's no messiah, but for a first mission into such a closed, blindly anti Democrats, info desert as LU, Bernie did I thought a good job with these young people. And they seemed, in the interviews, to appreciate his attention, respected him for spending the time with them and broaching issues never discussed (like climate) at LU.
As far as I know there was no SURVEY of the kids afterward, just those interviews.

[ehrnst]

55. Of course you didn't see that anyone walk out. They were required to attend.

They were polite to the news media. You seemed to see some "piercing of the bubble" - what does that mean? That they didn't speak like you anticipated that they would? That they would feel empowered or permitted to boo him at a required convocation?

So, nothing they said indicated that they indeed articulated that they had changed their mind on climate change.

I just wanted to clarify that this is something that you "seemed to see" - that they were saying things to a media person you didn't expect them to say. You are making a lot of assumptions, and giving much, much credit to Senator Sanders that isn't really backed up by evidence about the ability to "make inroads."

What is "making inroads?" Other than being polite when asked by the media what they thought of a speaker? Especially one that LU wanted there specifically to prove that they weren't "an echo chamber."

Even your language describing what you saw as definite evidence of "bubble piercing" and "getting through to" these conservative Christian college students is very vague. Perhaps you expected them to boo him? To talk about him in a way that would be bad manners? "Disruptive behavior" is not permitted, along with "Causing public embarrassment to the College, the University, or its representatives or employees." - which would cover being rude or commenting poorly on a guest speaker (Especially an older man) in front of the media. .

You may want to have seen this effect he had on these students, but it's not something that's really quantifiable, or based in fact, but your subjective feelings about Senator Sanders. That's fine, but you just need to acknowlege that it's something you feel, not something objective and quantifiable.

It would be hard to believe that Bernie Sanders won many votes after his speech, but his very appearance seems to have made a difference. It legitimized the more liberal or progressive minority on campus — certainly to themselves and possibly to the University at large. It was a catalyst to come out into the open. Dylan Childers, a political science major with a “Bernie 2016” sign, said, “Over 90 percent right-wing here, but they are more open to opinions than you imagine. “

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/09/18/bernie-sanders-spoke-at-jerry-falwells-college-heres-the-reaction-he-got/

Maybe, despite your assumptions about the "bubble" there are those who were already thinking that way before Sanders came to speak.

[stuffmatters]

56. Wow. I stated my perceptions, that's all. I think Bernie did a good thing by going, you don't.

Done here.

[ehrnst]

57. I said nothing about the speech being a "good thing" or "bad thing." I pointed out that

37. I was fascinated by his appearance at Liberty.He actually broke through to some kids on climate esp

I viewed Bernie at Liberty University as Democratic missionary work for those brainwashed kids. I found it moving and
memorable.

I asked you about how you knew that he "broke through" to some kids, because that wasn't stated as a "perception" but as a quantifiable fact, so I assumed you had some data, such as a poll or survey.

You then spoke in very vague terms, based on an assumption that that the way they behaved indicated that they had somehow been changed by the speech. I pointed out that they couldn't leave, as it's a requirement to go to this convocation and stay the whole time. You didn't seem to know that, and perhaps assumed that they chose to attend and stay when they didn't have to. They are also not allowed to be "disruptive" so the fact that there was no protest or walkout is because they would have been disciplined for violating conduct standards, and the requirement to go to this event, not because they were all previously rabid anti-democrats in a bubble that were curious about Bernie and were won over enough to stay and say nice things about him to the press.

but for a first mission into such a closed, blindly anti Democrats, info desert as LU, Bernie did I thought a good job with these young people.

As the article I shared pointed out there is an organized group of liberal leaning students at LU, as I relayed to you with the article where student interviews were in writing. You had no idea that was the case. The perception of the interviewer and the students was that the students who were in the newly formed Democrats group felt validated by Bernie speaking there. That's not converted by a missionary. It's a lovely thing to imagine, but it's just not supported by the facts, as you now know them.

You seem very upset that I pointed out that your assumptions were not based in an accurate understanding of what was going on at the convocation, the student body, or what the interviews with students said about them changing their view on climate change.

Your statements of fact about the "impact" on students were not based in fact, but were feelings. You wanted to believe that Bernie was the catalyst for major change with them, and you presented it as evidence that Bernie has this effect that with conservatives, so his going on FoxNews would also have that effect. I pointed out the gaps in your understanding of the situation and their responses.

You're very disappointed learning that the situation and the outcome really wasn't what you thought it was, and that's understandable. I'm just the messenger, so I shouldn't be the one you're mad at. But I guess you need someone to be mad at.

That's all I'm saying.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

2. Mayor Pete has already been interviewed by Fox newscasters.

I don't remember who the interviewer was, but Mayor Pete certainly held his own and got his message out just fine.

He said something to the effect that if you don't go where people who don't know you hang out, then how will you ever get them to know anything about you?

I thought he made a very valid point.

[rogue emissary]

6. Do you also think the candidates

Should have attended AIPAC?

[CaliforniaPeggy]

10. I don't know enough about them to have an opinion on that. n/t

[rogue emissary]

13. Fair enough.

[Celerity]

18. Chris Wallace was the interviewer

here Peggy

https://www.democraticunderground.com/128737883

[CaliforniaPeggy]

20. That's right! I'm terrible with names. Thanks, my dear Celerity!

[stonecutter357]

4. fox is not a legitimate news source .

[Uncle Joe]

5. Every single corporate media conglomerate is a propaganda outlet, FOX just happens to be the worst.

If a candidate aspires for the highest office in the land, then to hell with the lions' den, go there and speak your truth.

The Internet will have your back if your arguments are logical, reasonable and resonate with the American Nation.

If said corporate media conglomerate uses unsavory tactics, that will also be exposed.

Thanks for the thread rogue emissary.

[RussBLib]

7. I think you have to talk to them

They have lots of viewers. Stupid viewers. Racist viewers. Lazy viewers. But a lot of them vote. If it's "live" TV, you have a chance to cut through the filter and speak to them. Some of them have to be salvageable.

[BlueFlorida]

8. Supporting Fox news gives tjem legitimacy

as a news organization which it is not.

Democrats should stay away. I doubt we would change any minds among Fox audience.

[zipplewrath]

26. Few votes to be found

I agree there are precious few votes to be found among the Fox viewers.

[workinclasszero]

9. WTH are democratic candidates only going to address

blue states and the lucky people living in them?

Of course they all should go on Fox and into every red state on the map and show these people how much better their lives would be under a democratic administration!

Hello? Ever heard of a 50 state strategy??

Did we learn nothing from 2016?

[ehrnst]

16. If Kamala Harris went on FoxNews, there would be people yelling that "proves she's

neocon."

Please.

[workinclasszero]

21. So it's blue states only I guess

Four more years of Dump will burn this country down to the ground.

[ehrnst]

22. So you've changed your mind about red state "outreach" since last month?

At least for some, anyway.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029816025#post118

No "Nazi bastards" at FoxNews?

[NurseJackie]

24. You rock!

[ehrnst]

31. ...

[mcar]

38. I await the response

[sheshe2]

39. Steve Lesser was ripped to shreds for being a guest.

Now it is a good thing I guess.

[BlueFlorida]

25. For any Democrat to go on Faux News

gives Faux News legitimacy as a credible news organization instead of being a Goering-style propaganda apparatus.

It is utterly boneheaded and the chances of anyone changing the audience's minds are nil.

These are the people who championed the birther movement. These are the people who also think Alex Jones is credible.

What will happen is that any Democrat going there will be taken out of context and quotes used to further the racist and xenophobic views of the audience.

If one's goal is to divide the Democratic party instead of showing a unified front -- it makes sense.

[Gothmog]

33. Democratic voters in red states do not watch Fox News

Real democrats in red states do not watch Fox. I and other real democrats watch MSNBC and other real news sources

[kimbutgar]

11. You are not going to change brainwashed cult members minds

These people are so far gone they can’t even think straight, Facts are fake and fake shit is the truth. Why waste time in those people. You can’t teach those old dogs new tricks.

[BlueFlorida]

27. Exactly this nt

[nycbos]

12. If we can reach 3-4% of them that wins us the election.

Putting a slight hole the the bubble is a good idea.

[dogman]

14. I believe t-Rump won because of free media.

You can't walk away from that and the chance to break through. I understand wanting to isolate Faux, but I don't think this brings them advertisers, that is what will break them. t-Rump will tweet about it most likely.

[ehrnst]

17. Jeff Weaver is a regular on FoxNews. No surprise. (nt)

[bernie59]

19. The first two choices overlap quite a bit

But I do think anyone should go onto Fox as much as possible. In fact, in a hostile environment, a strong debater can come out looking better, compared to a friendly environment with softball questions.

[Peacetrain]

23. Here is my issue with our candidates going on Fox News..they are going to use it against them

Oh they will act all sweet and nice for a few days.. how brave that a candidate comes on their station.. etc etc... all the while compiling oppo on them to slam them ..they have an agenda to re-elect Trump because they are up to their ears along with Trump in the Russian money.. at least that is how I feel

[vsrazdem]

28. I seriously doubt we would be having this conversation if it was anyone other than Bernie.

[ehrnst]

29. Certainly not Donna Brazile as we saw with the excoriation of her last month

for agreeing to be a contributor to FoxNews.


https://www.democraticunderground.com/100211930979

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10142288082

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1017535983

But when it's Bernie, it's totally different, I guess.

[vsrazdem]

32. Working for Fox, and participating in a forum on Fox are 2 different things. I don' t have much

respect for any Democract that would work for them.

[UniteFightBack]

42. If she stays true and is able to punch, jab and make good points I say bravo and we need

more of that.

[vsrazdem]

44. Well it didn't work so well when MSNBC and CNN tried to hire Fox personnel. They didn't last long.

[UniteFightBack]

45. Well no...it often doesn't translate the other way because their pundits are complete

partisan fools.

[ehrnst]

46. How about someone who's a regular on Fox News?

Promotes their book on FoxNews?

[UniteFightBack]

43. Please

stop looking for objectivity. It's scarce.

[George II]

34. Him going on Fox is as bad, if not worse, than him holding a quasi-rally at Liberty University.

[samnsara]

40. howard shultz was on tonight

[UniteFightBack]

41. Yes shine some sunlight ova there with Dem town halls. nt

[Cha]

48. You're funny.. Choice #4..

[watoos]

52. JMO, but those of you criticizing Bernie,

for going into the lion's den are just making an alibi for why your candidate doesn't have the guts to do the same.

Bill Maher had Adam Schiff on his show a month ago and he asked Schiff why he didn't go on Fox and let their viewers know what was happening outside the bubble.

Schiff actually promised Bill that he would go on Fox, but we shall see.

Man, I hope my memory is ok, I think it was Schiff, correct me if I'm wrong.

ps/ How does going on Fox and giving them a bully beat down contribute to their credibility?

Our candidate needs to be tough as nails, that's my only criteria for selecting my choice.

[Tom Rinaldo]

53. Not a problem according to the DNC

"While the DNC does not believe that FOX is equipped to be a partner for a 2020 debate because of concerns of fairness at the highest levels within their organization, the DNC believes that we must reach all voters, including their audience,” said spokesperson Xochitl Hinojosa.

“Therefore, candidates should do what they need to do in order to engage these voters directly."

My personal view is more nuanced than either Yes or No. I think any Democrat needs to exercise caution regarding using the FOX platform. There is the potential to win over a small sliver of voters, or at least help deactivate their mindless zealotry, and there is the potential to emerge damaged in some way from that exercise.

A lot depends on the specifics. Which FOX personnel will be involved, A Chris Wallace or a Sean Hannity? Who gets to control the microphone and has the cutoff switch? What is the format, does it allow for a Democrat to make a full presentation of their viewpoint without being cut off? Etc. Etc.

A Town Hall format is one of the better opportunities that FOX can offer a Democrat. I would assume that they could seed the audience with "Gotcha" questioners, but some Democrats can handle that well and even use their performance in response to their own ultimate advantage.