Why Does the Media Keep Acting as If Ossoff Lost?
Some I’m reading a Politico piece by GABRIEL DEBENEDETTI. It’s about the Dems post Trump:
“100 days of Democratic rage.”
“Trump has enabled the Democratic Party to overlook its serious problems.”
Right away it rubs me the wrong way because they have a picture of Bernie-and Elizabeth Warren. Right now the media keeps foisting Bernie Sanders down our throats. I can’t imagine he plans to run again but if he does I’m for his opponent.
On the other hand I could deal with Warren. She’s not a bad compromise choice between Hillary and Berners. Though even she is not that popular with African Americans and Latinos. This is the thing. We keep hearing about the 43% Bernie won and nothing abotu the 55% he didn’t. Bernie is not winning them over with all his dissing of the ‘liberal elite on the East and West coasts.’
Just like during the election, the media still ignores Hillary supporters. A lot of the fired up #Resistance is Hillary supporters. And an astounding 84% of Congressional calls have been from women. Do you think that part of why women are so fired up has nothing to do with how the first major party female presidential nominee was treated? Adding insult to injury her opponent was the most misogynistic man in the history of men and he paid no price for his history of sexual assault allegations. The media has literally been mum on this since the Comey letter.
“We have a new energy but we don’t have a new brand,” said Ohio Rep. Tim Ryan, who gained national attention in November for unsuccessfully challenging House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi for her leadership role. “I would think that if the Democratic Party had a halfway decent national brand or an exciting, affirmative agenda, that we would have been able to get at least a couple more percentage points in the Georgia [special election where Democrat Jon Ossoff fell just short of 50 percent last week]. We had a great candidate and great energy running under a very negative brand.”
Tim Ryan is one of those Berniecrats who thinks the party must only be about the economic anxieties of white people in Middle America. There are no anxieties among people of color in the urban areas in the East or West coasts-those are ‘liberal elites.’
And why do so many people talk as if Ossoff lost? He got 48% in a very red district that hasn’t voted Dem in 37 years. Yet Ryan makes it sound like he failed. Is Ryan like the media and Donald Trump who seem not to know there’s a runoff that most of the polling analyst types like Nate Silver, Sean Trende, and Dave Wasserman think it’s a tossup-with even a small Ossoff edge?
Can I commit the heresy of saying the Democrats don’t necessarily need a new brand? Greg Sargent:
“Most people agree on one thing about the 2016 election: That the simplest way to describe what happened is that demographics did not deliver for Democrats. The party and the Clinton campaign had good reason to be confident that the vaunted “Obama coalition” — the nonwhites, young voters, single women, and college-educated whites who powered majority victories in the two previous national elections — would come through one more time, as Republicans had shown no signs of even trying to evolve culturally in sync with the preoccupations of those groups. But demographic destiny fell short of swamping Trump’s margins among blue-collar and middle-income whites.”
“Some critics now argue that this was the result of a crucial mistake on Clinton’s part. Clinton, goes this argument, failed to connect with the economic anxieties of these white voters precisely because overconfidence in her demographic advantage led her campaign to get lost amid micro-targeted cultural appeals to various groups in the Obama coalition, thus neglecting a broader economic and reform message. The oft heard refrain is that Clinton’s initial economic push — for shared prosperity and an economy that works for all — got overtaken by “identity politics,” which is to say, by the Clinton team’s decision to spend a great deal of time and resources on attacking Trump’s racially charged campaign, rather than on beating him in the argument over the economy and the need for political reform.”
Sure just throw the people targeted by Trump under the bus. Middle America doesn’t care if Trump bans Muslims and separates Latino families they care only about their own economic ‘anxiety.’ So don’t talk about racism and bigotry.
Like Bernie at one point said ‘Get off the birther stuff.’ Why? Birtherism is what got Trump into our politics. It was a slanderous lie that very much insulted millions of African-Americans.
“It was not unreasonable for the Clinton team to conclude that the strategy of casting Trump as temperamentally unfit to handle national security — and too hateful and divisive to lead our diverse country — was going to succeed. Polls indicated for months that Clinton was on track to become the first Democrat to win a majority of college-educated whites in over half a century. Many analysts across the spectrum had concluded that such an outcome would probably cripple Trump’s ability to prevail by running up enormous margins among white voters.”
“And whatever the Clinton team’s motives in making a big issue out of Trump’s race-tinged campaign, it was the right thing to do. For all the talk about Clinton playing “identity politics,” the candidate who played “identity politics” to a far greater extent was Donald Trump. His campaign — which fused the relentless scapegoating of Muslims and undocumented immigrants with revanchist appeals to “Make America Great Again” — was all about encouraging and playing to a sense that white identity and white America were under siege. It was important for the country that Clinton call out Trump’s white nationalist appeals for what they were — and that she defend the minority groups that he had targeted for vilification. Not doing so would have been an abdication.”
Overall, what we are dealing with here is the Hegelian concept that success retroactively blesses all our decisions and actions and failure does the opposite. So now everything Hillary did was terrible in the media’s narrative. This is important as the media believes in ‘introspection’ only for Hillary not for themselves.
A lot of people want a Democratic autopsy. In fact Glenn Greenwald-who else-goes as far as comparing the post 2016 Dems negatively with Reince Priebus. Wish I was kidding. You see, Priebus had an autopsy.
“This Accept-No-Responsibility, Blame-Everyone-Else posture stands in stark contrast to how the Republican National Committee reacted in 2012, after it lost the popular vote for the fifth time in six presidential elections. RNC Chairman Reince Priebus called Mitt Romney’s loss “a wake-up call,” and he was scathing about his party’s failures: “There’s no one reason we lost. Our message was weak; our ground game was insufficient; we weren’t inclusive; we were behind in both data and digital; our primary and debate process needed improvement. … So, there’s no one solution: There’s a long list of them.”
“The RNC’s willingness to admit its own failures led to a comprehensive 1oo-page report, issued only a few months after its 2012 defeat, that was unflinching in its self-critique. One of the report’s co-chairs, GOP strategist Sally Bradshaw, warned upon issuance of the “autopsy” that “public perception of our party is at record lows. Young voters are increasingly rolling their eyes at what the party represents and many minorities think Republicans don’t like them or don’t want them in our country.”
“The report itself also took aim at the GOP’s chosen candidate, containing analysis that was “pointed in its critique of Mitt Romney, specifically pointing to his ‘self deportation’ comment as turning off Hispanic voters.” The report began by warning that at the federal level, the GOP “is increasingly marginalizing itself, and unless changes are made, it will be increasingly difficult for Republicans to win another presidential election in the near future.” Rather than maligning the voters who rejected his party, Preibus accepted responsibility for losing them: “To those who have left the party, let me say this, we want to earn your trust again, to those who have yet to trust us, we welcome you with open arms.”
Sure, they did an autopsy and then nominated Donald Trump. Trump was a major double down on nativism and racism. And they won. Before the election everyone assumed doubling down couldn’t possibly work.
The real lesson is that just because one election goes a certain way doesn’t mean the next one will. The post 2012 narrative was that the GOP had to be more inclusive. This proved to be false. The post 2016 narrative is the Dems need to be about economic populism and put ‘identity politics’ on the backburner.
This may well prove as false as the post 2012 narrative did.
We’ll see what happens but my hope for 2020-a lot may change in the next 20 months-is Kirsten Gillibrand. Currently have no idea if she’s running though-rumors are that she’s interested.
Regarding Bernie saving the Democrats consider Corbyn’s reign of error with Labour.
May won't interact with "real" people or unscripted media in #GE17; she'll rely on Labour to eat itself. Tactical voting therefore key.
— Andy Ellis (@ndls61) April 24, 2017
Same tactic she used in the leadership elections – saying nothing will suffice if her opponents are stupid enough https://t.co/TxZEKocbNY
— Unlearning Economics (@UnlearningEcon) April 24, 2017
Kind of interesting to see how poorly Labour is doing under Corbyn. Based on that maybe Bernie isn't the answer for the Dems either. https://t.co/RVMtHbOwfx
— mike sax (@evilsax) April 25, 2017
P.S. As we saw in my poll out last week, the long awaited poll results are in, and right now I’m just 11 points down vs. Peter King (GOP-NY-District 2). And the voters don’t even know who I am yet.
There is nothing more important in getting answers to Trump-Russia collusion than a Democratic House in 2019. Please donate to help me in my part of the effort to fight for a Dem House.
Thank you. We must have a Dem House. And so, we will.