The DNC says no debates on FOX

"Listen more, talk less. Be civil to one another. Find common ground. Contempt is hatred towards others. These are the lessons and the attitude I will bring to Fox News."

Donna, Brazile

Good luck with that! 

Fox, doesn't listen, they talk a lot of ish. And, as far as being civil? Most progressive liberals that come on their shows, is like throwing a bone to the dogs. They attack. SMH.

If Fox wants to use its money to give the Dems a platform why shouldn't they take it?

STANV said:
If Fox wants to use its money to give the Dems a platform why shouldn't they take it?

 Because no matter who is the speaker, Fox controls the narrative.

ridski said:

STANV said:
If Fox wants to use its money to give the Dems a platform why shouldn't they take it?

 Because no matter who is the speaker, Fox controls the narrative.

 And because there are other networks which are willing to pay but are not hostile to the candidates.  

Pete Buttigieg was on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace last week and did great. I need to call my Trump-supporting uncle and see what he thought of Mayor Pete.

mrincredible said:
I'm going to throw one more spanner in the works of this discussion.
It may be in some of these Fox viewer households that your target is not necessarily the person who turned on the TV (angry white dad/grandpa) but other people in the house who are exposed to it.  Second-hand Fox, if you will, affects the children and spouses of the people who watch. Maybe I'm getting too esoteric in my arguments here, but imagine the teenage kid who's stuck listening to dad's Fox news every night.  What are they going to learn?  Look at the faces of the people who marched in Charlottesville. 
Going after voters is not a zero-sum game.  If Donna Brazile wants to take the challenge of being a voice of liberalism in a raging torrent of conservatism, that doesn't stop you from driving voter registrations for young people, recent citizens, people of color or American citizens who might have recently moved en masse to a state with lots of electoral votes that went for Trump by about 110,000 votes.

 This seems obvious. And the corollary is that regular Fox viewers themselves are not monolithic.  Shepard Smith, who has a one-hour show every afternoon is as anti-Trump as any host on MSNBC. Who's in his audience?

y'all are ignoring two important things. First, trolling for votes on Fox News is really, really inefficient for Democrats. You don't look for votes in places where if you're lucky, 5% of the viewers are persuadable. 

But more importantly, you don't show up in places where the narrative frame is already stacked against you. You can't win when the game is rigged. 

I have this sneaking suspicion that some of you would lose your shirts at three card monte. 

ml1 said:

I have this sneaking suspicion that some of you would lose your shirts at three card monte. 

I wouldn't play. Especially if my shirt was on the line.

The point you seem to be flagrantly ignoring is Donna Brazile is one person who is on a mission that's crazy.

So crazy, it just might work.

It's zero risk as far as I can see. And if I could get 0.5% of the viewers it's totally worth it. But you seem to be even more optimistic than me with your 5%.   

She's one person in a huge organization trying to swing the vote to a Democrat or Independent Running as a Democrat in 2020. It won't hurt the other efforts.

Donna Brazile can do whatever she wants to make a buck. But if I'm a Democrat running for president I'm stiff arming FNC. 

Another thing y'all are ignoring is that by trying to reach the sliver of persuadable Fox viewers, the candidate could be  alienating the vitally important young voters and people of color that they need to turn out to win. 

Listening to the people who have been telling Democrats to reach right has been an disastrous strategy.

And y'all are promoting that same failed strategy. It would be beyond stupid for Democrats to keep hitting their heads against that wall. 

mrincredible said:

I wouldn't play. Especially if my shirt was on the line.

I was always playing with shirts on the line.

“Let them dry!” Mom would shout.

here's the proof that the narrative at Fox News creates a complete alternate reality.  

Poll: 78% of GOP Fox News Viewers Say Trump Is Best President Ever

(compared to only 17% of non-FNC viewers)

ml1 said:
here's the proof that the narrative at Fox News creates a complete alternate reality.  
Poll: 78% of GOP Fox News Viewers Say Trump Is Best President Ever
(compared to only 17% of non-FNC viewers)

 This just shows me how badly FNC viewers need Donna Brazile.   

mrincredible said:
 This just shows me how badly FNC viewers need Donna Brazile.   

Shows me how badly Donna Brazile must need a paycheck.

ml1 said:
here's the proof that the narrative at Fox News creates a complete alternate reality.  
Poll: 78% of GOP Fox News Viewers Say Trump Is Best President Ever
(compared to only 17% of non-FNC viewers)

This memo reflects the findings of 1,001 interviews conducted online with U.S. adult confirmed registered voters using a voter-file matched panel. 

No margin of error was given.

Of note: This is a survey that found that only 56 percent of Fox viewers (“a few times a month or more”) are Republicans or Republican-leaning independents.

DaveSchmidt said:
This memo reflects the findings of 1,001 interviews conducted online with U.S. adult confirmed registered voters using a voter-file matched panel. 
No margin of error was given.
Of note: This is a survey that found that only 56 percent of Fox viewers (“a few times a month or more”) are Republicans or Republican-leaning independents.

with 1,000 respondents, the overall result will have a margin of error of about +/- 3%.  So the overall result of 17% agreeing that Trump is the greatest president is pretty solid.  And the margin of error for the 150 or so GOP Fox viewers would be about +/- 8%.  So at least 7 in 10 of those viewers believe that Trump is the GOAT.

And I'm not surprised that about 4 in 10 monthly Fox viewers are not Republicans.  Even I watch Fox News a few times a month, given how many public places have it on all day. It's the core viewers who watch many hours a week that are the ones people are arguing the DNC should be courting.  After all, the person who only watches Fox a few times a month is almost certainly getting news from a lot of other sources. 

ml1 said:
here's the proof that the narrative at Fox News creates a complete alternate reality.  
Poll: 78% of GOP Fox News Viewers Say Trump Is Best President Ever
(compared to only 17% of non-FNC viewers)
 

There are lots of voters in the other 22%. Why not talk to them?

ml1 said:

 Even I watch Fox News a few times a month, given how many public places have it on all day.

 Are you sure those are the only times you watch?   

ml1 said:

with 1,000 respondents, the overall result will have a margin of error of about +/- 3%.  So the overall result of 17% agreeing that Trump is the greatest president is pretty solid.  And the margin of error for the 150 or so GOP Fox viewers would be about +/- 8%.

The sample wasn’t randomized, so I have my doubts.

paulsurovell said:
There are lots of voters in the other 22%. Why not talk to them?

talk to them somewhere else.

paulsurovell said:
 Are you sure those are the only times you watch?   

I don't watch Fox News in my home.  Unless they break into a basketball or baseball game.

DaveSchmidt said:

ml1 said:

with 1,000 respondents, the overall result will have a margin of error of about +/- 3%.  So the overall result of 17% agreeing that Trump is the greatest president is pretty solid.  And the margin of error for the 150 or so GOP Fox viewers would be about +/- 8%.

The sample wasn’t randomized, so I have my doubts.

The fact that it's a research panel and not a random sample won't affect the margin of error.  And unless there's a reason to believe the panel has some inherent systematic bias that is correlated with the result, there's no reason to suspect that it doesn't reflect the opinions of FNC viewers.

And with all research, a question we can always ask is -- does the finding make sense given all the other data we have.  Given that Trump has a roughly 90% approval rating among Republicans in every reputable survey, it seems this result among FNC GOP viewers makes a lot of sense.

ml1 said:

The fact that it's a research panel and not a random sample won't affect the margin of error.  

That’s an opinion, which is fine, but I retain my doubts. For any others who might be interested — don’t crowd! — this is a decent summary of the variables and complications:

http://researchaccess.com/2015/02/margin-of-error-with-non-probability-panels/

ml1 said:
here's the proof that the narrative at Fox News creates a complete alternate reality.  
Poll: 78% of GOP Fox News Viewers Say Trump Is Best President Ever
(compared to only 17% of non-FNC viewers)

 What % of Fox News Viewers can name more than half a dozen former Presidents? 

To be serious if I were a Conservative Republican I would certainly believe that Ronald Reagan was far far better than Trump. I can only conclude that these people are lying or are complete idiots.

DaveSchmidt said:
That’s an opinion, which is fine, but I retain my doubts. For any others who might be interested — don’t crowd! — this is a decent summary of the variables and complications:
http://researchaccess.com/2015/02/margin-of-error-with-non-probability-panels/

I think we've had this discussion before.  I get the sense that you have doubts about virtually all survey research.

An issue that the polling industry faces is that there isn't really any current method that guarantees a random probability sample.  RDD telephone surveys have their own biases, which only become more extreme with each passing year.  To my knowledge, the Nielsen TV panel is the only geographic probability sample in common usage these days.

I'm not sure why you would doubt a survey that actually matched panelists to verified voter rolls.  That's actually one of the better ways of removing some of the biases of online panels, and self-reports.  The interviewers know for a fact who's registered to which party and if they did in fact vote in the last election.

And as I mentioned above, the 78% result doesn't seem out of whack with the multitude of polls on Trump's job approval.  And not only that -- it reflects a very frequent talking point of Trumps.  He has said on dozens of occasions that his administration is the most accomplished in history.  So I tend to believe surveys in which people have been persuaded by a rigorously disciplined message.

I'm curious why you think the survey doesn't reflect a reality of the Fox News viewer.

ml1 said:

I'm curious why you think the survey doesn't reflect a reality of the Fox News viewer.

Getting 8 in 10 of even the narrowest group of Americans to agree on the greatest president strains my credulity. And, yes, I have doubts about much modern survey research. It’s a field, I believe, that’s having real problems compensating for the demise of randomized polling and its mathematical underpinnings (which had their subjective components and assumptions but not as many as today’s methods).

Also, it’s my opinion that the general public has become more savvy, jaded, weary, etc., about polling, which would be another complication in gauging its true leanings.

DaveSchmidt said:
Getting 8 in 10 of even the narrowest group of Americans to agree on the greatest president strains my credulity. And, yes, I have doubts about much modern survey research. It’s a field, I believe, that’s having real problems compensating for the demise of randomized polling and its mathematical underpinnings (which had their subjective components and assumptions but not as many as today’s methods).

these are valid concerns.  But still with all its issues, survey research still generally does a good job when its results are compared to verified real world behavior.

For all the bashing that pollsters took after the 2016 election, the fact is that the national polls were pretty accurate.  They predicted a Hillary Clinton narrow popular vote win.  The poll average was almost spot on the final margin.

The bigger problem in 2016, (and generally) is not that the surveys are or were wrong.  The problem was in interpretation.  No one seemed able to believe that the election was really going to be that close.  And it also needs to be repeated that the Trump Electoral College victory was something of a freak occurrence, that could only have happened with an unlikely set of factors in a handful of states producing it. Polls are admittedly not going to be good at predicting statistically unlikely outcomes.

And with the 8 in 10 Fox Republicans calling Trump the greatest president, I don't find it surprising.  The question was designed to reflect Trump's own marketing efforts.  It asked if "Trump administration has accomplished more than almost any other president in history."  I'm not surprised that Trump supporters would be inclined to agree with a phrase that the president has been repeating constantly for about a year and a half.  Maybe they don't think he's THE greatest, but they have him in a very small group of most "accomplished" presidents.  Which is certainly not even close to objectively true by any standard.

Another DNC wall-building policy:

https://www.nationaljournal.com/s/677493?unlock=0FAOJVLRMIIGKLY7

paulsurovell said:
Another DNC wall-building policy:

https://www.nationaljournal.com/s/677493?unlock=0FAOJVLRMIIGKLY7

It appears to be a pretty stupid idea.

Not to mention, any smart insurgent candidates probably don't even want to work with the same old, same old consultants who work with the incumbents.