The DNC says no debates on FOX

ml1 said:

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.

 I would disagree, partly because that's what we seem to do. If you are a rookie politician trying to mount an insurgent primary campaign wouldn't you want experienced consultants to help you out? You imply that these organizations are old which could be a synonym for "know how to win elections."

It's a defensive move and I kind of understand the motivation (but the optics suck). It was a hard fought battle to take control of half of one third of the government. I'm very glad we have democrats controlling the House to prevent rampant Trumpublican legislation, and Elijah Cummings is my new hero. A lot of seats were won in centrist districts by running centrist candidates. If a lot of more left leaning candidates try to go the AOC route, if they win those primaries will they be too far to the left to win the general?

Something to think about.

mrincredible said:
 I would disagree, partly because that's what we seem to do. If you are a rookie politician trying to mount an insurgent primary campaign wouldn't you want experienced consultants to help you out? You imply that these organizations are old which could be a synonym for "know how to win elections."
It's a defensive move and I kind of understand the motivation (but the optics suck). It was a hard fought battle to take control of half of one third of the government. I'm very glad we have democrats controlling the House to prevent rampant Trumpublican legislation, and Elijah Cummings is my new hero. A lot of seats were won in centrist districts by running centrist candidates. If a lot of more left leaning candidates try to go the AOC route, if they win those primaries will they be too far to the left to win the general?
Something to think about.

Somehow it never bothers Republicans that they might be moving too far right to win the general election.

Worrying too much about "electability" and trying to be "centrist" has hurt the Democratic Party way more than any tentative moves their members have made to the left.

Regarding Donna Brazile joining Fox News -

All I need to know about this, is in her opinion piece about joining Fox News.  In it she has this sentence: "I fully admit that in my previous lives as a campaign staffer, presidential campaign manager and Democrat Party official, my own lack of civility in the heat of battle has been on full display."

She immediately conforms to GOP and conservative norms, "Democrat Party" instead of "Democratic Party".  They do that as part of their seemingly congenital need to be disrespectful.  Ms. Brazile meekly follows the party line.

Plus she has access to the debate questions.

well, consider this. In 2018 Jay Webber lost the election for the 11th congressional district of New Jersey to Mikie Sherrill. Webber was a clear move right from Rodney Frelinghuysen. I am not sure that Mikie Sherrill would have won against Frelinghuysen, but we'll never know. I would imagine that Republicans here in New Jersey are thinking about whether they need to move more Centrist if they want to recapture any more of the New Jersey Congressional Delegation. 

I don't think that's an isolated example.

I think a lot could change after the 2020 election in the Republican Party. If a Democrat is in the White House and the Senate flips, they may need to realize that the hard right turn was not a long-term strategy for Success given changing demographics in the country. You might see Republicans having to move to the left if they want to retain relevance. But I know that's kind of conjectural.

mrincredible said:
You might see Republicans having to move to the left if they want to retain relevance. 

I might also see unidentified porcine flying objects over South Orange Avenue.

ml1 said:
I might also see unidentified porcine flying objects over South Orange Avenue.
 

 So cynical!

I will concede that there are certain areas of this nation where politicians will always need to be white right and uptight to win. (I'm looking at you Mitch McConnell.) But if Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Florida and heaven knows maybe even Arizona flip blue in 2020 what will the conversations among Republican strategists be for the 2022 election?

Getting back to Paul's post, this move by the DCCC makes me a little queasy. Although they cannot specifically prevent attempted primary Challengers either from the left or the right of incoming candidates, this is a big road block. (The article does point out that this move can potentially help protect incumbents like Alexandria ocasio-cortez from a primary challenge from a more Centrist Democrat.) It feels unfair and against the spirit of open competition.

To me it also seems like a pretty defensive move, like going for a field goal on 4th and short instead of trying for the touchdown when the game is still pretty close. It's sometimes how you win ballgames but sometimes how you lose by two points.

mrincredible said:
 So cynical!
I will concede that there are certain areas of this nation where politicians will always need to be white right and uptight to win. (I'm looking at you Mitch McConnell.) But if Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Florida and heaven knows maybe even Arizona flip blue in 2020 what will the conversations among Republican strategists be for the 2022 election?

voter suppression.

ml1 said:
voter suppression.
 

That may be all they have.

here's the thing - a liberal appearing on Fox News does nothing other than lend legitimacy to the network, which they don't deserve. (so, FU Donna Brazile) They are a propaganda arm of the Republican Party, pure and simple, and to pretend otherwise is dangerous. It has little to do with appealing to Fox viewers - the net effect is to make Fox seem legitimate, which it is not.

paulsurovell said:
Another DNC wall-building policy:

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

 The DCCC is not the DNC.

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

 Always a dangerous position to doubt the intelligence of your opponent. The opposition may be smart as a fox!

mtierney said:
 Always a dangerous position to doubt the intelligence of your opponent. The opposition may be smart as a fox!

 I'm afraid a lot of my fellow Democrats fall into this trap. Which is a mistake.

But because I can't resist:

I'm sure they can all name Washington, Lincoln, Reagan, Bush x2 and Clinton. (Fox news owes its success to hating Clinton.) That's six right there.

DaveSchmidt said:
 The DCCC is not the DNC.

This is a very good point.  And reminding me that I need to read the articles more closely and not rely so much on the posted summary

drummerboy said:
here's the thing - a liberal appearing on Fox News does nothing other than lend legitimacy to the network, which they don't deserve. (so, FU Donna Brazile) They are a propaganda arm of the Republican Party, pure and simple, and to pretend otherwise is dangerous. It has little to do with appealing to Fox viewers - the net effect is to make Fox seem legitimate, which it is not.

 this is a succinct summary of the exact point I'm trying to make.  FNC is simply the wrong platform for the Democrats to give any legitimacy.

mtierney said:

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

 Always a dangerous position to doubt the intelligence of your opponent. The opposition may be smart as a fox!

mrincredible said:
 I'm afraid a lot of my fellow Democrats fall into this trap. Which is a mistake.
But because I can't resist:
I'm sure they can all name Washington, Lincoln, Reagan, Bush x2 and Clinton. (Fox news owes its success to hating Clinton.) That's six right there.

 It was a joke, but seriously, when did conservatives stop thinking that Reagan was the greatest President ever?

If if one likes what Trump has done is there anything he has accomplished that no other President  has? 

It is difficult to believe that anyone with any sense or any knowledge of history could really believe that Trump is better than Washington or Lincoln.

STANV said:
 It was a joke, but seriously, when did conservatives stop thinking that Reagan was the greatest President ever?
If if one likes what Trump has done is there anything he has accomplished that no other President  has? 
It is difficult to believe that anyone with any sense or any knowledge of history could really believe that Trump is better than Washington or Lincoln.

They are simply agreeing with Trump's marketing tag line.  He says it constantly.  If a survey said that 80% of GEICO policyholders who watch television agreed that "15 minutes at GEICO.com could save you 15% on your car insurance" nobody would doubt the result.

Update:

https://www.axios.com/fox-news-2020-democrats-town-halls-76caa1b0-170b-466f-bc66-15399cb9c83b.html

Several Democratic 2020 hopefuls are signing on to attend town halls hosted by Fox News, despite the Democratic National Committee barring the network from hosting a presidential debate this election cycle.

The big picture: The debate among Democrats over whether or how the party should engage with Fox News is sowing division within the party ahead of 2020. Many Democratic candidates have already appeared on several Fox News shows, hoping to reach some of its more moderate viewers. Sen. Bernie Sanders' April town hall drew an estimated audience of 2.5 million — double the viewership of his CNN town hall appearance.

When to watch:

- Sen. Bernie Sanders: Had his town hall on in April.

- Sen. Amy Klobuchar: May 8

- Mayor Pete Buttigieg: May 19

- Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand: June 2

What to watch:

- Julian Castro confirmed to AP that his campaign is in the process of scheduling a town hall with Fox News.

- Sen. Cory Booker also said he’s considering one.

- Beto O'Rourke told AP he would be willing to appear on the network.

paulsurovell said:
Update:
https://www.axios.com/fox-news-2020-democrats-town-halls-76caa1b0-170b-466f-bc66-15399cb9c83b.html

Several Democratic 2020 hopefuls are signing on to attend town halls hosted by Fox News, despite the Democratic National Committee barring the network from hosting a presidential debate this election cycle. 

 So what?

paulsurovell said:

The big picture: The debate among Democrats over whether or how the party should engage with Fox News is sowing division within the party ahead of 2020. Many Democratic candidates have already appeared on several Fox News shows, hoping to reach some of its more moderate viewers. Sen. Bernie Sanders' April town hall drew an estimated audience of 2.5 million — double the viewership of his CNN town hall appearance.

 And that's "what".  Phony "internal dissension" claim, when in reality there's a difference between individual candidate appearances and letting Fox moderate a debate among Democratic primary contenders.

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:
Update:
https://www.axios.com/fox-news-2020-democrats-town-halls-76caa1b0-170b-466f-bc66-15399cb9c83b.html

Several Democratic 2020 hopefuls are signing on to attend town halls hosted by Fox News, despite the Democratic National Committee barring the network from hosting a presidential debate this election cycle. 

 So what?

paulsurovell said:

The big picture: The debate among Democrats over whether or how the party should engage with Fox News is sowing division within the party ahead of 2020. Many Democratic candidates have already appeared on several Fox News shows, hoping to reach some of its more moderate viewers. Sen. Bernie Sanders' April town hall drew an estimated audience of 2.5 million — double the viewership of his CNN town hall appearance.

 And that's "what".  Phony "internal dissension" claim, when in reality there's a difference between individual candidate appearances and letting Fox moderate a debate among Democratic primary contenders.

 The "difference" becomes less and less as more and more candidates appear individually on Fox.

paulsurovell said:
 The "difference" becomes less and less as more and more candidates appear individually on Fox.

 No, Paul, for the reason I explained already.

paulsurovell said:
Update:
https://www.axios.com/fox-news-2020-democrats-town-halls-76caa1b0-170b-466f-bc66-15399cb9c83b.html

Several Democratic 2020 hopefuls are signing on to attend town halls hosted by Fox News, despite the Democratic National Committee barring the network from hosting a presidential debate this election cycle.

The big picture: The debate among Democrats over whether or how the party should engage with Fox News is sowing division within the party ahead of 2020. Many Democratic candidates have already appeared on several Fox News shows, hoping to reach some of its more moderate viewers. Sen. Bernie Sanders' April town hall drew an estimated audience of 2.5 million — double the viewership of his CNN town hall appearance.

When to watch:

- Sen. Bernie Sanders: Had his town hall on in April.

- Sen. Amy Klobuchar: May 8

- Mayor Pete Buttigieg: May 19

- Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand: June 2

What to watch:

- Julian Castro confirmed to AP that his campaign is in the process of scheduling a town hall with Fox News.

- Sen. Cory Booker also said he’s considering one.

- Beto O'Rourke told AP he would be willing to appear on the network.

 Update:

'A hate-for-profit racket': Warren refuses Fox town hall invite

Elizabeth Warren turned down a Fox News invitation Tuesday for a televised town hall and denounced the cable network as a “hate-for-profit racket that gives a megaphone to racists and conspiracists.”
…
“I won’t ask millions of Democratic primary voters to tune into an outlet that profits from racism and hate in order to see our candidates — especially when Fox will make even more money adding our valuable audience to their ratings numbers,” she wrote. "Hate-for-profit works only if there’s profit, so Fox News balances a mix of bigotry, racism, and outright lies with enough legit journalism to make the claim to advertisers that it’s a reputable news outlet. It’s all about dragging in ad money — big ad money."

Well okay then. 

My gut emotional response is she just moved up in the poll of "who will Mr Incredible vote for".

I'm not sure from an intellectual strategic point of view it's the right move.

Sometimes you have to trust your gut.

I think Warren should have gone on Fox, because it was an opportunity to reach more voters. If elected president, she will be president of Trump supporters also.  

Here is how Bernie's campaign (Briahna Joy Gray-spokesperson) responded to Warren's refusal to go on FOX:

https://twitter.com/briebriejoy/status/1128366069910069248

Briahna Joy Gray‏Verified account @briebriejoyBriahna Joy Gray Retweeted Nate Silver

nan said:
I think Warren should have gone on Fox, because it was an opportunity to reach more voters. If elected president, she will be president of Trump supporters also.  
Here is how Bernie's campaign (Briahna Joy Gray-spokesperson) responded to Warren's refusal to go on FOX:
https://twitter.com/briebriejoy/status/1128366069910069248


Briahna Joy Gray‏Verified account @briebriejoyBriahna Joy Gray Retweeted Nate Silver
I think that what Bernie gets -- and Nate doesn't -- is that 33% of Fox news viewers identify as Independent or Dem, and that regardless, the president is responsible for the lives and well being of all Americans, and should be able to effectively communicate with them.
Nate SilverVerified account @NateSilver538
I think Warren gets—and Bernie mostly doesn't—how to appeal to Democrats' partisan cues. I don't know about the utility of appearing on a Fox News town hall, but Democratic primary voters (at least the ones that would consider voting for Warren) mostly hate Fox.
Show this thread
11:26 AM - 14 May 2019

1. 1. Briahna Joy Gray‏Verified account @briebriejoy 1h1 hour agoMore Not everything is about "partisan cues" and political gamesmanship. Somethings are just about being responsive to and communicating the needs of the people. All the people. Regardless of their political identification.
      

That reasoning is pure idiocy. (and quite desperate) As if the only way to communicate to the whole country is to appear on Fox as a guest.  Are you saying that Fox viewers won't find out anything (or anything accurate) about Sanders unless he appears at a town hall? Think about that for a second.  If it's not true, then you don't need to appear. If it is true, it means that Fox can't be trusted to report accurately, yet you think you should pretend that they do.

No Dem should appear on Fox. Ever. It is an arm of the Republican party and should never be legitimized in this way.

And Fox viewers can go flock themselves. They are not a pool of potential voters, nor should you want them.

And kudos to Warren for making the right decision.

drummerboy said:
That reasoning is pure idiocy. (and quite desperate) As if the only way to communicate to the whole country is to appear on Fox as a guest.  Are you saying that Fox viewers won't find out anything (or anything accurate) about Sanders unless he appears at a town hall? Think about that for a second.  If it's not true, then you don't need to appear. If it is true, it means that Fox can't be trusted to report accurately, yet you think you should pretend that they do.

No Dem should appear on Fox. Ever. It is an arm of the Republican party and should never be legitimized in this way.
And Fox viewers can go flock themselves. They are not a pool of potential voters, nor should you want them.

 Sanders got treated better on FOX than he did on CNN.  He was able to make major points about his platform for a wide audience.  CNN had more plants in the audience with loaded questions.  He had to spend most of his time defending himself.   On FOX, they only had one plant that anyone could tell.  I still think Sanders did the right thing by appearing on CNN and FOX.  Why miss an opportunity to get exposure to a large audience?  FOX is bad, but so is CNN/MSNBC. None of them report the news accurately or fairly.  

I think Warren made a mistake by dismissing the opportunity at FOX.  And everyone should be a potential voter--not all Trump voters are racists--some of them are just sick of being screwed over by the establishment.  Sanders gets support from people who voted for Obama in 2008 and then went to Trump because they did not trust establishment Dems to do anything for them.  Warren could tap into that same group, but instead she is going to make them feel like Hillary did when she called them all "deplorables."   

nan said:
 Sanders got treated better on FOX than he did on CNN.   

 My conclusion from this is that the pundits at Fox want Bernie to be the nominee more than those at CNN.   I wonder why that is.  Actually no I don’t, none of us do.   

nan said:

drummerboy said:
That reasoning is pure idiocy. (and quite desperate) As if the only way to communicate to the whole country is to appear on Fox as a guest.  Are you saying that Fox viewers won't find out anything (or anything accurate) about Sanders unless he appears at a town hall? Think about that for a second.  If it's not true, then you don't need to appear. If it is true, it means that Fox can't be trusted to report accurately, yet you think you should pretend that they do.

No Dem should appear on Fox. Ever. It is an arm of the Republican party and should never be legitimized in this way.
And Fox viewers can go flock themselves. They are not a pool of potential voters, nor should you want them.

 Sanders got treated better on FOX than he did on CNN.  He was able to make major points about his platform for a wide audience.  CNN had more plants in the audience with loaded questions.  He had to spend most of his time defending himself.   On FOX, they only had one plant that anyone could tell.  I still think Sanders did the right thing by appearing on CNN and FOX.  Why miss an opportunity to get exposure to a large audience?  FOX is bad, but so is CNN/MSNBC. None of them report the news accurately or fairly.  
I think Warren made a mistake by dismissing the opportunity at FOX.  And everyone should be a potential voter--not all Trump voters are racists--some of them are just sick of being screwed over by the establishment.  Sanders gets support from people who voted for Obama in 2008 and then went to Trump because they did not trust establishment Dems to do anything for them.  Warren could tap into that same group, but instead she is going to make them feel like Hillary did when she called them all "deplorables."   

You really just think that Fox and CNN are the same, don't you? Just different points of view.

And you don't understand a darn thing about campaigning. You need to spend your energy on people where there's a reasonable chance of winning them over. By their nature, the number of Fox viewers that are winnable is minuscule - and therefore they are a waste of time. 

To appear during primary season is even dumber, since the number of Fox viewers who might vote in a Dem primary is probably just this side of zero.

On the other hand, by appearing there, a Dem gives Fox an air of respectability that they in no way deserve. So I hope Sanders and the others are proud of the fact that they're helping Fox a lot more than they're helping themselves.