The DNC says no debates on FOX

Fox, apparently, just took charge of the Chicken-of-the-Sea house.

mrincredible said:
Sorry to keep carping about this but there's not one sole type of person who watches Fox news. Yes, some of them are crabby old bigots, but some of them are not so crappie. You can try and bunch them all together or you can avoid being such a grouper.
You could say the 2016 election was a fluke of the electoral college system, I suppose. But I'm worried the Dems are just floundering right now and need to try and cast a wider net.

 with all due respect, you're pretty far off base with this. A communication strategy needs to be efficient. And while you are right that there may be reachable voters watching Fox News, they aren't there in significant numbers. A Democratic candidate who spent an equivalent effort at registering young voters and people of color and then making sure they turned up would likely be tremendously more successful than a candidate spending effort on trying to reach Fox viewers. 

I wouldn’t take mrincredible’s last post too littorally. He sounded preoctopied.

Reading these comments one would think that people who watch Fox news can not find their remote control, and are too lazy to get up and change the channel if they really wanted to watch the Democratic primary debates....

ml1 said:

mrincredible said:
Sorry to keep carping about this but there's not one sole type of person who watches Fox news. Yes, some of them are crabby old bigots, but some of them are not so crappie. You can try and bunch them all together or you can avoid being such a grouper.
You could say the 2016 election was a fluke of the electoral college system, I suppose. But I'm worried the Dems are just floundering right now and need to try and cast a wider net.

 with all due respect, you're pretty far off base with this. A communication strategy needs to be efficient. And while you are right that there may be reachable voters watching Fox News, they aren't there in significant numbers. A Democratic candidate who spent an equivalent effort at registering young voters and people of color and then making sure they turned up would likely be tremendously more successful than a candidate spending effort on trying to reach Fox viewers. 

 I think he's more lost at sea than off base.

DaveSchmidt said:
I wouldn’t take mrincredible’s last post too littorally. He sounded preoctopied.

 sometimes I get sucked into the argument regardless

Jaytee said:
Reading these comments one would think that people who watch Fox news can not find their remote control, and are too lazy to get up and change the channel if they really wanted to watch the Democratic primary debates....

 Just to add to this point.  Sure, there are Democrats, independents, and other non-Trump voters who watch programs on Fox News.  But they don't rely on Fox as their main or exclusive source for news.  They change the channel.

This thread has, ahem, jumped the shark.

nohero said:
 Just to add to this point.  Sure, there are Democrats, independents, and other non-Trump voters who watch programs on Fox News.  But they don't rely on Fox as their main or exclusive source for news.  They change the channel.

I haven't looked at the numbers in a few years, but I used to have a job that required me to know the profile of the Fox News audience.  I can't believe it's changed much, and in fact given the even more strident tone and the full-on Trump propaganda of FNC, it's probably even more extreme.  But here are some facts from a few years ago.  The median age of the FNC audience is very, very old.  Like 75 years old.  For those who are statistics shy, that means half their audience is older than 75.  And their network tended to reach fewer people in a week or a month than its competitors.  TV ratings are an average minute audience, so you can garner a high rating by having a whole lot of people tune in for a moderate amount of time, or you can have a moderately sized audience tune in for a boatload of time.  FNC tends to be the latter.

So why should any Democrat waste time on a network that has a relatively small core audience made up of a demographic that is far outside your own core set of voters?  And that's leaving aside the fact that the editorial content of the network is insanely slanted Trump propaganda, that could be argued is fully intended to fuel the worst racist, misogynistic and xenophobic inclinations in their audience.

IMHO, there's more goodwill to be gained among the core Democratic constituencies by making a display of stiff-arming FNC than there is to be gained among its viewers.

ml1 said:

But here are some facts from a few years ago.  The median age of the FNC audience is very, very old.  Like 75 years old.  

Figures from 2017. Fox News median age in prime time: 66. MSNBC: 65. CNN: 59.

https://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/heres-the-median-age-of-the-typical-cable-news-viewer/355379

The_Soulful_Mr_T said:
This thread has, ahem, jumped the shark.

Piker.

DaveSchmidt said:
Figures from 2017. Fox News median age in prime time: 66. MSNBC: 65. CNN: 59.
https://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/heres-the-median-age-of-the-typical-cable-news-viewer/355379

thanks.  I'm realizing it's probably 8-9 years since I had day-to-day knowledge of the Fox audience, and it looks as though it is actually getting  "younger."  It's now median age of 65.  But the point about it being an old audience is still true (and true for the other news networks as well.)  But another salient point I had left out is that the Fox News audience is 94% white.  And elderly white people are not the DNC voter target.

https://www.cheatsheet.com/entertainment/how-old-is-the-average-fox-news-viewer-in-america.html/

DaveSchmidt said:

ml1 said:

But here are some facts from a few years ago.  The median age of the FNC audience is very, very old.  Like 75 years old.  

Figures from 2017. Fox News median age in prime time: 66. MSNBC: 65. CNN: 59.
https://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/heres-the-median-age-of-the-typical-cable-news-viewer/355379

Interesting. Fox skews older but the median in general is eligible to withdraw from their 401k. Not surprising though given the shift in how people, especially these kids today, are getting their news. (Citation needed)

DaveSchmidt said:
I was told to never mix Guinness with Bass. Talk about bad politics.

 You’re totally missing out on this deliciousness...

https://youtu.be/3JlRIzYBqjc

ridski said:

 You’re totally missing out on this deliciousness...
https://youtu.be/3JlRIzYBqjc

Just as delicious, and in all regards more harmonious (or so I was admonished), with a pour of Harp.

Former DNC Chair Donna Brazile is now a Fox News contributor. Her statement makes sense:

https://variety.com/2019/tv/news/donna-brazile-joins-fox-news-as-contributor-1203165558/

“I’m delighted to be joining Fox News. I know I’m going to get criticized from my friends in the progressive movement for being on Fox News. My response is that, if we’ve learned anything from the 2016 election, it is that we can’t have a country where we don’t talk to those who disagree with our political views. There’s an audience on Fox News that doesn’t hear enough from Democrats. We have to engage that audience and show Americans of every stripe what we stand for rather than retreat into our ‘safe spaces’ where we simply agree with each other. For there is no safety in self-limiting numbers,” Brazile said in a statement. “You can be darn sure that I’m still going to be me on Fox News. I’m going to do what I always do: and dish it out straight, exactly as I see it, with just as much New Orleans hot sauce as folks expect.”

paulsurovell said:
Former DNC Chair Donna Brazile is now a Fox News contributor. Her statement makes sense:
https://variety.com/2019/tv/news/donna-brazile-joins-fox-news-as-contributor-1203165558/

“

 "It's all about the Benjamins, baby".

paulsurovell said:
Former DNC Chair Donna Brazile is now a Fox News contributor. Her statement makes sense:

Only in a rational world that doesn't actually exist.  FNC is not simply a place where the commentators disagree with her, and the viewers watch in a good faith effort to be informed. She's going to be a Fox useful idiot for their propaganda channel, window dressing they can point to and say "Look we ARE fair and balanced, we've got Donna Brazile!"

I can't believe Brazile is really that naive, so I have to believe FNC is paying her a lot of money to do this.

paulsurovell said:
Former DNC Chair Donna Brazile is now a Fox News contributor. Her statement makes sense:
https://variety.com/2019/tv/news/donna-brazile-joins-fox-news-as-contributor-1203165558/

 ...and rational too.

ooh. A new Alan Colmes.

ml1 said:

paulsurovell said:
Former DNC Chair Donna Brazile is now a Fox News contributor. Her statement makes sense:

Only in a rational world that doesn't actually exist.  FNC is not simply a place where the commentators disagree with her, and the viewers watch in a good faith effort to be informed. She's going to be a Fox useful idiot for their propaganda channel, window dressing they can point to and say "Look we ARE fair and balanced, we've got Donna Brazile!"
I can't believe Brazile is really that naive, so I have to believe FNC is paying her a lot of money to do this.

Worse than that. Everything she says will be refuted by other commentators, with lies if need be. So if she says the crime rate for illegals is low then someone else will refute with some heart tugging story of an American killed by some illegal.

They'll work to make her look stupid. The Fox base will eat it up, look at that stupid Democrat, boy, I'm glad I'm not a Democrat.

Well, I'm going to give this a try.

If drummerboy is right, then there's nothing to lose by Donna Brazile occasionally appearing on FNC.

But maybe there's a chance that within the millions of Fox viewers out there there a few, maybe a single percent, might just listen to what she has to say.  Maybe that makes it all worth it.  For the sake of future elections but also the future of the country.  

Maybe she got a boatload of money.  She's an easy target who Fox could call out for her connections to Hilary Clinton.  Or maybe she's going into the lion's den with the best of intentions.

All right.  Come at me.

mrincredible said:
Well, I'm going to give this a try.
If drummerboy is right, then there's nothing to lose by Donna Brazile occasionally appearing on FNC.
But maybe there's a chance that within the millions of Fox viewers out there there a few, maybe a single percent, might just listen to what she has to say.  Maybe that makes it all worth it.  For the sake of future elections but also the future of the country.  
Maybe she got a boatload of money.  She's an easy target who Fox could call out for her connections to Hilary Clinton.  Or maybe she's going into the lion's den with the best of intentions.
All right.  Come at me.

 how many voters would Donald Trump gain by courting Mother Jones and Daily Kos readers?

It's that kind of stupid for Democrats to kowtow to FNC

If either of those organizations were willing to pay a Trump supporter to present his side of things, I think they'd be fools not to try it. Like I said, would it really harm Trump if a prominent supporter took such a job?

Said person would be making money.

If anything it would be like Mother Jones or the Daily Kos letting .... What's the name of the animal that breaks into henhouses?

it's a distraction. The election will be won or lost for the Democrats based on how many more young people or people of color they turn out. It's WAY more likely they can get 2-3% more young people than they'll get any Fox viewers.

Y'all are totally barking up the wrong tree with this nutty idea of reaching out to Fox News viewers. 

ml1 said:
 how many voters would Donald Trump gain by courting Mother Jones and Daily Kos readers?
It's that kind of stupid for Democrats to kowtow to FNC

 Those publications print all his **** for free. 

ml1 said:
it's a distraction. The election will be won or lost for the Democrats based on how many more young people or people of color they turn out. It's WAY more likely they can get 2-3% more young people than they'll get any Fox viewers.
Y'all are totally barking up the wrong tree with this nutty idea of reaching out to Fox News viewers. 

 It's true. You don't need deplorable's to win an election.  oh wait...

lord_pabulum said:
 It's true. You don't need deplorable's to win an election.  oh wait...

Trump needed the EC, not deplorables, to win.

Read the papers.

drummerboy said:

lord_pabulum said:
 It's true. You don't need deplorable's to win an election.  oh wait...

Trump needed the EC, not deplorables, to win.
Read the papers.

 Wrong.  Read the papers and look at voting in the swing states.

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.