And yet four battleground states (AZ, MI, NV, WI) that voted for Trump also voted for Democratic senators.
But you can’t buy entire leading social media platforms, TV networks, local television stations (I’m talking Sinclair media), etc. and other very visible 24/7 propaganda/misinformation outlets.
This is a great thread, to me, because I have been putting these kinds of parts together here and there and I just get “Russia Russia Russia” stuck in my head.
…thats the thing I don’t get.
The Democrats lost the senate.
It was a total disaster.
Its the nightmare scenario. Losing the senate, the executive, probably the house and the supremes.
And yet…what are you trying to tell me here? That this is somehow a win? The result of some grand Democrat strategy?
Or were these already popular senators, who had been working hard in their states, had a decent profile, and were always going to win? I don’t know the specifics. But whatever the hell the plan was for the Democrats to win the senate, it didn’t go very well.
…thats the thing. If you want to talk propaganda, and you want to talk foreign interference, then look how much Israel-aligned organisations put into this election on both sides. That a single country is even on a list of things that include “gun control” and “abortion policy” should be enough to give one pause. I think the lobby had an outsized influence on this election, including helping to primary Bowman and Bush.
Nah. People prefer the reassuring lie.
“Hey, do these carbon-based jeans make my climate crisis look fat?”
“Nah, babe, you’re all good!”
America is a nation where people are raised to consider faith a virtue. People not only know they are being lied to, they consider it a virtue to believe those lies and evil to question them. The more firmly you believe those lies in the face of the evidence, and the stronger that evidence is, the more you demonstrate your faith and the more virtuous you are.
During the past few years. I’ve read maybe a hundred posts here at the Dope saying “my parents [or favorite relatve] used to be moderate, but now whenever I visit they have Foxnews on all day. They have gone down the rabbit hole, and I can no longer discuss politics with them.”
This pops up often, even in non-political contexts, such as threads about Thanksgiving dinner.
The only possibilities I can think of are:
(a). Some people like the lies.
(b). Some people don’t believe that the lies are really lies.
(c). Some people think both sides lie just as much as each other.
(d). Some people acknowledge the lies but don’t care about them since they just figure that, regardless of the lies, there’s more chance Republicans will do something about inflation/immigration/[insert pet cultural issue here] than Democrats will.
My mother is all-in with MAGA. A few years ago, she and I agreed to not discuss politics in each other’s presence, in order to preserve our relationship. It’s the only way she and I can deal with each other. I think the shenanigans around 1/6/21 brought it to a head.
Are you and I siblings?
The Trump years have radicalized my mother for sure.
I think the Democrats’ biggest problem is that they are a big-tent party, and as a result, you’ve got the party line, but you’ve got however many people on either side of that party line saying whatever the hell they feel like, whenever they feel like it. Or voting/not voting for major party initiatives and causing chaos for their own party’s plans.
This looks disorganized and unfocused at best, and downright chaotic and weak at worst to many. If they’re of the opinion that government should get stuff done, this looks like they’re unable to get everyone pointed in the same direction to get it done.
Meanwhile, the GOP’s got their people goose-stepping in sync and saying mostly the same stuff to the media, and looks like they’re much less of a set of cat-herders than the Democratic party leadership looks like.
I think your propaganda asymmetry is part of that. I’m sure there would be a huge debate on what should or shouldn’t be in that flood of propaganda- the far left types would demand lots of progressive stuff, the right-side Democrats would balk, and the people in the middle would be trying to mediate. And as a result, you don’t have the sort of ideological coordination that (IMO) would be needed for a propaganda flood like you describe.
The problem isn’t that the Republicans lie, they always have. The problem is a population preconditioned to believe the lies. Preconditioned by years of Fox News, right-wing preachers, and talk radio. Preconditioned to disregard everything that Democrats say because, and only because it’s Democrats that are saying it. And they’re setting up, through the likes of Joe Rogan, Nick Fuentes, et al to do exactly the same thing to the next generation.
Unless and until Democrats set up a countervailing infostructure they will continue to fight uphill battles winning only when Republicans screw the proverbial pooch.
I think a big part of the problem is that the Democrats could probably win a mandate for most of their agenda, but not from all the same people, who don’t want their issues bundled. Reproductive rights, humane immigration policies, education issues, recognizing non-binary gender, etc. are all things that a lot of people support but that doesn’t mean there’s an overlap in the support. Some people decide that the parts they want come with too much baggage they don’t. For example, I’m convinced that dropping gun control from the Democratic platform (really dropping it, not just making a feeble apology gun owners rightfully don’t believe) would probably earn them enough votes to remain a majority indefinitely.
It was expected- remember it was only a tie to start with. The seats that were up were mostly expected to go GOP.
“I can fix inflation!”
Mind you, not many understand economics.
Yeah, that was the big mistake when Democrats previously held the White House and both Houses of Congress. If they’d brought up a bunch of individual bills, I think they could’ve passed many of them.
It’s not so much preconditioning, as it is the fact that they’ve set up an alternative truth ecosystem. People have basically been gulled into believing that the mainstream media is untrustworthy, heavily biased, and pushing some sort of liberal agenda. Meanwhile, these alternative truth sources position themselves as “fair and balanced” and as sources of truth that aren’t all those things I just said they believe about the mainstream media. And because they already align with what the consumers of these news sources either want to be true, or already believe, it’s that much easier for them to think “Yeah! Global warming IS bullshit! I knew it!” and other things like that. Fighting ignorance it is not.
What makes it almost criminal is that this isn’t some kind of groundswell anti-intellectual/anti-science movement in a vacuum. Instead it’s a long-term orchestrated effort by one side of the political spectrum to shape what the truth is to these people and where it can be found, and then take advantage of that to push “truth” that aligns with their political agenda.
It’s breathtakingly cynical, self-serving, and misanthropic. And it’s extraordinarily hard to combat with the 1st Amendment in place; you can’t prosecute someone for broadcasting bullshit, no matter how untrue.
I think I posted this on another thread, but since there’s quite a bit of overlap …
Of course, we all knew this, but it’s legitimately documented, too.
The memo—called, simply enough,” A Plan For Putting the GOP on TV News"
What – was “Gulling the Rubes” already taken??
This essay gives a good explanation for the dynamic of ‘neutral’ vs conservative institutions:
(TLDR: educated types like journalists and academics lean left, this making the intended-to-be neutral institutions lean left, thus creating a gap in the market that is filled by explicitly right-wing institutions.)
Great post. Focusing on appealing to the voters is simply a better strategy on its face than focusing on changing their minds or morals. Telling people what they want to hear makes them like you, and that makes them more likely to vote for you.
This is nice because it’s actionable: make voters think you care about them by talking sympathetically about them and their problems. Find a minority to scapegoat and blame (traditionally the left has used the rich for this purpose). Right now the closest thing Democrats have to a scapegoat is white men, and that is not a winning move when they make up over a third of the electorate.
To this topic, I really liked Matt Yglesias’s article The hack gap: how and why conservative nonsense dominates American politics (Vox magazine, 2018).
Spoiler: OP is correct, the left needs more hacks.
The #1 mistake Democrats have made, to my view, is treating Republican rhetoric as if it’s in good faith. For example: Ben Shapiro’s tagline is “facts don’t care about your feelings”. Dems think “aha, this means right-wingers care about facts, so we should lean into that”.
This is a mistake, as Shapiro and his ilk are selling nothing but feelings. The #1 feeling they like to experience is that they’re rational while Dems are hysterical. Since that’s not based on reality, there’s no reality-based refutation for it.
I think we can all understand that the answer doesn’t involve asking voters to stare at an inflation chart while an expert audits their grocery receipts to prove that yes, actually, your beliefs are demonstrably false, and you have been fooled by Republicans. It’s a reasonable impulse but obviously it’s failed, and I don’t knolw exactly what would work.
Another part is that they’re not willing to weaponize things, IMO. Like, Biden could have, after the Supreme Court decision, killed all the conservative justices and then threatened congresspeople with the same fate to get his appointees through. He then could’ve passed an anti-packing law, enshrining a 9-0 Dem majority for god knows how many years. And it would all be ok by presumptive immunity. But he didn’t. And that’s why they made the decision. They know making decisions that could threaten their livelihoods (and lives!) won’t be used to under Democratic presidents, because they give the slightest shit about morality. So they feel free to make those decisions.
As for the propaganda thing, that’s fair. I think part of the problem (?) is that Democrats don’t do stuff like threatening deals with Amazon if the Washington Post does something they don’t like—which is how it’s supposed to work. So that means that the WaPo feels free to report on them critically, as does every other newspaper under the sun. But Republicans? Republicans pose a threat to the newsroom (and its owners), so they’re careful about it.