2024 U.S. Elections | Trump v Harris

Mike Smalling said:
I definitely think a Senate run is on the cards. She'd be vilified to the extreme if she ran for POTUS though, which I'm sure she's aware of. She ticks so many boxes for the Republicans - woman, person of color, New Yorker, leftist (at least to begin with), etc. It would be a spectacle for sure, but I don't think she'd ever win the Democratic primaries.
Click to expand...
As a sort of side note, this sort of thinking is why I'm kinda happy Harris got her chance the way she did. If there had been primaries without Biden this time, all these arguments would have come up: women, person colour (mixed race, is that worse?), California, too close to Biden, and whatever else. She would likely have been described by analysts and many of the other candidates as having no chance in actual elections. Yet now that she's here, it's clear for all to see that she definitely does stand a great chance at winning the elections.

I'm not saying AOC is the same; she is (was?) much further to the left, which obviously isn't widely popular in the US. But everything else reminds me of what I've been thinking these past few weeks: that it's good that Harris got her chance this was, cause it might have been the only way someone with her profile could have made it through. And now it's clear for all to see that many of those traditionalist arguments don't actually fly. I hope another glass ceiling has been broken this way.
 
Carolina Red said:
Click to expand...

his inner monologue after that
chael-sonnen-v0-6ca9v7uuhl9d1.jpeg
 
Morty_ said:
Serves him right, he made his bet, now he has to stick by it, good stuff.
Click to expand...
I like how DNC is handling it they are clearly undermining him personally. While still reaching out to the rank and file Teamsters by having Kamala do round tables
 
ManUtd1999 said:
In which country someone like Trump has at least a 50% chance of winning? I’m not just talking about someone from the far right, but a convicted felon, etc.
Click to expand...

The circumstances of his conviction, as well as the right wing media ecosystem, mean that half the country thinks it was politically motivated.

Apart from Dictatorships like Russia or China where media is controlled by government, do other countries have a "Fox News" equivalent who are happy to lie to their viewership?
 
gaffs said:
The circumstances of his conviction, as well as the right wing media ecosystem, mean that half the country thinks it was politically motivated.

Apart from Dictatorships like Russia or China where media is controlled by government, do other countries have a "Fox News" equivalent who are happy to lie to their viewership?
Click to expand...

Would surprise me. Not with that kind of audience either way.
 
I was about to say, I put the majority of the mess the US is in firmly on Fox News, and the elimination of whatever that SC ruling that said news had to be news.

I honestly don't think I could even be in a room with someone who had ever worked for Fox News. Some of the worst scum on Earth. Becaues you know they're smart, and capable, and yet do this for a living.
 
Beachryan said:
I was about to say, I put the majority of the mess the US is in firmly on Fox News, and the elimination of whatever that SC ruling that said news had to be news.

I honestly don't think I could even be in a room with someone who had ever worked for Fox News. Some of the worst scum on Earth. Becaues you know they're smart, and capable, and yet do this for a living.
Click to expand...
Don't forget the online & AM radio effect, goes all tbe back to Rush, Liddy, & Savage.
 
gaffs said:
The circumstances of his conviction, as well as the right wing media ecosystem, mean that half the country thinks it was politically motivated.

Apart from Dictatorships like Russia or China where media is controlled by government, do other countries have a "Fox News" equivalent who are happy to lie to their viewership?
Click to expand...
More than you think. Doesn't the UK have a populist channel now? And there is certainly a lot of that in Australia, where Murdoch started his evil empire. And that's just immediately off the top of my head.
 
The Republican Party got around 72 million votes in the last election. Fox News never breaks the 10 million viewer mark. The numbers just don’t add up for the “brainwashing” argument.
 
Sweet Square said:
The Republican Party got around 72 million votes in the last election. Fox News never breaks the 10 million viewer mark. The numbers just don’t add up for the “brainwashing” argument.
Click to expand...
Fox shouldn't be looked at as a sole participant, toss in online & AM radio freaks then you are defo getting much closer to the 72 million number.
 
Sweet Square said:
The Republican Party got around 72 million votes in the last election. Fox News never breaks the 10 million viewer mark. The numbers just don’t add up for the “brainwashing” argument.
Click to expand...
I can't actually find the annual figure, but the 10m looks monthly to me. I guess there aren't that many more that would only see it one month though. Agreed on the AM radio stuff. Plus all the local Sinclair empire.

Can't knock the right-wing propoganda work over the past two decades.
 
calodo2003 said:
Fox shouldn't be looked at as a sole participant, toss in online & AM radio freaks then you are defo getting much closer to the 72 million number.
Click to expand...

Plus echo chambers at churches/bars/PTA meetings/neighbours/friends/families

Legacy voters, generations who vote the same way as their parents did and always will.

Voters who don't see the point of voting for anyone else but have been brainwashed into believing their vote matters still and it's patriotic/nationalistic to do so (something more likely to appeal to those on the right)
 
calodo2003 said:
Fox shouldn't be looked at as a sole participant, toss in online & AM radio freaks then you are defo getting much closer to the 72 million number.
Click to expand...
Beachryan said:
I can't actually find the annual figure, but the 10m looks monthly to me. I guess there aren't that many more that would only see it one month though. Agreed on the AM radio stuff. Plus all the local Sinclair empire.

Can't knock the right-wing propoganda work over the past two decades.
Click to expand...

Even that 10 million number doesn't accurately account for the reach of Fox News since I've seen restaurants, coffee shops, truck stops, barbershops, hair/nail salons, medical waiting rooms, etc all have Fox News on the television. So even if these places are Nielson households (which I doubt any of them are) each business is still reaching dozens (or more) people every day that won't be technically counted as a viewer. So in short @Sweet Square, Fox News alone has an exponentially greater reach than just the Nielson viewership number and the entire media ecosystem easily reaches over 100 million every month.
 
Cheimoon said:
More than you think. Doesn't the UK have a populist channel now? And there is certainly a lot of that in Australia, where Murdoch started his evil empire. And that's just immediately off the top of my head.
Click to expand...

I think there are some nutty UK news channels cropping up, but they don't have the reach that Fox News does. Cant speak for Australia.
 
calodo2003 said:
Fox shouldn't be looked at as a sole participant, toss in online & AM radio freaks then you are defo getting much closer to the 72 million number.
Click to expand...
Online is too vague Imo. It can be consumed by anyone in the world and then there’s cases like Daily Mail website which is a right wing website but there’s plenty of people who just use it for celebrity gossip.

Fair point on the AM radio stuff.

oneniltothearsenal said:
Even that 10 million number doesn't accurately account for the reach of Fox News since I've seen restaurants, coffee shops, truck stops, barbershops, hair/nail salons, medical waiting rooms, etc all have Fox News on the television. So even if these places are Nielson households (which I doubt any of them are) each business is still reaching dozens (or more) people every day that won't be technically counted as a viewer. So in short @Sweet Square, Fox News alone has an exponentially greater reach than just the Nielson viewership number and the entire media ecosystem easily reaches over 100 million every month.
Click to expand...
True but imo when counting background noise in places like coffee shops, truck stops, barbershops, hair/nail salons, medical waiting rooms, etc then we are close to living in a John Carpenter horror film. Where the televisions in dentist waiting rooms are beaming signals into people brains which turns them into Republican zombies.

We don’t really know numbers or the effects on this background noise. At least with Fox News viewers the liberal argument of media brainwashing has some weight.

The media definitely plays a part but it’s exaggerated. Economic factors like class position or home ownership also play a role(Bigger one imo). Although that’s a Marxist argument vs a liberal one about ideas.
 
gaffs said:
I think there are some nutty UK news channels cropping up, but they don't have the reach that Fox News does. Cant speak for Australia.
Click to expand...

Sky News Australia is very conservative, I believe.
 
Sweet Square said:
Online is too vague Imo. It can be consumed by anyone in the world and then there’s cases like Daily Mail website which is a right wing website but there’s plenty of people who just use it for celebrity gossip.

Fair point on the AM radio stuff.


True but imo when counting background noise in places like coffee shops, truck stops, barbershops, hair/nail salons, medical waiting rooms, etc then we are close to living in a John Carpenter horror film. Where the televisions in dentist waiting rooms are beaming signals into people brains which turns them into Republican zombies.

We don’t really know numbers or the effects on this background noise. At least with Fox News viewers the liberal argument of media brainwashing has some weight.

The media definitely plays a part but it’s exaggerated. Economic factors like class position or home ownership also play a role(Bigger one imo). Although that’s a Marxist argument vs a liberal one about ideas.
Click to expand...
I hear ya, but you cannot discount the Shapiros et al, especially the real niche feckers, who derive their fans through their rhetoric, rhetoric which would turn off day trippers, etc. Here's an interesting read which actually calls us both right...

https://www.wired.com/story/media-echo-chamber-extremism/
 
matherto said:
Plus echo chambers at churches/bars/PTA meetings/neighbours/friends/families

Legacy voters, generations who vote the same way as their parents did and always will.

Voters who don't see the point of voting for anyone else but have been brainwashed into believing their vote matters still and it's patriotic/nationalistic to do so (something more likely to appeal to those on the right)
Click to expand...
Great first point, those mini echo chambers are virtually impossible to quantify, both in number & detriment.
 
calodo2003 said:
I hear ya, but you cannot discount the Shapiros et al, especially the real niche feckers, who derive their fans through their rhetoric, rhetoric which would turn off day trippers, etc. Here's an interesting read which actually calls us both right...

https://www.wired.com/story/media-echo-chamber-extremism/
Click to expand...
Tbh for my own sanity I’m hoping people really don’t believe really these idiots. Although your most likely correct.

Thanks for the article. I’ll give it a read.
 
George Karl is putting together a 'Hoops for Harris' call slated for next month.

Elon already temporarily suspended the Twitter account.
 
Doing one of two things is as despicable as they come;

A) pressuring the Fed to keep interest high to depress potential voters
B) pressuring a foreign leader to prolong a war, killing thousands in the meantime, to increase chances of being elected president

Somehow Trump can seemingly get away with doing both. A disgusting indictment on the American electorate.
 
Sweet Square said:
Online is too vague Imo. It can be consumed by anyone in the world and then there’s cases like Daily Mail website which is a right wing website but there’s plenty of people who just use it for celebrity gossip.

Fair point on the AM radio stuff.


True but imo when counting background noise in places like coffee shops, truck stops, barbershops, hair/nail salons, medical waiting rooms, etc then we are close to living in a John Carpenter horror film. Where the televisions in dentist waiting rooms are beaming signals into people brains which turns them into Republican zombies.

We don’t really know numbers or the effects on this background noise. At least with Fox News viewers the liberal argument of media brainwashing has some weight.

The media definitely plays a part but it’s exaggerated. Economic factors like class position or home ownership also play a role(Bigger one imo). Although that’s a Marxist argument vs a liberal one about ideas.
Click to expand...

I think that's a bit of an exaggerated version of it but it absolutely has an effect. It's a way ideas spread through repetition so people will say something they "heard somewhere" and not remember because it was the background noise in a waiting room or coffee shop. Just this weekend I was talking to a black business owner, who claimed to never listen to Fox News, but repeated some of the same stuff you hear "Kamala Harris never claimed to be black until this election cycle, she's always claimed to be Indian". That's just one example from two days ago and I've heard a lot of that over the years including others recently that are not home owners or business owners repeating the same type of stuff from the Kamala lines to other culture war stuff like "public education pushes the trans/alphabet people agenda on our kids".

Stuff like that is very common if you interact with people, even here in Los Angeles, and it has nothing to do with home ownership, it's definitely the direct and indirect media they listen to and are influenced by. Its not the exaggerated "brain washing" of your bolded but it's 100% in line with cognitive framing research from people like George Lakoff - which you can find in books like Moral Politics. Lakoff also has pointed out (20 years ago) why conservative messaging was superior to those on the left because they had people like Frank Luntz who was a master at running many focus groups, finding out what language people responded to, and then adopting and weaponizing that language to fit their frames. Its a technique that's been proven to work and something the left has eschewed for decades despite Lakoff advising Kerry's campaign for a hot minute.
 
Last edited:
oneniltothearsenal said:
I think that's a bit of an exaggerated version of it but it absolutely has an effect. It's a way ideas spread through repetition so people will say something they "heard somewhere" and not remember because it was the background noise in a waiting room or coffee shop. Just this weekend I was talking to a black business owner, who claimed to never listen to Fox News, but repeated some of the same stuff you hear "Kamala Harris never claimed to be black until this election cycle, she's always claimed to be Indian". That's just one example from two days ago and I've heard a lot of that over the years. Stuff like that is very common if you interact with people, even here in Los Angeles, and it has nothing to do with home ownership
Click to expand...
I would say this guy is petite bourgeoisie. The most reactionary type of person in the economy. Wanting to be a large capitalist but also in fear of failing and turning into a worker.

Imo this person will always likely be a conservative. But I guess it’s a chicken or egg situation.

oneniltothearsenal said:
Its not the exaggerated "brain washing" of your bolded but it's 100% in line with cognitive framing research from people like George Lakoff - which you can find in books like Moral Politics. Lakoff also has pointed out (20 years ago) why conservative messaging was superior to those on the left because they had people like Frank Luntz who was a master at running many focus groups, finding out what language people responded to, and then adopting and weaponizing that language to fit their frames. Its a technique that's been proven to work and something the left has eschewed for decades despite Lakoff advising Kerry's campaign for a hot minute.
Click to expand...
I’m not saying media doesn’t matter but the arguments about media influence always heavily fall on the ways it effects conservative voters. But it should be same for the liberals, right ?


Is liberalism weaponizing lanague to fit a certain democratic frame ? How do you know your politics aren’t just from watching liberal news outlets ?
 
Sweet Square said:
I would say this guy is petite bourgeoisie. The most reactionary type of person in the economy. Wanting to be a large capitalist but also in fear of failing and turning into a worker.

Imo this person will always likely be a conservative. But I guess it’s a chicken or egg situation.


I’m not saying media doesn’t matter but the arguments about media influence always heavily fall on the ways it effects conservative voters. But it should be same for the liberals, right ?


Is liberalism weaponizing lanague to fit a certain democratic frame ? How do you know your politics aren’t just from watching liberal news outlets ?
Click to expand...
This is leaning into a "both sides" argument. And I would say that most "mainstream media" cannot be thrown into the same pool as right wing, Fox News. Those outlets outright lie. There can be arguments that the "left leaning" outlets maybe come after trump etc or ask harsh questions perhaps.

Maybe perspectives are more critical of GOP positions. But, it isn't outright lies and propaganda. These fox shows are basically trump and GOP campaign shows. And the radio, podcast realm of right wing media is conspiracy fairy land and racist, homophobic paradise. I literally had to stop going to lunch with some of the more trumpy co workers. One of them constantly had his right wing podcasts on and that was some INSANE crap they listen too. I am typing this from my 'black job' as trump would say. I can confidently say my politics and opinion on trump wasn't from any "liberal news outlet".
 
Sweet Square said:
The Republican Party got around 72 million votes in the last election. Fox News never breaks the 10 million viewer mark. The numbers just don’t add up for the “brainwashing” argument.
Click to expand...

A good observation. The amount of votes Trump got (which was actually 74.2m) was more than any other candidate in history other than what Biden got the same year.

Only a small amount of that number are what we may consider brainwashed MAGA voters. The rest are ordinary Republicans and Independents.

It also suggests that it is a common fallacy that most people vote based purely on policy. They clearly also vote on culture and identity ("does x candidate represent me and the culture I come from?" etc).
 
Sweet Square said:
I would say this guy is petite bourgeoisie. The most reactionary type of person in the economy. Wanting to be a large capitalist but also in fear of failing and turning into a worker.

Imo this person will always likely be a conservative. But I guess it’s a chicken or egg situation.
Click to expand...

Except I've heard the exact same lines from people that are not homeowners and are not business owners. From servers to construction workers, I've heard these exact same culture war line. I'd go even further than Raoul and just say in the US people vote on identity and cultural frames not along these "worker vs capitalist" lines that you are implying.

Sweet Square said:
I’m not saying media doesn’t matter but the arguments about media influence always heavily fall on the ways it effects conservative voters. But it should be same for the liberals, right ?


Is liberalism weaponizing lanague to fit a certain democratic frame ? How do you know your politics aren’t just from watching liberal news outlets ?
Click to expand...

First, as I mentioned the conservative side has studied language and its influence through people like Frank Luntz and conducting focus groups for 30 years, refining their language and testing what words work and what doesn't. Liberals/leftists have not done this. Back in 2004, when Lakoff was trying to do this for the Democrats during the Kerry campaign, they listened to him for a few months but eventually, the Clinton crew tossed him out and eschewed these types of focus groups because they believed all that mattered was their polling and how their economic policy was "obviously" better for the average person. Lakoff used to teach graduate seminars on precisely this issue and it was very eye-opening how far ahead the right was in this issue. This works because as Raoul said and both Lakoff's research and voters have proven, people don't vote on economic self-interest, they vote on identity and cultural frames which is why the "alphabet people are teaching our kids to be trans" and "Kamala Harris never claimed to be black, only Indian" works on people that are not "petite bourgeoisie" just as easily as those that are. Trump's iteration has simplified Luntz' style and dumbed it down instinctually to a more base level of pure identity and culture, which will hurt the right in the long run after Trump is gone, but for now, Trump is effective at instinctively knowing how to tap into that for the "average" person.

Second, I have a friend whose mom watches nothing but MSNBC and he says she is a bit like a Dem version of a Fox News view. If someone is constantly listening to MSNBC, even if the Dems are way less capable of weaponizing fear and using language than the right, they still end up parroting party lines and replicating those politics. So it does have an effect it's just less effective for the reason above.
 
Last edited:
Beachryan said:
I was about to say, I put the majority of the mess the US is in firmly on Fox News, and the elimination of whatever that SC ruling that said news had to be news.

I honestly don't think I could even be in a room with someone who had ever worked for Fox News. Some of the worst scum on Earth. Becaues you know they're smart, and capable, and yet do this for a living.
Click to expand...
This. Astonishing the damage they have done.
 
MrMarcello said:
This started the movement which led to Fox News. I believe Ailes had stated such many times and Murdoch was happy enough to rake in the money. Ailes truly believed in his bullshit.
Click to expand...

Even back in the 80s there was a widely held perception on the right that the msm were slanted lib and the right had a market that no news outlet was catering to. That is one of the reasons Rush took off the way he did on radio. Once Ailes left CNBC for Fox, he basically just did for TV what Limbaugh and one or two other early hosts did on radio.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.