SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the just-line-up-the-sights-on-your-toe-and-squeeeeeeze dept.
Here in the U.S., the presidential election season, like Christmas, seems to start earlier and earlier each time.
In keeping with this, the Democratic National Committee is making waves by announcing that it will exclude Fox News, which has the largest viewership of the major cable news networks by a considerable margin, from debate coverage of DNC presidential candidates.
Thomas Lifson outlines a number of reasons this may not be a good move.
One is that from a historical and strategy perspective:
Presidential debates inevitably favor the challengers. Trump can push them in that direction by agreeing to debates only if Fox News is included. That forces them to either accept FNC or have no debates at all. If they accept, that makes FNC the debate worth watching. The rest are discredited as Democrat "safe spaces,"
And it appears he has pounced and done exactly that from his twitter account:
Democrats just blocked @FoxNews from holding a debate. Good, then I think I’ll do the same thing with the Fake News Networks and the Radical Left Democrats in the General Election debates!
Really all either party has to do is A) not be crazy and/or B) keep their idiot mouths shut to win.
Neither of these seems to be in the cards dealt to either side, so it should be a heck of a ride.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 11 2019, @05:29PM (4 children)
> If the Dems want more votes, they need to excite the people who have been staying home instead of voting. That's a much larger group of people than the Fox News watchers who still have an open mind.
Implying everyone who voted for Trump 1) watches Fox news 2) voted for him because they thought he was just wonderful. That election was very much a "lesser of the two evils" choice.
Though the post you're replying to was put together poorly. To try fix it: If Democrats want more votes, these votes will have to come from people who voted Republican.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 11 2019, @05:55PM (3 children)
So are you saying you would have voted for Sanders if Clinton hadn't fucked him over? Cause personally I think that is highly unlikely. Might as well run on the platform of Unicorn Wrangling.
Rethink this spin-cycle, Bubushka's arms are getting tired and that is one big load that needs cleaning.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 11 2019, @06:34PM (1 child)
If you ignore the socialism, the two had a decently similar message. It was anti-globalist. It favored the American worker.
It makes some sense that one would be a second choice for the other. If you can't get one anti-globalist, go for the other anti-globalist.
People who made this move are fond of posting recent (2019) messages from Bernie in /r/The_Donald. The messages start off asking if a person is still with Bernie, presumably intending to follow with a request for funding. The voters respond in various ways, sometimes funny. There are complaints about 2016 donations being turned over to Her. There are simple "MAGA" responses. Some go on detailed rants about how they've seen the light.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 11 2019, @06:44PM
Ah yes, another fool sucked into the black hole of TD propaganda. So you're answer is a long winded "no", got it.
I imagine you frequent https://old.reddit.com/r/TopMinds [reddit.com]
(Score: 2) by Oakenshield on Monday March 11 2019, @06:57PM
I will proudly state that I had planned to vote for Sanders had he been nominated. I will explain exactly why I stated and stood by my decision: I watched a lot of interviews of the candidates. There were ONLY two candidates that answered each and every question asked of them without deflecting to some totally unrelated bullshit answer; Bernie Sanders and Chris Christie. You may not agree 100% with what either had to say but they admitted their positions and answered directly every single time. At least you knew what to expect. Every single other candidate, without fail, would answer some question that only indirectly related to what they were asked.
I would have voted for either of them. The rest were likely all liars or had something to hide.