I am sick of hearing those who claim what the "Mainstream" is

[inthebrain]

It's an old and tired act that's taken flight in politics over the last 10-20 years. It's focus group and poll driven politics. In essence, it's complete garbage!!!

This is the same methodology that's watered down Hollywood, Music and the arts. Getting a group of people together who only represent their own opinions and claiming they represent everyone else. This is what poses for "mainstream thought" in America.

Meanwhile, those same hollywood, record companies, artists and political parties have produced nothing but crap. I for one am sick and tired of it. Shall we have a look at those that have defied convential wisdom in American and are revered for what they have accomplished?

Real change in not built on this kind of thinking. It's the thinking that supports the status quo and keeps mediocrity in society as the standard bearer. Hence you get a group of politicians in the beltway that are taught to smile to the camera until their face falls off.

Not to mention the fact that the "mainstream" doesn't exist. American political thought ranges in all directions and most think of mainstream pandering as nothing more than a cheap gimic. What people really respect are those that rebel against what we see as "conventional wisdom"; Those that advocate what is perceived as unpopular and willing to take risks.

Nobody knows what the "mainstream" is because the "mainstream" does not exist.

[JeffR]

1. Doggonit, inthebrain

As a pot-smoking, peace-loving, tree-hugging, guitar-playing old guy, I know what "mainstream" is:

ME:smoke:

[flaminbats]

3. that's the spirit!!

mainstream..man it just feels soo good!! :hippie::hippie:

[JeffR]

5. Testify!

:kick:

[flaminbats]

6. yikes..don't get me into too much trouble!

[inthebrain]

11. lol

[Kutjara]

2. Very well put!

The companies that run polls and focus groups all make one assumption: that you can mash, blend and pulverize the opinions of individuals, and that the resulting grey goo will be representative of the 'mainstream.' That's tantamount to saying that you can put 100 people through a meatgrinder and the result will be Mr. Average.

Back in 1993, the UK division of Ford was busy designing the replacement for the extremely popular Escort model. They relied extensively on focus groups (crowing that the new Escort would be the most 'focus-grouped' product ever made), and based their design decisions on what 'the people want.' The whole project cost around $3 billion. The result? An enormous flop that cost another $1 billion to put right. The focus groups told Ford they wanted fuel economy, carrying capacity, safety, five doors, a cup holder and fluffy carpets. So Ford produced a car of breathtaking tedium. Of course, what people really wanted was a sexy, fast, fun car that made driving a joy. But that never made it to the focus groups.

The problem with polls and focus groups is that what people say they want is rarely what they really want. So, even if there was a mainstream, it wouldn't be the mainstream that focus groups and polls think it is.

[inthebrain]

8. I often wonder why Democrats don't go after non voters

I think this focus group strategy is killing them. Republicans are steeped in it and can at least get the media to do their bidding. I'd say that helps them even though they are wrong on just about every issue.

Meanwhile, more than 50% are shut out and don't vote.

[LWolf]

12. I wonder the same thing.

I know so many non-voters, former voters, and 3rd party voters who would participate if they were given somebody to vote for that would actually address issues right where they live.

[inthebrain]

20. I think much has to do with monied influence

[MADem]

4. Well, then you will appreciate this article!

http://64.226.238.78/PA/pk/pk224.shtml

Nonsense and Sensibility
By Paul Krugman
The New York Times
Published: August 11, 2006

After Ned Lamont's victory in Connecticut, I saw a number of commentaries describing Joe Lieberman not just as a "centrist" — a word that has come to mean "someone who makes excuses for the Bush administration" — but as "sensible." But on what planet would Mr. Lieberman be considered sensible?

Take a look at Thomas Ricks's "Fiasco," the best account yet of how the U.S. occupation of Iraq was mismanaged. The prime villain in that book is Donald Rumsfeld, whose delusional thinking and penchant for power games undermined whatever chances for success the United States might have had. Then read Mr. Lieberman's May 2004 op-ed article in The Wall Street Journal, "Let Us Have Faith," in which he urged Mr. Rumsfeld not to resign over the Abu Ghraib scandal, because his removal "would delight foreign and domestic opponents of America's presence in Iraq."

And that's just one example of Mr. Lieberman's bad judgment. He has been wrong at every step of the march into the Iraq quagmire — all the while accusing anyone who disagreed with him of endangering national security. Again, on what planet would Mr. Lieberman be considered "sensible"? But I know the answer: on Planet Beltway.

Many of those lamenting Mr. Lieberman's defeat claim that they fear a takeover of our political parties by extremists. But if political polarization were really their main concern, they'd be as exercised about the primary challenge from the right facing Lincoln Chafee as they are about Mr. Lieberman's woes. In fact, however, the sound of national commentary on the Rhode Island race is that of crickets chirping. ....

Hey, the paradigm is shifting. The bastard talking heads on the telly-vision had just better plunk their asses down in front of them there computers, read the blogs, see the "new way" information flows, and git with the damn program, or be....

LEFT BEHIND......!!!

http://www.on2.com.nyud.net:8090/cms-data/images/Austin_Powers_512k_standard.JPG

The "New Media" is the real RAPTURE, baybee!!! YEAH!

[inthebrain]

7. Mainstream thought is usually an individuals

personal opinion that they pass off as everyone elses. We see this very often in politics.

Then when we look at the living situtations of routines of our daily lives it's easy to see that they differ. Look at the economic factors that make up those that make those claims. They are mostly uppercrust people making millions of dollars. That's not reflective of the majority.

Those that scream about the far left are mainly radical righties trying to claim the highground on political thought. Mainly consisting of upper crust rich guys.

Focus groups are mainly people stuck in a room, too afraid to say what they really think.

[Major Hogwash]

10. Jesus, great post, MADem.

Krugman hit the nail right on the head.

[MADem]

17. He sure does, dunn'e??

I like your name--it makes me remember fondly my decades of military service!! Though truth to tell, we most frequently encountered Major Asshole, Private Ambition, Corporal Punishment and General Nuisance and welcomed the rare appearance by Colonel O'Truth!!!

[xchrom]

9. ''mainstream'' american lingo for finding the

LOWEST COMMON DENOMINATOR -- and passing that off as something admirable or that should be emulated.

when in fact it's soulless and an excuse to rush for the milky, tasteless, bland as pablum bottom.

[inthebrain]

21. And that's what Republicans have done with Taxes

They've latched onto the fact that a good chunk of people hate paying them and find them intrusive. There are also people who hate getting paid shit wages and being forced to work 60-80 hours a week.

Republicans have done a fabulous job of lying to people that they cut their taxes. Many working class folks seriously believe that every tax cut meassure put in place benefits them in their paychecks.

Democrats would do better to address the fact that folks are overworked and under paid.

[welshTerrier2]

13. slightly different perspective on this

i basically agree with the OP but i wanted to broaden the perspective a little ...

let's start with the simple model that there are two views: one is the status quo ... this is where we are now and it represents the "common wisdom" ... the other is a view of where we want to go ...

the proponents of the second group are "change agents" ... they propose new ideas and new solutions and an alternative to the status quo ... when their ideas are first introduced, they represent a minority view ... it takes time and effort to bring about change ...

so, to call an idea that differs from the mainstream as "fringe" in a negative context is absurd ... it's like calling any new idea "fringe" ... it's like saying "don't present new ideas because they are unpopular" ...

this is truly crazy ... leadership is about generating real solutions to the problems we face and then educating the population about their viability ... that should be the most important mission of political parties ... lately, it seems like the major parties have it all back-asswards ... we stick our fingers in the wind to decide where the "mainstream" is ... perhaps that might win an election or two but it sure as hell is poor leadership and it sure as hell won't solve the country's serious problems ...

but i don't quite agree with the OP's statement: "Not to mention the fact that the "mainstream" doesn't exist." ... as change agents, our job should not be to "go to" the mainstream but rather to move the mainstream to embrace the changes we envision ...

so, there are really two different issues here ... one focuses on what we should expect from our political "leaders" ... they should not be constrained by cowardly adherence to where they believe the "mainstream" is at ... they should have the courage to propose real solutions to real problems whether their ideas are politically popular or not ...

but, the other issue is not unimportant ... if successful in convincing the public, and it might take time to do this, it is nevertheless a good thing to have the "mainstream" support you ... at some point, political viability is necessary ...

the point of all this is that claiming "ownership of the mainstream" is not an appropriate measurement to determine whether an idea or a candidate is in the right place ... that's because of the timing issue ... new ideas take time to become widely accepted ... to make a call at any point in time that the idea is not mainstream and to use the disparaging term "fringe", fails to accept the entire premise of leadership ...

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

14. You are right when you say there is no mainstream

I am searching for a term that eludes me, but it is about the idea that we are actually becoming more unique and specialized in our points of view and our market preferences and that much of the marketing world is starting to understand this. The example that I best recall is that the old-fashioned storefront music store was limited by actual shelf space to just carry the top 500 or whatever finite number of albums it could keep in inventory and therefore, you the consumer were pretty much limited to those albums. With new technologies, you can go online and peruse an infinite number of musical choices without being limited by the artificial parameters of the "average consumer". I think that is part of the point you are making.

The MSM is part of that Old Media world that doesn't quite seem to get this point. They have a limited number of pundits, a limited number of talking points, and sometimes they are lightyears behind the hoi polloi on the internets. Lately, they have been following as much as leading. I see point after point made FIRST on the blogs or small internet newsites (the New Media) and then later picked up by the horse and buggy media.

Ken Mehlman, Republican talking points, and slogans like "Defeatocrats" are starting to seem as quaint as Burma Shave billboards.

[inthebrain]

15. Fragmented?

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

16. Possibly that's the term I was looking for

It's sure on the same wavelength. Fragmented markets, nano markets, micro markets. Just the idea that as you said in your very enjoyable OP that there really is no mainstream per se, and that phrase in itself is a self-perpetuating myth of the old media.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

18. I'm kicking this because I like the OP & I think it's interesting! nt.

[Odin2005]

19. It's populism at it's most vulgar.

Politicians no longer give people a grand vision and get people to support that vision by charisma and great oration. Now politicians are nothing more then sycophants for the supid, ignorant masses, telling the idiots what they want to hear.