Antiestablishmentpushbymedia ism

[FrenchieCat]

Or Media's wish for Democrats while doing the 2010 election math -

Since Democrats hold both houses of Congress, there are more Democratic Incumbents,
then there are Republican incumbents......hence our Corporate Media wants
voters to continue to want current incumbent congresspersons out of office,
which is why the media emphasizes that a majority of voters don't trust Washington,
and don't think that Washington is doing a "good" job, and why the media won't clarify
specifically what that means in any way.

The media line therefore is simple; the 2010 election will be all about incumbency
and since Democrats hold the congress, they are the ones in jeopardy....them and
moderate Republicans to don't tow the Teabagger party line.

The value of this "with Gusto" media pushed meme by the conservative corporate media and their GOP is manyfold:

Election results which kicks incumbents out of congress during the primaries, even if done so for various purposes will all be presented the way the media wants to present it, and what they are after is needed momentum to continue to build on their meme that Voters don't like what Washington has been doing since January 2009. This is all being done to put into congress a larger conservative voice to go up against any and all Obama legislative initiatives, since we all know that the current House has passed most of Obama's initiatives at a rapid clip.

The more Incumbents voted out, the bigger the push on the meme, the more any results remotely pointing to wins by insurgents will be interpreted to say that Teabagger anger against the Obama administration is driving the elections. This means that Teabaggers sentiments will be now discussed as the majority sentiment, and will be pushing for congress to act accordingly.

This in turn will help prove to progressives that Americans are more conservative than they are progressive. It will not prove the reverse, even if the reverse could be just as easily true.

Let's first look at the Republicans. In almost every place where there's a competitive Republican primary for the U.S. Senate, we can fairly clearly identify one or more establishment candidates (who are generally more moderate), and one or more insurgent candidates (who are generally more conservative). What's interesting is that, in every single case, the establishment candidates are polling better than the insurgents when one takes a simple average of the last five general election polls:



There are a lot of reasons for this. The establishment candidates (by virtue of being in the establishment) generally have better name recognition, an advantage which might fade over time. And polls may not do a good job of capturing the superior base enthusiasm that the insurgent candidates could conceivably generate, insofar as it might translate into a more spirited general election campaign.

Still, Strassel has little basis to claim that "Republican primaries are turning out candidates largely in tune with today's public frustration with Washington." In fact, the more populist, "insurgent", or conservative the Republican candidate tends to be, the worse his or her general election standing, at least for the moment.

***

In Democratic races like Ohio and Kentucky, it is somewhat harder to draw a distinction between establishment and insurgent candidates. But in three cases the choice is reasonably clear: these are in Colorado, Arkansas, and Pennsylvania, where an incumbent Senator is being challenged. And in each case, it's the insurgent (non-incumbent) candidate who has the superior general election polling:



We should be careful, however, about generalizing these findings. Arlen Specter and Blanche Lincoln have become quite unpopular, but this may have as much to do with their incumbency status as their ideological orientation. In WV-1, another Democratic incumbent, Alan Mollohan, lost his primary last week to a more conservative challenger, Mike Oliverio.




http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/05/in-backing-insurgents-republicans-face.html

[NJmaverick]

1. K & R!

[FrenchieCat]

2. Folks not interested right now......

I'll park this, so that later we will see that I was correct in my assessment.
I personally hope that I am not, but I know this media well, and they are quite
transparent to anyone paying attention.

[ShortnFiery]

4. It's not just the corporate media ... our establishment democrats need to serve the common American

above the interest of their lauded friends in Goldman Sachs, et. al. These two factors exponentially magnify the importance of "standing up for wage earning Americans" lest they be prepared to lose their seats in upcoming elections. :shrug:

[FrenchieCat]

25. I'm talking about corporate media manipulation of our elections,

and you're shitting on Democrats instead.

What else is new? :shrug:

[Cha]

5. I know this corporatemediawhoredom too..

and any brainwashing they can think of to get the Dems out..will be what they go with. And, the "incumbants are bad" meme is evidently easy for them to push even though this is the most accomplished session in Congress we've had for a while.

Too much for the People and not enough for corporatewhores to suit the cmWhores, though.

Here's to them not succeeding in their Fearmongering this time.

[ShortnFiery]

3. Perhaps the *establishment democrats* might glean a groundswell of support if they say ...

rescinded the Patriot Act and brought our troops home from two immoral/illegal occupations. Then applied those funds toward the establishment of "a new green job economy?"

[FrenchieCat]

6. We are about to get a less progressive congress......

But you will have assisted the media greatly in demonizing Dems,
and I guess you don't care if the end result ends up being
worse for everything you believe in currently.
That's the biggest joke of it all.

[ShortnFiery]

7. Of course I care but the establishment democrats are NOT listening and working WITH the progressives

of the party. Sure, you can arm-twist the progressives in Congress to VOTE FOR the corporate democratic (New Democrat) policies.

However, despite all of the establishment democrats declarations, the base of the party will vote for those who hold THEIR VALUES = policies and people who will serve the WORKING WAGE EARNER before the investment bankers and large corporate interests.

If WE lose seats in November, please feel free to look in the mirror. It was intolerance of any policy that was progressive that may sink many New Democratic candidates for Congress.

[FrenchieCat]

8. I won't have to look in the mirror......

as I did not demonize any Democrat, progressive or otherwise....
I was not intolerant, that was you. I was pragmatic and understanding
on the issue of reality politics, with a media that will push what it chooses
at the detriment of any and all Democrats, and dealing with folks wanting what they want
and not understanding that politics is the art of the possible, not the act of the wishing well.

You are the one that has been critical in a very negative way about every single piece of
legislation put forth by Democrats, to a point that one would wonder if you might not
have simply been against Democrats no matter what they would try to pass.

So no, look at yourself in the mirror.....because perfection was never gonna show up,
and politics has never been a simple wish list and a handful of fingers
ready to do a snap.

[ShortnFiery]

9. That's untrue. You demonize any democrat here who doesn't support every

SINGLE legislative endeavor that the Obama Administration has adopted.

Perfection?!? Want full reinstatement of Americans' CIVIL LIBERTIES is to you *perfection.*

No, those are basic rights. This Administration's continuing to implement The Patriot Act is dangerous to our democratic republic.

Just because I am a democrat doesn't mean I have to support other democrats who wish to STRIP Americans of their civil rights.

Yes, please do look in the mirror in November. THEN insist that President Obama repeal The Patriot Act?

[FrenchieCat]

10. Well if Demonizing to you means providing context and background by way of solid discussion.....

and background via links, which is what I generally do, then ok....
But I know better that when I disagree with someone's take,
that's all it is, no anymore or less.

But in reality, you are the one who posts in every single positive Obama thread, your negative hit and run tripe....usually without a shred of evidence beyond some Pics and your opinion.

[Forkboy]

11. No, calling people who don't kiss Obama's ass "ungrateful Americans" is what you do.

Yeah, real "solid discussion" there.

[FrenchieCat]

16. I think the "Kiss your ass" part are your words,

and your interpretation.

And yes, there are many Americans who take shit for granted all of the time,
and that includes what Barack Obama has had on his plate to this point.

If you think the Teabaggers aren't Ungrateful Americans, I disagree......
If you think that folks talking as though Obama should have straightened everything out by now,
have reason to gripe constantly about his every move as well as when he moves to a direction counter to where he goes, I don't.

and yes, this country is full of this entitled self centered "I only care about what affects me" attitude. The fact that I have an opinion that might get your goat is not new,
but when someone is always looking for that positive thread to shit in, that's not what I do.
Because what I don't do is pick apart the Democratic party at every opportunity,
because No I don't wish for us to lose seats. That's not my goal or my hopes everytime that I post.
Sorry.

[Forkboy]

20. Like you were talking about teabaggers when you wrote that.

Please, I was born at night, but not last night.

this country is full of this entitled self centered "I only care about what affects me" attitude.

Yes, I can see that.

[FrenchieCat]

24. glad you see it too.

and I'm glad we are both allowed to have opinions,
and are both able to express them....
and that at some point, I can write an op detailing my observations about the news media,
without folks feeling that if I don't shit on the party sufficiently,
that somehow that makes me less than them.

[SunsetDreams]

13. I think I am experiencing dejavu again!

edited to say, it's perpetual!

[ShortnFiery]

15. I rest my case.

;)

[FrenchieCat]

17. You don't have a case......

Just perpetual negativity referencing Democrats including this President
that you like to sprinkle all over the place here at DU as often as possible
without exception.

[ShortnFiery]

18. No, you thrive on hyperbole. Guess, in your view, I'm just an "ungrateful American."

You can't see that the increasing power grab by our Executive Branch will come back to bite us in the ass once a Republican is elected President.

I'm a *Liberal* Democrat and you fit more in the *Establishment* Category of OUR Party.

Our values and ideologies diverge but I'm no less of a democrat than you are.

[FrenchieCat]

22. I wrote this OP in reference to media framing.

As for you,
I don't know what you are doing.....
but whatever it is, it isn't ever to say anything
remotely positive about Democrats, period.

As for your labels as to whom is what,
please....

[SunsetDreams]

12. K&R You make some great points

I think you've hit the nail on the head Frenchie.

Great post, I am bookmarking this, I hope you don't mind.

Have a great day :)

[tekisui]

14. It isn't always a conspiracy.

This is the natural flow of elections. The party that has the White House historically loses seats in the mid-term. Anti-incumbency is always the trend when unemployment numbers are as high as they are.

Loosen the tinfoil.

[FrenchieCat]

19. What is not the natural flow of elections is talking heads deciding

what these elections mean before the elections, as that is something normally reserved for analysis after the fact.

Yes, I believe that has been a conspiracy to keep the Teabaggers and their discontent at the forefront, unlike anything I've ever witnessed. Yes, I do believe that the corporate media as intentionally focused on the Teabaggers with the intentions of growing their numbers. Yes, I do believe that the Corporate media doesn't do that for Democrats, and that this is also intentional. I have witnessed protests for immigration, PRO health Care, Con Wall Street, and I didn't see the same kind of attention focused on it.

So I can't loosen the tinfoil....because Observing facts and putting them together in a way that is sensible and rational is not "tinfoil"....it's simply a plausible occurence that is actually quite evident to anyone paying attention.

[tekisui]

21. The media will always choose the 'good story'.

A good story, from the media perspective is one with controversy, easily and quickly understood, and one that has teevee worthy images.

That is why they drool over the teabaggers. Not to elevate them, but because they are an easy story to report on. Easily digestible, little background needed and idiots make for good teevee images.

Immigration, Health care and Wall Street are much more complex issues that aren't 'good stories' for the teevee news. THey require too much effort and nuance to explain and explore in 2 minute bites. They also lack the image aspect.

The M$M is predictable and shallow, but it isn't a conspiracy against anyone.

[FrenchieCat]

23. The fact that the media take it upon itself to decide

prior to any votes being cast what the entire election will be about,
even if there are various reasons for various results which are still unknown
is the problem.....

one which you have decided is a conspiracy,
while I consider it a common sense observation
if one would bother to look.