I've written very long pieces about the degradation of the information environment in recent months. It is of course true that Fox News is a rightwing propaganda outfit, and this generates problems that more strategic position taking would not solve www.vox.com/politics/414...
...in Bonica's suggestion that academic research shows that softening cultural positions doesn't yield significant gains in contemporary elections, and elsewhere. I think this conveys more certainty about the inefficacy of targeted national moderation than is warranted
And I did read your paper. My issue is that I think you and Adam have overstated the implications of your results in your popular commentary, in both the sentence mentioned...
I think the natural reading of your sentence is that national tides don't include party positions, since you describe such tides as something outside of political strategists control.
I don't think I've misunderstood. If "national tide" refers to, among other things, party positions, then "national tides" are a thing that political consultants/academics do know how to *partly* manufacture
Ah yes. This is definitely a separate question and challenge. Though I don't think the correlation between what positions a party actually adopts -- and what voters believe the party's positions to be -- has entirely disappeared. Definitely though, there is not a one-to-one connection
But I think your Substack pieces elide that these considerations mean that national moderation on select issues may be electorally beneficial, even if moderation at the House level is not
I agree that your paper acknowledges the potential existence of penalties for policy non-congruence and the prospect that national party positioning may crowd out candidate effects...
I deleted because there was a typo in my initial post. But I do think I interpret/characterize the screenshot reasonably (and shared it down thread) bsky.app/profile/eric...
But on their list of forces that drive contemporary elections, they did not include "position-taking by the national parties." To the contrary, they suggest that the relevant forces are ones that consultants cannot influence, which implies that national position-taking isn't a significant factor
But on their list of forces that drive contemporary elections, they did not include "position-taking by the national parties." To the contrary, they suggest that the relevant forces are ones that consultants cannot influence, which implies that national position-taking isn't a significant factor
On the collective action point, I think it happens primarily through the presidential nomination process and to a lesser extent congressional leadership. I agree that there are national trends outside Democratic leaders volition (such as economic developments, among other things)...
I think those statements suggest that Democrats moderating nationally on some salient issues would not confer a significant electoral benefit. And I don't think we can safely conclude that from your findings, even if they render that notion more plausible
My issue is with your claim that elections are determined by "national tides" that consultants (and thus implicitly, political parties) cannot influence, as well as Adam's claim that your research shows that moderation does not yield "significant electoral gains in contemporary elections"
This is really important. You can argue (if you want) that Kirk's alleged killer probably had syncretic political views, or that things are still "unclear." You cannot argue there is any affirmative evidence that he was a right-winger. This is not an ideological assertion. It is a statement of fact.
I do not assert that he is a leftist, just that the available evidence suggests he 1) is not a groyper and 2) objected to Kirk’s politics from the left rather than the right
Joe Biden pressured social media companies to suppress anti-vax advocacy during the COVID pandemic.
That raised legitimate free speech concerns. But Trump's attack on the First Amendment is vastly more egregious and profound. Conservatives shouldn't pretend otherwise www.vox.com/politics/462...
Trump's FCC isn't just threatening to take regulatory action against broadcasters who air criticism of the president. It has already done so. www.vox.com/politics/462...
Today would be a good day to support independent media -- ideally, the company that employs me -- but failing that, another of your choice www.vox.com/support-now
