I think it's also true that the figures associated with the "percentage of voters who have heard a lot from President Biden..." are likely flawed and biased as a result of that leftist pessimism you describe. It's not as simple as - these popular policy topics get much less coverage, and that's why Biden is somewhat unpopular. The desire - at this moment - to punish Biden is strong, and responses to surveys probably don't reflect objective recall of media coverage.
I am always skeptical of identifying reasons for voter preference that is largely based on messaging and media coverage. If there were a very strong and consistent relationship between messaging/media and electoral outcomes, we would not have the political mysteries we see election after election.
I'd want to see some confidence intervals or something on that last graph. Not familiar enough with the research, so it's hard to know whether that 2% difference is meaningful.
I'm largely conservative and enjoy this blog. No surprise that I often disagree.
MSM is not propaganda? Very often the propaganda is omission of information, much like the disappearing figures in group photos with Stalin. Or not reporting on the Biden laptop. Or uncritically subscribing to outfits like Hamilton 68, in lieu of actual reporting.
Biden doing good work on climate change? How about refusing to acknowledge that fossil fuel will be essential for many years and working towards a rational transition. Blocking the Keystone XL pipeline which would move natural gas safely to the gas fueled generating stations that are a major part of the US drop in CO2 emissions.
I recognize that you favor many policies I think counterproductive, but to quote a famous person, "Come on, man."
I appreciated this column and did indeed share the article on my social media with a "Good News. Thanks, Biden" framing. I hadn't heard about this regulation before. I actually tend to post more good news than many of my friends -- mostly good news regarding habitat restoration done by local tribes and the opening of new housing for the homeless. I don't think it is because I am a more positive person. I think it is just because I am actually involved in hands on work in those areas and therefore know about these small victories. I am going to try to post something positive at least 3 times a week before now and the election. I'm for sure Left of Center and left of Matt and so there are things that I wish Biden was more progressive about but I am also a pragmatist and Biden is the most Left President we are going to get in the foreseeable future and I desperately want him to win. Good reminder that, while while every campaign and most media outlets seem to think the way to do that is to constantly tell people that everything is awful and hopeless but would be even worse under the GOP, there is a possible lane for "wow, once again, when we elect a Democrat things get slightly better and isn't that nice, maybe we should try doing that again."
The feeling I seem to get from Matt lately is that he thinks that the shortcomings of the progressive movement as well as the failings of Democratic Party at large are going to sink Biden's chances of victory in 2024, handing the election (at least the electoral college win) to Haley or worse, Trump.
If he is correct, then Democrats are probably going to spend some time in the wilderness. If that is the case, and assuming Trump & Co. aren't successful in instituting permanent authoritarian rule, then I really hope that this time in the wilderness brings progressive & moderate Democrats back to reality for when they cycle back into power in '32 or '36.
We Dems really need a new way to think about politics and who our constituency is; which is really similar to the older pre-Obama consensus. But mostly we need new leaders who understand this and are able to communicate in a way that doesn't alienate the progressive left or centrist swing voters.
Slow Boring should sponsor some center left vs center right debates! What are the issues that we should be talking about during this election and get some smart people actually talking about them.
I think "flashy doomer story gets more coverage than story about slow progress" is a general media thing that goes beyond progressive vs. moderate factional wars. You can tell because sometimes the media chooses the flashy story even when it serves a centrist or even center-right narrative.
One example is tons of coverage over shoplifting and vandalism in California, with very little discussion about how crime rates have fallen considerably from 2020 highs. Another is how the whole media really went to bat for the neocon DC defense establishment during the Afghanistan withdrawal, really losing sight of the bigger picture that Biden delivered on ending a war that three other presidents couldn't get out of.
Both of these examples were also bad for the Biden Administration, but the media's coverage definitely wasn't in service of the progressive left's narrative either.
I always assumed that selling Obamacare short had to do with the fact that most progressives want single payer. Sure, a lot more people are covered, but they're covered through either Medicaid or some sort of private insurer.
“But if all we talk about is how awful everything is during a Democratic Party presidency, we’re ensuring that any Democratic incumbent will be swimming against the current.”
-- Excellent point... The continued laments of my MSNBC-marinated, UU Church-attending, Mother Jones reading Mom and her partner about "I don't know what's happening to my country" doomerism, even in this administration, and even with them totally prepared to vote for Biden, is exemplary of this.
----However, I would be cautious about how much gain one could expect from the media, or a campaign, telling a public that feels "bad vibes", that "no, things are better than you think" aggressively. Stanley Greenberg has done a lot of polling work with focus groups of working-class people, and not just stereotypically white male working-class people, but non-white and female working people, and the "cheer up, it's actually better" narrative and messages really tend to fall flat on their back. These eligible voters are angry, and don't want to be talked out of their anger. Trying to do that pisses them off. You need to invest your time with them telling them why they should be angry with the other Party and other interests that Party has served, and, oh, by the way, here's how our Administration and Party has stuck up for you, against THEM.
In other words, you can't *stop* the politics of anger and "us and them", you can only redirect it, and you need to redefine, quickly who "us" and "them" are, so your opponents are identified with "Them" and the voters think of themselves, your candidate and Party as the better fit for "us".
This author from The New Republic seems to get the idea expressed in my last paragraph, at least going by the title the author chose: https://newrepublic.com/post/178239/democrats-2024-campaign-enemies-media. And these author's first two sentences revealed a sensitivity to the needs of the news narrative cycle.
- Universities are for training people to assume aristocratic positions (management) in society
- There are not nearly enough leadership positions for educated people to fill, especially with boomers preferring to keep hold of the reins.
- Expectant leaders, stifled, find themselves depressed, performing tasks they see as "beneath them", and increasingly desperate to be relevant and use the knowledge they've mastered
- Journalists tap into this desperation by providing an endless list of "things to be concerned about" for people who can't do anything about them. The people who can do something about them have briefings by their subordinates, not the NYT.
- Impotence increases depression, desperation, and funding for journalism, which is seen as "important" even though it's more like an addiction.
- No one is asking for these "leaders" to tell us what to do. It is annoying to be told that your values are outdated, wrong, harmful, etc. So voters restrict their power intentionally.
“ultra-specific focus on the idiosyncratic problems of young urban professionals.”
….and tactical and sectarian complaints about how Democrats are strategizing and communicating, in a party where everybody thinks they are the master communicator and prizes novel and witty communication – thus making numbing repetition of simple mantras and TPs difficult.
Republicans and Conservatives *benefit* from not having a feeling of embarassment when they sound unoriginal, derivative, or repititive that afflicts many liberal and progressive people who find sales-y, slogan-y, trite talk to be suggestive of lack of intelligence or honesty.
I think it's also true that the figures associated with the "percentage of voters who have heard a lot from President Biden..." are likely flawed and biased as a result of that leftist pessimism you describe. It's not as simple as - these popular policy topics get much less coverage, and that's why Biden is somewhat unpopular. The desire - at this moment - to punish Biden is strong, and responses to surveys probably don't reflect objective recall of media coverage.
I am always skeptical of identifying reasons for voter preference that is largely based on messaging and media coverage. If there were a very strong and consistent relationship between messaging/media and electoral outcomes, we would not have the political mysteries we see election after election.
I'd want to see some confidence intervals or something on that last graph. Not familiar enough with the research, so it's hard to know whether that 2% difference is meaningful.
Very interesting analysis!
I'm largely conservative and enjoy this blog. No surprise that I often disagree.
MSM is not propaganda? Very often the propaganda is omission of information, much like the disappearing figures in group photos with Stalin. Or not reporting on the Biden laptop. Or uncritically subscribing to outfits like Hamilton 68, in lieu of actual reporting.
Biden doing good work on climate change? How about refusing to acknowledge that fossil fuel will be essential for many years and working towards a rational transition. Blocking the Keystone XL pipeline which would move natural gas safely to the gas fueled generating stations that are a major part of the US drop in CO2 emissions.
I recognize that you favor many policies I think counterproductive, but to quote a famous person, "Come on, man."
I appreciated this column and did indeed share the article on my social media with a "Good News. Thanks, Biden" framing. I hadn't heard about this regulation before. I actually tend to post more good news than many of my friends -- mostly good news regarding habitat restoration done by local tribes and the opening of new housing for the homeless. I don't think it is because I am a more positive person. I think it is just because I am actually involved in hands on work in those areas and therefore know about these small victories. I am going to try to post something positive at least 3 times a week before now and the election. I'm for sure Left of Center and left of Matt and so there are things that I wish Biden was more progressive about but I am also a pragmatist and Biden is the most Left President we are going to get in the foreseeable future and I desperately want him to win. Good reminder that, while while every campaign and most media outlets seem to think the way to do that is to constantly tell people that everything is awful and hopeless but would be even worse under the GOP, there is a possible lane for "wow, once again, when we elect a Democrat things get slightly better and isn't that nice, maybe we should try doing that again."
The feeling I seem to get from Matt lately is that he thinks that the shortcomings of the progressive movement as well as the failings of Democratic Party at large are going to sink Biden's chances of victory in 2024, handing the election (at least the electoral college win) to Haley or worse, Trump.
If he is correct, then Democrats are probably going to spend some time in the wilderness. If that is the case, and assuming Trump & Co. aren't successful in instituting permanent authoritarian rule, then I really hope that this time in the wilderness brings progressive & moderate Democrats back to reality for when they cycle back into power in '32 or '36.
We Dems really need a new way to think about politics and who our constituency is; which is really similar to the older pre-Obama consensus. But mostly we need new leaders who understand this and are able to communicate in a way that doesn't alienate the progressive left or centrist swing voters.
Slow Boring should sponsor some center left vs center right debates! What are the issues that we should be talking about during this election and get some smart people actually talking about them.
We're just not good at appreciating incremental progress. We like drama. But we should be damn glad we're getting incremental progress.
I think "flashy doomer story gets more coverage than story about slow progress" is a general media thing that goes beyond progressive vs. moderate factional wars. You can tell because sometimes the media chooses the flashy story even when it serves a centrist or even center-right narrative.
One example is tons of coverage over shoplifting and vandalism in California, with very little discussion about how crime rates have fallen considerably from 2020 highs. Another is how the whole media really went to bat for the neocon DC defense establishment during the Afghanistan withdrawal, really losing sight of the bigger picture that Biden delivered on ending a war that three other presidents couldn't get out of.
Both of these examples were also bad for the Biden Administration, but the media's coverage definitely wasn't in service of the progressive left's narrative either.
Okay, I posted the link to the USA. Today's story. Will see how my pitifully few Facebook friends respond.
I always assumed that selling Obamacare short had to do with the fact that most progressives want single payer. Sure, a lot more people are covered, but they're covered through either Medicaid or some sort of private insurer.
Do any liberal billionaires read Matt’s substack? We need one to finance his ideas on media.
Well the last one he pitched this to is in jail now, so…
“But if all we talk about is how awful everything is during a Democratic Party presidency, we’re ensuring that any Democratic incumbent will be swimming against the current.”
-- Excellent point... The continued laments of my MSNBC-marinated, UU Church-attending, Mother Jones reading Mom and her partner about "I don't know what's happening to my country" doomerism, even in this administration, and even with them totally prepared to vote for Biden, is exemplary of this.
----However, I would be cautious about how much gain one could expect from the media, or a campaign, telling a public that feels "bad vibes", that "no, things are better than you think" aggressively. Stanley Greenberg has done a lot of polling work with focus groups of working-class people, and not just stereotypically white male working-class people, but non-white and female working people, and the "cheer up, it's actually better" narrative and messages really tend to fall flat on their back. These eligible voters are angry, and don't want to be talked out of their anger. Trying to do that pisses them off. You need to invest your time with them telling them why they should be angry with the other Party and other interests that Party has served, and, oh, by the way, here's how our Administration and Party has stuck up for you, against THEM.
In other words, you can't *stop* the politics of anger and "us and them", you can only redirect it, and you need to redefine, quickly who "us" and "them" are, so your opponents are identified with "Them" and the voters think of themselves, your candidate and Party as the better fit for "us".
Continuing on this thought:
This author from The New Republic seems to get the idea expressed in my last paragraph, at least going by the title the author chose: https://newrepublic.com/post/178239/democrats-2024-campaign-enemies-media. And these author's first two sentences revealed a sensitivity to the needs of the news narrative cycle.
I think it is:
- Universities are for training people to assume aristocratic positions (management) in society
- There are not nearly enough leadership positions for educated people to fill, especially with boomers preferring to keep hold of the reins.
- Expectant leaders, stifled, find themselves depressed, performing tasks they see as "beneath them", and increasingly desperate to be relevant and use the knowledge they've mastered
- Journalists tap into this desperation by providing an endless list of "things to be concerned about" for people who can't do anything about them. The people who can do something about them have briefings by their subordinates, not the NYT.
- Impotence increases depression, desperation, and funding for journalism, which is seen as "important" even though it's more like an addiction.
- No one is asking for these "leaders" to tell us what to do. It is annoying to be told that your values are outdated, wrong, harmful, etc. So voters restrict their power intentionally.
Just my autistic take.
“ultra-specific focus on the idiosyncratic problems of young urban professionals.”
….and tactical and sectarian complaints about how Democrats are strategizing and communicating, in a party where everybody thinks they are the master communicator and prizes novel and witty communication – thus making numbing repetition of simple mantras and TPs difficult.
Republicans and Conservatives *benefit* from not having a feeling of embarassment when they sound unoriginal, derivative, or repititive that afflicts many liberal and progressive people who find sales-y, slogan-y, trite talk to be suggestive of lack of intelligence or honesty.
“But it’s considered both un-progressive and un-journalistic to talk about good things rather than to expose problems.”
….and un-useful, time-wasting, and unproductive