[Marxism] Fwd: Eric Draitser posted "Elizabeth Warren Was Smart to Tell FOX to Go to Hell"

Louis Proyect lnp3 at panix.com
Thu May 16 07:45:38 MDT 2019

/Disclaimer: I am NOT endorsing or supporting Elizabeth Warren, Bernie 
Sanders, or any Democrat. This is purely analysis./

Elizabeth Warren's decision to turn down an invitation from FOX News to 
appear on a town hall event has become something of a controversy on the 
left. It seems odd but there seem to be a not insignificant number of 
people who believe that Warren, and anyone really, should simply jump at 
the opportunity to go on FOX and, I don't know, convert the right wing 
audience to a more humane politics? Perhaps it's to establish some 
baseline of sanity within the discourse on the right? Simple strategy to 
challenge right wing talking points on every platform possible?

While it's probably all of the above and then some, there is something 
rather revealing in these reactions, something that often goes 
unacknowledged in the incestuous and insular world of online punditry on 
the left: That many of these people literally do not understand the 
basic facts of the situation that inform Warren's decision, and instead 
simply denounce it based on mostly nothing.

But let me explain further...

The argument goes something like:

/"Warren is making Hillary's Deplorables mistake all over again."/

/"Warren is not serious as a candidate because she turned down this 
offer from FOX"/

/"Warren is acting as if MSNBC and CNN are somehow better than FOX when 
they're not."

/These claims are nonsense. I'm going to explain some of the reasons why 
Warren's decision makes a lot of sense strategically.

*Look at the Numbers*

It's easy to argue that appearing on FOX is critical when you consider 
the fact that FOX remains the highest-rated of the cable news channels 
averaging 1.3 million viewers. But let's dig a little deeper to explore 
whether this simple assumption that FOX appearances are critical for a 
Democrat is actually true.

While it is a fact that FOX remains the most watched cable news channel, 
it is increasingly unpopular with the demographics most critical to a 
progressive Democrat like Warren. In fact, the most recent April 2019 
shows that FOX is way down (-19%) in the critical 25-54 demographic as 
compared to April 2018. That's a huge decline of nearly 1/5th of the 
total audience in that demographic, with the largest decline coming in 
primetime viewership.

Put another way, younger people are abandoning FOX in droves (a 20% 
decline year-on-year is massive, regardless of the industry), leaving 
the cable channel ever more reliant on Baby Boomers to sustain it. 
Couple that with the fact that the 2018 midterm elections provide ample 
evidence about where young people are politically - voters under 30 
preferred Democrats by a +31-percentage point margin 
- and it seems clear where the energy for a progressive should be focused.

To add a bit more data to back this up, Pew Research 
(one of the most reliable polling agencies) found some very interesting 
demographic information going into 2020. They note:

     "Baby Boomers and older generations, who will be ages 56 and older
     next year, are expected to account for fewer than four-in-ten
     eligible voters in 2020. This is a significant change from 2000,
     when nearly seven-in-ten eligible voters (68%) were Boomers, Silents
     or members of the Greatest Generation (collectively, those ages 36
     and older at the time). Even as recently as 2012, when the youngest
     Boomer was 48 years old, Boomer and older generations were about
     half of the electorate (49%)."

     Meanwhile, the leading edge of Generation Z (people ages 18 to 23 in
     2020) is projected to comprise one-in-ten eligible voters, up from
     just 4% in 2016, when the vast majority were too young to cast
     ballots. These post-Millennials are on track to be more racially and
     ethnically diverse than their predecessors
     In 2020, Gen Z eligible voters are expected to be 55% white and 45%
     nonwhite, including 21% Hispanic, 14% black, and 4% Asian or Pacific
     Islander. By comparison, the Boomer and older electorate is
     projected to be about three-quarters white (74%).
The numbers speak for themselves. Voters are getting younger, less 
white, and more progressive. And, perhaps reflective of the demographic 
changes, FOX is losing young viewership.

So then who exactly would Warren have been speaking to on FOX? Mostly 
old, white Boomers who are already politically decided and not terribly 
interested in listening to a woman they've been conditioned for years to 
loathe. The number of conservatives actually willing to engage in 
critical thought via FOX is likely low, though it must be said that 
Bernie Sanders performed well on FOX (more on that later).

And so, rather than trying to reach for some unquantified, though likely 
small, number of open-minded FOX viewers, Warren is pursuing a very 
different strategy, one which could pay off bigtime.

*FOX as the Foil*

Part of the reason I am arguing that Warren's decision to spurn FOX and 
post a damning series of tweets 
taking down the network as conspiracy-mongers and peddlers of 
"hate-for-profit" was a good one has to do with the tasks and challenges 
before Warren's campaign.

First, she is fighting to create a space for her campaign to inhabit in 
what is a historically unprecedented field of seemingly hundreds of 
candidates (it's really like two dozen). Unlike Bernie Sanders, Warren 
does not have an already existing grassroots movement of hundreds of 
thousands supporting her. Nor does she have the benefit of having been 
the Vice President to Barack Obama who, despite his warmongering 
imperialism and general disregard of workers in favor of the rich, is 
now seen as wildly popular and successful as president. And so Biden, 
unlike Warren, has the benefit of not needing a fully formed movement to 
back him as he rides the coattails of Obama's legacy.

So for Warren to carve out a space for herself she has to cobble 
together a coalition of disparate elements within the Democratic base.

She wants to be the non-Bernie option for progressives everywhere thanks 
to her policies and track record of consumer protection and anti-Wall 
Street. This means appealing to those voters already backing Bernie who 
will need another candidate to support if Bernie's campaign stalls, or 
some other issue makes his candidacy no longer viable.

At the same time Warren is desperate to become the fallback option for 
the #NeverBernie crowd which is substantial. So much animosity remains 
from the 2016 campaign that there are plenty of Democrats I've spoken to 
who said they will not vote for Bernie unless it's between he and Trump. 
This means that if the Clintonite candidates like Harris, Booker, 
Gillibrand, O'Rourke, Buttigieg, etc. fizzle out, there will be a 
significant number of voters looking for a landing spot. And Warren 
wants to be that landing spot.

And it is with this second group that the refusal to go on FOX will 
really resonate. The mainstream liberals see FOX as illegitimate fake 
news (which it often is) and regard Bernie as an anti-Hillary sexist 
pandering to Trumpists to get their votes. So Warren has made a very 
calculated strategic decision to set herself apart from Sanders in that 
regard. Sanders plays nice with FOX so Warren punches them in the nose. 
This is how you make yourself into an interesting candidate, regardless 
of whether you agree with the tactic.

So here is where I want to address a valid point raised by Sanders' 
National Press Secretary Briahna Joy Gray who tweeted 
in response to stats guru Nate Silver:

       I think that what Bernie gets -- and Nate doesn't -- is that 33%
     of Fox news viewers identify as Independent or Dem, and that
     regardless, the president is responsible for the lives and wellbeing
     of all Americans, and should be able to effectively communicate with
The point is well taken in regard to the necessity of the president to 
speak to all Americans. And certainly Sanders intends to be president. 
But there is something else embedded in her tweet that is much more 
problematic - this idea that 33% identify as Independent or Democrat.

The vast majority of that group she's referring to are identifying as 
Independents or "Mixed" (a mix of liberal and conservative). And it's 
true that Pew Research has shown 

       "While Fox News is a dominant source for conservatives, it also
     draws a significant portion of its audience from across the
     ideological spectrum: Those with mixed ideological views make up 37%
     of its audience (they make up 36% of all panelists), and those to
     the left of center account for 18% of its audience (14% mostly
     liberal, 4% consistently liberal).” Another way of slicing things up
     is to take the “mixed” category and the two liberal categories, and
     you end up with 55 percent of the Fox News audience that doesn’t
     self-identify as conservative."
But looking at this a little more carefully, we have to be cautious 
about jumping to any conclusions.  Any data based on how voters 
self-identify is inherently flawed as self-identification is one of the 
least reliable measures of actual political ideology.

Taking just one anecdotal example, my own parents (who both watch FOX 
regularly) would NEVER self-identify as right wing conservative 
Republicans. They'd typically say they are "independent" but always end 
up voting Republican. So are they "Independents" watching FOX? Yes. Are 
they actually Independents watching FOX? Not a chance. And this is 
likely true for so many of the so-called Independents in their viewing 

You know who else was/is an "Independent"? Bill O'Reilly. It's true, he 
touted it regularly on his program and in interviews 
for years. Does any serious person actually believe that O'Reilly is an 
Independent? Or is it maybe possible that that term is used to simply 
avoid self-identifying as Republican? It is not unreasonable to assume 
that much of that 33% Ms. Joy-Gray referred to is similarly situated.

But there is something else that separates Sanders and Warren: their 

As already mentioned, Sanders has the benefit of a huge movement behind 
him. This affords him the luxury of running against two similar 
candidates - Joe Biden and Donald Trump. He is staring at Biden in the 
primary, and it is Biden who really dominates with the 55+ crowd that 
could potentially be watching FOX. Similarly, he is running against 
Trump who has potentially alienated some small, though significant, 
proportion of the FOX audience. For these reasons, Sanders going on FOX 
makes sense.

But Warren is running against the field of Democrats, not Trump. She 
doesn't need to woo alienated Trumpists and neocons so much as she needs 
to energize young people and other Democratic base voters who aren't 
already all in for Bernie.

For her, rejecting FOX represented a way to distinguish herself, to take 
the lead in a discourse and culture war, the war against fake news, etc. 
She sets up FOX as a foil, the Iago to her Othello, the Lennie to her 
George. She casts herself as the crusader of truth against the 
mouthpieces of Trumpian lies. It's not a bad move.

The 2020 Democratic primaries, like the general election, will likely 
hinge on turnout. For Trump, even a slight decrease in voter turnout and 
enthusiasm could prove disastrous as states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, 
Wisconsin and Michigan were very close in 2016 and have seen even more 
economic devastation since the MAGA train left the station. If even a 
few percentage points are lost, that could be enough to flip the states 
and thus the election.

And for Democrats, both in the primary and general election, it's about 
turning out the base. While every election is about turnout, so often 
these contests are decided by "swing voters" or "independents" as we're 
told. But 2020 will not simply be about the "undecideds" it will be 
about the unmotivated, unengaged, and uninspired.

And here is the final, and perhaps most important point of all: FOX's 
audience is negligible compared to the vast sea of 100 million Americans 
with the legal right to vote who did not participate in 2016.

Let me say it again, clearly: _*The number of non-voters in the US is 
roughly 100 times larger than FOX's entire audience. *_THAT is where the 
election could be won or lost, not on FOX News.

And that is where Warren seems to be placing her bet. It's not the she 
doesn't want to reach some conservative voters, especially in places 
like Iowa which are so critical for the primary season. She does. It's 
not that she doesn't have appeal with policies like using anti-trust law 
to break up Big Ag and resurrect family farms, or stopping the banks, 
etc. Those policies are supported by majorities of conservatives across 
the country.

She just doesn't believe she needs FOX to reach these people and sell 
these ideas.

And I happen to agree with her.

Check it out

Patreon trademark

We love hearing from you!
Have any questions? Please check out our help center 


Patreon Inc. 600 Townsend Street, Suite 500 West, San Francisco, 94103 CA

This email was sent to lnp3 at panix.com <mailto:lnp3 at panix.com>.
You can change your preferences for Patreon emails under settings 

More information about the Marxism mailing list