Are the democrats invisible?

matthew8

When's the last time you heard a democrat not named Barack Obama or Maxine Waters say something interesting? While Maxine Waters appears to be either mentally challenged or very very sly, at least she gets her name in the news even if she is calling Obama a racist or telling tea partiers to go to hell or saying that government should only provide the jobs for black people. Obama is obviously very relevant by default, but he really seems out on his own. It's been a long tiem since I've heard Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi or any other prominent democrat rally around Obama.

Meanwhile the republicans have found themselves in the news too over the past few months:
Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin going after the CBA
Republicans refusing to raise the debt ceiling
Various republicans making detailed proposals
The vast majority of big congress statements made by republicans like Rubio

The media is overwhelmingly democratic, and what they're trying to do is kill the right by attacking it doggedly. What they don't realise is these attacks make the right seem more significant.

As for the tea party, there are worryingly little attacks on the tea party in the media. All over the Summer people were proclaiming there demise with all the negative press they got however it is only now that I am worried for their future as there is not as much noise around them as there used to be, probably because of Bachmann's demise.

The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about.

sarumite

matthew8 wrote: »

When's the last time you heard a democrat not named Barack Obama or Maxine Waters say something interesting? While Maxine Waters appears to be either mentally challenged or very very sly, at least she gets her name in the news even if she is calling Obama a racist or telling tea partiers to go to hell or saying that government should only provide the jobs for black people. Obama is obviously very relevant by default, but he really seems out on his own. It's been a long tiem since I've heard Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi or any other prominent democrat rally around Obama.

Meanwhile the republicans have found themselves in the news too over the past few months:
Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin going after the CBA
Republicans refusing to raise the debt ceiling
Various republicans making detailed proposals
The vast majority of big congress statements made by republicans like Rubio

The media is overwhelmingly democratic, and what they're trying to do is kill the right by attacking it doggedly. What they don't realise is these attacks make the right seem more significant.

As for the tea party, there are worryingly little attacks on the tea party in the media. All over the Summer people were proclaiming there demise with all the negative press they got however it is only now that I am worried for their future as there is not as much noise around them as there used to be, probably because of Bachmann's demise.

The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about.

Firstly, the media (or LSM) is considered Liberal leaning, not DEMocratic. There is a difference. Secondly, by far and away the most dogged attacks are from Fox News...no one does biased-mix opinion with fact-news coverage quite like Fox does it. thirdly the "attacks" or criticism as it is known amongst objective people hasn't made the right more significant, their control of the house made them more significant.

matthew8

sarumite wrote: »

Firstly, the media (or LSM) is considered Liberal leaning, not DEMocratic. There is a difference. Secondly, by far and away the most dogged attacks are from Fox News...no one does biased-mix opinion with fact-news coverage quite like Fox does it. thirdly the "attacks" or criticism as it is known amongst objective people hasn't made the right more significant, their control of the house made them more significant.

They control the house because the attacks make them significant. I don't get how a media can be liberal leaning and not democratic. I didn't know that all these liberals were republican.

sarumite

matthew8 wrote: »

They control the house because the attacks make them significant.

The criticism happened after they controlled the house and has been largely based around their obstructionist policies. They controlled the house because they managed to co-opt the psuedo-libertarian 'Tea party'.

I don't get how a media can be liberal leaning and not democratic.

I am not sure how much time you have spent in America, but its very possible to be left leaning and not democratic. Personally I would argue that Glenn Beck is a conservative but not a republican whereas Jon Stewart is a liberal but not a democrat....obviously you would have to ask them about their personal beliefs. That said, the duopoly of political parties do not accurately represent the wide ranging political and philisophical positions of some 330 million people spread out over the 50 states + DC.

I didn't know that all these liberals were republican.

:rolleyes:

pgmcpq

If you have a) a moderate discussing the details of a policy issue or b) a clown with a red nose, rotating bow tie and large floopy shoes shouting at the top of his/her lungs, which one will get the minute long tv news slot ?
Now apply this to the question posed by the OP and you have your answer as to why the Dems might appear to be 'invisible'.

matthew8

pgmcpq wrote: »

If you have a) a moderate discussing the details of a policy issue or b) a clown with a red nose, rotating bow tie and large floopy shoes shouting at the top of his/her lungs, which one will get the minute long tv news slot ?
Now apply this to the question posed by the OP and you have your answer as to why the Dems might appear to be 'invisible'.

I think the media attention Huntsman has got sort of proves your idea wrong. He's a moderate who discusses policy but gets far far more attention than the supposed clown Ron Paul.

sarumite

matthew8 wrote: »

I think the media attention Huntsman has got sort of proves your idea wrong. He's a moderate who discusses policy but gets far far more attention than the supposed clown Ron Paul.

Yet far far less coverage than the actual clown Sarah Palin.

Although I am surprise you picked Hunstman who has been pretty much ignored by the media, who seem to now focus solely on Romney and Perry. The fact that they are ignoring Ron Paul seems to be deliberate, as was pointed out on more than one occasion on the daily show. His lack of coverage is notable in that it is surprisngly unusual.

matthew8

Although I am surprise you picked Hunstman who has been pretty much ignored by the media

Ehh, what? The media are treating is as a 3 horse race between Huntsman, Romney and Perry despite Huntsman coming last in every poll.

Speaking time at the last debate:

Total Talking Time
Romney 12:09
Perry 11:10
Huntsman 07:41
Santorum 07:06
Cain 06:23
Bachmann 06:13
Gingrich 05:44
Ron Paul 04:33
Johnson 04:10
Total
1:05:09

Also interesting to note that the 2 libertarians got little more time to speak than Huntsman combined.

sarumite

matthew8 wrote: »

Ehh, what? The media are treating is as a 3 horse race between Huntsman, Romney and Perry despite Huntsman coming last in every poll.

Speaking time at the last debate:

Total Talking Time
Romney 12:09
Perry 11:10
Huntsman 07:41
Santorum 07:06
Cain 06:23
Bachmann 06:13
Gingrich 05:44
Ron Paul 04:33
Johnson 04:10
Total
1:05:09

Also interesting to note that the 2 libertarians got little more time to speak than Huntsman combined.

IF we were to use the speaking time in one debate as an indicator of national coverage, then looking at it I would say its a two hrose race between Romney and Perry, with a second tier made up of Hunstman, Santorum and Cain and Bachmann (based on speaking time). I really don't see how from these times you concluded that Huntsman is up there with Romney or Perry?!?

As for Paul (I assume the second libertarian is Herman Cain), as mentioned previously and pointed out on more than one occasion on the Daily show...the media seems to be intentionally ignoring him which is both notable and suprising in that it is unusual.

FISMA

matthew8 wrote: »

When's the last time you heard a democrat not named Barack Obama or Maxine Waters say something interesting? ...
The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about.

Matthew,
It's all relative...

If you cannot make yourself look good, then make someone else look bad.

:pac: