The W
Views: 101518772
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
21.12.14 1805
The W - Current Events & Politics - What does the election mean?
This thread has 8 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Thread rated: 4.96
Pages: 1
(286 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (9 total)
DrDirt
Banger








Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 17 days
Last activity: 2 days
#1 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.47
Okay, now that there is a little bit of space between us and the election, a question that I have been mulling over but haven't made up my mind on. While not a landslide, Obama's victory and the Dems pickups in the House and Senate pose an interesting idea. What does this all mean to right wing or conservative talk radio and tv pundits like Rush, Beck, Medved, Hannity, etc.? Have they seen their day and influence pass or was it simply a reflection of the extreme economic times or a bit of both? I don't think it's their end but has the cycle turned?



Perception is reality
Promote this thread!
wmatistic
Andouille








Since: 2.2.04
From: Austin, TX

Since last post: 8 days
Last activity: 22 hours
AIM:  
#2 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.08
    Originally posted by DrDirt
    Okay, now that there is a little bit of space between us and the election, a question that I have been mulling over but haven't made up my mind on. While not a landslide, Obama's victory and the Dems pickups in the House and Senate pose an interesting idea. What does this all mean to right wing or conservative talk radio and tv pundits like Rush, Beck, Medved, Hannity, etc.? Have they seen their day and influence pass or was it simply a reflection of the extreme economic times or a bit of both? I don't think it's their end but has the cycle turned?


I don't think they'll change a thing and they'll stay popular. Let's face it, they live off of people who can't form their own opinions and are easily influenced and we still have tons of those in this country!
spf
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02
From: The Las Vegas of Canada

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 1 day
AIM:  
#3 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.16
    Originally posted by DrDirt
    Okay, now that there is a little bit of space between us and the election, a question that I have been mulling over but haven't made up my mind on. While not a landslide, Obama's victory and the Dems pickups in the House and Senate pose an interesting idea. What does this all mean to right wing or conservative talk radio and tv pundits like Rush, Beck, Medved, Hannity, etc.? Have they seen their day and influence pass or was it simply a reflection of the extreme economic times or a bit of both? I don't think it's their end but has the cycle turned?


I think generationally we're beginning to see the effects of the Greatest Generation beginning to pass on, and the post Generation X folks entering the process. Less and less people are involved who have never grown up with the idea of a very large and very involved federal government, yet at the same time never had the fear of the Red Menace. I think that's why McCain's campaign didn't get the traction from the whole "Obama is a socialist" mantra that they would have liked. For a generation plus now the Soviet Union and the threat of communism is just not something that raises the hairs on the back of the neck. Especially when everyone in the government is pushing a multi-trillion dollar quasi-nationalization of the banking industry. It is hard to complain about big government when the President and his party's nominee are preparing the largest wealth transfer in history.

Also this election the echo chamber effect of conservative talk radio never seemed able to bust out into the middle and mainstream the way it did in 2004 against Kerry. I suspect that is just the old adage that people vote with their wallets. In 2004 stuff like "did Kerry throw away his Bronze Star?" seemed like the sort of thing that should matter when voting for the President. This time out that stuff never seemed to catch.

Another factor is simply Obama. He was such a singular phenomoneon that it will be hard to assume much from his success. How many people were voting not for an ideology but simply for the man and the promise of that man? This election more than any since JFK seems to have been driven as much by the personal charisma of the candidate as the policies he had.

I don't think they are going to see their influence wane among those who agree with them. There are tens of millions of Americans who are solidly on the right and seek out the validation and encouragement of those programs. I wonder though if going forward they will be able to whip up as many tempests in teapots, or if they will simply be a closed system of conservatives exhorting other conservatives with no one else paying much attention.



2007 W-League Fantasy Football champion!
CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス

Since last post: 5 hours
Last activity: 4 hours
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#4 Posted on | Instant Rating: 9.02
People reporting on the numbers - and there aren't a whole lot at this point, sadly - say that turnout/demos/whatnot turned out to not actually be all that greater than they were in 2004. Interestingly, a lot of singular demos (notably, "young voters") could have been removed completely from the totals and wouldn't have changed the outcome. So some of the breathless reporting on Election Night since accepted as fact probably should be re-examined.

But that's not what you asked. My gut feeling after reading what I've read and seeing what I've seen is that this was TOTALLY a reflection of the extreme economic times. There were also a whole lot of people who, rightly or wrongly, cast their vote as a vote against W as much as a vote for Obama.

While I think things will depend on:
1. how fast the GOP can convincingly distance themselves from W to voters
2. how fast the Dems can turn inward, feast on their own and blow it

(Of course, as of right now each of those things has at least a 50/50 chance of not happening! ;-) )

...as for the conservative media, no matter WHAT happens it won't be long before they enjoy a new renaissance and secretly thank the deity of their choice that they have so much "opposition" to rail against that it'll take little effort at all for a new crescendo in popularity.

This will shortly be followed by the reinstatement of the "Fairness Doctrine" and then the "media" can REALLY go to hell...

But let's not forget that W *and* the lame duck Congress still have two months to screw things up in entirely new, previously unseen directions - Obama was probably wise to resign from the Senate when he did, because he sure doesn't want his name on any of THAT nonsense coming in!



Leroy
Boudin blanc








Since: 7.2.02

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 1 day
#5 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.91
    Originally posted by CRZ

    This will shortly be followed by the reinstatement of the "Fairness Doctrine" and then the "media" can REALLY go to hell...


There is a rumor that Obama is looking to make some changes to the FCC, namely in the realm of protecting network neutrality and creating "diversity" (not just the obvious meaning of the word) in media ownership.

Oh, if Obama can put people in place to finally do address the meaningless EAS system that could be useful when there's, oh I don't know say, a huge fire that engulfs 200+ homes, but I digress...

(edited by Leroy on 17.11.08 1029)



NonDescript
Tue @ 9a PDT

NonDescript Podcast

Homepage
Cerebus
Scrapple








Since: 17.11.02

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 39 min.
#6 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.48
    Originally posted by DrDirt
    What does this all mean to right wing or conservative talk radio and tv pundits like Rush, Beck, Medved, Hannity, etc.? Have they seen their day and influence pass or was it simply a reflection of the extreme economic times or a bit of both?


Not at all. If you will recall, all the 'right wing media' got popular during Clinton's eight years. I'm sure Obama and his people will give them lots of stuff to work with.



Forget it Josh... it's Cerebustown.
It's False
Scrapple








Since: 20.6.02
From: I am the Tag Team Champions!

Since last post: 14 hours
Last activity: 14 hours
#7 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.30
    Originally posted by Cerebus
      Originally posted by DrDirt
      What does this all mean to right wing or conservative talk radio and tv pundits like Rush, Beck, Medved, Hannity, etc.? Have they seen their day and influence pass or was it simply a reflection of the extreme economic times or a bit of both?


    Not at all. If you will recall, all the 'right wing media' got popular during Clinton's eight years. I'm sure Obama and his people will give them lots of stuff to work with.


While that is true, that also came before the era of left-wing radio and (to a MUCH bigger extent) the left-wing blogosphere. There wasn't a lot out there to debunk the right-wing machine's attacks in the Clinton era, but if something outrageous gets said in the next four years, you'll see a lot of fact-checking coming out of sites like Media Matters and Daily KOS.

That's not to say, however, that Rush and his ilk will be rendered irrelevant. In fact, Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity have successfully reinvented themselves as prominent TV personalities. And there's always the Drudge Report.

The right-wing media machine won't see its influence wane, but things are a lot more balanced than they were in the Clinton era.




See what happens when you miss rehearsal?
redsoxnation
Scrapple








Since: 24.7.02

Since last post: 538 days
Last activity: 538 days
#8 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.85
A lot of this is how the Democrats decide to use their initial political capital. After '92, the Democrats became derailed by focusing on gays in the military, which caused them to waste time catering to an issue for a wing of their consistency. Likewise after '04, the Republicans wasted their political capital on the Terry Schiavo fiasco, thus losing focus and causing the question of whether they should govern to come into play.
If the Democrats remain focused and the economy stabilizes to an extent, they should be in good shape. If the economy continues into the death spiral while the Democrats decide that gays in the Boy Scouts is a vital issue and 2010 will see a House bloodbath. Remember, Congress does have a lower approval rating than Bush, and there will be no Bush anger to protect them next time around if their ratings stay in the tank.

(edited by redsoxnation on 18.11.08 2136)
Jimmy O
Linguica








Since: 9.1.02
From: Woodbury, MN

Since last post: 1399 days
Last activity: 713 days
#9 Posted on
The thing about Congress is people hate Congress, but ironically love their Congressperson. Go figure.
Thread rated: 4.96
Pages: 1
Thread ahead: Lieberman's position
Next thread: Madagascar 3- Daewoo plans huge planting
Previous thread: Alaska Senate Race
(286 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
http://ksn.com/2014/03/20/founder-of-westboro-baptist-church-rev-fred-phelps-sr-dies/ I wonder how many people will protest his funeral.
The W - Current Events & Politics - What does the election mean?Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.111 seconds.