AOC and Dark Politics

[rogue06]

Also I think people exaggerate the ability of big money to dictate what people think. Carpe said a big spender could "swing the tide of elections to their desires." During the last Republican primary, I recall that the big campaign spending was for Jeb Bush. And all that money wasn't able to make people like Jeb, let alone to defeat Trump.

And IIRC Trump spent about half of what Hillary did.

[One Bad Pig]

And IIRC Trump spent about half of what Hillary did.

But, Rooskies!!!!!11!1!1!!!1!!1!!

[carpedm9587]

Also I think people exaggerate the ability of big money to dictate what people think. Carpe said a big spender could "swing the tide of elections to their desires." During the last Republican primary, I recall that the big campaign spending was for Jeb Bush. And all that money wasn't able to make people like Jeb, let alone to defeat Trump.

I believe I said "can," not "always does."

In general, the person with the biggest microphone gets their message across to a bigger audience. But there are exceptions. In the world of viral events, even a small voice can potentially be heard. But even there - a person with enough money to get lots of people hammering at social networking has a bigger chance of being heard than the lone voice sitting in their parent's basement.

[rogue06]

But, Rooskies!!!!!11!1!1!!!1!!1!!

Compared to the all out war the MSM waged (and still wages) against Trump^[1] and their cover-ups of any negative news about Hillary -- to the point of those who brought up issues concerning her health were summarily fired (at least up to her passing out and being tossed into her van at the 9/11 memorial service)






1. Several years ago then Newsweek editor Evan Thomas nonchalantly admitted to liberal bias on the now defunct Inside Washington show on PBS was worth up to 15 points For John Kerry in his bid to be president in 2004:

Let’s talk about media bias here. The media, I think, want Kerry to win. They’re going to portray Kerry and Edwards as being young and dynamic and optimistic, and this glow is going to be worth maybe 15 points.

[Mountain Man]

cortez_cookie_jar-888x1024.jpg
https://www.grrrgraphics.com/aocs-cookie-jar/

[oxmixmudd]

I believe I said "can," not "always does."

In general, the person with the biggest microphone gets their message across to a bigger audience. But there are exceptions. In the world of viral events, even a small voice can potentially be heard. But even there - a person with enough money to get lots of people hammering at social networking has a bigger chance of being heard than the lone voice sitting in their parent's basement.

I don't see how what you say here can be denied.

The truth is there is a certain minimum amount of cash required to get a message out and get some sort of campaign going. That minimum is normally way beyond the reach of normal, middle-class americans. But, the content of the message has a lot to do with how quickly and how energetically those that are attracted to the message will work to amplify that initial 'call' as it were. And all things are not equal. A message with limited appeal BUT which significantly energizes the small group of people that are attracted to it can require less money total to be heard 'by all' than a message with general appeal but a weaker response.

So:

1) If you have enough money, you can get ANY message out to all the people.

2) If you have a message with massive appeal that people are VERY motivated to propagate, a much smaller amount of money is required to get that message out to all the people.

3) Messages that are heard never have to compete with messages that are never heard.

4) Legislation that gives latitude to the very rich, or to large corporations, will tend to allow the messages that service those interests to get, on average, a much greater audience than those that do not services those interests.

5) likewise, that same legislation will allow attacks on less well funded but contrary messages that do not have sufficient funds to respond.


The bottom line is that more money almost always means a larger audience until you reach the point of what it costs to broadcast the message to the nation without any outside help. Beyond that more money doesn't necessarily mean more audience.

Once you have an audience, where it goes from there depends as much on the content as the packaging ... and once again money plays into it. Glitzy packaging is expensive. Again, more money translates to a disproportionately positive response.


I think that overall those that are pushing back against Carpe's concerns are just completely being dishonest. And your push backs are mostly cherry picking. More money means more people will hear your message. More money means you can package your message in the slickest, most appealing package available - to the point even total crap can be made to look tasty. More money means you can launch counter attacks against messages contrary to your own. This means that in general, more money gives the entity with the money an advantage. That simply can't be denied.

Jim

[Cow Poke]

I think that overall those that are pushing back against Carpe's concerns are just completely being dishonest...

Why do you find it necessary to go there? Why can't people have differences of opinion without you accusing them of being dishonest, and with such a broad brush?

[oxmixmudd]

Why do you find it necessary to go there? Why can't people have differences of opinion without you accusing them of being dishonest, and with such a broad brush?

because that is what I see CP. In this forum there is no balance, not objectivity, no real intellectual honesty about most of the ideas discussed. It is almost all of it partisan rhetoric where the merit of an idea is almost completely determined by its source, not its content.

Case in point If you guys can't admit that more money most of the time means more capability to get the message out - I mean that is so completely obvious. If I can produce ads and buy the spots on tv to air them, I have a big advantage. If I can respond to and trash every contrary voice, effectively using all that 'madison avenue' has to offer in packaging, I am way ahead of the curve. If something doesn't control that and ensure that money is not the primary determiner of what ideas are heard vs what ideas are not heard, then the reality is that speech is no longer free. Analogously, if I can stand on a street corner and say my message, but you have a massive investment in bigger louder speakers down the street that make my voice impossible to hear beyond the first row and the people that want to hear me can't, or are discouraged and walk away, then you have effectively eliminated my free speech. And that is what happens when huge amounts of money are allowed to flood the market pushing only one idea and effectively silencing competing ideas.

Jim

[Bill the Cat]

because that is what I see CP. In this forum there is no balance, not objectivity, no real intellectual honesty about most of the ideas discussed. It is almost all of it partisan rhetoric where the merit of an idea is almost completely determined by its source, not its content.

Case in point If you guys can't admit that more money most of the time means more capability to get the message out - I mean that is so completely obvious. If I can produce ads and buy the spots on tv to air them, I have a big advantage. If I can respond to and trash every contrary voice, effectively using all that 'madison avenue' has to offer in packaging, I am way ahead of the curve. If something doesn't control that and ensure that money is not the primary determiner of what ideas are heard vs what ideas are not heard, then the reality is that speech is no longer free. Analogously, if I can stand on a street corner and say my message, but you have a massive investment in bigger louder speakers down the street that make my voice impossible to hear beyond the first row and the people that want to hear me can't, or are discouraged and walk away, then you have effectively eliminated my free speech. And that is what happens when huge amounts of money are allowed to flood the market pushing only one idea and effectively silencing competing ideas.

Jim

Um, Jim... free speech rights are not eliminated because others can't hear you. You still are free to distribute your message through whatever means you have available. Others are not required to listen.

[Joel]

I believe I said "can," not "always does."

In general, the person with the biggest microphone gets their message across to a bigger audience. But there are exceptions. In the world of viral events, even a small voice can potentially be heard. But even there - a person with enough money to get lots of people hammering at social networking has a bigger chance of being heard than the lone voice sitting in their parent's basement.

What do you think of the theory that the "biggest microphone" is usually determined by the choices of mass media? In the last presidential primaries and general, the media chose to focus mostly on Trump. And when the media chooses to ignore/exclude a candidate, then the candidate's chances seem to be zero, regardless how much they spend.

[oxmixmudd]

Um, Jim... free speech rights are not eliminated because others can't hear you. You still are free to distribute your message through whatever means you have available. Others are not required to listen.

They are if the reason they can't hear me is that you are purposefully drowning me out. The difference between my analogy and real life, (and the issue with the money) is that in my analogy the crowd would know you are trying to drown me out, and would respond accordingly. With the money thing, it wouldn't be that clear what was happening.

We don't allow the government to silence free speech. But what about the government promoting just one kind of speech to the point any other kind of speech can't be heard? It's similar to the anti-monopoly laws. If one player has so much control of the market no other players can compete, the free market is gone. This sort of thing can create the equivalent in terms of free speech.

Jim

[Terraceth]

They are if the reason they can't hear me is that you are purposefully drowning me out. The difference between my analogy and real life, (and the issue with the money) is that in my analogy the crowd would know you are trying to drown me out, and would respond accordingly. With the money thing, it wouldn't be that clear what was happening.

We don't allow the government to silence free speech. But what about the government promoting just one kind of speech to the point any other kind of speech can't be heard? It's similar to the anti-monopoly laws. If one player has so much control of the market no other players can compete, the free market is gone. This sort of thing can create the equivalent in terms of free speech.

The government is not "promoting" this kind of speech, however. Private actors are the ones doing that.

On the larger point, I do agree that the amount of money you have (or rather, the amount of money you and whatever PACs that are backing you have) is a big factor in your ability to get elected, it is still only one of several important factors. Ocasio-Cortez famously won a decisive victory (57% to 43%) against someone who outspent her 18-to-1. And furthermore, it's worth remembering that frequently, it's not a matter of money leading you to being elected but people giving you money because they think you have a chance at getting elected.

[oxmixmudd]

The government is not "promoting" this kind of speech, however. Private actors are the ones doing that.

On the larger point, I do agree that the amount of money you have (or rather, the amount of money you and whatever PACs that are backing you have) is a big factor in your ability to get elected, it is still only one of several important factors. Ocasio-Cortez famously won a decisive victory (57% to 43%) against someone who outspent her 18-to-1. And furthermore, it's worth remembering that frequently, it's not a matter of money leading you to being elected but people giving you money because they think you have a chance at getting elected.

When the government creates a policy that has the effect of amplifying one groups capability over another's, it is seen to be promoting that group. If that where not the case, then we would not have successful campaigns to remove prayer from schools or to stop displays of nativity scenes on public property or reading/writing tests to obtain the right to vote. So it doesn't matter if the law doesn't have 'favors rich republicans' on it, if that is the indisputable effect, then the law will be considered biased.

We as a country have a long history of hiding bias behind laws that do not say they do what they actually do*. And we have been routinely forced to change our laws as a result.



Jim

*you'd think we would learn. But we never do. Every time someone takes advantage of a loophole in a law to accomplish something unconstitutional, or to hurt someone, our laws often must become less effective or more draconian to prevent the unintended work around. Keep that in mind the next time your favorite actor in the political arena tries to play a dirty trick with a law that is good but which leaves - for good reason - some leeway for good judgement.

[carpedm9587]

What do you think of the theory that the "biggest microphone" is usually determined by the choices of mass media? In the last presidential primaries and general, the media chose to focus mostly on Trump. And when the media chooses to ignore/exclude a candidate, then the candidate's chances seem to be zero, regardless how much they spend.

That dynamic is, in part, at play. Any organization with a massive microphone can skew perceptions and outcomes. But "the media chose to focus mostly on Trump" is a bit misleading. The media is focusing on what will get their outlets eyeballs. This has been true since news became a "for profit" activity paid for largely by advertisers. Trump is a master at focusing the news eyeballs on himself with his antics, comments, and general behavior. Personally, I think the media should STOP responding to every twitch from Trump, and focus on the larger legislative and judicial issues confronting us. But so long as one media outlet is getting eyeballs by reporting on Trump - they probably will all continue to do so.

[rogue06]

00000000000000aaa4.jpg