The Biggest Losing Streak in Republican Politics - The Atlantic | Canada News Media
Connect with us

Politics

The Biggest Losing Streak in Republican Politics – The Atlantic

Published

 on


As the 2024 Republican presidential field began to stir three years ago, Fox News tried to make Ron DeSantis happen. From the week of the 2020 election through February 2021, the network invited DeSantis to appear 113 times, or almost once a day, according to the Tampa Bay Times. In an email uncovered by that newspaper, one Fox producer gushed to a member of DeSantis’s staff, “We see him as the future of the party.”

Maybe, but the future isn’t now. After that early burst of attention, the DeSantis bandwagon never got out of the garage. DeSantis’s national support crested at about 30 percent in early 2023 before slipping to less than half that figure. His presidential campaign will be lucky to survive beyond an expected pounding in tomorrow’s Iowa caucus and further humiliation in the New Hampshire primary. That has much to do with his charisma-free persona and his party’s devotion to Donald Trump, but it also reveals something about Fox’s vaunted power to shape Republican politics—namely, that it’s a myth.

For at least two decades, Fox’s alleged Svengali-like control of Republican voters has been an article of faith among academics and in much of the mainstream media. One 2017 study in the American Economic Review, for example, suggested that Fox alone could explain the entire increase in American political polarization from 2000 to 2008, a stunning conclusion given the complicated dynamics at play among tens of millions of voters. Fox is, of course, indispensable as a platform for Republican candidates and conservative talking points. It has predictably savaged the Democratic candidate in every election since Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes launched the network in 1996. It has also helped promote a smorgasbord of conservative culture-war memes, such as the “War on Christmas,” dubious COVID cures, and attacks on critical race theory. And yet, for all its cultural clout and Nielsen dominance, Fox has never been able to direct the course of Republican electoral politics.

In 2008, Ailes and his network briefly swooned over Mike Huckabee, the genial former governor of Arkansas, an evangelical minister who was perhaps the most conservative candidate in the field. Huckabee won the Iowa caucus in an upset, but his campaign petered out soon after. Republicans instead chose John McCain as their nominee. (Huckabee went on to host a Fox show.) Murdoch went all in on Rick Santorum in 2012 (“Only candidate with genuine big vision for country,” he tweeted at one point); Santorum, a longtime Fox contributor, also won Iowa in an upset, but faded like Huckabee thereafter. Republicans went for Mitt Romney instead. In the interim, Fox tried and failed to resurrect Sarah Palin as a national figure, keeping her on the payroll as a talking head for five years. Even during the Trump boom in the 2016 cycle, Fox was arguably more favorable to Ted Cruz until Cruz finally capitulated, late in the primaries. Only at that point did Fox fully embrace Trump. (The most influential Trump media booster, arguably, was CNN, which turned over enormous blocks of airtime to the flaming spectacles that were his rallies.)

Whichever candidate Fox News might support at the outset of a primary, it reliably comes to support the eventual Republican nominee. This suggests that it’s less a kingmaker than a courtier, pledging support to those already on the throne. Rather than influencing its viewers, it is influenced by them. There is no clearer example of this dynamic than the financial and journalistic debacle that was the Dominion Voting Systems defamation lawsuit. Fox’s parent company paid $787.5 million to settle Dominion’s claims that Fox had smeared the company by alleging that its election hardware had flipped votes from Trump to Joe Biden in 2020. Depositions showed that Fox’s top personalities and executives, including Murdoch, were well aware that Dominion wasn’t at the center of a conspiracy to cheat Trump out of reelection, even as Fox hosts and guests continued to say so on the air.

The now-obvious reason: Fox’s leaders feared that their audience would light out for other, even more strident TV networks if Fox didn’t keep hammering Dominion. This was not irrational. Incensed that Fox had called the election for Biden, Trump encouraged his supporters to abandon the network. “The great @FoxNews daytime ratings CRASH will only get worse!” he tweeted two weeks after Election Day. The previously obscure Newsmax network began to surge, propelled by its unalloyed Trump sycophancy. “We’re here to stay,” crowed the network’s CEO, Christopher Ruddy, to CNN at the time. “The ratings are showing that.” This proved premature. After Fox recommitted to Trump’s Big Lie, its ratings rebounded. The lesson was obvious: Fox holds less sway over its audience than its audience holds over Fox. The viewers demanded that their delusions be catered to. Fox, chasing ratings, complied. (This dynamic recently prompted Ron DeSantis, of all people, to complain, of Fox and Trump, “They don’t hold him accountable because they’re worried about losing viewers.”)

Even unwavering devotion to Trump may not save Fox from larger, structural issues. Neither of the network’s new prime-time hosts, Greg Gutfeld and Jesse Watters, draws the same audience that Bill O’Reilly or Tucker Carlson did. Fox remains the top cable network overall, but its ratings are in broad decline. Cable-news viewing tends to be cyclical, peaking in election years and declining in off years. Last year was one such off year, but the ratings losses were so steep that they look less like a traditional dip than a piano plummeting from a tall building. Fox’s audience dropped 18 percent overall, to its lowest figure in eight years, and prime-time viewing fell 20 percent—hurt, in part, by the still largely unexplained firing of Tucker Carlson in April. Even with important global and domestic news—wars in Ukraine and the Middle East, the ongoing drama over the House speaker, the beginning of primary season—the trend line hasn’t been favorable. The most terrifying statistic surely must be the flight of viewers between the ages of 25 and 54, whom advertisers pay premium rates to reach. Fox lost 35 percent of that demographic last year compared with 2022.

Things are more likely to get worse than improve, even with the pick-me-up of an election year. Cord-cutting may have reached a tipping point in 2023. Cable- and satellite-TV operators such as Comcast/Xfinity and DirecTV lost millions of customers to streaming networks and aggregators like YouTube and Roku, driving household use of traditional pay-TV services below 50 percent for the first time in decades. (As recently as 2017, the figure was 73 percent.) The industry appears to be in a doom loop, raising prices to offset falling subscriptions, which triggers more subscription cancellations and more price increases.

The losses threaten the cable programmers’ most valuable asset: the billions of dollars in annual fees that they charge cable operators for the right to carry their programming. Cable news networks may be somewhat less susceptible to cord-cutting—their audiences are older and more tech-resistant, and thus less likely to cancel—but they’re not immune. With each new political cycle, Fox faces a more complicated conservative mediasphere populated by upstart TV networks, innumerable podcasts, and right-wing social-media influencers. “The data is clear,” the media scholar Michael Socolow tweeted in November. “Fox News, MSNBC & all cable TV is collapsing in terms of widespread influence in American culture, politics and society.”

For the moment, Fox remains the leading conservative platform, with a dominant (though shrinking) TV audience and a digital operation that reached about 90 million unique visitors in November, according to Comscore. But popular doesn’t equal influential. Whatever political influence Fox possessed—if it really possessed any at all—is going, and going fast.

Adblock test (Why?)



Source link

News

Justin Trudeau’s Announcing Cuts to Immigration Could Facilitate a Trump Win

Published

 on

Outside of sports and a “Cold front coming down from Canada,” American news media only report on Canadian events that they believe are, or will be, influential to the US. Therefore, when Justin Trudeau’s announcement, having finally read the room, that Canada will be reducing the number of permanent residents admitted by more than 20 percent and temporary residents like skilled workers and college students will be cut by more than half made news south of the border, I knew the American media felt Trudeau’s about-face on immigration was newsworthy because many Americans would relate to Trudeau realizing Canada was accepting more immigrants than it could manage and are hoping their next POTUS will follow Trudeau’s playbook.

Canada, with lots of space and lacking convenient geographical ways for illegal immigrants to enter the country, though still many do, has a global reputation for being incredibly accepting of immigrants. On the surface, Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver appear to be multicultural havens. However, as the saying goes, “Too much of a good thing is never good,” resulting in a sharp rise in anti-immigrant sentiment, which you can almost taste in the air. A growing number of Canadians, regardless of their political affiliation, are blaming recent immigrants for causing the housing affordability crises, inflation, rise in crime and unemployment/stagnant wages.

Throughout history, populations have engulfed themselves in a tribal frenzy, a psychological state where people identify strongly with their own group, often leading to a ‘us versus them’ mentality. This has led to quick shifts from complacency to panic and finger-pointing at groups outside their tribe, a phenomenon that is not unique to any particular culture or time period.

My take on why the American news media found Trudeau’s blatantly obvious attempt to save his political career, balancing appeasement between the pitchfork crowd, who want a halt to immigration until Canada gets its house in order, and immigrant voters, who traditionally vote Liberal, newsworthy; the American news media, as do I, believe immigration fatigue is why Kamala Harris is going to lose on November 5th.

Because they frequently get the outcome wrong, I don’t take polls seriously. According to polls in 2014, Tim Hudak’s Progressive Conservatives and Kathleen Wynne’s Liberals were in a dead heat in Ontario, yet Wynne won with more than twice as many seats. In the 2018 Quebec election, most polls had the Coalition Avenir Québec with a 1-to-5-point lead over the governing Liberals. The result: The Coalition Avenir Québec enjoyed a landslide victory, winning 74 of 125 seats. Then there’s how the 2016 US election polls showing Donald Trump didn’t have a chance of winning against Hillary Clinton were ridiculously way off, highlighting the importance of the election day poll and, applicable in this election as it was in 2016, not to discount ‘shy Trump supporters;’ voters who support Trump but are hesitant to express their views publicly due to social or political pressure.

My distrust in polls aside, polls indicate Harris is leading by a few points. One would think that Trump’s many over-the-top shenanigans, which would be entertaining were he not the POTUS or again seeking the Oval Office, would have him far down in the polls. Trump is toe-to-toe with Harris in the polls because his approach to the economy—middle-class Americans are nostalgic for the relatively strong economic performance during Trump’s first three years in office—and immigration, which Americans are hyper-focused on right now, appeals to many Americans. In his quest to win votes, Trump is doing what anyone seeking political office needs to do: telling the people what they want to hear, strategically using populism—populism that serves your best interests is good populism—to evoke emotional responses. Harris isn’t doing herself any favours, nor moving voters, by going the “But, but… the orange man is bad!” route, while Trump cultivates support from “weird” marginal voting groups.

To Harris’s credit, things could have fallen apart when Biden abruptly stepped aside. Instead, Harris quickly clinched the nomination and had a strong first few weeks, erasing the deficit Biden had given her. The Democratic convention was a success, as was her acceptance speech. Her performance at the September 10th debate with Donald Trump was first-rate.

Harris’ Achilles heel is she’s now making promises she could have made and implemented while VP, making immigration and the economy Harris’ liabilities, especially since she’s been sitting next to Biden, watching the US turn into the circus it has become. These liabilities, basically her only liabilities, negate her stance on abortion, democracy, healthcare, a long-winning issue for Democrats, and Trump’s character. All Harris has offered voters is “feel-good vibes” over substance. In contrast, Trump offers the tangible political tornado (read: steamroll the problems Americans are facing) many Americans seek. With Trump, there’s no doubt that change, admittedly in a messy fashion, will happen. If enough Americans believe the changes he’ll implement will benefit them and their country…

The case against Harris on immigration, at a time when there’s a huge global backlash to immigration, even as the American news media are pointing out, in famously immigrant-friendly Canada, is relatively straightforward: During the first three years of the Biden-Harris administration, illegal Southern border crossings increased significantly.

The words illegal immigration, to put it mildly, irks most Americans. On the legal immigration front, according to Forbes, most billion-dollar startups were founded by immigrants. Google, Microsoft, and Oracle, to name three, have immigrants as CEOs. Immigrants, with tech skills and an entrepreneurial thirst, have kept America leading the world. I like to think that Americans and Canadians understand the best immigration policy is to strategically let enough of these immigrants in who’ll increase GDP and tax base and not rely on social programs. In other words, Americans and Canadians, and arguably citizens of European countries, expect their governments to be more strategic about immigration.

The days of the words on a bronze plaque mounted inside the Statue of Liberty pedestal’s lower level, “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free…” are no longer tolerated. Americans only want immigrants who’ll benefit America.

Does Trump demagogue the immigration issue with xenophobic and racist tropes, many of which are outright lies, such as claiming Haitian immigrants in Ohio are abducting and eating pets? Absolutely. However, such unhinged talk signals to Americans who are worried about the steady influx of illegal immigrants into their country that Trump can handle immigration so that it’s beneficial to the country as opposed to being an issue of economic stress.

In many ways, if polls are to be believed, Harris is paying the price for Biden and her lax policies early in their term. Yes, stimulus spending quickly rebuilt the job market, but at the cost of higher inflation. Loosen border policies at a time when anti-immigrant sentiment was increasing was a gross miscalculation, much like Trudeau’s immigration quota increase, and Biden indulging himself in running for re-election should never have happened.

If Trump wins, Democrats will proclaim that everyone is sexist, racist and misogynous, not to mention a likely White Supremacist, and for good measure, they’ll beat the “voter suppression” button. If Harris wins, Trump supporters will repeat voter fraud—since July, Elon Musk has tweeted on Twitter at least 22 times about voters being “imported” from abroad—being widespread.

Regardless of who wins tomorrow, Americans need to cool down; and give the divisive rhetoric a long overdue break. The right to an opinion belongs to everyone. Someone whose opinion differs from yours is not by default sexist, racist, a fascist or anything else; they simply disagree with you. Americans adopting the respectful mindset to agree to disagree would be the best thing they could do for the United States of America.

______________________________________________________________

 

Nick Kossovan, a self-described connoisseur of human psychology, writes about what’s

on his mind from Toronto. You can follow Nick on Twitter and Instagram @NKossovan.

Continue Reading

Politics

RFK Jr. says Trump would push to remove fluoride from drinking water. ‘It’s possible,’ Trump says

Published

 on

 

PHOENIX (AP) — Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a prominent proponent of debunked public health claims whom Donald Trump has promised to put in charge of health initiatives, said Saturday that Trump would push to remove fluoride from drinking water on his first day in office if elected president.

Fluoride strengthens teeth and reduces cavities by replacing minerals lost during normal wear and tear, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The addition of low levels of fluoride to drinking water has long been considered one of the greatest public health achievements of the last century.

Kennedy made the declaration Saturday on the social media platform X alongside a variety of claims about the heath effects of fluoride.

“On January 20, the Trump White House will advise all U.S​. water systems to remove fluoride from public water,” Kennedy wrote. Trump and his wife, Melania Trump, “want to Make America Healthy Again,” he added, repeating a phrase Trump often uses and links to Kennedy.

Trump told NBC News on Sunday that he had not spoken to Kennedy about fluoride yet, “but it sounds OK to me. You know it’s possible.”

The former president declined to say whether he would seek a Cabinet role for Kennedy, a job that would require Senate confirmation, but added, “He’s going to have a big role in the administration.”

Asked whether banning certain vaccines would be on the table, Trump said he would talk to Kennedy and others about that. Trump described Kennedy as “a very talented guy and has strong views.”

The sudden and unexpected weekend social media post evoked the chaotic policymaking that defined Trump’s White House tenure, when he would issue policy declarations on Twitter at virtually all hours. It also underscored the concerns many experts have about Kennedy, who has long promoted debunked theories about vaccine safety, having influence over U.S. public health.

In 1950, federal officials endorsed water fluoridation to prevent tooth decay, and continued to promote it even after fluoride toothpaste brands hit the market several years later. Though fluoride can come from a number of sources, drinking water is the main source for Americans, researchers say.

Officials lowered their recommendation for drinking water fluoride levels in 2015 to address a tooth condition called fluorosis, that can cause splotches on teeth and was becoming more common in U.S. kids.

In August, a federal agency determined “with moderate confidence” that there is a link between higher levels of fluoride exposure and lower IQ in kids. The National Toxicology Program based its conclusion on studies involving fluoride levels at about twice the recommended limit for drinking water.

A federal judge later cited that study in ordering the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to further regulate fluoride in drinking water. U.S. District Judge Edward Chen cautioned that it’s not certain that the amount of fluoride typically added to water is causing lower IQ in kids, but he concluded that mounting research points to an unreasonable risk that it could be. He ordered the EPA to take steps to lower that risk, but didn’t say what those measures should be.

In his X post Saturday, Kennedy tagged Michael Connett, the lead attorney representing the plaintiff in that lawsuit, the environmental advocacy group Food & Water Watch.

Kennedy’s anti-vaccine organization has a lawsuit pending against news organizations including The Associated Press, accusing them of violating antitrust laws by taking action to identify misinformation, including about COVID-19 and COVID-19 vaccines. Kennedy is on leave from the group but is listed as one of its attorneys in the lawsuit.

What role Kennedy might hold if Trump wins on Tuesday remains unclear. Kennedy recently told NewsNation that Trump asked him to “reorganize” agencies including the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, the Food and Drug Administration and some agencies under the Department of Agriculture.

But for now, the former independent presidential candidate has become one of Trump’s top surrogates. Trump frequently mentions having the support of Kennedy, a scion of a Democratic dynasty and the son of former Attorney General Robert Kennedy and nephew of President John F. Kennedy.

Kennedy traveled with Trump Friday and spoke at his rallies in Michigan and Wisconsin.

Trump said Saturday that he told Kennedy: “You can work on food, you can work on anything you want” except oil policy.

“He wants health, he wants women’s health, he wants men’s health, he wants kids, he wants everything,” Trump added.

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Danielle Smith receives overwhelming support at United Conservative Party convention

Published

 on

Danielle Smith receives overwhelming support at United Conservative Party convention

Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Exit mobile version