Republicans on the Run?
Piece from Politico this AM about the convention and what it means for the R's in California is interesting...
It is interesting how media is used to drive narratives. I am rewatching the final season of the Wire, where the deluge facing media was starting to be documented (2008). We are now almost 20 years later. The notion of the “impartial media” has been cast aside with all the changes since the advent of the Internet. We are well aware we are getting information shaped how we want it or by those who are purveying it want us to see it. I read the Los Angeles Times, for instance, but there are many aspects of the coverage I do not agree with.
I argue the notion of an “impartial media” never existed. It was always an ideal. Newspapers have always had their “slant.” William Randolph Hearst used his papers to advance his political views. The Washington Post and New York Times were “establishment,” but nevertheless had their narratives. I remember my professor in university discussing the media and Watergate. He said “the fall of the media was that event. When the WaPo scooped the New York Times, it was vowed that the Times would never be scooped again.” Everything after became a “scoop.” Then you had the rise of CNN and the 24 hour news cycle. Then Fox News. And here we are, with “scoops,” atomized media, and the Internet. In fact, Sasha Stone wrote a great piece this weekend, published on Real Clear Politics about the rise of Substack vis a vis the traditional media, centered on the proposed take over of Bari Weiss’s Free Press. Believe the politics or not, but the message is clear, the world has changed.
Understanding the broader context, it was fun to read the piece this morning in Politico. The California GOP had their convention (or gathering since the R’s are minimally relevant in California) this past weekend. We all know what is coming. Redistricting and its effect. It is a “catastrophe” about to be visited on the R’s in California. Going from 9 to 4 seats is a '“catastrophe,” assuming the D’s win? Really? We have 52 seats in Congress. R’s are going from 10% to 5%? Time to wake up folks.
I think the catastrophe has happened long ago when the dominant party in California fell by the wayside and has lived in the wilderness since. Up until the early 1990s, California was a 2 party state. The R’s drifted from their electorate and where it was going and took positions (i.e. Prop 187) which undermined the whole game. The irony was, 187, was ultimately overturned, so it was a bad bet. Prop 50? Could it be the same? Could it be a bad bet?
Since Prop 187, the R’s have never been able to get back to center since. I chide the D’s for running candidates who can win in marginal districts, but the R’s also have a candidate problem. They cannot attract the talent necessary to make a dent in California. Steve Garvey? Larry Elder? Chad Bianco? Steve Hilton? These are base guys, not guys who are transformative. Come on guys. What are you giving Californian’s to vote for?
Trump? We know he is hated far more than liked here, but you cannot get past the base there. The relevance is an issue beyond any redistricting.
But buried deep in the piece is the key, which always happens. Read the article to get to the good piece. It is almost always buried.
“Even internal polling from Democrats in the state Legislature suggests the GOP’s messaging on the initiative could be effective with some voters, including that “two wrongs don’t make a right” and that it “undermines democracy.”
I guess I needed polls to tell me what we tell 2 year olds all the time. Still, the internal polls are usually far more relevant than the public ones being touted as making things inevitable.
The piece goes on to say:
“While polling shared with Democrats in the state Assembly last week and obtained by POLITICO found a majority of voters support a redrawn map, it also suggests the plan could be vulnerable if Democrats don’t turn out in November, with many independent voters skeptical of the concept of gerrymandering (emphasis added).”
Oh, there you go. Tell the D’s to turn out the base. But is the impression the D base does not understand what we teach our children all the time- two wrongs do not make a right? If it loses, well the base abandoned the party. Already setting up the excuses too. Love politics.
Honestly, it is what has bothered many of us hereto. It is not that we support Trump’s approach or the R’s doing what they are doing. In fact, it is distasteful. It reflects poorly on the party as a whole. It shows weakness. It is cheap. It is what we hate. But yet, here we are, being asked to do the exact thing we find distasteful. We are told to hate it but vote for it anyhow? Why? It leads to a whole load of other questions and answers.
It turns out, perhaps, if you ask the right questions, maybe you get the right answers. What was the point here? It is not to add color. It is a message for someone. Who? Was it to get the R’s to kick in money because they feel there is a shot here (a la Dumb and Dumber, “ are you saying I have a chance”), or is it to get the D’s to realize there is a chance their “inevitability narrative” might not land and to focus on the base and getting those folks engaged? Are they setting up the “out” if things fail?
Sad but necessary we have to look at our media in this way. At least the information says what it does- the State Assemblymembers know there is a bigger risk than is being portrayed elsewhere. Maybe we can just cut through the bullsh*t and get to the point.
Turns out, people might actually get it.
Maybe we do not want to lay with dogs, because, sometimes, you do get fleas. And for those with pets, we know fleas are not easy to get rid of.