tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post7922010833425383557..comments2023-10-16T07:13:12.123-05:00Comments on A plain blog about politics: "Establishment"Jonathan Bernsteinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15931039630306253241noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-11537817317745354872012-01-30T14:31:58.026-06:002012-01-30T14:31:58.026-06:00Both Carter and McGovern consistently led in the p...Both Carter and McGovern consistently led in the polls and fundraising and were the favorites from the start.<br /><br />No politician portrays himself as the favorite if he can help it, and nobody in the media wants to further the narrative that the favorite always wins. So there's a cottage industry in declaring people to be "upsetters". E.g., Bill Clinton, who was the favorite 2 1/2 years before the election but managed to instill a narrative that he was an underdog. But if you actually look at the reporting that was done in 1971 and 1975, you'll see that McGovern and Carter were both seen as the likely nominees for the standard reasons.Dilan Esperhttp://www.twitter.com/dilanespernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-3956212227150916412012-01-30T08:59:57.985-06:002012-01-30T08:59:57.985-06:001972 and 1976? I don't think so. Muskie, or pe...1972 and 1976? I don't think so. Muskie, or perhaps Kennedy/Muskie/Humphrey, was the solid favorite in 1972. In 1976, other than Kennedy, there was no real favorite, but it surely wasn't Carter.Jonathan Bernsteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15931039630306253241noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-62382666159269247442012-01-30T00:05:15.763-06:002012-01-30T00:05:15.763-06:00The only thing you get wrong in this post is 1972 ...The only thing you get wrong in this post is 1972 and 1976. The heavy favorite won both those primaries too.<br /><br />Obama is the only upsetter in either party since I've been born, and he won it with substantial support from party actors and leaders.Dilan Esperhttp://www.twitter.com/dilanespernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-7700802087679619792012-01-28T07:35:37.414-06:002012-01-28T07:35:37.414-06:00Perhaps in part in response to your prior post, I ...Perhaps in part in response to your prior post, I think everyone underestimates the importance of the contemporary finding in cognitive psychology that <i>thinking follows language</i>. That is, we all assume that we first establish an opinion about a matter, say global warming, and only later evaluate arguments for and against. Research pretty conclusively shows that the opposite is true: we hear particular individuals making an argument about an issue, and really irrespective of the truth value of those arguments, simply hearing them guides our opinions. (Its a great shame that this important research isn't more widely known; particularly when arguments blithely dismissing something like the fairness doctrine are advanced - Derek Besner at the University of Waterloo in Ontario is one of the important figures in this area).<br /><br />To the topic of party actors, perhaps it is helpful to recall that said actors have two agendas: first, of course, they want to push their own priorities, but second, and possibly just as importantly, they want to protect their status as party actors! Some party actors, perhaps say the Bushes, can say just about whatever they want and not worry about losing influence. Other actors of a more peripheral nature - think of a nervous Christine O'Donnell during the second Gingrich boomlet, having endorsed Romney - can easily have their status jeopardized by a bad public move. A fringe actor, today, would likely not endorse Gingrich, even if they really loved Gingrich and wanted him President, since Gingrich is increasingly dead money, and what fringe person would bring that upon themselves at this point?<br /><br />Tying this all together: the reason why the right wing partisan media matters (last post) is precisely because thinking follows language - even if no one believes this to be the case - and because (this post) any partisan mover not firmly entrenched is not going to go against the canon for fear of jeopardizing their status.<br /><br />How did the global warming hoax become the Republican canon? Because every visible talker said so. Was it true? Who cares? Cognitive science has pretty conclusively shown that to be irrelevant, and that's typical human information processing, not some particular weakness of the Republican brain.CSHnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-27439287379167233162012-01-27T21:11:33.260-06:002012-01-27T21:11:33.260-06:00I tend to think of the Republican Party Establishm...I tend to think of the Republican Party Establishment as those big-money donors who are able to pull the strings. While Rush Limbaugh is certainly the voice of the Republican Party base, I'm not sure the Establishment really gives a crap about what the base wants, hence 8 years of deficit spending and big government under Bush The Lesser. Rush is a useful tool of the Establishment for distracting the rubes with Islamophobia and immigrant-bashing, and he's great at poisoning the base against anything liberal, but I wouldn't call him the Establishment. He gets tossed aside as soon as he crosses the line and threatens the GOPs hold on power.<br /><br />That's why Glenn Beck is off Fox right now. He was tarnishing "the brand."<br /><br />That's just how I see it.Southern Bealehttp://southernbeale.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-65760576463732730802012-01-27T17:09:52.046-06:002012-01-27T17:09:52.046-06:00Surely the Republican Party is drastically differe...Surely the Republican Party is drastically different from what it was 8 years ago, is all Sullivan or anyone is saying, and I'm not seeing how that is even debatable.kthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12807643816565849458noreply@blogger.com