politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
First, thank you for posting sources to support your claim. I looked at most of them.
The tagline on the article says: "Party leaders and mega-donors want to counter MAGA's online momentum by recreating a digital right-wing ecosystem for the left"
Okay so Party Leaders and megadonors want this right? But the article continues...
"As Democrats plot a return from the electoral wilderness, a growing chorus of party figures has begun to push for a liberal-leaning alternative to the right's digital dominance."
So gone are the megadonors now, and we're down to "party figures". What happened to the megadonors? The article actually tells us...
"That belief has led to party mega-donors being 'inundated with overtures' to open their wallets for the development of an 'army of left-leaning online influencers.'"
Okay, so the megadonors aren't asking a Demo-Rogan, someone is asking megadonors to pay for a Demo-Rogan. But so far we still have no names of any of the cited "party leaders". However we do have a named Democrat figure that is against a Demo-Rogan:
"The notion that victory is possible if they 'spend enough billionaire money' to create a Rogan equivalent 'speaking in Democratic talking points' is 'laughable,' said Emily Jashinsky at UnHerd."
This supports my statement.
If you do run across the unnamed party leaders, I'd be interested in knowing who they are.
Sorry, I don't consider Fox News as a news source. I skipped this one.
I don't have a NYT subscription so I couldn't read the whole article, but the part I could read was talking about a young man with a politics driving youtube channel. I don't consider that a Democratic Joe Rogan.
The article author openly says he's not asking for a Demo-Rogan.
"Also, the idea of a 'liberal Joe Rogan' has been floated a lot since the election and I don’t want to just parrot that since it’s not really what I mean".
Note: The "the idea of a liberal Joe Rogan" is a hyperlink to yet another article. I read that one too. There's no claim of a Demo-Rogan there either. The closest the author gets to is this:
"If liberals ever hope to compete with such a successful messaging apparatus, they’re going to have to do more than create clones of Crooked Media. They will have to elevate, or build from the ground up, captivating public figures who connect with vast audiences including, but not limited to, disaffected young men—and entertain the hell out of them. "
That last article actually supports my position, not yours. It says this:
"Progressives are correct about the power of Rogan and his cohort of bro podcasters, but they don’t understand how thoroughly anathema their ideology and cultural sensibility are to this kind of programming. If Left did manage to create a progressive Joe Rogan in a lab, as soon as he said something controversial out in the wild, he’d be subject to cancelation."
At least from the articles you posted that is more of a incorrect statement than correct. Yes, I see how you came to that conclusion and in some very narrow readings there are pieces of truth but, I think your premise is disingenuous to claim to be generally true. Keep in mind, I'm not attacking you as a person. I'm not calling you a bad person. I just disagree with your conclusions.
The idea of Demo-Rogan messaging is a repeat of the 1990s where Al Frankin and others created ["Air America"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_America_(radio_network) to counter the Republican mouthpiece of the day Rush Limbaugh. Air America failed there too for the same reason a Demo-Rogan would today. Democrats don't tune into radio for half truths and empty open ridicule of the GOP even though the GOP richly deserves ridicule, especially with trump in office.
I stand by my original statement.
I was simply responding to you claiming you’ve never seen this topic of the Democrats wanting their own Joe Rohan before today.
It has been a topic bartered about for a while now.
Huh. So you weren't answering my posted question, but picking out the first sentence in my post. Thank you for clarifying your statement.
Okay, we have nothing further to talk about then.
A second downvote it is then.