Seth, Convention bounces were a product of a more homogeneous broadcast environment where you had Walter in one booth, David in another, and Peter in the third. Today the Big 3 are not as relevant and the public gets their coverage from the network that reinforces their individual views, for example academics have to get their information and marching orders from CNN or MSDNC where as Americans tune into FOX or NEWSMAX to get the facts. It’s just an example of audience stratification and how are any minds going to be changed when no one listens to the information presented by the other side.
Really curious what you think would be the Dems wisest move going forward. I along with (I think??) a majority of pols scis and historians in my circle, tend to think that a switched nominee and all the attendant brouhaha is itself a damaging factor for a campaign and that it’s not clear that the damage done by the debate is enough to warrant inflicting additional self harm.
I base this on a kind of motley and eclectic sample of academics. I’m wondering if there is any kind of consensus on the best path forward among the academics you speak to?
Thinking about economists who write public letters to politicians about the impact of various factors and events on economic policy and/or prosperity.
And I’m wondering if there is any consensus among us about the best way forward if preserving democracy were the goal. Seems like a bunch of academics saying “wait a minute, here are the things you should at least consider” might be helpful at a moment in which it seems to me that no one is doing anything but trusting to a magical outcome of a magical convention.
Seth, Convention bounces were a product of a more homogeneous broadcast environment where you had Walter in one booth, David in another, and Peter in the third. Today the Big 3 are not as relevant and the public gets their coverage from the network that reinforces their individual views, for example academics have to get their information and marching orders from CNN or MSDNC where as Americans tune into FOX or NEWSMAX to get the facts. It’s just an example of audience stratification and how are any minds going to be changed when no one listens to the information presented by the other side.
Really curious what you think would be the Dems wisest move going forward. I along with (I think??) a majority of pols scis and historians in my circle, tend to think that a switched nominee and all the attendant brouhaha is itself a damaging factor for a campaign and that it’s not clear that the damage done by the debate is enough to warrant inflicting additional self harm.
I base this on a kind of motley and eclectic sample of academics. I’m wondering if there is any kind of consensus on the best path forward among the academics you speak to?
Thinking about economists who write public letters to politicians about the impact of various factors and events on economic policy and/or prosperity.
And I’m wondering if there is any consensus among us about the best way forward if preserving democracy were the goal. Seems like a bunch of academics saying “wait a minute, here are the things you should at least consider” might be helpful at a moment in which it seems to me that no one is doing anything but trusting to a magical outcome of a magical convention.
Any thoughts about that?