And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020

[JBS]

Who would be the equivalent of William F Buckley Jr. in right wing media today?

To reply to Dowder's second part in his post to me I want to say that the contrasting voice for a Rachel Maddow wouldn't be a Rush Limbaugh or a Sean Hannity, it would be someone like Buckley - but I can't think who is filling that role of conservative public intellectual. Whoever that is I might actually like to tune in to them.

There are plenty of such conservatives:  Frum, Goldberg, etc. But they've been banished because they oppose Trump.

I think Maddow is really a Hannity or Tucker Carlson for the Left.  There isn't a Buckley on the Left, although several people might come to be that in the future. Closest possibly is Chris Hayes.

[Ratliff]

Who would be the equivalent of William F Buckley Jr. in right wing media today?

To reply to Dowder's second part in his post to me I want to say that the contrasting voice for a Rachel Maddow wouldn't be a Rush Limbaugh or a Sean Hannity, it would be someone like Buckley - but I can't think who is filling that role of conservative public intellectual. Whoever that is I might actually like to tune in to them.

George Will?

[JBS]

Biden isn't openly corrupt? You say that because he has an actual personality compared to the robotic HRC and feel Joe is more personable thus more honest. In reality he used his power to enrich his family the same way the Clintons and the Obamas did. Don't be fooled by his malarkey, JBS.

Actually, he didn't. But you would have to pay attention to facts, not Fox, to know that.

[SimonNZ]

There are plenty of such conservatives:  Frum, Goldberg, etc. But they've been banished because they oppose Trump.

I think Maddow is really a Hannity or Tucker Carlson for the Left.  There isn't a Buckley on the Left, although several people might come to be that in the future. Closest possibly is Chris Hayes.

Really? I've seen only snippets of Maddow's show but I know her from her books her podcast on Spiro Agnew and from interviews etc and it seems like a comparison with those two would be unfair. Could she be compared more fairly to a Chris Wallace?

Who are Frum and Goldberg?

edit: David Frum and Jonah Goldberg? (I'm guessing you don't mean Whoopi Goldberg)

[SimonNZ]

Yup, but he has no influence.

Back in the day Buckley did.

Back in the day when you say the GOP had no voice and no balls?

[SimonNZ]

George Will?

Interesting. I heard him interviewed on David Axelrod's podcast and liked his differing perspective. I'll try and make a point of reading more of his articles. Thanks.

[SimonNZ]

If you're not smart enough to see the difference between influence and campaigning then by all means post nonsense.

So...you expect a right wing media outlet to be explicitly and openly a part of and in service to the campaign? This is what you're saying they lacked before Fox but thank goodness now have?

[Todd]

Since it has been established on this very forum that The Daily Show is a serious outlet to be taken seriously, perhaps the powerful, informed opinion of Trevor Noah will help change hearts and minds:

Joe Biden's "Super-Creepy" Hair-Smelling Skeeves Out Trevor Noah

You know, I think I see why Trevor Noah is so esteemed on this forum.  Super-Creepy is a more accurate, fact-based description of Joe Biden.  Henceforth, I shall endeavor to accurately describe the 46th President of the United States as Super-Creepy.

[JBS]

Really? I've seen only snippets of Maddow's show but I know her from her books her podcast on Spiro Agnew and from interviews etc and it seems like a comparison with those two would be unfair. Could she be compared more fairly to a Chris Wallace?

Who are Frum and Goldberg?

edit: David Frum and Jonah Goldberg? (I'm guessing you don't mean Whoopi Goldberg)

Re Maddow
I'm the reverse. I know her through her show, where she comes across as a Leftist version of  Carlson and Hannity. Of course, she is more sane and fact based than they are.

I did mean David Frum and Jonah Goldberg. The latter's books might interest you, especially.

All the ones Dowder mentioned are  advocates of Trumpism. Mark Steyn (the masks are sharia guy) is another.

[JBS]

What Todd said was true. You'll just defend Biden regardless, which is weird because I remember you saying Obama was the most liberal president ever. Now you want Biden in the white house and do you expect him to be any different?

I know Biden will be at least as liberal. But Trump is merely an incompetent deeply corrupt authoritarian statist, whereas Biden is  a mildly corrupt authoritarian statist who can be expected to be at least miminally competent.  Nor does Biden indulge in the hatred of fellow men that Trump specializes in.

[drogulus]

Re Maddow
I'm the reverse. I know her through her show, where she comes across as a Leftist version of  Carlson and Hannity. Of course, she is more sane and fact based than they are.

     I watch Maddow occasionally and it strikes me as odd to imagine that someone as fact based as her could be a version of Carlson or Hannity. Even her leftism is a bit of an exaggeration, as it's composed of her opposition to military adventures and oil company hijinks that inspire them, as well as a very detailed critical appraisal of TrumPutin, which offends many on the right, too. Leftism is better judged on domestic policy IMV.

     She authored well regarded books which she actually wrote. She does research! That puts her in a different league than the others mentioned.

     Having said all that, I find her grating at times.

[Todd]

Joe Biden's good pandemic

[JBS]

     I watch Maddow occasionally and it strikes me as odd to imagine that someone as fact based as her could be a version of Carlson or Hannity. Even her leftism is a bit of an exaggeration, as it's composed of her opposition to military adventures and oil company hijinks that inspire them, as well as a very detailed critical appraisal of TrumPutin, which offends many on the right, too. Leftism is better judged on domestic policy IMV.

     She authored well regarded books which she actually wrote. She does research! That puts her in a different league than the others mentioned.

     Having said all that, I find her grating at times.

She gives detailed (sometimes overly detailed) explanations of what The Other Side has done, delivered with passion and high moral fervor.  Which is what Hannity/Carlson do. The style is the same. It's the substance, and the fact that it's grounded in real facts and not alternative  facts that makes the difference.

[drogulus]

Still, if you find Fox or Breitbart toxic then MSNBC is just as bad.

     That makes no sense. What makes Fox and Brietbart toxic is that they have no respect for fact. MSNBC is not as bad or even close. You can actually learn something watching MSNBC, and go to other sources to confirm what you learned. Try that with Fox hosts, or just note how the Foxers find themselves refuted by their own hard news colleagues at the network, who belong to the same world as reporters elsewhere do, the real one.

     I also wonder why you think the ideological disposition of Fox/Breitbart is as toxic as MSNBC.

[drogulus]

We just shouldn't continue because we're not qualified to speak for some. Suffice to say, MSNBC aligns with your confirmation bias, Fox News and to a far lesser degree Breitbart does with mine.

    It doesn't suffice to say that. My biases are not so confirmed as you have guessed. I have a strong bias for information that looms just as large as my bias for confirmation, sometimes a little larger.

    Like many on the moderate left I value information for its own sake and look at beliefy ideology as epistemic poison. My choices are limited by respect for fact. So what goes into an ideology ought to determine what comes out of it. If you exalt beliefy bullshittery going in, you'll find an ideology that allows and champions that stance. I can't do that. I have to settle on occasion for being wrong.

[SimonNZ]

She gives detailed (sometimes overly detailed) explanations of what The Other Side has done, delivered with passion and high moral fervor.  Which is what Hannity/Carlson do. The style is the same. It's the substance, and the fact that it's grounded in real facts and not alternative  facts that makes the difference.

I think what you're describing there is someone more like Keith Olberman, who I can't stand because of his screaming moral outrage, even if his politics might broadly align with mine, and even if he does more and better research than H/C and is speaking from a place of sincerity.

[greg]

Interesting analysis.

It's all just entertainment for me. Only horror films are taboo. No catharsis for me watching them.

Ha, was starting to think maybe we think similarly, but then you say this, complete opposite for me. 

Musicals just seem so... fake, I guess?... fake in a cheery, optimistic way (at least that's my association- surely there are plenty of exceptions).

On the other hand, the bleak, evil atmosphere of something like a horror movie/video game/book, or a death metal concert, is something that I will just soak up because it feels sublime. Just the general atmosphere, not really anything specific about it.

[JBS]

I think what you're describing there is someone more like Keith Olberman, who I can't stand because of his screaming moral outrage, even if his politics might broadly align with mine, and even if he does more and better research than H/C and is speaking from a place of sincerity.

"Screaming moral outrage".  Hmm, I think that describes her rather well.
You know her through her books, I know her through her show. I would guess the screaming moral outrage doesn't come through in the books.

Of the current MSNBC crop, the best might be Chris Hayes. He can do moral outrage, but does it without the screaming.

[SimonNZ]

Since it has been established on this very forum that The Daily Show is a serious outlet to be taken seriously, perhaps the powerful, informed opinion of Trevor Noah will help change hearts and minds:

Joe Biden's "Super-Creepy" Hair-Smelling Skeeves Out Trevor Noah

You know, I think I see why Trevor Noah is so esteemed on this forum.  Super-Creepy is a more accurate, fact-based description of Joe Biden.  Henceforth, I shall endeavor to accurately describe the 46th President of the United States as Super-Creepy.

I meant to ask earlier: who has been saying this? You must be thinking of a different forum.

[SimonNZ]

Then you're been imagining that some of us are the kind of people who would think that, and over time that thought has ossified into "fact"