In the 12 days since Ohio’s junior senator was tapped as the future of Donald J. Trump’s movement, old comments and a chorus of derision have blunted any sense of invulnerability.
The New York Times is so bad on politics. Obviously Vance said some terrible things and has some terrible views, but that doesn’t matter to his hardcore followers, and it doesn’t even matter much to people who are thinking of staying home. Nobody is going to listen to Democrats trash the man and all of a sudden decide that he’s worthless, because of course the Democrats would portray him that way. It happens to be true, but one would naturally be skeptical of such a portrayal.
But hey, the Times really wants to ride that centrist bandwagon, that mythical position where they aren’t pushing for anything except we all know they are, and all they want is more attention. I’m just happy that they put themselves behind a pay wall. Now there’s no chance I’m going to read their articles.
He’s not polling very well. The more the low-info voter types learn about this guy, the less they like him, too. He just comes off like a very creepy weirdo.
It seems like it is useful to try to speak to the median voter and (supposed) undecideds who would be affected by this. There are lots of other publications with different perspectives. Is it bad necessarily that this one exists and operates this way?
The New York Times is so bad on politics. Obviously Vance said some terrible things and has some terrible views, but that doesn’t matter to his hardcore followers, and it doesn’t even matter much to people who are thinking of staying home. Nobody is going to listen to Democrats trash the man and all of a sudden decide that he’s worthless, because of course the Democrats would portray him that way. It happens to be true, but one would naturally be skeptical of such a portrayal.
But hey, the Times really wants to ride that centrist bandwagon, that mythical position where they aren’t pushing for anything except we all know they are, and all they want is more attention. I’m just happy that they put themselves behind a pay wall. Now there’s no chance I’m going to read their articles.
He’s not polling very well. The more the low-info voter types learn about this guy, the less they like him, too. He just comes off like a very creepy weirdo.
It seems like it is useful to try to speak to the median voter and (supposed) undecideds who would be affected by this. There are lots of other publications with different perspectives. Is it bad necessarily that this one exists and operates this way?