Is Fox News making the same mistake with Ocasio-Cortez the rest of the MSM may have done with Trump?

Inspiring me to ask this question is Samantha Bee:

And yes, I did lump Fox with the rest of the MSM (CNN, MSNBC, CBS, BBC, PBS, etc), because they are. Their viewers and Fox themselves may not because of their different views, but in reality, they are. It's gotten to the point where Fox ranks as highly as PBS and the BBC, which already makes me sick.

Honestly, to me this feels like they are doing the exact opposite of what happened with Trump. They are making her out to be a serious threat to the country and using her to try and make her the face of the democratic party. Eventually people in the media did the same with Trump, but it wasn't until late in the game. Before that people were largely laughing at him and saying he had no chance to win the presidency.

it boggles my mind people on fox can sit and talk about the "mainstream media" like it's not the same machine that THEY THEMSELVES are a huge part of.

YOU'RE THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA!

So..they're being smart.

But really, who is the face of the Democratic party, if not her. Booker? Waters?

I hope so :)

well I dont know that 'a face' is really needed but it likely will be Ocasio-Cortez and undoubtedly helped along unintentionally by the Right wing,

Exactly why I did it.

They see her as a threat.

Bad publicity is good sometimes, and it worked for Trump.

Like Roger Moore said (paraphrased) 'The right wing attacks on my movies have been the best form of advertisement for me'

Is that Fox News headline supposed to be an insult? I don't get it. ? Nothing wrong with democratic socialism.

Socialism is bad to Republicans because of China, Nazi Germany, and the Soviet Union, yet they ignore other countries using it and never have fallen to the lows of those nations.

As @mrbojangles25 noted a while ago (and I credit him for this) in other words, shouldn't the right shun republicanism due to what a certain group of leftist terrorists did to an allied nation before the Good Friday Agreement?

I seriously doubt it.

*100 face palms*

@n64dd: You're living in it now, and your favored party would become itrelevant in a month if they got rid of it.

Incorrect.

My perception is that Americans were trained to react negatively to the word "socialism" during the cold war and many today still react to it as promptly as Pavlov's dog reacted to the bell. Fox News knows this and uses it effectively.

@n64dd: on which point?

@n64dd: explain because even republicansure are saying single pay works.

This is why I'm glad we live fairly long lives and millennials wont have complete control of the government any time soon.

You guys know the average age demographic for Fox news, right? Do you really think that we're going to have a bunch of 65 year old born again socialists showing up to the polls?

She is not a serious threat other than being ad dumb as a rock.

Other than it doesn't work.

I’m no fan of Trump, but socialism? Yea, no. Hell no.

@JimB: So she's just like the president then, except he's a threat to democracy.

Socialism is like kryptonite to republicans. They reject it outright, due to the fact that it may actually lead to a fairer distribution of wealth in the country, less inequality, universal healthcare, better social security etc. All things which wouldn't fly with their wealthy donors. Instead they opt for joke policies such as trickle down economics, which blatantly benefit the 1%, rather than the people living on food stamps.

Hey well I wouldn't expect any consistency from the right, or republicans. Only double standards and hypocrisy. Socialism? Hell no! Socialism doesn't work... nevermind the $12 billion welfare cheque we just signed over to American farmers, that doesn't count lol.

Don't be so sure. Trump is at the helm of a GOP base which is shrinking, and demographics don't favour the republicans or right wing politics in the future at all.

I wouldn't say anyone is expecting the diehard Fox news viewers to sway from Trump's core base. However, the republican party has an increasingly diminishing connection to female, minority and young voters. You can't just appeal to the older white voter (predominantly, I know this isn't their only source of support), and expect to be successful at elections the coming years.

You're likely confusing democratic socialism with social democracy. Despite being based on the same two core words, they are quite different concepts. The usual spots people point to as 'socialism working' are actually social democracies (for instance the Nordic countries), which are basically capitalistic with a few social programs tossed in the mix and very little actual socialism. Democratic socialism is basically hard socialism with a democratic government form... which itself doesn't work as a true democracy would allow them to abandon the socialism but whatever. Right now democractic socialism has far more in common with China and USSR than those Nordic countries, or Canada or the like.

@mandzilla:You need to consider that Trump has unprecedented party support (I believe around 88%). That is a type of solidarity that dems just don't have right now. There is is schism in the Democratic party between the so-called "socialists" and the moderates. Ocasio Cortez is one of the most popular faces in the party, but hardly anyone in the party is endorsing her. They don't want her, and I'm pretty sure they're going to treat her the same way they treated Sanders.

You're assessment as to why Republicans don't like socialism is the dumbest thing I've seen in a while.

First off, the donors: this election cycle, 23 of the top 50 donor leaned heavily democrat, only 14 leaned heavily Republican (source). Unions have always been the largest donors and they always almost universally Democrat. I know libs like to try and seperate unions from other types of donors, but they are the same. They're all looking out for their own interests. Now that our courts ruled that unions cannot force people to pay for representation they don't want, maybe we will see some change from the unions, but I doubt it.

Second, your definition of socialism: giving a welfare package to private farmers isn't evidence of socialism. Not even close. Did the government seize their property and demand quotas? Is the government not allowing these farmers to profit? Did they start fixing prices of their produce? No? Then it's not socialism. If you think that any form of redistribution is socialist, then you can call Milton Friedman a socialist since he believes in a negative income tax. Your definition of socialism is exactly how paranoid right-wingers defined socialism when Obama was first elected.

I won’t lie, I’ve dropped mainstream news but looking this lady up.....I like her a lot!

that is a problem with the system. the people who vote the most and therefore dictate policy are the ones who will be dead before the impacts of their votes are fully realized.

maybe we need to start skewing electoral college votes more. similar to how they're skewed now to favor less populated states, maybe skew them to favor younger votes as well.

you're already fucking with the system, might as well do it some more.

I think there is a very large part of the population that plans to vote blue in the midterm without any consideration at all of who it is.

I dont think people fully grasp how many Americans are unbelievably pissed off at the GOP right now.

I am voting straight ticket this Nov. absolutely

I was referring to what Fox News themselves put in their own headline 'growing debate over democratic socialism', so the confusion is on their part. When it comes to democratic socialism, all I meant by my post was that I don't automatically discount it as a viable philosophy, if people are that way politically inclined. For sure it is a more extreme application of socialism, and I myself believe social democracy to be the superior model, but it's clear that capitalism simply doesn't work for a vast number of people around the world, who are much less fortunate than those of us living in the more developed western world.

Within the Nordic countries, I'd argue it's the tempering of capitalism through socialism which is key to their economic success, as well as the high quality of life. Regarding democratic socialism, it depends on what you mean by it being hard socialism, since democratic socialists disavow the authoritarian politics, and centralised economy which the USSR operated for example. I'd say that actually you could draw certain similarities between both democratic socialism and social democracy. The most obvious point of philosophical divergence is the end result, with social democracies attempting to 'fix' the issues of capitalism through the aid of social policies and reforms, while the ultimate goal of democratic socialists is to move away from capitalism altogether.

Finally I don't think that's a fair comparison to make, since the USSR was never democratic in the slightest, and neither has the PRC been up to this day. I would say though, that democratic socialism is likely widely viewed now as an outdated political philosophy, and far less achievable in the present day, than perhaps it would have been during the Cold War.

For sure, his support among republicans is impressively solid. Still though, that won't count for much in the grand scheme of things if the party keeps contracting, relative to the democrats. And that's true, there is a lot of division in the democratic party currently, with no clear unifying message, so it will be interesting to see how the midterms play out. Still though, I wouldn't rule Oscasio Cortez out based solely upon a lack of inner-party endorsement. Tell me, how many republicans were lining up to endorse Trump when he was campaigning? Populism can exist on the left as well as the right.

Well okay? As a non American I hope you didn't get the impression that I was going to defend the democrats for being in the pockets of wealthy donors also. Both sides are just as bad, and your source perfectly illustrates the ridiculous power wielded by private interest groups in US politics today. At least unions for the most part look out for their workers, but I agree with you that membership should be voluntary. That's how it is set up in many other countries anyway.

Can I just ask why you consider socialism to equate to seizure of property, demand quotas, price fixing etc? You can certainly argue that the government providing welfare to struggling farmers may not be an inherently socialist policy decision to take, but you are implying that socialism is somehow synonymous with communism, which isn't the case. If you want to go down that road, then Trump is obviously taking cues from the actual communists, through his selective provision of handouts to groups supportive of him, while ignoring other victims of his self orchestrated trade war. Even republicans are voicing such opinions, Senator Ron Johnson has said “This is becoming more and more like a Soviet type of economy here: Commissars deciding who’s going to be granted waivers, commissars in the administration figuring out how they’re going to sprinkle around benefits.” It's simply socialism for the well connected.

I fail to see how they are the ones confused. Democratic socialism is the bad one so how is Fox confused? Most everything that we point to as 'good' socialism is often not socialism in the first place (as it is not a matter of means of production control but how tax dollars are spent), but much better assigned to social Democracy as policies.

I would consider them confused yes, as I seriously doubt Oscasio Cortez is advocating for democratic socialism. That would be a politically suicidal campaign to run on in the US. There is no growing debate over democratic socialism, but rather social democracy. As you mentioned earlier, they are frequently muddled up, and incorrectly used interchangeably.

The welfare state, universal health care, labour unions, income redistribution are all examples of the good aspects of socialism. Socialism is not simply economic, and furthermore is not a zero sum game. It can be applied in varying measures, and is perfectly compatible alongside capitalism within a social democracy.

@mandzilla: I define socialism that way because that's how socialism has defined itself: collective control of production and property. You can still use market forces, even to a large extent, like modern day China for example, but it's still based on state ownership or state owned enterprise.

As another poster has explained, you seem to advocate social democracy. Best example of this is the Nordic model, or Nordic capitalism as many of it's leaders call it these days, mainly because they don't like it being conflated with socialism. Denmark is a social democracy, and it has a freer, less regulated economy than the US. They just have higher taxes, mainly used to fund welfare.

Umm... Oscasio Cortez is an official member the Democratic Socialists of America and also describes herself as a democratic socialist as well, so yes, she is very much a Democratic Socialist, suicidal or not (and it isn't in her district as it is a hard blue district, not one with any serious republican contention). The likely reason she won the democrate slot on the ticket is because the incumbent took his nomination for granted and didn't campaign at all, like an idiot, and she managed to get her small voting base out to win, radical platform or not. The actual voting turn out in the district for the nomination was terrible (I recall it was something like less than 10%).

Welfare state, universal health care, labour unions and even income redistribution are not socialism. Socialism (like capitalism and communism) is about who controls the means of production, not how taxes are spent, or social care programs. In Socialism's case it is a large group, typically the government. In Capitalism's case it is private individuals. In communism's case it is the community or workers. All of these can potentially have all the social care programs, or not. And that is because those social care programs are not dictated by this aspect of the society, they are independent values.

Just so you know: http://www.theamericanmirror.com/socialist-star-cortez-strikes-out-all-endorsed-candidates-lose-tuesday-primaries/

that is not accurate.

at least 3 of justice democrats did win