"As an aside, many of you know that I used to work for Erickson on The Resurgent. His metamorphosis from a thoughtful critic of Trump to a dishonest partisan bomb thrower (although only in the figurative sense) has been very disappointing."
As someone who has been following Erickson in one way or other since the mid-Aughts, he's always been a bomb thrower. (Google his comments on David Souter.)
He did good disinviting Trump to the Red State gathering back in 2016, but it was clear that version of him wasn't going to stick around as long as he wanted to remain a media personality. He follows his audience, not vice versa.
For Goldberg it's more related to his vocal disagreement with David French, for which he cites the loss of influence and the negative reaction from readers.
For Lewis: he outright stated he wants to maintain his influence with in the Republican Party.
I was thinking of "Moneyball" MICHAEL Lewis, not Matt. (Whom I'm not familiar with.)
As for Goldberg (and the whole Dispatch / Bulwark tiff) - I think it's less about audience capture (else, he would have gone full MAGA like the rest of the National Review crew) and more about being annoyed that he can't meaningfully engage as a conservative pundit in this election. I'd argue that Steve Berman here is probably similarly annoyed, and I wouldn't accuse him of any audience capture. :-)
If Goldberg isn't saying what he wants to say because he doesn't want to deal with the audience response, then it's a bit of audience capture - not by MAGA necessarily, but more-so by the conservative/Reagan Republican group that can't bring themselves to vote explicitly against Trump.
First of all, thanks for the Patterico link - I was responding before I read that and he made HIS case for Goldberg's audience capture.
I'm still going to disagree a bit - if it is audience capture, it's a VERY weak form of audience capture. As Patterico notes, there's plenty of folks writing for The Dispatch who have proclaimed that they will vote for Harris (Allahpundit, Williamson, McArdle), and as P. notes, Hayes' and Goldberg's reluctance to state that they will vote for Harris probably hurts them more than it helps them. (They lost a few points of esteem in my book.)
From my perspective, they're trying to have it both ways - both being anti-Trump, while being (weaker) anti-Harris (Harris being a stand-in for progressivism, in this election). I think that there is a bit of Lewis-esque post-Trump positioning that they're trying to do, but I also believe that they are being authentic about their choice to write someone else in (a profoundly STUPID way to send a signal - unless Edmund Burke is a valid write-in candidate, his tallies will be reported the same as Mickey Mouse and Optimus Prime - i.e. not at all), and won't be telling people to not vote for Harris, while pulling the lever for her in the ballot box.
As for dealing with e-mails from stupid voters about "this is what YOU voted FOR", I am pretty surprised that Goldberg advances that as a serious argument. I've responded negatively to things pundits have written and I'd have assumed that a "Sod off!" shortcut came standard on their keyboards.
More GUNS! The obvious solution for this country is to embrace the second amendment in all its glory. Screw education for all, screw health care coverage for the masses, make it mandatory that every child at the age of 12 receive an AR 15 or an AK 47. Safety can become a states rights issue with the red states leaving it to the parents and the blue mandating proper training.
Of course this is bat shit crazy, but it's the direction this country has gone in. The data (there's that dirty word again), tells us the majority of citizens in this country want some common sense gun reform. We cannot move off the dime to get it.
The oddity of course is now that nut jobs with guns start chasing the former president, the right starts whining about the left's rhetoric. Are you freaking kidding me? Send out more Christmas cards with the entire family holding automatic rifles. Shameful in light of where we are and what is happening; not just to the donald (he's still alive...yes that's a good thing) but to the children and teachers who never came home from school.
In a related note, i read a headline, the youngsters from Sandy Hook are just now becoming eligible to vote. Wonder which way they'll pull the lever?
Let's leave this absurdity behind and just quit by wishing our "thoughts and prayers" on all those who will be gunned down in the coming months as we reach November. What a pathetically sad thought.
The thing that makes zero sense to me (though I understand the how) is that Routh was able to get this hands on an AK-47, even though he has a violent criminal history.
Universal background checks are needed at a minimum. Ideally high-powered and (for lack of a better term at the moment) fast-shooting weapons should require licensing, registration, and insurance.
It could have been, though he may have removed the serial number himself. We'll likely find out.
I think you can agree though - it's way too easy to get one's hands on a high-powered and high-output weapon, and there needs be some better processes in place to prevent these weapons from falling into the wrong hands.
Interesting that you didn’t mention Steve Scalise being shot by a democrat supporter of Bernie Sanders . And trying to claim that the two shooters trying to assassinate President Trump were republicans who donated to the democrats.
That might be your reality, but the democrat communist party has increased their rhetoric especially about President Trump is a more objective reality. But it is nothing new, they almost always accuse others of what they’re doing.
There’s a definite tendency among partisans to only see problematic behavior on the other side. Having said that, you should reread your comments here.
The rhetoric from Democrats in 2016-2020 had some unhingement (making up a word here, I know...), but:
Stating that Trump wants to "terminate the Constitution" and "be a dictator" are literal repetitions of Trump's own words. Stating he is a threat to democracy because of those statements isn't mere rhetoric: it's factual.
"As an aside, many of you know that I used to work for Erickson on The Resurgent. His metamorphosis from a thoughtful critic of Trump to a dishonest partisan bomb thrower (although only in the figurative sense) has been very disappointing."
As someone who has been following Erickson in one way or other since the mid-Aughts, he's always been a bomb thrower. (Google his comments on David Souter.)
He did good disinviting Trump to the Red State gathering back in 2016, but it was clear that version of him wasn't going to stick around as long as he wanted to remain a media personality. He follows his audience, not vice versa.
"Audience capture", yes. He's not the only one (Jonah Goldberg and Matt Lewis, for example), though perhaps this is a more egregious case.
After the whole FTX thing, I can see the case to be made against Matt Lewis.
But Jonah Goldberg? Does this refer to the recent Dispatch / Bulwark tiff?
For Goldberg it's more related to his vocal disagreement with David French, for which he cites the loss of influence and the negative reaction from readers.
For Lewis: he outright stated he wants to maintain his influence with in the Republican Party.
Patterico has a good write-up on his disagreements with Goldberg/Lewis/Hayes/et al at https://patterico.substack.com/p/david-french-is-voting-for-kamala.
I was thinking of "Moneyball" MICHAEL Lewis, not Matt. (Whom I'm not familiar with.)
As for Goldberg (and the whole Dispatch / Bulwark tiff) - I think it's less about audience capture (else, he would have gone full MAGA like the rest of the National Review crew) and more about being annoyed that he can't meaningfully engage as a conservative pundit in this election. I'd argue that Steve Berman here is probably similarly annoyed, and I wouldn't accuse him of any audience capture. :-)
If Goldberg isn't saying what he wants to say because he doesn't want to deal with the audience response, then it's a bit of audience capture - not by MAGA necessarily, but more-so by the conservative/Reagan Republican group that can't bring themselves to vote explicitly against Trump.
First of all, thanks for the Patterico link - I was responding before I read that and he made HIS case for Goldberg's audience capture.
I'm still going to disagree a bit - if it is audience capture, it's a VERY weak form of audience capture. As Patterico notes, there's plenty of folks writing for The Dispatch who have proclaimed that they will vote for Harris (Allahpundit, Williamson, McArdle), and as P. notes, Hayes' and Goldberg's reluctance to state that they will vote for Harris probably hurts them more than it helps them. (They lost a few points of esteem in my book.)
From my perspective, they're trying to have it both ways - both being anti-Trump, while being (weaker) anti-Harris (Harris being a stand-in for progressivism, in this election). I think that there is a bit of Lewis-esque post-Trump positioning that they're trying to do, but I also believe that they are being authentic about their choice to write someone else in (a profoundly STUPID way to send a signal - unless Edmund Burke is a valid write-in candidate, his tallies will be reported the same as Mickey Mouse and Optimus Prime - i.e. not at all), and won't be telling people to not vote for Harris, while pulling the lever for her in the ballot box.
As for dealing with e-mails from stupid voters about "this is what YOU voted FOR", I am pretty surprised that Goldberg advances that as a serious argument. I've responded negatively to things pundits have written and I'd have assumed that a "Sod off!" shortcut came standard on their keyboards.
More GUNS! The obvious solution for this country is to embrace the second amendment in all its glory. Screw education for all, screw health care coverage for the masses, make it mandatory that every child at the age of 12 receive an AR 15 or an AK 47. Safety can become a states rights issue with the red states leaving it to the parents and the blue mandating proper training.
Of course this is bat shit crazy, but it's the direction this country has gone in. The data (there's that dirty word again), tells us the majority of citizens in this country want some common sense gun reform. We cannot move off the dime to get it.
The oddity of course is now that nut jobs with guns start chasing the former president, the right starts whining about the left's rhetoric. Are you freaking kidding me? Send out more Christmas cards with the entire family holding automatic rifles. Shameful in light of where we are and what is happening; not just to the donald (he's still alive...yes that's a good thing) but to the children and teachers who never came home from school.
In a related note, i read a headline, the youngsters from Sandy Hook are just now becoming eligible to vote. Wonder which way they'll pull the lever?
Let's leave this absurdity behind and just quit by wishing our "thoughts and prayers" on all those who will be gunned down in the coming months as we reach November. What a pathetically sad thought.
The 1st graders at Sandy Hook, yes - just turned/turning 18 now.
The thing that makes zero sense to me (though I understand the how) is that Routh was able to get this hands on an AK-47, even though he has a violent criminal history.
Universal background checks are needed at a minimum. Ideally high-powered and (for lack of a better term at the moment) fast-shooting weapons should require licensing, registration, and insurance.
It was apparently an SKS rather than an AK with the serial number removed. It may have been a black market gun.
It could have been, though he may have removed the serial number himself. We'll likely find out.
I think you can agree though - it's way too easy to get one's hands on a high-powered and high-output weapon, and there needs be some better processes in place to prevent these weapons from falling into the wrong hands.
I had to stop reading when you quoted “blood bath” out of context. Is this racket news? Can we expect more accuracy please?
Interesting that you didn’t mention Steve Scalise being shot by a democrat supporter of Bernie Sanders . And trying to claim that the two shooters trying to assassinate President Trump were republicans who donated to the democrats.
There have been incidents on both sides. Too many to list.
I also didn’t specifically mention the attack on Paul Pelosi.
Which Trump still mocks.
Three nutjobs.
Reality doesn't have to make sense.
Rhetoric from Democrats is much reduced compared to 2016-2020. Trump's is not. Them's the facts of the current moment.
That might be your reality, but the democrat communist party has increased their rhetoric especially about President Trump is a more objective reality. But it is nothing new, they almost always accuse others of what they’re doing.
Communist: drink!
And yes, the rhetoric has toned down.
Sure and so has the indoctrination starting in grammar schools and continuing through high schools and colleges.
There’s a definite tendency among partisans to only see problematic behavior on the other side. Having said that, you should reread your comments here.
The rhetoric from Democrats in 2016-2020 had some unhingement (making up a word here, I know...), but:
Stating that Trump wants to "terminate the Constitution" and "be a dictator" are literal repetitions of Trump's own words. Stating he is a threat to democracy because of those statements isn't mere rhetoric: it's factual.
You reread yours. I know what I wrote
Indoctrination! Drink!
Try there are good people on both sides and claim what Trump said that even snopes said is not true but guess who keeps repeating it.
Sure and so has the indoctrination starting in grammar schools and continuing through high schools and colleges.