The Revolution Will be Televised on Fox News After All
The Democratic National Committee banned the network from hosting one of its sanctioned debates, citing a New Yorker report on the network’s close ties to President Trump. But the success of Sanders’ town hall event—both in terms of ratings and the headlines generated—comes as at least four other presidential campaigns consider being involved in a similar event.
Fox News announced on Wednesday afternoon that it will hold a town hall with Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) in Milwaukee on May 8, with Baier and MacCallum once again hosting.
South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg is in talks to participate in a Fox News town hall, a campaign aide told The Daily Beast, and he had been prior to the airing of Sanders’ event.
Meanwhile, the campaign for Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA)—the latest entry into the crowded Democratic contest—said “he’s willing to do a Fox town hall, and we expect to start discussions with the network soon regarding a time and place.” Discussions about doing so have not yet begun, according to the campaign but Swalwell had previously told The Daily Beast that he makes efforts to appear on the network.
Julia Krieger, communications director for Rep. Tim Ryan’s (D-OH) presidential campaign said that he is also “willing to do a town hall with Fox News,” adding that “the campaign has reached out proactively to the network to express interest in this type of forum.” She said that the network had also reached out to them.
And Jennifer Fiore, a senior adviser to Julián Castro’s campaign, told The Daily Beast that they are in conversations with the network as well.
Sanders’ townhall viewership of 2.5 million eclipsed the previous 1.9 million mark of Senator Kamala Harris on CNN earlier in the spring. Not only the ratings, but with Fox News known to be the favorite information source of one President Donald Trump, the signal boost was bound to be far greater than just the eyeballs watching live.
Thanks for watching Mr. President – we’d love to have you on a town hall soon — or even an interview on @SpecialReport —it’s been awhile. We cover all sides. https://t.co/1EDeWFhNe7
— Bret Baier (@BretBaier) April 16, 2019
Any way you look at it, Sanders going rogue on Fox was a success, with such divergent places as The Atlantic and National Review agreeing it paid off for the current front runner among declared candidates. With a huge field that is still increasing, expect more candidates than even those listed to try and get some attention on the president’s favorite network.
In yet another questionable move by DNC chairman Tom Perez, it was announced that none of the dozen planned debates for Team Blue would be hosted on the Fox network. Despite having had discussions to do so, Perez reportedly changed his mind after some pushback from activists, citing the networks closeness with the Trump administration. But that is precisely why the Democrats should have pursued coverage of their candidates on Fox News. Perez’s continued short-sightedness was laid bare by the reception, reaction, and optics of the Sanders’ townhall. Now granted the folks in the room were friendly enough, but a candidate should be put through different circumstances as part of the primary process. The Democratic candidate that hopes to defeat President Trump is going to have to peel off some voters, and pretending they don’t exist unless they watch DNC-approved television is a bad way to go about connecting with them.
There is also more than a touch of sanctimony here. Indeed Fox News and Team Trump have deep and ongoing ties to each other, but if one is looking to root out all the incestuous connections between media and presidential administrations, there will be quite a bit of scorched earth. That isn’t even delving into recent history of Donna Brazile, while temporarily in the office Perez now holds, tipping Hillary Clinton off to debate questions while a contributor to CNN. CNN did cut ties, and somewhat interestingly she now draws appearances and a check from Fox News, but there was no discussion by the DNC that maybe CNN isn’t a neutral arbiter of primaries. MSNBC is open in their overall outlook of being supportive of progressive policies in their coverage, and their ratings and audience have responded well to it. The truth is everyone has some sort of bias, and instead of worrying about it, the DNC should be trying to get its perspective nominees in front of as many eyeballs as they can. The president and the right can and will continue to hammer media bias they think is unfair to them, including Trump’s apparent annoyance at Fox for being hospitable to Bernie Sanders, but having that narrative of “they’re out to get me” is arguably far more valuable to the president than any fair and balanced coverage would be.
The candidates themselves understand that, and thus you see the move of many of them to find some airtime on Fox. In a ridiculously overcrowded field, wading into “enemy territory” isn’t a bad way to try to stand out, and if you do well or have a moment or two that goes viral it might even help you out. If the point is to defeat Donald Trump, engaging him and getting his attention would be a boon to many of the lesser known candidates, and being on his favorite network increases the chances of that. There is a real disconnect in the logic of Perez and others who say you shouldn’t use the media platform Fox News provides because they are too close to Trump, but claim they are the folks to take on and defeat Trump in an election. People intuitively know that you cannot play just home games, and if you aren’t willing to engage Trump and Trump voters where they are, such as Fox News, it’s fair to ask if you have the stuff to take on the president and his considerable bully pulpit in the first place.
So look for more and more Democratic candidates to grace the airwaves of Fox News. Hopefully Perez does what he does best and backtracks, letting Fox have at least one of the scheduled primary debates. If nothing else, we know it would make for good television.
I know there are a lot of Bernie skeptics here at OT but this kind of thing is why he is compelling to people, in spite of all the conventional reasons he shouldn’t be. Yea he fudges but there’s a core authenticity to him and a willingness to get into the ring that is unmistakably anti-tribal. We could do a lot worse. Hell we are doing a lot worse.
I will now sit in the corner and take my Bernie Bro lumps.Report
FWIW, not being most in favor as him of a candidate and saying stuff like “Great, another billionaire?”…
doesn’t mean I wouldn’t be behind him one hundred percent if he wins the candidacy and even more so as a President.
My objections are relative. And I think the Bernie Bro stuff, if people are casting that nett wide enough to include even you, is just dumb.
So there may not be as many skeptics as you were counting…. at least by one.
Good post, @fourthefire.Report
I was mostly joking. All I meant is I respect him a lot despite a number of quibbles of my own and the perception that he isn’t viable.
He’s hardly the only ‘Democrat’ I’d vote for and I don’t think anyone has ever actually called me a Bernie Bro here.Report
I actually had no idea it was a joke, except for being self-deprecating.
But if I were a Bernie Bro I would absolutely call myself a Bernie Bro.Report
I’d echo Maribou in saying that if crazy Uncle Bernie gets the nomination then I’ll back him as he’s infinitely better than Trump. In a lot of ways he’s somewhat the anti-Trump.
That said, he is CRAZY Uncle Bernie. He’s got forty years of history of snuggling up to the Soviets which is… umm… not good and he still wheezes about “revolution” when asked how exactly he intends to make his extremely leftist and extremely ambitious goals into policy. I think he’s too far left to win, I think he’s too much himself to win and I fear he’s too old. But I think Bernie’s heart is in a good place and I hold no ill will towards him. If he manages to pull off this primary, which to be clear I hope he doesn’t, then he’ll deserve the nomination and the Presidency.Report
This sounds like you are declaring your candidacy… and that you are promising to back the eventual winner.
Do I need to update my Dem Hopeful spreadsheets?Report
North’s candidacy is completely untenable and if he could win it would be solely a result of Canadian collusion.Report
Me? Heavens no! I’d make a terrible politician and noone would vote for me but my husband and maybe Maribou.Report
So possibly edging out Gillibrand?Report
BURN.
I like Gillibrand. I was really hoping her campaign would go somewhere.
Her campaign has not gone anywhere.Report
I believe Tulsi can rely on her Husbands’ vote and both her parents are alive and living in the US so I believe she would beat me.Report
I would consider crossing over for Tulsi. She would be our first female Samoan Hindu President.Report
Yeah but you seem like a pretty nice guy and I’d definitely vote for you just to make sure you get more votes than Tulsi.Report
You’re a peach Pillsy. Much more talk like this and I’ll need to start a presidential exploratory committee. Ugh! And write a book!Report
@north I would totally vote for you but only once/if you convinced me it wouldn’t ruin your life :>.
It’s a high bar.Report
“Bernie skeptic” feels like it describes me almost perfectly.
I dunno, though, I don’t hate the guy or anything, and if he’s the nominee I’ll fight just as hard to get him over the top as anybody else. He’s OK.
Mostly I worry that he’s incredibly old to be President. I hate that this country is turning more into a gerontocracy every day.
Trump: 72
Pelosi: 78
McConnell: 77
Even John Roberts is 66, but we can expect the ongoing delight of having him lead the Court until he’s at least 80.Report
“Mostly I worry that he’s incredibly old to be President. I hate that this country is turning more into a gerontocracy every day.”
Bingo.Report
Well I definitely get the age thing and some of North’s criticisms (though I think the Soviet coddling lacks bite nearly 30 years out from the Soviet Union actually existing).
Maybe it’s Bernie’s age that allows him to do what he did here but I just can’t see any of the other candidates having the guts to dive head first into hostile territory. My personal perception is that national level Dems tend to either be too polished or, lately, so bogged up kowtowing to every random shibbeloth of some subset in the coalition, that their message gets lost.
And who could’ve guessed how apparently open to him the audience would be? Luck favors the bold, not the poll tested or the box checkers. It’s nice to see someone on the left who gets that, even if it is our old socialist dinosaur.Report
I think both Bernie and most of the other Dems are making solid strategic decisions.
Bernie, despite having a real shot at the brass ring, is still the outsider. The members of the Dem base with the strongest partisan bent, who are going to be mad at candidates who go on Fox for consorting with the enemy, are already unlikely to Feel the Bern.
Other more solidly positioned candidates have more to lose.Report
I think Harris will implode at some point because she will try to check too many Progressive boxes. Warren is a mess for lots of reasons. So many interesting folks on that side to watch. Booker is probably the most interesting because he has been in the national spotlight for so long, and seems positioned to be a media darling, but I’m also curious as to how Progressive he is willing to go.
My main predictions for Phase 1 is that everyone agrees to gang up on Biden and Sanders and push them out, then deal with each other. Of course, I’m also neck-deep in GoT at the moment so perhaps it won’t be quite so made-for-TV.Report
Booker is really weird.
I’m a constituent. I like him. I voted for him for Senate twice and I’m glad he represents me.
But the guy is weird. Nothing specific, or even negative, just quirky.
Is he too weird to be President?
Well, I don’t think so anymore.Report
Would you feel the same way for someone who coddled the Nazis? After all it’s been 70 years since Nazi Germany existed.
As I’ve noted on this site before, ‘socialism’ is a term too vague to be useful these days, and some kinds of socialism worry me a lot more than others. Someone who speaks of socialism and revolution and has a history of being fond of the Soviet Union? That’s very much at the worrying end of the spectrum for me. Not because he would necessarily go full Lenin if he were in power, but because it implies a fondness for ideas that, even in dilute form, would be horribly destructive.Report
Couldn’t agree more with this post. America needs less, not more, tribalism.Report
I disagree with your final section Andrew. I think it’s excellent that the candidates are braving the lions in the Fox News bubble and it’s even better that they’re doing well at it. I still think that it was the correct decision for the Democratic Party to eliminate Fox as a venue for debates. Debates are far more straight laced and constrained than a town hall and they’re higher stakes. Fox has been exposed as being a virtual arm of the Republican Party (or arguably the GOP is an arm of Fox) in a way that none of the other media companies remotely are to the Democrats. The party should not be treating Fox as just any old media company and they assuredly shouldn’t be letting Fox be involved in one of their national debates. Leave treating with Fox to the individual candidates.Report
Fox has been exposed as being a virtual arm of the Republican Party (or arguably the GOP is an arm of Fox) in a way that none of the other media companies remotely are to the Democrats.
Did you notice Trump’s wording?
“Very strange, and now we </strong<have @donnabrazile?"Report
I’ve been trying not to. Honestly, I still think it’s better Trump won* than any other Republican hack but it’d be really great to get that clown out of office. Preferably in a landslide.
*Though in the glare of hindsight I wonder if HRC wouldn’t have won against a more conventional Republican. They wouldn’t have had the same draw in the Midwest that he had.Report
Enforcing bubbles is something that you do when you’re in power.
Not when you’re hoping to get it.
Not going on Fox is insanity.
Refuse to go on Fox when you’re the only dealer and can offer sweetness to CNN/MSNBC.
I feel like I’m taking crazy pills.Report
To be clear, as far as I know the DNC has not banned candidates from interacting with Fox; they simply have refused to let Fox host a nominees debate.Report
Maybe they’re thinking that the ratings will be so high that they’ll kick some viewers over to CNN/MSNBC.
Scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours.
I will withhold judgment on how good of a plan this is. (At first glance, the ratings numbers don’t inspire me to think that having the debates only on CNN/MSNBC is a good idea for the dems… but, hey. I’m wrong all the time.)Report
And now Uncle Joe has jumped in. I had hoped he’d pass. Ah well.Report
The problem with Fox isn’t just its relationship with the Administration, though. That’s just a pretext.
The problem is that just about everybody who’s even the tiniest bit to the Left absolutely hates it. Oh, and also it’s one of the most destructive organizations in American political life. That’s not great either.Report
But Fox has Martha MacCallum, who makes everybody all tingly even though her son is a linebacker for Notre Dame.Report
1. I think North and Pillsy are right here that it is good to have a no debates policy for Fox News. Fox News is a propaganda wing for the GOP and almost every Democratic or Democratic leaning voter dislikes it intensely.
2. Bernie and Biden might have brands that let them survive going on Fox News and not be seen as turn-coats.
3. This is asymmetrical. Democratic candidates are expected to reach out to conservative vorters and empathize but no one expects Republican candidates to do the same for Democratic voters.
4. I’m still not in the Bernie Woulda Won crowd.Report
I think #3 has to do with who currently holds the levers of power.
“Why should we have to change? He’s the one that sucks!” works great on a deontological level when you don’t have the offices you want to be elected to.
On the utilitarian level? Less so.Report
That might sound good, but it doesn’t explain why that’s the rule both when the Democrats are out and when they are in.Report
Who is perceived as a change, and who is perceived as stasis.Report
Because it’s a convenient narrative for everybody who has the power to really affect the narrative.Report
…I thought that we had arguments over how Republicans need to do a better job reaching out to members of minority groups, like, every single election for the last however many elections.
And Trump, for that matter, is someone who was reversing inroads that were made by Dumbya.Report
The only time I actually remember that happening was after Romney 2012 and the GOP response was a resounding, “Nope.”Report
Why do people treat the Republicans’ lack of appeal to minority groups as a bug to be fixed rather than the feature it obviously is?Report
Same answer: it’s a convenient narrative for everybody who has the power to really affect it.Report