Mediaboss Marketing

A simple explanation for this shift is that misperceptions often focus on the president and are most commonly held by members of the other party. Just as Republicans disproportionately endorsed prominent misperceptions during the Obama years (like the birther and death panel myths), Democrats are now the opposition partisans especially likely to fall victim to dubious claims about the Trump administration.

In other words, losing the presidential election made Democrats more likely to blame secret conspiracies for the state of the world, while making Republicans less willing to indulge these sorts of claims. If you dont believe me, just compare your social media news feeds with what you saw during the campaignor ask yourself who you think is behind the news you are seeing.

Its true to an extent that, pure independents notwithstanding, partisanship drives conspiracy-mongering on both ends of the political spectrum. But its also the case that the two tribes are very different. There are no easy parallels between Democrats and Republicans propensity for believing conspiracy theories. The anti-Trump theories havent traveled nearly as far as anti-Obama and anti-Clinton ones have because the left and right are not symmetrical political tendencies in America.

Democrats are much more heterogeneous than Republicans, which makes it harder to spread conspiracy theories among their ranks. While the Republican Party is solidly a party of the right, with some variation between the Tea Party wing and conventional conservatives, but within a narrow spectrum. Democrats are divided into factions that run from Bernie Sanders leftists to Hillary Clinton liberals to Heidi Heitkamp centrists, and even have earned temporary support from a smattering of Never Trump conservatives like David Frum, who voted for Hillary Clinton.

The ideological mishmash of the Democratic Party helps explain an interesting fact about the Russia conspiracy theorists themselves: They often arent from the left at all.

Beauchamps article focuses on three major conspiracy theorists: Mensch, the Observers John Schindler, and photographer Claude Taylor, who tweets under the handle @TrueFactsStated. Of the three, only Taylor is anything close to a liberal Democrat. Mensch was a Conservative member of Parliament and until recently led Heat Street, Rupert Murdochs attempted Breitbart imitation. Schindler is a former National Security Agency analyst with hawkish foreign policy views. In 2015, National Review wrote, Schindler has amassed a loyal following, particularly among conservatives, for his blunt missives on cyber-security, foreign policy, and intelligence.... Conservative pundits and scholars alike have made Schindler their go-to authority on national-security matters. Hes featured regularly on conservative talker Hugh Hewitts popular radio show, and his blog posts are often cited in top Republican consultant Rick Wilsons commentary. Wilson, as it happens, is another member of the Russiasphere cited in Beauchamps article, along with the anonymous Twitter account @counterchekist, whose author identifies as Republican.

In other words, the Russiasphere is not particularly liberalnor are liberals especially fond of the Russiasphere. Debunkings of Mensch and company have become standard fare in left-wing, liberal, and centrist publications (Beauchamps own article is an example of the genre). Current Affairs describes Mensch as legitimately paranoid and deluded. BuzzFeed has counted 210 people and organizations that Mench has accused of being under Russian influence, dryly remarking that in many cases, she lacks strong, or any, evidence connecting her targets to Russias campaign to influence the 2016 election. Rolling Stones Matt Taibbi described Mensch as a noted loon. And the former Obama aides who host the podcast Pod Save America have warned their listeners to avoid these conspiracy theorists.

Luckily for the Democratic Party, Beauchamp correctly pointed out, there isnt really a pre-built media ecosystem for amplifying this like there was for Republicans. In the absence of left-wing Limbaughs and Breitbarts, media outlets totally unconcerned with factual rigor, its much harder for this stuff to become mainstream. But hard doesnt mean impossible. The most worrying sign, he added, is that some mainstream figures and publications are starting to validate Russiasphere claims. As evidence, he cited scattered cases of prominent liberals briefly giving credence to the conspiracy theorists. The New York Times published a Mensch op-ed column, one that was criticized by the Times own reporters. Donna Brazile, former chair of the Democratic National Committee, tweeted Menschs article and thanked her on Twitter for good journalism. And Markey, the Massachusetts senator, parroted the grand jury lie while on CNN.

But Markeys mistake illustrates the difference between Democrats and Republicans: He apologized. There still exists a feedback loop on the left, so when a prominent person falls for a conspiracy theory, they are challenged by the media and willing to correct themselves. Conversely, conservatives tend to adhere to a no apologies ethos that makes admitting error verboten.

The few scattered cases of liberals echoing the Russiasphere are minuscule compared to the vast infrastructure thats spreading conspiracy theories on the right. First and foremost there is Trump, the erstwhile birther who has continued to promote conspiracy theories from the White House, like his claim in March that he was wiretapped by Obama. That lie, which originated from right-wing radio hosts Mark Levin and Rush Limbaugh, gained currency thanks to Trumps pulpit and the power of partisanship: A CBS poll in late March found that 74 percent of Republicans believed it was very or somewhat likely that Trumps campaign was wiretapped or otherwise surveilled by the government.

Beyond Trump, major conservative figures like Newt Gingrich, the former Republican speaker of the House, and Fox News Sean Hannity are spreading the most dishonest smears imaginable. Gingrich and Hannity have both recently pushed the lie that Seth Rich, the slain Democratic National Committee staffer, was murdered because he provided Hillary Clinton emails to Wikileaks.

We have this very strange story now of this young man who worked for the Democratic National Committee, who apparently was assassinated at 4 in the morning, having given WikiLeaks something like 53,000 emails and 17,000 attachments, Gingrich said Sunday on Fox and Friends. Nobodys investigating that, and what does that tell you about whats going on? Because it turns out, it wasnt the Russians. It was this young guy who, I suspect, was disgusted by the corruption of the Democratic National Committee. Hes been killed, and apparently nothing serious has been done to investigative his murder. Neither Gingrich nor Hannity have apologized.

Whereas left-of-center publications have criticized Mensch, most conservative outlets have been silent about the Rich conspiracy theory (National Review, The Weekly Standard) or have given voice to it (The Federalist); The Daily Caller, in a rare exception, refers to the Rich conspiracy theory as debunked. Conservative media tends to be strongly tribalist and self-pitying, adhering to the idea that liberal bias is the biggest problem in news coverage. Such ideological tunnel vision disinclines these outlets right to counter conspiratorial thinking in their own ranks. It doesnt suit their narrative about the lamestream media, and its bad for business.

Figures like Mensch are pests, but they will almost certainly not gain the same audience on the left that Alex Jones and Hannity command on the right. The key members of the Russiasphere have Twitter followings in the hundreds of thousands, at most. Hannity hosts a primetime show on what was, until recently, the most watched cable news network in the country; he has millions of viewers. The real lesson to learn from Mensch and company is not that the left is suddenly falling for conspiracy theories with the same fervor as the right has for decades. Its that these theories can be largely smothered if you have a vibrant and diverse political party that is open to debate and beholden to a fact-based press. The tragedy of modern American politics is that only one of the two major parties fits that bill.

Read the rest here:
No, Liberals Are Not Falling for Conspiracy Theories Just Like ... - New Republic

Wisconsin Republicans' Plan to Counter Liberals on Campus Inside Higher Ed Wisconsin's Republican leaders intend to create a new leadership center at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, announcing Tuesday they will seek $1.5 million in annual public funding for what they said will be a bipartisan center offsetting liberal ... and more »

Read more:
Wisconsin Republicans' Plan to Counter Liberals on Campus - Inside Higher Ed

British Columbias Opposition New Democrats have increased their narrow lead in a riding that could deny the Liberals a fifth-consecutive majority government, but about half the absentee ballots in Courtenay-Comox have yet to be counted.

On election night, the New Democrats led in the riding with nine votes, a margin that see-sawed this week after a recount and with the addition of previously uncounted ballots. On Tuesday, Elections BC continued counting the almost 180,000 absentee ballots 2,077 of them in Courtenay-Comox. By the end of the day, the NDP had a 101-vote lead in the riding.

But another 1,000 absentee ballots must be counted on Wednesday.

Explainer: What you need to know about the final election count inB.C.

At the end of the day on Tuesday, with the results still not complete, the Liberals remained ahead in 43 ridings one short of a majority while the NDP held 41 and the Greens three. If those numbers hold, the future of the government will depend on whether the third-place Greens decide to prop up the Liberals or throw their support to the New Democrats. The last ballots are expected to be counted in 14 ridings on Wednesday. If the margin of victory in Courtenay-Comox is less than about 58 votes, it would go to a judicial recount.

Amid the uncertainty of whether Premier Christy Clarks BC Liberal government will stand, a coalition of activists assembled in front of the B.C. Legislature buildings on Tuesday to urge the Greens and the NDP to make peace, and together end 16 years of Liberal rule.

Environmental organizations, opponents of the Site C dam, advocates for child care and for public health care, and a senior First Nations leader are hoping the final count will deny a majority to Ms. Clark.

With the final election results still unclear, the calls for co-operation remain speculative but a reminder to both the Greens and the NDP that many of their supporters see them as natural allies.

If no party has a strong majority after the final ballots are counted, the NDP and the Greens have a historic opportunity to make good on the important policies they both campaigned on but only if they work together, said Lyndsay Poaps, executive director of Leadnow, the umbrella organization that delivered a petition with 25,000 names calling for an alliance between the two parties.

At the end of the day on Tuesday, with the results still not complete, the Liberals remained ahead in 43 ridings one short of a majority while the NDP held 41 and the Greens three. If those numbers hold, the future of the government will depend on whether the third-place Greens decide to prop up the Liberals or throw their support to the New Democrats.

The last ballots are expected to be counted in 15 ridings on Wednesday, and if Courtenay-Comox remains close, it will go to a judicial recount.

While the outcome remains unclear, the Greens have been negotiating with the NDP, and also with the BC Liberals, to determine where they will deliver their support when the Legislature is recalled.

The expectations of the different groups who joined the rally at the Legislature calling for a Green-NDP alliance are broad.

Terry Dance-Bennink, from the Rolling Justice Bus, said she wants construction on the partly built Site C dam halted. Jen Kuhl, spokesperson for the BC Health Coalition, wants a stronger public health care system and a plan to combat child poverty. Katie Harrison, managing director of Force of Nature, said she expects a Green-NDP alliance to put B.C. on a path for a low carbon future. Sharon Gregson, spokesperson for $10 a Day Child Care Campaign, said the two parties can together resolve a crisis in child-care affordability.

Stewart Phillip, Grand Chief of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, said the opportunity for a change in government is tantalizingly close: As the final ballots are tallied, I pray that we will all be... celebrating the change that we have all worked so hard for over the last 16 years. I think we are on the brink of some pretty wonderful things here in the province of British Columbia.

Sven Biggs, a climate campaigner for Stand.earth, said only the Greens and the NDP together could stop Kinder Morgan from completing its oil pipeline expansion. Were hoping both parties will put aside their partisanship, any personal grudges they may hold over from the election, and come together and do whats right for British Columbians by finally protecting our coast.

Carole James, who is on the NDPs negotiating team, and newly elected MLA Sonia Furstenau, who is part of the Greens bargaining team, accepted the petitions for their parties. But as they stood side-by-side on the steps of the legislature, both declined to discuss whether an accord is possible.

The message that was given to us was that the people of British Columbia have spoken, they are looking for positive change, Ms. James said. But she would not say if the NDP would agree to the Greens demands for electoral reform without a referendum. We are in discussions.

Ms. Furstenau acknowledged the boxes of petitions contained a message from voters, but said: We are waiting for the outcome of the election before we really get into those kinds of specifics, and we are all anxiously waiting for those final ballots.

No ridings flipped between parties, but two tight races in Metro Vancouver were called early on Tuesday evening.

Former Global TV reporter and LNG lobbyist Jas Johal held on against NDP candidate Aman Singh, a civil rights lawyer, to win Richmond-Queensborough for the Liberals by 134 votes. That is about half the margin of 263 he tallied in the new riding on election night.

And in Coquitlam-Burke Mountain, Liberal candidate Joan Isaacs defeated NDP incumbent Jodie Wickens by 87 votes.

Two other Metro Vancouver races remain undecided with margins of less than 600 votes each: Maple Ridge-Mission (NDP lead by 369) and Vancouver-False Creek (Liberals lead by 406).

Follow us on Twitter: Mike Hager @MikePHager, Justine Hunter @justine_hunter

See more here:
BC Liberals maintain minority government in recount, with ballots still to count - The Globe and Mail

Tony Abbott says NSW Liberals event looks like its an attempt to smother discussion and keep people out rather than welcome people in. Photograph: Mick Tsikas/AAP

Tony Abbott has attacked a looming convention in New South Wales considering reforms to the state Liberal party, declaring there appears to be a move to lock out rank-and-file party members and smother discussion.

Abbott told 2GB radio on Wednesday night charging an admission fee for the July event of $199 was very discouraging for rank and file Liberals.

Rank and file Liberals are supposed to own our party. The party should not be owned by MPs staffers and lobbyists. It should be owned by the members, Abbott said.

He said the admission charge was turning the reform convention into a rich peoples convention. Thats the last thing we want.

Abbott said the party needed to reconsider the admission charge for the July convention because if ... the current proposal stands, a lot of people are going to feel cheated.

As things stand it does look like its an attempt to smother discussion and keep people out rather than welcome people in.

The former prime minister has been at the epicentre of a bitter rolling fight inside the NSW division of the Liberal party between conservatives and moderates over party rules in the state.

The July convention is being held to consider a range of proposals for democratic reform.

Abbott is pushing for the adoption of plebiscites to resolve preselections in NSW. NSW is the only state division of the Liberal party that does not allow each party member a vote on preselections.

Late last year, the former prime minister John Howard, used a National Press Club event to urge Malcolm Turnbull and the then NSW premier Mike Baird to change the membership rules of the NSW Liberal party.

Howard described the state division as being close to a closed shop.

Abbotts reform push will require a healthy attendance at the event if it is to have any hope of success. The democratisation push in NSW splits the party largely along factional lines.

The right is leading a push for change, the moderates have resisted the push. The NSW state executive is controlled by the moderates. With the factional relationships poisonous in the state, moderates have expressed concern that plebiscites will lead to branch stacking.

Read more here:
Tony Abbott says NSW Liberals reform event is 'rich people's convention' - The Guardian

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas speaks at the memorial service for his former colleague Antonin Scalia on March 1, 2016, in Washington, D.C.

Susan Walsh-Pool/Getty Images

On Monday, the Supreme Court issued a landmark decision holding that two congressional districts in North Carolina were racially gerrymandered in violation of the Constitution. The broad ruling will likely have ripple effects on litigation across the country, helping plaintiffs establish that state legislatures unlawfully injected race into redistricting. And, in a welcome change, the decision did not split along familiar ideological lines: Justice Clarence Thomas joined the four liberal justices to create a majority, following his race-blind principles of equal protection to an unusually progressive result.

Mark Joseph Stern is a writer for Slate. He covers the law and LGBTQ issues.

Cooper v. Harris, Mondays case, involves North Carolinas two most infamous congressional districts, District 1 and District 12. In the 1990s, the Democratic-controlled state legislature gerrymandered both districts into bizarre shapes that appeared to be drawn along racial lines. A group of Republican voters sued, arguing that the state had used race to shape the districts in violation of the 14th Amendments Equal Protection Clause. North Carolina acknowledged that it had used race in redistricting, but argued that it did so for a constitutionally permissible reason: It wanted to comply with the Voting Rights Act, which bars states from diluting minority votes and, at the time, required the creation of majority-minority districts in historically racist states. To ensure compliance with the VRA, North Carolina asserted, it had drawn both districts to be majority black.

Clarence Thomas consistency handed Democratsand the principle of equalitya remarkable victory.

In 1996s Shaw v. Hunt, the Supreme Court ruled by a 54 vote that these districts violated equal protection. In this case, the conservatives formed the majority, while the liberal justices would have affirmed the constitutionality of the racially gerrymandered districts. At the time, progressives viewed Shaw and its predecessors as an assault on the VRAa Republican effort to prevent states from helping black voters choose their own representatives. The liberal justices, on the other hand, saw many racial gerrymanders as a kind of affirmative-action program. They insisted that North Carolinas districts were merely designed to accommodate the political concerns of a historically disadvantaged minority.

There was some truth to this idea, but also a great deal of navet. The majority-black districts that progressives defended were frequently drawn with the help of Republicans, who appreciated the clustering of Democratic voters around a few safe seats. By packing black Democrats into a handful of districts, Republicans made their own seats safer. Had the Supreme Courts conservatives held fast on Shaw, these majority-black districts might have been invalidated. But in 2001s Easley v. Cromartie, Justice Sandra Day OConnor unexpectedly flipped, siding with the liberals to ease restrictions on racial gerrymandering. Easley cemented the notion that states may gerrymander along partisan lines, even where race and political affiliation are intertwined. Since then, plaintiffs have struggled to prove that gerrymanders used race as a predominant factor (illegal) rather than party registration (legal).

Fast forward to today, and it is overwhelmingly obvious that the logic of Cromartie has backfired on progressives. Republican-dominated state legislatures are now notorious for brazen racial gerrymanders, kicking black voters out of GOP districts and herding them into safe Democratic ones instead. The result is an extreme partisan imbalance in dozens of state legislatures: In Southern states especially, Republicans have granted themselves huge majorities and left Democrats with a few safe, often majority-minority seats. Black voters routinely sue and occasionally win, but time and again they face the same problem: The legislature claims it was using race as a mere proxy for partisanship, and the courts throw out the plaintiffs lawsuit, citing Cromartie.

That era ended on Monday. In a deft opinion by Justice Elena Kagan, the court essentially scraps Cromarties race vs. party distinction, replacing it with a more lenient rule. Kagan accomplishes this switcheroo in a footnote that will serve as the basis of innumerable future lawsuits, stating that courts may find proof of an unlawful racial gerrymander when legislators have placed a significant number of voters within or without a district predominantly because of their race, regardless of their ultimate objective in taking that step. Kagan continues:

Kagan then reviewed the evidence collected by the trial court, which had concluded that North Carolinas gerrymander was primarily driven by race and failed to meet strict scrutiny. This finding, Kagan writes, was not clearly erroneousthe standard of review in racial-gerrymander cases. Thus, the trial courts ruling striking down both districts must stand.

Amusingly, Kagan frames her opinion as little more than a pedestrian application of precedent. As election law expert and Slate contributor Rick Hasen writes, however, it is much more than that. The decision, Hasen explains, means that race and party are not really discrete categories in states where race is closely tethered to party, especially in the South. That means a legislature can no longer use race as a proxy for party in redistricting, then insist that it was really discriminating against Democrats, not blacks. This will lead to many more successful racial gerrymandering cases in the American South and elsewhere, Hasen speculates.

Top Comment

Gerrymandering for purposes of party political advantage is one problem with gerrymandering. More...

Given the advantage that Harris could give to Democrats, it may seem puzzling that Thomas, of all justices, cast the deciding vote to give the liberals a majority. But really, his vote should not have been a surprise at all. Thomas is arguably the most consistent justice on racial gerrymandering: He opposes it no matter its ostensible purpose. In the 1990s, Thomas disapproved of race-conscious redistricting designed to empower black Democrats; today, he objects to race-conscious redistricting designed to empower white Republicans. While liberals and conservatives switched sides, Thomas stuck to his guns. And on Monday, his consistency handed Democratsand the principle of equalitya remarkable victory.

Unfortunately, Harris will not singlehandedly fix the problem of gerrymandering in America. So long as partisan gerrymandering remains legal, legislators will continue to draw districts that disfavor the opposing party, entrenching their own power for years. Next term, the Supreme Court will almost certainly hear Gill v. Whitford, a challenge to partisan redistricting alleging that the practice discriminates on the basis of political association, violating voters free-speech and equal-protection rights. The outcome of that case could permanently alter American politics by proscribing either party from using political gerrymanders to seize and maintain a legislative monopoly. Harris was a satisfying appetizer. But Whitford will be the main course.

Read the rest here:
The Decisive Vote to Strike Down Racial Gerrymandering Came From Clarence Thomas? - Slate Magazine