dagblog - Comments for "Wide stance: countering Trump" http://dagblog.com/link/wide-stance-countering-trump-25646 Comments for "Wide stance: countering Trump" en FiveThirtyEight also just http://dagblog.com/comment/255331#comment-255331 <a id="comment-255331"></a> <p><em>In reply to <a href="http://dagblog.com/link/wide-stance-countering-trump-25646">Wide stance: countering Trump</a></em></p> <div class="field field-name-comment-body field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>FiveThirtyEight also just published this interesting piece by Bacon along with Julia Azari:</p> <p><a href="https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/gop-criticism-of-trump-is-all-talk-but-it-still-matters/">GOP Criticism Of Trump Is All Talk — But It Still Matters, </a>July 23</p> <blockquote> <p>[....]  the few Republicans in the Senate willing to criticize Trump have mostly done only that, spurring some <a href="https://twitter.com/danpfeiffer/status/1018926684702011393?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1018926684702011393&amp;ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fnews%2Fthe-fix%2Fwp%2F2018%2F07%2F18%2Fhow-just-one-republican-could-punish-trump-for-his-putin-apostasy-and-why-no-one-will%2F">eye-rolling exasperation from people who want action, not just words</a>. But we think this vein of criticism of Trump-skeptical Republicans is, well, kind of wrong. It ignores the power of words to serve as a reminder that Trump isn’t an <a href="https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-endorsement-primary/">entirely normal Republican</a>, and that he doesn’t have complete Republican support — at least, not all the time. It’s true that Flake and other Trump-skeptical Republicans <em>could </em>do much, much more. But that doesn’t mean what they’re doing now is meaningless.</p> <p>Weakening the impact of Trump’s rhetoric</p> <p>Political scientists have done a <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/27552492.pdf?casa_token=SfnBqO8ck8YAAAAA:VBgobC3opJgYGoqwsvLpT1DTkLLDC5H3e0DtLRPi6RO969sYiSj_tXR_ai1H4m9jPooS4gGHtvFNN9Ve6Mrae4-wXg5U8J2Q2Kg1JN4HDR8Lv5c9gA">great deal</a> of <a href="https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&amp;lr=&amp;id=h0UkDwAAQBAJ&amp;oi=fnd&amp;pg=PR7&amp;dq=eshbaugh-soha+peake&amp;ots=R-YeLj4QtN&amp;sig=nB4xVnocoGYkl_awe5g3pNRXJUs#v=onepage&amp;q=eshbaugh-soha%20peake&amp;f=false">research</a> to figure out how much the <a href="https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&amp;lr=&amp;id=TcojDwAAQBAJ&amp;oi=fnd&amp;pg=PP1&amp;dq=rhetorical+presidency&amp;ots=oBweXlgLWx&amp;sig=cUtTNeiYCUgcJsfeYJiAbTQLbcw#v=onepage&amp;q=rhetorical%20presidency&amp;f=false">president’s</a> <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1643794">words</a> <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/antiintellectualism-in-the-modern-presidency-a-republican-populism/82B9E44B0FB1D057EF03DE603778B8AC">matter</a> — if they matter at all. Here’s what’s generally agreed upon: Presidential communication matters in a number of important ways. It can shape what issues citizens <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1741-5705.2004.00222.x">think about</a> in the first place, how the public views the <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10510979209368376">particular meaning or context of a major event</a>, and provide important cues to partisans about <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Party-Politics-Presidential-Rhetoric/dp/1107150035">where the party </a><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Party-Politics-Presidential-Rhetoric/dp/1107150035">stands</a>on a given issue [....]</p> </blockquote> </div></div></div> Mon, 23 Jul 2018 23:53:02 +0000 artappraiser comment 255331 at http://dagblog.com