2/ The 10% theory was this super revisionist history that started percolating in right-wing media right after Obama came into office. It basically says that all you need is a fervent 10% of population and with that you can either bully others into support or silence.
3/ Right-wing media fed this notion to themselves for years. And, they attributed most major historical events to the the 10% theory - American revolution, Civil War, etc..etc..
4/ The proud boys stuff. And not just that, but the other groups he not only gins up (QAnon, white genocide, militias, etc...) coupled with his explicit call for his people to show up at the polls is precisely the 10% theory in action.
So what's this mean?
5/ It means a few things.
A) It means that what you saw last night was the floor, not the ceiling. He will get worse, say worse things and increasingly engage these groups.
B) You'll see more bogus attacks about voting fraud and attacks on election officials/integrity.
6/
C) You should expect to see his people ratcheting up antagonistic behavior. e.g. showing up in liberal or predominantly non-white neighborhoods because they know their presence alone is antagonistic and as result, they'll have higher chance of needing to "defend" themselves.
7/ But make no mistake. Trump's adherence to this 10% theory has been helpful in understanding a lot of what he does for years now.
He has such a symbiotic relationship with both the right-wing media and extremists that it's basically a perfect fit.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1/ So this might partially help explain the delay: Last evening (4/16), Fox submitted a motion to the court. The motion asked the court to allow Fox to introduce as evidence that Donald Trump and others (Trump was the only one Fox named) made the same claims about others.
2/ A previous ruling said Fox wasn't really allowed to do this and they needed to keep focus on what they did. But, Fox is asking for the court to clarify and also approve this for 2 reasons (and this is kinda amusing)...
3/ First, basically to argue that because Trump was saying it, they had to cover it. I'm not sure they will prevail here. The judge has already said they don't get to use the neutral reportage defense and that's basically what this would be.
1/ There's something incredible in the background during this Dominion trial that is at least as significant (and possibly even more significant) as the trial itself for Fox News' bottom line.
My goodness is this a doozy...
2/ As the trial is happening, Fox News will be renegotiating or gearing up to renegotiate carriage renewal with 3 cable providers -- Xfinity, Chater and Cox.
It's hard to overstate how significant this and how potentially consequential this is for Fox News' future. Here's why...
3/ The dirty secret is that Fox News is the only commercial tv channel that actually doesn't need a single adl. They could have $0 in ad revenue and they'd still have more than a 35% profit margin.
That's cuz Fox is the 2nd most expensive channel on every cable bill (ESPN is #1)
1/ Judge issued ruling on the summary judgment motions in the Dominion v Fox News case.
Fox Corp and Fox News' motions for summary judgment to dismiss the case have been denied.
Domion's motion for summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part.
Details to follow...
2/ In its partial ruling in favor of Dominion, the court did determine statements made by Fox were statements of fact and were not statements of opinion.
3/ The court ruled that Fox News is responsible for the claims made about Dominion; but, it left open the question for the jury as to whether Fox Corporation (Fox News' parent company) is responsible.
1/Some Dems are really gonna throw Fox a life raft just as it’s drowning, huh?
If you’re Dem leader, regardless what you think, recognize you don’t need to go on in this moment.
Better off saying nothing than criticize Fox while confirming you’ll treat them same as always.
2/Recognize that “should Democrats go on Fox” debate is actually 2 distinct questions.
1) Should Democrats go on Fox? 2) Should Democrats go on Fox right now?
I can make strong case for both. But I feel like 2 is obvious. There is no valid reason for going on Fox right now.
3/If a Democrat goes on Fox right now, given all that we have seen, they should be asked and forced to explain why they will go on Fox but won’t go on InfoWars or OAN. The deliberate deceit and extremism is the same. Why give Fox a pass?
1/ Given all the recent revelations about Fox News' internal machinations from the Dominion filings, I'd like to give a sense of just how delicate this moment is for Fox..
I'll start with advertisers, then talk about cable agreements and close with likely cascading litigation
2/ Advertisers. Fox News is already suffering with advertisers quite a bit. Yea, they have MyPillow and vegetable pill sponsors. But, overall, advertising isn'tas robust as it could be -- especially for prime time.
For ex, Fox is currently Fox News' 4th biggest advertiser. Weird
3/ For the most part though, the really big and beloved brands largely eschew Fox. That said, pharmaceutical companies heavily advertise on Fox and then it's companies like @GM and @LibertyMutual that are largely left funding Fox partisan deceptions.
1/ There's a thing happening right now to Fox that is quite important and will almost certainly influence the trajectory of Fox News if the trend continues.
For some context, a while back, I posted a tread about Fox News and carriage fees.
2/ The short of it is that Fox News is wildly over priced compared to other channels. So much so, that Fox News could have $0 dollars in advertising revenue and they would still have a 90% profit margin.
3/ Fox Corp plays dirty during negotiations. They treat Fox Sports and Fox News as one in same; leverage Fox Sports to drive up rates for Fox News. They use money from Fox Sports to help offset the advertisers losses they suffer from Fox (they leave a lot of money on table).