Jacksonville Mayoral Election 2023

[vicupstate]

Baker was also born in Jacksonville.

Its not like all registered republicans, or all registered democrats vote all the way down the ballot.  Name recognition has a lot to do with whether someone participates further down the ballot.  Turnout among political affiliations (and subsequently the targeting of messaging among that likely group of party-affiliated voters) has a lot do with that name recognition. 

Corrine Brown's quick picks cards were talked about quite a bit locally a decade ago... but that same stuff occurred all the way back to the days when this country was first organized as a republic.  Corrine's quick picks didn't have the word 'democrat' plastered all over it. 

Constitutional amendments and local referendums have no party affiliation whatsoever attached to them, but generally the vote for those considerations fall along party affiliation preferences.

If you strip out all party affiliations, I just don't agree that voting preferences are going to dramatically change.

The parties themselves are VERY VESTED in 'keeping score' by the number of offices they hold. The local offices are also farm teams for higher offices. If the party is choosing whether to invest in a partisan race vs. a nonpartisan one, there is no doubt as to where they will put there resources. For the most part, it is pretty unusual to hear of a party spending on a nonpartisan race. While it isn't Florida, Charleston SC city elections converted from partisan to nonpartisan. Both parties, which had been getting more and more invested in partisan city elections, stopped being involved in them.

Obviously voters that consider themselves conservative will respond to conservative sounding nonpartisan candidates, and same for the liberal side, but the investment of the parties themselves is something different.     

[vicupstate]

As soon as I saw the TV ad, I knew it was out of context, having seen her say those words in context.  Was shocked and disappointed that Ch. 12 would agree to run such a blatant misrepresentation/low blow.  A real disservice to the community and their viewers.

Does a TV station have the right to refuse a political ad?
Even WJXT, which exposed Howland's lies in the ad, is running the ad.

Yes.

[BridgeTroll]

I would think most would not in most circumstances. Censorship or favoritism by the press should be frowned upon.

[jaxlongtimer]

I would think most would not in most circumstances. Censorship or favoritism by the press should be frowned upon.

But, truth in advertising is a standard product ads are supposedly held to.  Should be the same across the board.  If unregulated Twitter and Facebook are expected to ban "disinformation" postings, TV stations, on FCC regulated airwaves, should be doing the same.

To see how propaganda works, just look at what Russians think about invading Ukraine (not to mention COVID vaccines in this country).  I fear the US is falling into the same trap.  It starts with unethical political campaigns that are now all too common.  If we can't hold those running for office to a higher standard as our leaders, what does it say about all other forms of communication.  A slippery slope and just plain dangerous.

[BridgeTroll]

I  trust the people to decide what is propaganda or disinformation or who is lying. I  certainly don't trust Fox, CNN or even local stations to screen political ads.  Talk about a slippery slope...

[jaxlongtimer]

I  trust the people to decide what is propaganda or disinformation or who is lying. I  certainly don't trust Fox, CNN or even local stations to screen political ads.  Talk about a slippery slope...

I don't trust people to decide based on only propaganda and misinformation or, today, for many people to even recognize such when it is presented to them.  In these days of social media (where supposedly millions of posts are made by trolls on behalf of Russia, China, et. al. for the sole purpose of misleading our citizens) and unscrupulous political tactics that debase civil and substantive discussions of serious issues, more and more people don't seem to utilize any other basis for their decisions.

You can say the main stream media has a bias, but even if so, it is much less than any other source of information.  And at least the MSM makes a reasonable effort to be factual, accurate, accountable and balanced - maybe not perfect in the eyes of some but far better than the alternatives we are seeing today. 

Contrast that with other sources that are deliberate and wholesale purveyors of misinformation, half-truths, lies, misleading presentations, unsubstantiated rumors, etc. to push dangerous or personal agendas or for the sole purpose of attracting eyeballs to enrich themselves without regard to any moral are ethical standards or to the harm they bring to our society.

[jaxoNOLE]

I  trust the people to decide what is propaganda or disinformation or who is lying. I  certainly don't trust Fox, CNN or even local stations to screen political ads.  Talk about a slippery slope...

I don't trust people to decide based on only propaganda and misinformation or, today, for many people to even recognize such when it is presented to them.  In these days of social media (where supposedly millions of post are made by trolls on behalf of Russia, China, et. al. for the sole purpose of misleading our citizens) and unscrupulous political tactics that debase civil and substantive discussions of serious issues, more and more people don't seem to utilize any other basis for their decisions.

You can say the main stream media has a bias, but even if so, it is much less than any other source of information.  And at least the MSM makes a reasonable effort to be factual, accurate, accountable and balanced - maybe not perfect in the eyes of some but far better than the alternatives we are seeing today. 

Contrast that with other sources that are deliberate and wholesale purveyors of misinformation, half-truths, lies, misleading presentations, unsubstantiated rumors, etc. to push dangerous or personal agendas or for the sole purpose of attracting eyeballs to enrich themselves without regard to any moral are ethical standards or to the harm the bring to our society.

The problem with elevating MSM, government, or any institution above individual judgment is that those entities are, ultimately,  run by people. So it really boils down to which people we trust -- and I think the body of evidence, in history, suggests we're all pretty capable of flawed judgment.

If you trust the aforementioned more than the general population, cool -- that's an opinion, and I see the logic. But all of them have also had their own failures and given us reasons to mistrust them. Personally, the concept of any centralized authority deciding what is accurate vs. not is terrifying precisely because of the human element. We've seen it with COVID: trust the science. As if the science is one singular opinion. But it isn't-- science is, by its nature, an amalgamation of thousands of expert opinions driving towards consensus (don't misinterpret that as an embrace of the Ladapo brand of "science").

The MSM is every bit as beholden to clicks and revenue streams as fringe outlets. It's unfortunate, but I prefer it to state-controlled media. The answer, IMO, is for voters to start rejecting that and looking at candidate character. Biden's election was at least in part a rejection of the Trump brand of politics. At the end of the day, I think it's up to voters to assert those values. That may be a depressing thought at the moment, but are the alternatives better? That's a real question.

[MusicMan]

"I  trust the people to decide what is propaganda or disinformation or who is lying."


That's laughable.  Are you paying attention?  Trump supporters think the most verified election in history was stolen. They are listening to Trump, one of the most verifiable liars in modern history. 

I trust the facts. However inconvenient or uncomfortable they may be. 

[BridgeTroll]

"I  trust the people to decide what is propaganda or disinformation or who is lying."


That's laughable.  Are you paying attention?  Trump supporters think the most verified election in history was stolen. They are listening to Trump, one of the most verifiable liars in modern history. 

I trust the facts. However inconvenient or uncomfortable they may be. 

The laughable part is what flies over your head... the point... since you clearly missed it... is who or what is dispensing "the facts".  In China, Russia,  North Korea, etc... the government dispenses the facts... do you trust the facts dispensed by fox, msn, or cnn???  The uncomfortable truth is every news source I just listed is biased and the truth is left for the individual to parse out...

[MusicMan]

All 3 that you listed dispense a lot of factual reporting.  But I disagree with your assessment.

Like the Congressional investigation into Jan 6.  All 3 report what was said, what events happened (even if there is video some folks refuse to believe it).....

Its the individuals like Tucker C. who believe it is their job to 'interpret' the events that muddy the water. 

Or 'reporting' that the attack on the capitol was "legitimate political discourse".  That's like saying "slavery wasn't racist, the slave owners were."  Reporting the fact that Trump said he would pardon those people involved is fact.  Trying to rationalize it is the problem. 

What about global climate change?  A report was just issued by the best climate people in the US, NOAA, that sea level rise will be 1 to 1.5 feet in the next 25 years.  That's reporting what the climate models are saying.  FOX News pretending its BS is the problem. That's what Tucker and Friends do.  If CNN reports it and says we need to discuss solutions, is that BS?  In this particular instance the 'bias' is one news organization trying not to offend its customers and one news organization trying to find a solution.

The reason Dominion is suing FOX (and making progress) is because they ran with ridiculous stories put up by their top on-air personalities. From Reuters: "Dominion's lawsuit, filed in March, accused Fox of trying to boost its TV ratings by amplifying false conspiracy theories that the company rigged the presidential election against Republican Donald Trump, who lost to Joe Biden, a Democrat."  So no, I don't trust the "loyal Fox Viewer" with pretty much anything.  CNN will run blistering Op-Ed critiques of the Biden admin, I see them all the time. Fox was and is a tool of the GOP and conservatives. Fox is IMO the proverbial broken clock, twice a day its correct.

[BridgeTroll]

Your faith in the editors and newspeople is admirable.  Seems almost religious... I  have no such faith in them... especially with regards to sanitizing or censoring political ads.  Let the candidates or their parties or organizations put out what they will and let the public decide.  Gettin more slippery every day...

[jaxlongtimer]

Your faith in the editors and newspeople is admirable.  Seems almost religious... I  have no such faith in them... especially with regards to sanitizing or censoring political ads.  Let the candidates or their parties or organizations put out what they will and let the public decide.  Gettin more slippery every day...

If I run an ad personally attacking you and your character, making up lies, misrepresenting you (such as taking your words out of context to create the exact opposite impression of your position), spreading unfounded rumors about you... I am sorry, that should not be allowed.  That's not expressing a point of view on an issue so it is justifiable and appropriate "censorship."  (Just like yelling "fire" in a theater when there is none is not acceptable.)

It seems you are misapplying the concept of censorship to justify your apparent love of dirty politics, uncivil discourse and unfounded character assassination (not to be confused with airing factual dirty laundry such as proven criminal behavior, public lying, abuse of office, on-the-record comments in context, etc.).  Your approach is much of what is wrong with this country today.

[BridgeTroll]

Perhaps I should be deported... or censored. Sheesh... I will continue to rely on my good judgement to determine who is lying... or cheating... or misrepresenting, or assassinating character. If you want editors and news anchors to do it for you... go for it.  I know better...

[jaxlongtimer]

Perhaps I should be deported... or censored. Sheesh... I will continue to rely on my good judgement to determine who is lying... or cheating... or misrepresenting, or assassinating character. If you want editors and news anchors to do it for you... go for it.  I know better...

Based on your representation, your talent (i.e. the ability to exercise extraordinary and uncanny good "judgement") is surely superior to probably 99% of the population.  Congratulations .  But, for the greater good, I am not buying your faith in the populace to share such talent.

[BridgeTroll]

Perhaps I should be deported... or censored. Sheesh... I will continue to rely on my good judgement to determine who is lying... or cheating... or misrepresenting, or assassinating character. If you want editors and news anchors to do it for you... go for it.  I know better...

Based on your representation, your talent (i.e. the ability to exercise extraordinary and uncanny good "judgement") is surely superior to probably 99% of the population.  Congratulations .  But, for the greater good, I am not buying your faith in the populace to share such talent.

Hmmm... So you don't trust the populace?  Perhaps it is your approach that is the problem in this country.