“Do Fox and Trump talk about the coal jobs that have been lost (and aren’t coming back) due to automation (mainly) and alternative energies?”
Yes. They don’t assume that they are not coming back, as you do. Here’s why:
Coal usage was on a clear trend upwards until the Obama Administration; it then fell off a cliff. Why? Regulation, of course. Replacement of coal with alternatives *only* would not have changed that slope, established over five decades, so abruptly. We did not add alternative kwh nearly that quickly.
How often have you seen that graph, and that information presented, on the outlets of your preference? Along with the relevant discussion, that a dropoff in a cheap power source which is that abrupt is inflationary to energy prices, prices which hurt the lower income brackets more than the upper?
How about the huge benefits of tax cuts in the new AHCA that largely go to the 1%? Radio silence from Fox.
Actually, no. The AHCA doesn’t include new and additional tax cuts to the rich; it simply rolls back the tax increases the ACA laid upon them. If you want the ACA gone, then the “baseline” tax rate for the rich is what it was prior to the ACA; repealing it restores the preferred status quo.
(It should be pointed out that if you’re conservative, you don’t view the rich as a piggy bank like the left does. You want a progressive tax code, but you also retain a sense of fairness when it comes to the upper income bracket.)
Call the ACA “Obamacare” and conservatives hate it; name the various points that characterize it without mentioning Obama and they like it — that’s a messaging problem? Sounds like bias/racism to me. What would you call it?
I call it selective memory on your part. Yes, there are parts of the ACA which conservatives like. There are parts of it (individual mandate, narrow networks, etc) than we don’t like.
You’re just using “bias and racism” as an excuse for not actually listening to what conservatives are saying. Don’t do that. You can’t effectively govern anybody if you’re looking at half the population and telling them to shut up.
How are progressives supposed to bring up political topics in a more persuasive manner?
Well, you might want to hire some credible spokespeople. Sanders comes across like an angry old man who has spent too much time in the liquor cabinet. Warren’s rhetoric, when she gets riled up, drops to the reasoning level of an eighth grader. Ezekiel Emanuel comes across as an arrogant POS.
Here’s how you do it; take the social justice warriors and lock them in a closet somewhere. SJW’s can only appeal to the protected classes they advocate for. Americans want to vote for people who can tell them why their lives are going to get better, broadly and economically. Telling them there will be a “fairer nation” or even a “cleaner environment” is too abstract. Clean doesn’t mean shit if you can’t feed your family.
Take your ECONOMIC liberals like Dean Baker, Joe Stiglitz, (Krugman needs to be in the locked closet, he’s destroyed his credibility with his hypercharged rhetoric), and a host of left-leaning economic thinkers who you don’t know because you spend to much time listening to SJW’s (I am thinking here specifically of men like Robert Schiller) and have them explain to people why we will prosper economically if we adopt, for example, a more generous social welfare system with higher taxation.
But, be aware — — these smart, competent liberal financial and economic people are not going to demonize the 1% and the corporations the way the progressive base seems to want them to. They realize that it makes no sense to tear down the businesses that fund the nation.