I’ll cut to the chase: this piece calls out a CNN host who says she understands MAGA, explains why that claim rings hollow coming from mainstream outlets, and argues the left’s blind spots and polling failures keep them off-base. I point to an interview and a pattern of behavior, note how media elites misread political currents, and show why staying misunderstood can be an advantage. Embedded moments from social posts and clips are left in place to let readers judge the tape and tweets for themselves.
Start with the interview. Abby Phillip appeared on Pod Save America and said she talks to MAGA people every day and understands the “information silos” that shape their views. That line sounds confident until you remember where she works and who her regular audience is.
The mainstream media operates inside its own echo chamber, and CNN is part of that club. When a host claims daily contact with MAGA supporters, we should ask what that contact looks like and who’s actually shaping the narrative. Too often those conversations turn into explanations that sound more like assumptions than real understanding.
Media elites were surprised by the rise of Donald Trump and remain shocked at the movement’s staying power. Polling outfits and pundits have repeatedly failed to see shifts in voter sentiment that matter most. That history of misreading voters means skepticism is healthy when you hear claims about comprehension coming from the same institutions that missed the last cycle.
There’s another problem: the left’s agenda often focuses on issues that matter less to working voters and more to coastal institutions. When elites obsess over topics that primarily affect affluent, urban communities, they miss what drives a lot of MAGA voters, like economic concerns and cultural confidence. That mismatch explains why liberal commentators keep offering takeaways that don’t land with large swaths of the country.
Call it strategic ignorance on the part of the political class. If a powerful media outlet can’t or won’t see what’s happening in flyover towns, that’s their failing, not ours. Frankly, it’s useful for conservative voters that the left remains tone-deaf at times, because it makes their messaging less effective in the trenches.
The piece makes a point many insiders refuse to admit: the polls that pundits cling to are not sacrosanct. Approval ratings for presidents and approval for agendas are snapshots with limits, and relying on them alone produced shock in 2016 and beyond. Conservative readers should treat those numbers with more caution than the mainstream does.
There’s also an element of theater to how networks handle dissenting guests. Hosts sometimes boot analysts or commentators who have been warning about movements like MAGA from the beginning. That pattern undermines the claim that they genuinely want to understand opposing viewpoints instead of policing the conversation.
That brings us to recent on-air clashes where critics were removed after raising uncomfortable facts. When a journalist says they get it but cuts off voices that told the story early, it smacks of performative empathy. Audiences watching those exchanges see inconsistency and often lose trust in the outlet’s neutrality.
As a political stance, being misunderstood by the left isn’t an accidental perk; it can be a tactical advantage. If your opposition never fully grasps your coalition or your priorities, they’ll keep misallocating resources and misfiring messaging. For activists and organizers, that disconnect can be turned into political leverage.
The criticism here isn’t about personal attacks so much as institutional critique. It’s fair to question how a host on a liberal network can claim intimate knowledge of a movement that mainstream outlets have repeatedly misread. Pointing out that problem is part of the necessary debate about media credibility and political reporting.
Finally, note the cultural component: elite media often elevate issues that don’t resonate with average voters, which leaves a gap genuine coverage could fill. Until mainstream outlets stop treating certain topics as the center of political life and start listening to ordinary voters, claims of understanding will ring hollow. That’s why observers should keep pushing for honest reporting instead of performance pieces that reaffirm the same blind spots.
Last Note: Ryan’s tweet is hilarious since Abby says she understands MAGA, though she boots guests who have analyzed this movement from the get-go. Girdusky was banished forever last year after this exchange:
