2016 US Presidential Elections Thread [Trump Wins]
- Thread starter Kanzler
- Start date
Right, but that's a bit of a bourgeois concern next to what middle and working class Americans are more concerned with - the elite corrupting and capturing our political system.
- 10,769
- Posts
- 15
- Years
- California
- Seen Jun 30, 2018
Did anyone else read about the idea that in order for Clinton to get the nomination this election she purposefully planted her own people in the DNC, specifically Debbie Wasserman Schultz (her old campaign chair from '08) as the chair of the DNC? The person who was the chair before DWS (not counting the short interim) was none other than Tim Kaine. One has to wonder if Clinton asked him to step down from the chair and as a reward offered him the VP spot.
Now, that might all be conspiracy nonsense, but the fact that it's so easy for it to be believable in the first place is a problem in itself, i.e., the smell of oligarchy and nepotism at the top of the party. In a democratic system is seems wrong to see the same elites shuffling around the positions of power.
That aside, something I heard briefly on the radio the other day made me think that there's something that Clinton can do, probably something she might even want to do, to get more people behind her. If Clinton could back a push for getting the ERA (Equal Rights Amendment) passed I think that 1) a lot of progressives would get behind that and 2) it would feel like a genuine thing for her.
Now, that might all be conspiracy nonsense, but the fact that it's so easy for it to be believable in the first place is a problem in itself, i.e., the smell of oligarchy and nepotism at the top of the party. In a democratic system is seems wrong to see the same elites shuffling around the positions of power.
That aside, something I heard briefly on the radio the other day made me think that there's something that Clinton can do, probably something she might even want to do, to get more people behind her. If Clinton could back a push for getting the ERA (Equal Rights Amendment) passed I think that 1) a lot of progressives would get behind that and 2) it would feel like a genuine thing for her.
Ivysaur
Grass dinosaur extraordinaire
- 21,082
- Posts
- 17
- Years
- Age 33
- He/him
- Madrid, Europe
- Seen Jun 13, 2024
I want to add that having an entire convention dedicated entirely at explaining why Trump is horrible right on the hells of the Republican week of "Lock her up" would be far more likely to make people despair and say "both are exactly equally as bad zero difference between both sides I don't care if Trump wins" than if you actually spend some time explaining why Clinton is good. It's good to have someone like Biden ripping at him, but it's also important that you have someone lifting Clinton up, so you not only can say "Trump is worse" but "Clinton is better".
An old adage is "the most optimistic campaign wins the election". Focusing only on attacking the contrary isn't going to help.
Oh and yes, don't bother looking at 538's "now-cast" prediction. it's only a measure of "momentum" and, with a convention bounce going on, it's essentially meaningless. Polls-Plus actually ticked up for Clinton today, she's on 61% now. NYT's The Upshot has her on 69% and Princeton has her on 80%.
An old adage is "the most optimistic campaign wins the election". Focusing only on attacking the contrary isn't going to help.
Oh and yes, don't bother looking at 538's "now-cast" prediction. it's only a measure of "momentum" and, with a convention bounce going on, it's essentially meaningless. Polls-Plus actually ticked up for Clinton today, she's on 61% now. NYT's The Upshot has her on 69% and Princeton has her on 80%.
Netto Azure
Kiel
- 9,468
- Posts
- 16
- Years
- Alistel, Vainqueur
- Seen Dec 21, 2023
I think I gave an inkling of what I thought last week about choosing a purple state Dem from Virginia of all places. Still I guess Clinton has an eye on making sure to lock in swing state appeal and she believes that Trump is odious enough to force her left flank in line.
Before I begin the point-by-point discussion, I think it would be important to point out that at least to some extent, we seem to be talking past each other. When I said there needs to be more offense in the DNC, I didn't mean the entire engine should run only on aggressive Trump-bashing. There needs to be a balance between that and extolling the virtues of Hillary as a candidate- at least equal coverage, if not with more emphasis on the former. I think I made this clear in the second post when I said
So what I have close to a model is Biden's speech, which, with all its offensive prowess, still had a healthy amount of pro-Hillary positivity sprinkled in. With that said:
Again, I see what they're trying to do, and I think they've achieved their master plan in the first two days, but I think the said master plan is stupid. I made a small case as to why praising Hillary would not be very effective in wooing the more progressive-minded disgruntled voters in the first post, but let's go back to that discussion again.
Here's the progressive phenomenology. To the progressives, Hillary had low prior acceptability from the get go. She's a part of the establishment (when populism seems to be in vogue in the current climate), she accepted money from Wall Street (which was the model for political activism until Sanders came along and showed them another way), she voted for the Iraq war, the Patriot Act, and was for exclusively traditional marriage until 2012. So going into the campaign, she had low acceptability among the progressive bloc, especially given the Sanders alternative. Throughout the course of this campaign, she exacerbated all of these concerns by repeatedly refusing to release her GS speech transcripts, pulling stunts like this (link), laughing off concerns of climate activists (link, and other link), cozying up to Henry freaking Kissinger, and the list goes on. All of this is compounded by the role the democratic establishment and media has played in all this, now exposed by the email leak, as well as complaints of election fraud and voter suppression in a number of states. To top it all off, the MSNBC Town Hall answer that I alluded to earlier (apparently you didn't understand the reference, link) pretty handily demonstrates her concerns for the progressive bloc.
Given this entire picture in the background, as I said in the earlier post, there's only so much extolling Hillary's virtues can do to woo the disgruntled progressives. Which is why I repeatedly keep saying- the strongest arguments for Hillary are not the ones for Hillary. Which brings us to the next topic.
No they don't. I don't want to pin a particular political position on you, but the centrist-minded democrats repeatedly keep making this (to my mind mistaken and dangerous) assumption. This is something of an intangible, so there's only so much we can do to convince each other. Off the top of my head, let me link to two (more or less popular) Bernie or Bust debates that happened recently on so-called independent media:
Debate among the members of The Young Turks Network after the NY primary
Debate between Secular Talk's Kyle Kulinski and an Illinois Wolf Pac activist
If you pay attention to the arguments made for Bernie or Bust, it's evident that they don't understand the threat of Trump. They either believe he's not that bad, or think even if he is elected, there's only so much damage he can cause. The problem, as I said, is simply an issue of not taking the enormity of the problem seriously. When these folks think of Trump, I am pretty sure the first they're thinking of is not that this is the person who said the Geneva convention is a problem, who promised to kill civilians, and advocated torture even if it doesn't work. They think of an out there guy who thinks building a wall would solve all the problem with racist tendencies. They're a disconnect between their perceptions of Trump and what Trump actually is.
Secondly, as Kanzler pointed out, Trump uses populist, anti-establishment rhetoric. He has consistently attacked things like money in politics and TPP. Now do I believe he will come anywhere close to solving these problems? Heck no. But do I believe he has his rhetoric on these issues on point? To an extent, yes. One cannot underestimate the growing distrust of the establishment and support for economic populism among the masses. Trump has something of a crossover appeal especially among independents.
There are other arguments for the disgruntlement among progressives or independents about Hillary as well (consider the "moral red lines" argument Kulinski made, something I believe many first time voters would relate with- link), and many of them have to do with not understanding the seriousness of Trump as a threat. The only remedy, or at least most effective remedy of all this is to push a very consequentialist ethic-based argument.
As I said in the disclaimer to this post, these two don't need to be mutually exclusive. My main gripe was that the DNC didn't push the offense hard enough on the first two days, like they did in the Biden speech or the John Hutson speech. Regardless, I think to some extent you're underestimating the strength of an anti-Trump offense-based argument here. Your argument would go through smoothly in most other elections, where there is something of a competition between the two parties and there needs to be a careful weighing of the evidences. Just not this one. We have a candidate on one side who is making suggestions that are, seriously, not even debatable. Torture even if it doesn't work isn't something one needs to deliberate on. It has no room whatsoever on the discussion table. So with a candidate like that, what we have isn't a fight between two parties, but a fight between a party and an existential threat. One could be forgiven if we talk a little more about the existential threat than we would in the case of any other election.
And to be sure, I believe we had effective, offense-oriented campaign strategies just of this sort in the past. The one example that comes to my mind is the Johnson-Goldwater election. I don't want to boil down an entire campaign strategy just to one point, but a significant appeal of a potential LBJ presidency was- at least there would be no nuclear war. This was encapsulated in the famous "Daisy Girl" attack ad for LBJ (link).
First, I'm not for a complete adaptation of the RNC model, see the opening disclaimer. Second, as pointed out above, there's a disanalogy between this strategy being targeted at Trump vs. someone else. Trump is a unique phenomenon both in terms of how horrific he is, and also how many people underestimate the severity of his threat. That's the entire argument I've been making in this and the last post.
You misunderstood. I was talking only in the context of the debate where there were serious attacks against Trump. After being repeatedly attacked by Cruz and especially Rubio on healthcare, you could see a decline in his alpha-male vibe and the overall performance. The problem is they didn't keep this up, probably because their donors told them to. There could be something said for the #NeverTrump movement if there were more consistent attacks against in in the debates, but it was a one-off. So of course it didn't work.
I don't take 538 very seriously, especially given the trail of missteps Nate Silver took this season- but that's why my allusion to it was parenthetical, and I mentioned how the data is skewed due to the post-RNC bump. To my mind, due to the myriad intangibles associated with this election season- crossover appeal, campaign strategies, other factors- there's only so much predictive power that can be ascribed to polls in general. If you read my comment in context, you'll note my broader concern is with the fact that a self-proclaimed terrorist has a shot at all at becoming the leader of the free world. While the controversies on the other side may contribute to his success, they're not sufficient to explain this phenomenon. The only adequate explanation in view, as far as I can see, is that the media simply hasn't done their job in fleshing out who Trump is.
This is a very interesting question: at this point, what should the specific expectations of the progressive base be from the DNC at large and Hillary in specific. While the question deserves threadbare discussion in its own right, I don't think it's very relevant to the discussion we've been having. Our discussion has been framed around phenomenology, i.e. how progressives perceive the Hillary candidacy. It's not been about how they should perceive it or ought to perceive it. While I do have my opinions and biases on that point, I have only focused on trying to flesh out perceptions of the progressive movement. To go from phenomenology to the facts of the matter would involve opening up several other cans of worms.
You made a point that talking solely about Trump may not convince the voters to flock to Hillary, but to align with third party candidates. So in other words, your point is- attacking Trump is necessary, but not sufficient, as arguments for Hillary. I think that's a fair point. Regardless, due to the reasons I laid out in this post and the earlier one, anti-Trump offense must form an important part of the campaign strategy.
So what I have close to a model is Biden's speech, which, with all its offensive prowess, still had a healthy amount of pro-Hillary positivity sprinkled in. With that said:
Again, I see what they're trying to do, and I think they've achieved their master plan in the first two days, but I think the said master plan is stupid. I made a small case as to why praising Hillary would not be very effective in wooing the more progressive-minded disgruntled voters in the first post, but let's go back to that discussion again.
Here's the progressive phenomenology. To the progressives, Hillary had low prior acceptability from the get go. She's a part of the establishment (when populism seems to be in vogue in the current climate), she accepted money from Wall Street (which was the model for political activism until Sanders came along and showed them another way), she voted for the Iraq war, the Patriot Act, and was for exclusively traditional marriage until 2012. So going into the campaign, she had low acceptability among the progressive bloc, especially given the Sanders alternative. Throughout the course of this campaign, she exacerbated all of these concerns by repeatedly refusing to release her GS speech transcripts, pulling stunts like this (link), laughing off concerns of climate activists (link, and other link), cozying up to Henry freaking Kissinger, and the list goes on. All of this is compounded by the role the democratic establishment and media has played in all this, now exposed by the email leak, as well as complaints of election fraud and voter suppression in a number of states. To top it all off, the MSNBC Town Hall answer that I alluded to earlier (apparently you didn't understand the reference, link) pretty handily demonstrates her concerns for the progressive bloc.
Given this entire picture in the background, as I said in the earlier post, there's only so much extolling Hillary's virtues can do to woo the disgruntled progressives. Which is why I repeatedly keep saying- the strongest arguments for Hillary are not the ones for Hillary. Which brings us to the next topic.
No they don't. I don't want to pin a particular political position on you, but the centrist-minded democrats repeatedly keep making this (to my mind mistaken and dangerous) assumption. This is something of an intangible, so there's only so much we can do to convince each other. Off the top of my head, let me link to two (more or less popular) Bernie or Bust debates that happened recently on so-called independent media:
Debate among the members of The Young Turks Network after the NY primary
Debate between Secular Talk's Kyle Kulinski and an Illinois Wolf Pac activist
If you pay attention to the arguments made for Bernie or Bust, it's evident that they don't understand the threat of Trump. They either believe he's not that bad, or think even if he is elected, there's only so much damage he can cause. The problem, as I said, is simply an issue of not taking the enormity of the problem seriously. When these folks think of Trump, I am pretty sure the first they're thinking of is not that this is the person who said the Geneva convention is a problem, who promised to kill civilians, and advocated torture even if it doesn't work. They think of an out there guy who thinks building a wall would solve all the problem with racist tendencies. They're a disconnect between their perceptions of Trump and what Trump actually is.
Secondly, as Kanzler pointed out, Trump uses populist, anti-establishment rhetoric. He has consistently attacked things like money in politics and TPP. Now do I believe he will come anywhere close to solving these problems? Heck no. But do I believe he has his rhetoric on these issues on point? To an extent, yes. One cannot underestimate the growing distrust of the establishment and support for economic populism among the masses. Trump has something of a crossover appeal especially among independents.
There are other arguments for the disgruntlement among progressives or independents about Hillary as well (consider the "moral red lines" argument Kulinski made, something I believe many first time voters would relate with- link), and many of them have to do with not understanding the seriousness of Trump as a threat. The only remedy, or at least most effective remedy of all this is to push a very consequentialist ethic-based argument.
As I said in the disclaimer to this post, these two don't need to be mutually exclusive. My main gripe was that the DNC didn't push the offense hard enough on the first two days, like they did in the Biden speech or the John Hutson speech. Regardless, I think to some extent you're underestimating the strength of an anti-Trump offense-based argument here. Your argument would go through smoothly in most other elections, where there is something of a competition between the two parties and there needs to be a careful weighing of the evidences. Just not this one. We have a candidate on one side who is making suggestions that are, seriously, not even debatable. Torture even if it doesn't work isn't something one needs to deliberate on. It has no room whatsoever on the discussion table. So with a candidate like that, what we have isn't a fight between two parties, but a fight between a party and an existential threat. One could be forgiven if we talk a little more about the existential threat than we would in the case of any other election.
And to be sure, I believe we had effective, offense-oriented campaign strategies just of this sort in the past. The one example that comes to my mind is the Johnson-Goldwater election. I don't want to boil down an entire campaign strategy just to one point, but a significant appeal of a potential LBJ presidency was- at least there would be no nuclear war. This was encapsulated in the famous "Daisy Girl" attack ad for LBJ (link).
First, I'm not for a complete adaptation of the RNC model, see the opening disclaimer. Second, as pointed out above, there's a disanalogy between this strategy being targeted at Trump vs. someone else. Trump is a unique phenomenon both in terms of how horrific he is, and also how many people underestimate the severity of his threat. That's the entire argument I've been making in this and the last post.
You misunderstood. I was talking only in the context of the debate where there were serious attacks against Trump. After being repeatedly attacked by Cruz and especially Rubio on healthcare, you could see a decline in his alpha-male vibe and the overall performance. The problem is they didn't keep this up, probably because their donors told them to. There could be something said for the #NeverTrump movement if there were more consistent attacks against in in the debates, but it was a one-off. So of course it didn't work.
I don't take 538 very seriously, especially given the trail of missteps Nate Silver took this season- but that's why my allusion to it was parenthetical, and I mentioned how the data is skewed due to the post-RNC bump. To my mind, due to the myriad intangibles associated with this election season- crossover appeal, campaign strategies, other factors- there's only so much predictive power that can be ascribed to polls in general. If you read my comment in context, you'll note my broader concern is with the fact that a self-proclaimed terrorist has a shot at all at becoming the leader of the free world. While the controversies on the other side may contribute to his success, they're not sufficient to explain this phenomenon. The only adequate explanation in view, as far as I can see, is that the media simply hasn't done their job in fleshing out who Trump is.
This is a very interesting question: at this point, what should the specific expectations of the progressive base be from the DNC at large and Hillary in specific. While the question deserves threadbare discussion in its own right, I don't think it's very relevant to the discussion we've been having. Our discussion has been framed around phenomenology, i.e. how progressives perceive the Hillary candidacy. It's not been about how they should perceive it or ought to perceive it. While I do have my opinions and biases on that point, I have only focused on trying to flesh out perceptions of the progressive movement. To go from phenomenology to the facts of the matter would involve opening up several other cans of worms.
You made a point that talking solely about Trump may not convince the voters to flock to Hillary, but to align with third party candidates. So in other words, your point is- attacking Trump is necessary, but not sufficient, as arguments for Hillary. I think that's a fair point. Regardless, due to the reasons I laid out in this post and the earlier one, anti-Trump offense must form an important part of the campaign strategy.
Ivysaur
Grass dinosaur extraordinaire
- 21,082
- Posts
- 17
- Years
- Age 33
- He/him
- Madrid, Europe
- Seen Jun 13, 2024
Okay, I have to defend Silver's model here. I know lots of people are dismissing him out of hand after he kept saying that Trump couldn't win, or that he had really tiny chances. Of course, Silver said that in his capacity as a pundit- he was 100% sure that Trump couldn't possibly get enough support from the party, and he'd mess up, and he'd be shoot down, and everybody would pick a champion and support them by South Carolina onwards.
But, while Silver kept talking as a pundit... his polling model kept saying that Trump, indeed, was going to win. He called 52 of 57 races (90%) adding both parties (considering how volatile polling is in those, it's not bad), and in some cases (see: Iowa), he overestimated Trump's result by 3-4 points. He might have been saying "Trump can't possibly win- something will alter the state of the polls at some point, surely!", but his statistical model, the one working with polls and actual data, not pundit's guesses, called the race just right. By Indiana -when he effectively won the race-, Trump had 98% of the delegates Silver's model expected him to have won by then- and the actual percentage is probably 100%, since it doesn't include the PA "uncommited" delegates that had pledged to vote for him. So yes, with a few wobbles, Silver's polling models called the race just exactly right while he embarrassed himself by saying that it couldn't be possibly happening.
So it's okay if you don't want to listen to his words (because he did fuck up), but you should actually respect his polling model which has a pretty fantastic track record. Better than his author, in fact.
- 10,769
- Posts
- 15
- Years
- California
- Seen Jun 30, 2018
The DNC and the progressives are playing chicken. Clinton and the DNC are saying that the progressives will have to come around eventually, but the progressives are threatening not to support Clinton if she doesn't change. It's just a matter of who will blink first. If no one does though, that will be bad because then Clinton is out of a lot of votes and Trump will have a much bigger chance of taking purple states. There was something I read on Michael Moore's site which said that when people don't like the candidates and their options they might just feel like fucking with people and voting for, for instance, Trump just because they can.
I saw Clinton's speech last night and I was surprised by the number of Sanders-esque elements in it. From what I've read, he and Clinton had a discussion about what it would take for him to but his support behind her (like getting money out of politics) and you heard some of that in her speech. I just wonder if it will be something that the rest of the party and the surrogates will continue with. Will Kaine go out in speeches and say that Wall Street has too much influence in politics? If he does, will people believe him or take his words seriously? Will Clinton follow through on these goals when the official party platform doesn't really include them?
I saw Clinton's speech last night and I was surprised by the number of Sanders-esque elements in it. From what I've read, he and Clinton had a discussion about what it would take for him to but his support behind her (like getting money out of politics) and you heard some of that in her speech. I just wonder if it will be something that the rest of the party and the surrogates will continue with. Will Kaine go out in speeches and say that Wall Street has too much influence in politics? If he does, will people believe him or take his words seriously? Will Clinton follow through on these goals when the official party platform doesn't really include them?
I think we agree, Colours, on the broad point of the need of there being both pro-Hillary and anti-Trump arguments being used as part of the campaign strategy. Where we disagree is the extent to which the latter should be emphasized. Rather than writing out a point-by-point counter this time around, I think it would be better to just point out key areas of our differences. We've both said our pieces and I doubt I'll be able to add more without the discussion getting repetitive.
So as I see it, our disagreements can be boiled down to three interrelated issues:
1. The effectiveness of a negative campaign against Trump in getting people to vote. You think it's not motivation enough to increase voter turnout, while I think given who Trump is and the existential threat that he poses, that would be incredibly effective. Cf. my point on the LBJ-Goldwater election.
2. The effect of criticisms against Trump. You think they wouldn't be very effective because throughout the campaign trail he has been sapping up all criticisms and thriving on them, while I think that's only because the criticism hasn't been done in the right way.
3. The effect extolling the virtues of Hillary as a candidate would have on the disgruntled voters. While Bernie or Bust is indeed something of a fringe movement, I think a general feeling of unconscionable distrust towards Hillary has spread over a significant part of the constituency, especially given her past track record as well as her actions this season. You disagree and think a happy-go-luck pro-Hillary parade would be effective in winning them over.
Again, none of this is to suggest that I'm calling for the democratic campaign to rest solely on anti-Trump tirades, but rather to emphasize and bank on it more than they were doing, say, during the first two days of the DNC.
So as I see it, our disagreements can be boiled down to three interrelated issues:
1. The effectiveness of a negative campaign against Trump in getting people to vote. You think it's not motivation enough to increase voter turnout, while I think given who Trump is and the existential threat that he poses, that would be incredibly effective. Cf. my point on the LBJ-Goldwater election.
2. The effect of criticisms against Trump. You think they wouldn't be very effective because throughout the campaign trail he has been sapping up all criticisms and thriving on them, while I think that's only because the criticism hasn't been done in the right way.
3. The effect extolling the virtues of Hillary as a candidate would have on the disgruntled voters. While Bernie or Bust is indeed something of a fringe movement, I think a general feeling of unconscionable distrust towards Hillary has spread over a significant part of the constituency, especially given her past track record as well as her actions this season. You disagree and think a happy-go-luck pro-Hillary parade would be effective in winning them over.
Again, none of this is to suggest that I'm calling for the democratic campaign to rest solely on anti-Trump tirades, but rather to emphasize and bank on it more than they were doing, say, during the first two days of the DNC.
(Hope this doesn't count as double post)
I found this video on my YouTube feed. This is by no means an endorsement of all the positions Dave Rubin has adopted, but this short video encapsulates pretty much all of my thoughts about this election, and especially Hillary's nomination.
I found this video on my YouTube feed. This is by no means an endorsement of all the positions Dave Rubin has adopted, but this short video encapsulates pretty much all of my thoughts about this election, and especially Hillary's nomination.
Last edited by a moderator:
- 10,769
- Posts
- 15
- Years
- California
- Seen Jun 30, 2018
I hope his losing streak keeps going. I just heard about how he was all coy and non-committal on the use of nuclear weapons, as in he teases and intimates that he would use them so that voters who like that idea will vote for him, but then when pressed said he wouldn't use them. Seriously though, this is more dangerous and worrying than anything else he has said in this entire campaign.
But this is America and anything is possible. I would have said that Trump couldn't be nominated in the first place and look at where we are now. The depths of American craziness are so much deeper than I think anyone knows. Trump could easily jump back up in the polls.
But this is America and anything is possible. I would have said that Trump couldn't be nominated in the first place and look at where we are now. The depths of American craziness are so much deeper than I think anyone knows. Trump could easily jump back up in the polls.
Ivysaur
Grass dinosaur extraordinaire
- 21,082
- Posts
- 17
- Years
- Age 33
- He/him
- Madrid, Europe
- Seen Jun 13, 2024
Elections become more or less locked two weeks after the last convention. The candidate who led the polls after that always (since there are scientific polls) ended up winning the popular vote (obligatory Gore asterisk here). So Trump has essentially one week to recover his lost ground, except he already wasted his Convention card, so... I don't know what else he can do. I don't think continuing to act like a deranged socipath is helping him in any way, shape or form, and it's only reinforcing Clinton's campaign, which is laser-focused on Trump being completely off the rails and utterly unfit to become president. And it's working.
It's also worth mentioning how Trump is running fourth with Blacks (with a surreal 1% support) and Under-29s (41 Cl - 23 Jo - 16 St - 9 Tr). Clinton is also winning the non-white vote 83%-12%. This is completely devastating.
It's also worth mentioning how Trump is running fourth with Blacks (with a surreal 1% support) and Under-29s (41 Cl - 23 Jo - 16 St - 9 Tr). Clinton is also winning the non-white vote 83%-12%. This is completely devastating.
Hands
I was saying Boo-urns
- 1,921
- Posts
- 7
- Years
- Age 33
- Seen yesterday
I'm worried regardless. Clinton has an absolutely abysmal track record of standing for racist policies, against gay rights, massive war mongering and heavy corruption. I don't want her dragging my country into another illegal war for profit, I don't want my friends who are serving dying for her bottom line.
On the flipside, Trump is Trump. I don't really need to explain why he worries me.
On the flipside, Trump is Trump. I don't really need to explain why he worries me.
It seems that the media has finally turned against Donald Trump. Now that he's Republican nominee and is unlikely to drop out, they have an endless supply of negative media attention against him which is just as profitable as the positive media attention they gave him in the primaries. Besides, the Republicans at this point are well divided while the Democratic leadership is well united, so it's obvious who can win the media war and who is responsible for the media failure Trump is experiencing right now.
Ivysaur
Grass dinosaur extraordinaire
- 21,082
- Posts
- 17
- Years
- Age 33
- He/him
- Madrid, Europe
- Seen Jun 13, 2024
As a member of the Dishonest Media™ who is covering the race for a newspaper (boo! hiss!), I want to comment on that. It's not that we all have decided "lol let's make Trump lose the race to sell more newspapers!", it's that Trump is... abnormal. It's hard to have a "fair and balanced" coverage when, on a side, you have a perfectly normal politician, with her pros and cons, running a perfectly normal campaign; and, next to her, a guy who knows nothing about etiquette and who keeps making outrageous, outlandish, outright dangerous and utterly unbelievable comments every day. It's hard to treat this race as a normal political debate between left and right when you have plenty of conservatives running away from the guy who is supposed to be the "conservative". It's hard to treat this race as a normal political debate when one goes out and say "maybe... Clinton... guns... stopping her... wink wink". Trump is not a normal politician running a political campaign, and that's why he gets such an abnormal coverage- because he's an abnormal candidate doing abnormal things.
Look, eight years ago, McCain said during a rally that Obama wasn't "someone to be afraid of" and that he just happened to be "someone he disagreed with on political issues". Nowadays we have Trump calling Clinton "unhinged", "the devil" and hinting that someone shoot her. That's the difference.
Look, eight years ago, McCain said during a rally that Obama wasn't "someone to be afraid of" and that he just happened to be "someone he disagreed with on political issues". Nowadays we have Trump calling Clinton "unhinged", "the devil" and hinting that someone shoot her. That's the difference.
- 10,769
- Posts
- 15
- Years
- California
- Seen Jun 30, 2018
I think the feeling that the media is now being harsher on Trump is just that before people didn't think he was a serious candidate and now they have to treat him like one since he's the nominee. That means you've got to, you know, point out the really obvious flaws he has. You've got to try to give equal weight to your criticisms of Trump and Clinton and Trump is just made of brittle stuff so the cracks show pretty easily.
I basically nodded along almost the entirety of Ivysaur's last post. In a recent interview Rudy Giuliani made a big deal about media not being "fair" towards Trump. What him and his ilk fail to realize is when you have someone openly calling for war crimes (compare that to W who, regardless of the havoc he proceeded to wreak after he stepped into office, sold himself as the 'compassionate conservative'), neutral coverage is 'negative coverage'. Saying Donald Trump is "calling for war crimes" or "joking about killing his opponent" are as matter-of-fact reports as they come. That's not being biased against Trump, that's being neutral towards him.
Well, my point still stands. In the primaries, Trump had much more media presence than his competitors, which helped propel him to the top. From what I remember, one of the main themes of the coverage was how unstoppable he was, in addition to all of his controversies. It might not have been what you normally think of as "positive" coverage at first glance, but when he was dominating the coverage of the Republican primaries and a major thread of the coverage is shock at how much electoral success he's gathering, it certainly cements his image as a frontrunner and someone who "wins". Trump could easily spin all that attention into his "winning" message. He can't do that anymore, which is why I'd say that his media coverage has decidedly made a turn for the worse. I don't think that suggests that the media is somehow dishonest at all.