Real Music
 
  3  
Reply Mon 9 Dec, 2019 11:48 pm
The following video link was published September 6, 2016,
which was (one mouth) out from the 2016 election day.


Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton start the race to November 8 on essentially even ground,
with Trump edging Clinton by a scant two points among likely voters, and the contest
sparking sharp divisions along demographic lines in a new CNN/ORC Poll.


Published September 6, 2016
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  2  
Reply Tue 10 Dec, 2019 01:28 am
@Lash,
Quote:
the Hillary-crazy media and their wealthy patrons say Hillary is walking away with it by a 97% likelihood—hoping Trump voters would count it lost and stay home.

That would have been such a TRAGEDY!
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Dec, 2019 02:33 am
@Olivier5,
Whether or not something might serve the interests of one side in the moment, cheating or journalistic bias or any other behavior that shouldn’t be used against one side shouldn’t be used against the other.

I deeply believe the Neimoller poem.
Olivier5
 
  3  
Reply Tue 10 Dec, 2019 04:04 am
@Lash,
Especially not against Trump. He's such a darling...
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Dec, 2019 04:30 am
@Olivier5,
It’s easy to ‘protect’ those you agree with—and a test of character to stand up for equality and fairness for those you can’t stand.

The rules we break to get rid of Trump can be used on future presidents—and all bets are off.
hightor
 
  3  
Reply Tue 10 Dec, 2019 05:12 am
@blatham,
Quote:
That's a quality paranoid theory.

Why is this discussion even being pursued? As far as the media choosing to fudge their poll results to "help" Clinton, this fails on many levels. It's safer to assume that, yes, Clinton had a huge lead very early in the campaign and that she steadily lost popularity over the course of the summer. Saying a candidate has a 90% chance of winning says nothing about the closeness of the vote and by the last week of the campaign I remember people saying that the race had tightened considerably.

It can just as easily be conjectured that the belief that Clinton would win easily lowered her turnout. Time and time again I've heard candidates who were riding high in the polls take the time to tell their supporters not to get too complacent, warning them of overconfidence.

After the election the media pollsters were left looking pretty stupid and out of touch. This also argues against the idea that they purposely tried to make Clinton look like the sure winner. If they were conducting polls and found that Trump was getting a surprising amount of support they'd say so, not try to hide the fact. Credibility means something to news outlets and big scoops sell papers — and advertising. Shilling for unpopular candidates would be bad for the bottom line.
Olivier5
 
  2  
Reply Tue 10 Dec, 2019 06:10 am
@Lash,
Why yes, the media is very unfair to Trump, and that's a biiiig problem, right?
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  4  
Reply Tue 10 Dec, 2019 07:25 am
@hightor,
Quote:
Why is this discussion even being pursued?
There really is no good reason. My last post above was my last post.
coldjoint
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 10 Dec, 2019 01:39 pm
@blatham,
Quote:
My last post above was my last post.

Think anyone believes that?
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Dec, 2019 06:26 pm
Good discussion with staff at New York Mag
Quote:
Does Joe Biden’s View of the Republican Party Make Any Sense at All?
By Jonathan Chait, Benjamin Hart, and Eric Levitz

Ben: Joe Biden has been criticized for being overly naïve about Republicans’ willingness to work with him if he became president, seeming to have learned little in that regard from the obstruction-heavy Obama years. On Sunday, he made another curious comment about the GOP, as our colleague Matt Stieb wrote:

“Describing his plan to ‘work things out’ with Senator Lindsey Graham to pass legislation if elected, Biden shared his worry that the Republican Party could suffer too great a loss in 2020, wondering what would happen if the GOP got ‘clobbered’ in November and Democrats were able to genuinely wield power for the first time in a decade. ‘I’m really worried that no party should have too much power,’ he told a crowd in Decorah, according to BuzzFeed News. ‘You need a countervailing force.’”

Biden’s bipartisan is unrealistic. Does he have any kind of point at all that single-party Democratic control of the federal government wouldn’t be an unalloyed good thing?

Jon: No. The only possible defense of that statement is that it’s pleasant-sounding crap that helps him get elected. As analysis, it’s pure insanity. You may believe that over the long run, we need a sane GOP, but it’s obvious the party has been moving right for decades and only massive sustained defeats can arrest this trend. Frankly, I am angry you even asked this question. I’m now questioning your fitness as a moderator.

Ben: I agree, this is disqualifying.

Jon: My view is that we might one day get a sane Republican Party, but first the existing one needs to die in a fire.

Eric: I mean, it would not be ideal for there to be only one nationally viable political party in the United States. But it is insane for a Democrat to be “really worried” about that prospect at a time when the GOP is America’s dominant political party and appears on pace to secure an unshakable grip on both the Senate and the federal judiciary. As Jon says, only massive electoral defeat can possibly turn the GOP into the center-right party that Biden so desperately wants to govern with...
More Here

I'm very definitely with the guys on this point. I'm hoping that Biden is operating on the premise that he's better off electorally by saying this but that he isn't so stupid as to believe it. But I'm not sure. If he does believe it, that rules him (or anyone who thinks the same way) out for me as a primary candidate. Unless he (or that other) wins the nomination and then I'll sell my children to support him against Trump and pray to heaven wiser heads around him/her change his noggin on day one.

And I'll add that I feel exactly the same way regarding candidates' thinking on adding two new members to the Supreme Court. If they don't recognize the utter necessity for this and are reluctant to take this step, that rules them out. Unless they win.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Tue 10 Dec, 2019 06:36 pm
@blatham,
Quote:
Joe Biden has been criticized for being overly naïve about Republicans’ willingness to work with him if he became president, seeming to have learned little in that regard from the obstruction-heavy Obama years.

The people that you are relying on to think for you are overlooking the fact that the supposed obstruction did not happen and is just leftist propaganda to cover up Obama's failures.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  2  
Reply Wed 11 Dec, 2019 06:24 am
Watching Corbyn and Johnson tomorrow. The UK and US seem to be having the same struggle. Elitists vs the people.

Go Corby!
blatham
 
  0  
Reply Wed 11 Dec, 2019 06:45 am
@Lash,
Re "elitists"...

You recognize, I trust, that the primary propaganda line pushed by Boris and the other Brexit advocates was that the EU is a paradigmatic example of "elites"?

Personally, I hope Corbyn does better than it seems he might do and that Boris is run over by a big ******* truck. But I want to point out that populist use of the term "elites" has two facets and if we get lazy in our thinking this can do serious damage to our notions and discourse.

In the US, for example, right wing populism posits that the dangerous and malignant elites are people like university professors and civil servants (such as those who testified in impeachment hearings) and the courts and indeed government itself (if not controlled by the right). In rightwing world, corporations are almost universally passed over as examples of controlling elites. Financial/banking entities usually only become targets where identified with Jews.

Just a reminder that populist language and thinking is a sword with two edges.
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Dec, 2019 07:09 am
@blatham,
Well, Johnson and his followers like to portray themselves as political rebels, anti-establishment outsiders whose campaign for Brexit is aimed at overturning the status quo in favour of "ordinary" working Brittons.

(I think to remember that someone started a thread about this.)


And Corbyn ... well, his politics may appeal to a socialist elite, many think (and thus, Labour is loosing voters in its heartlands).
blatham
 
  0  
Reply Wed 11 Dec, 2019 07:26 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Are you thinking I got something wrong? Populists, by definition, will always tie themselves to the "common people" and then set some other group of sector of society in nefarious opposition. It seems to me that the positive or negative value that attends this formulation is determined by who is set as the bad guys and why.
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Dec, 2019 07:43 am
@blatham,
No, I just wanted to confirm your post.
blatham
 
  0  
Reply Wed 11 Dec, 2019 07:45 am
@Walter Hinteler,
I love you with all my heart and a small portion of my pituitary gland.
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Wed 11 Dec, 2019 07:54 am
@blatham,
I have to think about that with my therapist.
snood
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Dec, 2019 07:57 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Blatham doesn’t give his gland lightly...
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Dec, 2019 08:06 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Do let me know what you and your therapist discover.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.11 seconds on 04/24/2024 at 05:54:10