I'm among the group who can't tolerate her and don't understand the popularity. She is anything but brilliant. Once in a while I decide to give her another chance but then she forfeits it within minutes...nothing has changed. It's like a soap opera in which you can click away for minutes at a time and not miss anything, other than some forced facial expressions and gestures.
It doesn't take special skill or insight to forge daily pieces on someone like Donald Trump and his administration, given all the illegalities and atrocities.
During election years and leading into them Rachel is terrible. She has no concept of situational variables and foundational variables, which are only the aspects that decide elections. Rachel instead overreacts to all the little stories and places absurd emphasis on them, and then has no clue what went wrong.
I've mentioned this many times but when someone inherits a state poll and takes it at face value with no logical scrutiny whatsoever and no concept of the ideological breakdown of the state, that person has no chance with me. It is difficult not to laugh. Rachel Maddow has me laughing dependably in that scenario literally every cycle, and multiple times. She abuses wish, not wisdom. The condescending smirk is even more pathetic than normal because it should be self-aimed. She is the clown. Rachel also never displays any type of insight toward shifting voting trends among various demographics. She finds her story of the day and ruthlessly inflates it.
Lawrence O'Donnell is generally fairly good in grasping polling validity but last year he really blew it when he touted that guy who had the absurd lopsided Florida projection (7 points or thereabouts) in Hillary's favor, based on early voting (anal)ysis. Florida always has slight red tilt. So you take that slight tilt and then apply it given the national landscape. Not exactly complicated. Rick Scott would have lost both times other than the considerable red tilt narrowly saving him both times. If he had run in what figures to be at least a somewhat blue slant in 2018, Rick Scott would have very little chance unless our nominee imploded.
Chris Hayes is superior. He has excellent scope and flexibility, not married to one robotic style. He also adapts his show wonderfully based on late developments during the day, and adjusts his questioning and summaries depending on what the guest says. I can tune in not knowing what to expect other than to be impressed virtually every time.
= new reply since forum marked as read
. But I just love how she has a fresh approach. She doesn't just rehash. She must have a team of analytical types working for her.
