2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumCNN and MSNBC shift their focus entirely to Hillary vs Trump
Great to see this.
CNN and MSNBC shift their focus entirely to Hillary vs Trump
http://www.dailynewsbin.com/opinion/cnn-and-msnbc-shift-their-focus-entirely-to-hillary-vs-trump/24683/
By Bill Palmer | May 4, 2016
:large
hillary-clinton-
As some of you know all too well, I dont watch much cable news. Its a format thats too willing to push dishonest narratives for ratings to be reliable. But today I watched several hours of it, just to see how theyre going to frame things going forward. CNN and MSNBC spent almost all of their time focused on Hillary Clinton vs Donald Trump. Not a surprise. Theyve just been handed a high profile general election matchup, so they no longer need to try to get ratings by continuing to falsely prop up the candidates who are no longer in contention.
What did surprise me: both networks are willing to acknowledge that Hillary has a big polling lead over Trump, and that she holds most of the strategic and demographic cards over him at the outset. They also painted him as being an extremist who lacks credulity, and pointed out the numerous challenges he faces in trying to fit the part of a nominee.
.........................
But for now it appears cable news is betting that most Americans want to be told that Hillary and Trump are indeed the nominees, and that shes well ahead of him, and that theres something not quite right about him in general. For once, the most ratings-profitable cable news narrative happens to be truth. Well see how long that lasts.
YOHABLO
(7,358 posts)nolawarlock
(1,729 posts)Response to nolawarlock (Reply #2)
TM99 This message was self-deleted by its author.
nolawarlock
(1,729 posts)Do your parents know you're posting?
Response to nolawarlock (Reply #7)
TM99 This message was self-deleted by its author.
nolawarlock
(1,729 posts)I do believe there is an ignore feature that can make me and my posts disappear forever.
Response to nolawarlock (Reply #10)
TM99 This message was self-deleted by its author.
ContinentalOp
(5,356 posts)Response to ContinentalOp (Reply #13)
TM99 This message was self-deleted by its author.
nolawarlock
(1,729 posts)Response to nolawarlock (Reply #15)
TM99 This message was self-deleted by its author.
nolawarlock
(1,729 posts)Who knows where I might make it to.
Response to nolawarlock (Reply #17)
TM99 This message was self-deleted by its author.
nolawarlock
(1,729 posts)Are you trying to bait me into something? I'm just so confused. Are you upset? It's certainly not my intention to upset you.
Response to nolawarlock (Reply #19)
TM99 This message was self-deleted by its author.
nolawarlock
(1,729 posts)... but it's not like those are the most read, are they?
Response to nolawarlock (Reply #22)
TM99 This message was self-deleted by its author.
nolawarlock
(1,729 posts)I have a dramatically pleasant side. I have to in my line of work. But the fact is, people beat each other up so much here that I don't really see how much gets through other than static.
I don't presume to know how old you are but I am old enough to remember Vince Foster, Ron Brown's plane and everything else. To see that being done to Hillary by Democrats is sickening to me. I am willing to give her the benefit of the doubt because I understand those kinds of vicious and groundless attacks, probably better than most here ever could.
Response to nolawarlock (Reply #25)
TM99 This message was self-deleted by its author.
nolawarlock
(1,729 posts)Last edited Fri May 6, 2016, 04:39 AM - Edit history (1)
1) I don't think Hillary is responsible for Bill's dalliances or sexual behavior.
2) The whole Whitewater thing was a sham. They would have done anything to bring down a Democrat at the time.
3) I didn't like that he lied about Lewinsky but I also don't think it should have been an issue to begin with.
4) I don't think Clinton was the first boss ever to get involved with an employee. Heck, I married one of mine. There is a difference between harassment and involvement and Lewinsky has always claimed that was a mutual thing.
5) With DADT, Clinton absolutely wanted more than that at the time and I was there to watch it and I think I may be older than you since I was 22 when Clinton got into office. I remember how much push back he got wanting to just allow gays altogether, so he thought that would be a workable compromise. Clearly, it didn't work out so well, but I don't think it was his intention. As for DOMA, nearly everyone had that position back then which was why it passed so easily. I credit Bernie for not being one of those people and it is one of the things I like about him, but I am not going to spend forever blaming people for positions they no longer hold. Obama might still be anti-gay marriage if it weren't for Joe Biden sticking his foot in Obama's mouth.
6) Because of the quite-predicable response to something as loaded as the superpredators comment, I think Hillary was unwise to say it. However, I did not watch that quote thinking she was accusing all black youth of being superpredators, which is how that has since been played by her critics which is disingenuous. I was alive during the gang violence and blacks were not the only people in gangs at the time. I also remember the violence and that people in those inner cities were crying out for help from government. For people to now confront her to say "I'm not a superpredator" is disingenuous because, if they are not actually committing the violence she was speaking of, then the label would not apply to them. Gang violence was very serious at the time and I think people were looking to deal with it, and Hillary acknowledged something that the Republicans would never have, which is that there are reasons that violent offenders "got that way," which was a clear "dog whistle" (to use her critics' term) to the left to say that, "yes, poverty does cause violence but we have to do something now." Do I think it was the wisest way she could have phrased it? No, but I also think it's disgusting to twist that into this idea that she things every black youth or random protester at her event is a superpredator because even if you took her use of super predator to only mean black violent gang members (and I don't believe that is what she meant), it certainly didn't include non-violent protesters holding signs saying "I'm not a superpredator." That's the kind of politics I can't get behind. I despise Trump as the day is long, but when people took his disgusting comment about a number of undocumented immigrants being racists and twisted it to say that he said all Mexicans were rapists, I was annoyed. Yes, I thought his comment was disgusting on its own but why twist it? I am a very strong believer that one must not lie for their cause, for they will soon not have one. The superpredator comment, on the other hand, I saw as hyperbolic at best since she was clearly not just talking about blacks, and, even then, she was only talking about violent people. I also know that this was thirty years ago and the way people talked about race was different. Part of why I detest Trump so much is that he is the reason certain Bernie supporters feel they can accuse blacks of Stockholm Syndrome. He is the reason certain Hillary supporters can call Bernie "too old" or ask why Jews hate blacks so much. It's not that these things weren't creeping under the surface in some people, but Trump has made all of this ok, not just for Republicans but for people here. So it's hard for me to even address racial issues without also exploring that we are in danger of going back to those days and it's not because of Hillary, or even Bernie, but because people on the ground in all corners of the political spectrum are seeing Trump as the new normal and it scares the hell out of me. Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter and Al Franken started us on the road to incivility in political discourse. Trump has now thrown civility and taste right out the window. And if we're going to focus on some dumb comment Hillary made thirty years ago that was made to address gang violence as a justification for a Bernie or Bust mentality, that is the very epitome of cutting one's nose to spite their face because, if Trump in the Primary season is able to influence how our entire culture (DU included) is moving in terms of what is acceptable discourse, Hilalry couldn't even begin to ascend to the level of what will become normal racial dialogue once this man is president.
7) I have mixed feelings about free trade but I can say that it often confuses me. Many of the countries that benefited from free trade, however poorly they might benefit, often had far, far less before it. Many of the attacks on Free Trade I see by the left are focussed on lost American jobs, but if this is really a socialist argument, shouldn't we care about the economic success of people throughout the globe? If we are going to redistribute wealth, the poorest in this nation do not begin to touch the levels of poverty in other areas of the world. I can say that I have personally prospered far more under Clinton and Obama than I ever did either of the Bushes.
8) Clearly I'm a little older but not much.
9) I messaged you.
Response to nolawarlock (Reply #29)
TM99 This message was self-deleted by its author.
nolawarlock
(1,729 posts)... see, I can be comprehensive. hehehe
zappaman
(20,606 posts)Best post I've read here in some time!
Thanks!
nolawarlock
(1,729 posts)It came from the heart.
Response to nolawarlock (Reply #29)
TM99 This message was self-deleted by its author.
nolawarlock
(1,729 posts)... But will try to respond later. I am clearly less familiar with Whitewater but I do have to wonder how they got away Scott free. There's gotta be more to the story. We do have some fundamentally different perspectives on the same information. Particularly Don't Ask Don't Tell because I clearly remember Clinton wanting to just end the ban altogether until the DADT compromise. I feel like there are pieces missing but will research later.
She could be guilty of half of it and I'd probably still want her, in part for reasons I couldn't repeat here. Lol
snowy owl
(2,145 posts)I've start tracking how many Clinton supporters use negative ads about Bernie instead of positive ads about Clinton. I've seen no ads from B supporters that mock Clinton but only uplifting ads for Bernie. That's the difference in our mindsets, isn't it. Mean spiritness from centrists and hope and vision from progressives.
The more they show their distaste for Trump, the more a lot of voters will turn against MSM. Maybe.
nolawarlock
(1,729 posts)You are saying you've seen no ads from Bernie supporters that mock Clinton but here are a few literally that I literally just took right from sig files. Perhaps you have all of these Bernie supporters on ignore?
(which is mocking Hillary's logo)
zappaman
(20,606 posts)I laughed.
nolawarlock
(1,729 posts)It's what gets me through the day.
chillfactor
(7,584 posts)I do not watch either channel now.
Jack Bone
(2,023 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)And all they talk about is trump.
amborin
(16,631 posts)Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)deepestblue
(349 posts)Bernie will be taking his place at 1600 PA Ave. in a few months and I for one will be deliciously enjoying every second of it. Finally, a voice for the actual PEOPLE of the world!!!!!!!!!! It's been too long (FDR).
grossproffit
(5,591 posts)Tarc
(10,476 posts)Someone tell Bern to hit the lights on the way out.
DrDan
(20,411 posts)but it will happen soon