Maddow slammed for 1-Mocking Dukakis, 2-Misstating the facts, 3-Refuting an argument nobody made

[mickeyraul]

Rachel Maddow surely had a forgettable night last night.

The progressive website and media watchdog Daily Howler tells us that Rachel Maddow sought to disprove Hillary's claim that she's more electable than Obama in big states. But in doing so, Maddow used Michael Dukakis, who won the PA primary 20 years ago but failed carry the state in the General, as an example. But that was not the argument Hillary made. She simply said she would be more electable than Obama. Maddow does not explain why she thinks Dukakis' opponent who lost to him in the primary would have performed better than him in the PA presidential election.
There is more. At one point Maddow says that Dukakis "came nowhere near winning the state in the general election.”
(In fact, Bush beat Dukakis in Pennsylvania fairly narrowly—by less than three points.)

Finally, pay attention at the mocking reference to Dukakis, a Democrat, and his inability to win the state against Bush:

It’s a simple argument. It doesn’t necessarily bear out historically. I mean, you can ask Michael Dukakis how he felt in November 1988, looking back and hugging himself thinking how good it was that he won the Pennsylvania primary that year when he came nowhere near winning the state in the general election.But those are essentially been the two arguments she’s put forward.

The must-read critique has much more details about this and more, including Olberman's alarming behavior. It can be found here:
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh042508.shtml

Did you know Olbermann once called Lindsay Lohan a slut?

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rox63]

4. I vote for 11-post troll n/t

[PoliticalAmazon]

24. It's not the 11 posts, it's the faulty logic and spin that is the red flag. n/t

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[redqueen]

7. No kidding.

[mickeyraul]

8. You take her side without reading what she said?

Some analysis.

[olkaz]

11. Absolutely.

Rachel has a doctorate in Political Science along with years of experience. Everybody makes mistakes, but I'm willing to err in her favor.

You, on the other hand, have nothing.

[mickeyraul]

23. The truth cannot be verified by simply citing a person's college degree

Why not go directly to the comments and verify the veracity or validity of the comments? And by the way, the person who criticized her has a degree in philosophy from a major university. You are pretending that this is a "Maddow vs. some DU member" issue, when it is in fact a "Maddow vs. the truth" issue.

Still, I am not as narrow-minded as you, who choose not to even loot at the comments that are in dispute.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jenmito]

35. You were right! S/he made it to 24 :

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=user_profiles&u_id=219567

[Drunken Irishman]

2. Isn't Lohan a slut?

[PBS Poll-435]

29. You decide...

[Gore1FL]

31. What does she charge?

[Kaleva]

33. Prostitutes charge for their services

[PBS Poll-435]

36. Un kilo per natural unit?

:shrug:

[ErinBerin84]

3. "Did you know Olbermann once called Lindsay Lohan a slut?"

Wow, I'm embarassed for you. A lindsay lohan reference.

Though this does remind me of the time when Lindsay Lohan was trying to tell everyone that her and Al Gore were great friends. Good times.

[AX10]

6. Olbermann is the left wing Fox Bobblehead.

"On Monday, poor Olbermann, crying real tears, compared Clinton’s ad to the ad which was run against Cleland. We thought the Times editorial on that subject was daft. But the Times was displaying standard liberal thought, not the type of “Mainstream Press Think” which this site was created to challenge. In our view, the MSM has been less daft in the past week or so—the liberal world much more so.

We’re stunned each night by Olbermann’s show (when we can force ourselves to watch him). It points the way to a troubling future. We’ve never seen such pure propaganda, even on any particular Fox News Channel show. Is this how news orgs of the future will work? If so, Keith will be a hog in slop. It seems he was born to play liberals."

Also, does Maddow = Lohan?

[Mooney]

9. On a progressive website, there can be no issue more dire

than what someone calls Lindsay Lohan.

[rucky]

15. This is offensive

to sluts everywhere.

[Mooney]

17. It is the worst, most atrocious thing ever to happen in the history of America.

[Adelante]

10. Welcome to DU, mickeyraul

Or welcome back to DU, as the case may be :hi:

[rucky]

14. don't get too attached. n/t

[Moochy]

40. Its already left the building

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=user_profiles&u_id=219567

[flpoljunkie]

12. Did you know that the aptly named Daily Howler long ago went round the bend?

[City Lights]

13. "Must-read?" Not likely. If you find Olbermann's behavior alarming, you

and I are most certainly not on the same page.

Did you know Joe 'dead intern' Scarborough once threatened to backhand Mika on the air? I find that much more alarming than anything Keith Olbermann or Rachel Maddow have said.

[Cali_Democrat]

16. 11 posts and you joined today, yet your posting OP's like a veteran

Hmmmmm. Something tells me your not all that new.

[JBoy]

18. I thought you needed more posts than that to start threads...

[anigbrowl]

26. I wish it were 100 instead of 10

Admittedly I got into an argument on my first day here, but ~4 months later I haven't seen any great reason to change my opinion on that one.

[Forkboy]

19. Welcome back!

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MadBadger]

21. Welcome back merciful and millionaire

[redstate_democrat]

38. lol

[anonymous171]

25. Seriously, when you are attacking O and Maddow,

it's time to reevaluate which party you belong to.

[Orangepeel]

27. She was refuting that winning the state in a primary is correlated with winning it in the GE

that IS an argument that Clinton and her supporters are making and Rachel was right to point out how silly it is.

[mickeyraul]

28. No. She was not refuting that. Even Maddow made it clear that Hillary's argument is another one

And the argument was who would be stronger, she or Obama.

MADDOW (4/24/08): Well, it has two components—there’s a biographical component and there is a numbers component. The biographical component is that Barack Obama is not as vetted as Hillary Clinton is. And even though we all can imagine or have nightmares about what kind of slime the Republicans might bring against Hillary Clinton in the fall, it pales in comparison to what they might throw at Barack Obama and how damaging it would be because he’s inexperienced in facing it. So, that’s the biographical argument.

The numbers argument is that Hillary Clinton’s strength in some swing states so far in the primary campaign indicates that she would be stronger against John McCain in those states than Barack Obama would. The two that she usually cites now are Ohio and Pennsylvania. But the implication is that by winning in those states—in those states the Democrats historically have to win in order to get the presidency, Hillary Clinton has shown in the primaries that she would be stronger in the general.

It’s a simple argument. It doesn’t necessarily bear out historically. I mean, you can ask Michael Dukakis how he felt in November 1988, looking back and hugging himself thinking how good it was that he won the Pennsylvania primary that year when he came nowhere near winning the state in the general election. But those are essentially been the two arguments she’s put forward.

[Orangepeel]

30. Clinton's argument is that winning the primary makes it likely she'd win the general

the "more" likely is implied, or there's no reason to bring it up. The 88 primary and election results provide evidence that winning the primary doesn't mean that one can win the general election. (McCain won PA, too, and by a much larger margin).

I'm sure Rachel Maddow would take the point that, since only one candidate from each party runs in the general election, general election results can not actually prove which primary candidate would do better and which would do worse. But Clinton is the one implying that they will.

But so? Why is this worth criticizing her over?

[JoFerret]

32. Enough of this mockery of fellow democrats

It helps none of us.

And Dukasis came damn close that year. He blew a great summer lead but he still came close in the end.

[cliffordu]

34. I ain't skeered of no ghosts, or ghouls as the case may be...

[Political Heretic]

37. I knew it was just a matter of time before even Rachel Maddow was trashed here.

[graycem]

39. But uhm,

so many people keep accusing Obama of being a Dukakis or McGovern like they're dirty words too. That's more offensive. So slammed, really? She's the only freaking voice of reason on our television news media and you want to snipe at her? That's sad.

[Awsi Dooger]

41. Please tell me she didn't make an inane comparison like that

Rachel Maddow is a work in progress who makes sloppy mistakes, fails to grasp the big picture when moment to moment minutiae will suffice, and in this case throws out an absurd comparison.

When Dukakis won the Pennsylvania primary in '88, the race had already been decided, the top challengers gone from the race. I hope Rachel Maddow had the decency and competence to point that out, if she knew it at all. Somehow I doubt it.

It's a classic case of scrambling to make a point, and isolating a quick and sloppy comparison that doesn't threaten to fit. In April 1988 Dukakis had ousted Gore and Simon, by the time Pennsylvania showed up on the calendar. Everyone knew it was a glorified walkover, with only Jesse Jackson left to oppose Dukakis. The only worry for Dukakis was complacency by his voters. The result was a 67-28% avalanche.

Now, how does that threaten to equate to last Tuesday? The only valid comparison is Jackson winning the Philadelphia black vote by massive margin, then destroyed elsewhere.

It's fine to identify hotly contested primaries in major states, ones that occurred early in the cycle among the two heavyweights, and then point to results in the same state in the general election. Many to choose from. But something like this is a rambling reach from a talented young progressive, someone who really needs to fortify her game. When it comes to summoning valid situational comparisons from previous cycles, I've noticed this for months, that literally everyone who analyzes alongside Rachel on MSNBC has more foundational knowledge of past cycles.

[dbredes]

42. Oh here comes the "Split a Hair Club"

The comparison was certainly valid even if someone feels compelled to correct a detail.

Rachel Maddow gives good thoughtful commentary..even when I don't agree with her...which does occasionally happen.

Primary results within a party don't predict the national race.

The comparison holds...She's right!

Shout out to Rachel!

Dukakis subtext:
You know the Dukakis campaign was the first campaign I actively worked on. My sons who are grown now..helped to fold mailers...:-)

And guess what he carried Washington State...Yes it's True!!

But it is also true that he will forever "go down" as the Democratic candidate in the tank....A symbol of how Democrats just can't be commander in chief..Only Republicans can really keep you safe...

Lies, character assassination and fear mongering have been the mainstay of Republicans for a long long time.

[H2O Man]

43. Lindsay Lohan for President!

The 16th World Congress in now in session! All rise! All rise!

Tombstoned pizzas to be served after the minutes are read.