Jump to content

Max

Members
  • Posts

    2,338
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Max

  1. May Anne Heche rest in peace. As others have indicated, she was certainly the best Vicky and Marley AW ever had. She gave AW a much-needed shot in the arm after that soap had so many missteps in 1985, 1986, and the first half of 1987. And the show was never the same after she departed in 1991.

    This has been a very tough year when it has come to deaths of soap stars. Though the circumstances of her death were very different, I was also tremendously saddened when the great Kathryn Hays passed away earlier this year.

  2. 4 hours ago, JoeCool said:

    Agnes Nixon did not want AMC to go to an hour. She had concerns about the quality of the show and the expansion to 1 hour on the ratings. AMC was the highest rated soap on ABC from 1973 onward and was making ABC a lot of money. ABC convinced Agnes by building a huge studio just for AMC and getting her writing help. Agnes relented eventually.

    I thought that it was a likely possibility that the long period of time in between AMC's experimental, hour-long episodes and that soap's permanent expansion to 60 minutes was due to Agnes Nixon's objections (and/or reservations). However, I never knew the lengths to which ABC went to convince her to agree to the hour-long expansion. That is a really fascinating bit of information.

  3. Unlike the finales for AW, GL, and ATWT--all of which had serious flaws--I consider SFT's finale to be the gold standard. (Full disclosure, I've never watched the final episodes of RH and Texas, both of which were also heavily praised.) It nicely wrapped up the storylines of the current characters and, even more importantly, had such a touching final scene with Jo and Stu.

    That said, I wouldn't say that SFT's final episode was perfect. I could have done without the scene in which, after some villain (whose name I don't recall) was arrested, that character had the following line of dialogue (before drinking a glass of wine): "To the McClearys...They won, in the end." Honestly, that line was a needless reminder of how much the McClearly brothers (who granted, at least were portrayed by talented actors) were shoved down viewers' throats during SFT's final years. But a bigger reason why SFT's finale wasn't perfect was that it would have been nice to have had returns of many classic characters from the past.

    In SFT's defense, perfection wasn't realistically possible: not much time passed between the cancellation announcement and the finale, the show was only 30 minutes in length, and the then-current characters did need to have their stories wrapped up. But in a perfect world, if you didn't have some of the constraints that SFT's writers and producers had (say, for instance, had SFT had the luxury of an hour-long final episode), how might you have improved upon the finale? I'm curious to read people's responses to this question.

  4. I realize that this is very belated, but I wanted to apologize for the way I upset some SON members back when the AMC/OLTL cancellations and reboots happened. I do want to say that I really haven't changed the way I feel about the cancellations and reboots. Thus, I still think the reboots (while OK) weren't anything great, that they were unlikely to succeed due to the fact a large time period elapsed between their debut and the final ABC episodes (which meant the reboots were probably going to have trouble attracting casual viewers of AMC & OLTL), and that there were unethical businessmen who were taking advantage of the situation for their own financial gain (e.g., the people who ran Prospect Park and the executives at Hoover, the latter being a company which I believe never did anything to help AMC & OLTL when the reboots actually were airing). From a business standpoint, I can still understand why AMC & OLTL were cancelled. For reasons most know, the AMC cancellation was the easier decision for ABC to make, and the less controversial one at the time. The OLTL cancellation was extremely controversial due to its being in better financial/budgetary shape and due to its very impressive rise in the ratings after the cancellation announcement was made. However, I can understand why ABC cancelled it due to its lackluster ratings during the few years preceding the cancellation. Of course, because of OLTL's post-cancellation rise in the ratings, ABC should have reversed its decision and uncancelled the show. This last point was one I seldom mentioned, and I am sorry about that. (However, it is possible that ABC did want to reverse its decision to cancel OLTL but couldn't because of contractual obligations it had already made with Prospect Park.)

    As is evident from what I wrote in the above paragraph, I'm not apologizing for the way I felt (and still feel) about the cancellations and reboots (because nobody should apologize for his or her sincerely held opinions). What I am truly sorry about is the fact that I went on ad nauseum about the topic. (I should have stated my feelings on the subject a few times, at most, and then moved on to discussing other things.) My behavior upset a good number of posters and showed a real lack of sensitivity as so many were mourning the loss of both shows. For what it's worth, I've probably watched OLTL more than any other non-P&G soap. The show had many positives, and it is very regrettable that its demise meant the extinction of NYC soap operas. I was (and still am) critical of the Cartini era, but the mistakes they made could have been fixed simply by firing them.

  5. 16 hours ago, Paul Raven said:

    One reason AMC became a hit was the 1pm timeslot. There was no network competition for it. When it debuted they tried a soap block 12-1.30 but only AMC survived.

    To move either AMC or OLTL would put them in the firing line of other more established shows.

    eg if OLTL was moved after AMC that would put it up against ATWT which was #1 in those days.

    You do make a good point, one which I had thought about. I also realize that ABC actually found success in the 1:30 to 2:00 timeslot from 12/30/68 to 12/26/75, when Let's Make a Deal occupied that slot. However, I do think that by 1974 or so, the prospect of a rival network airing a soap opposite of ATWT wasn't the dreadful thing it once was (as ATWT, while still # 1, had ceased to be as popular as it was at its zenith). And that was very likely an important reason why from 12/1/75 to 3/2/79, the entirety of DOOL competed with the entirety of ATWT from 1:30 to 2:30. (OLTL, of course, had yet to become a smash hit as of 1975 in the way that DOOL had by that point, so this is a somewhat flawed argument. But I do stand by the point that a soap competing against ATWT had become a considerably less daunting task than it once was.)

    Nevertheless, given the risk of competing against ATWT, I would have thought it best for OLTL to occupy the post-AMC timeslot at some time other than 1:30 to 2:00. As of 7/7/75, AMC assumed the 12:30 to 1:00 timeslot, so I would have had OLTL air from 1:00 to 1:30. It's certainly possible that ABC seriously considered doing that but chose not to, either because it really wanted RH to air during that half hour and/or because the network was already making long-term plans to expand OLTL and GH. (It's probably a safe assumption that in 1975, ABC already was hoping and planning to have AMC expand to 60 minutes, given that AMC aired experimental, hour-long episodes the week prior to RH's debut. Though I am getting off-topic, I am curious as to why close to two years passed before AMC finally did expand to an hour on a permanent basis; I'm guessing it was because Agnes Nixon had mixed feelings, or worse, about the prospect of AMC expanding.)

  6. 7 hours ago, JoeCool said:

    Great analysis.

    All My Children hit #1 for the first time during the summer of 1973.  ABC did indeed have faith in Agnes Nixon and gave AMC and OLTL time to grow, Because of AMC's strong ratings from 1973 to 1975, ABC bought both AMC and OLTL from Agnes Nixon and her husband and  their company Creative Horizons for around $5 to $10 million.

    Thank you for your kind words.

    I think that OLTL would have become a big hit quite a bit earlier had ABC not waited so long to give it the post-AMC timeslot. In fact, it is quite puzzling as to why ABC aired AMC and OLTL so far apart from each other for many years. Based on data I found at the Daytime TV Archive website, the following is a partial history as to when ABC aired its soaps in the Eastern Time Zone: (Note that times not listed were devoted to non-soap programming. And I'm sorry for the awkward spacing, as what should be single-spaced is double-spaced and what should be double-spaced is quadruple spaced. I tried and tried to get around this problem, but I was unsuccessful.)

    01/05/1970 to 03/27/1970

    01:00 P.M. to 01:30 P.M. - All My Children

    03:00 P.M. to 03:30 P.M. - General Hospital (timeslot held since 12/30/1963)

    03:30 P.M. to 04:00 P.M. - One Life to Live (timeslot held since 07/15/1968)

    04:00 P.M. to 04:30 P.M. - Dark Shadows (timeslot held since 07/15/1968)

     

    03/30/1970 to 09/25/1970

    12:00 P.M. to 12:30 P.M. - The Best of Everything

    12:30 P.M. to 01:00 P.M. - A World Apart

    01:00 P.M. to 01:30 P.M. - All My Children

    03:00 P.M. to 03:30 P.M. - General Hospital

    03:30 P.M. to 04:00 P.M. - One Life to Live

    04:00 P.M. to 04:30 P.M. - Dark Shadows

     

    09/28/1970 to 04/02/1971

    12:30 P.M. to 01:00 P.M. - A World Apart

    01:00 P.M. to 01:30 P.M. - All My Children

    03:00 P.M. to 03:30 P.M. - General Hospital

    03:30 P.M. to 04:00 P.M. - One Life to Live

    04:00 P.M. to 04:30 P.M. - Dark Shadows

     

    04/05/1971 to 06/25/1971

    12:30 P.M. to 01:00 P.M. - A World Apart

    01:00 P.M. to 01:30 P.M. - All My Children

    03:00 P.M. to 03:30 P.M. - General Hospital

    03:30 P.M. to 04:00 P.M. - One Life to Live

     

    06/28/1971 to 06/27/1975

    01:00 P.M. to 01:30 P.M. - All My Children

    03:00 P.M. to 03:30 P.M. - General Hospital

    03:30 P.M. to 04:00 P.M. - One Life to Live

     

    06/30/1975 to 07/04/1975

    12:30 P.M. to 01:30 P.M. - All My Children (one hour trial episodes)

    03:00 P.M. to 03:30 P.M. - General Hospital

    03:30 P.M. to 04:00 P.M. - One Life to Live

     

    07/07/1975 to 11/28/1975

    12:30 P.M. to 01:00 P.M. - All My Children

    01:00 P.M. to 01:30 P.M. - Ryan's Hope

    03:00 P.M. to 03:30 P.M. - General Hospital

    03:30 P.M. to 04:00 P.M. - One Life to Live

     

    12/02/1975 to 07/23/1976

    12:30 P.M. to 01:00 P.M. - All My Children

    01:00 P.M. to 01:30 P.M. - Ryan's Hope

    03:00 P.M. to 03:30 P.M. - General Hospital

    03:30 P.M. to 04:00 P.M. - One Life to Live

    04:00 P.M. to 04:30 P.M. - The Edge of Night*

    *Note that on 12/01/1975, EON aired a special, one-time-only 90-minute episode, airing from 03:00 P.M. to 04:30 P.M. GH and OLTL were pre-empted that day.

     

    07/26/1976 to 12/31/1976

    12:30 P.M. to 01:00 P.M. - All My Children

    01:00 P.M. to 01:30 P.M. - Ryan's Hope

    02:30 P.M. to 03:15 P.M. - One Life to Live

    03:15 P.M. to 04:00 P.M. - General Hospital

    04:00 P.M. to 04:30 P.M. - The Edge of Night

     

    01/03/1977 to 04/22/1977

    12:30 P.M. to 01:00 P.M. - Ryan's Hope

    01:00 P.M. to 01:30 P.M. - All My Children

    02:30 P.M. to 03:15 P.M. - One Life to Live

    03:15 P.M. to 04:00 P.M. - General Hospital

    04:00 P.M. to 04:30 P.M. - The Edge of Night

     

    04/25/1977 to 01/13/1978

    12:30 P.M. to 01:00 P.M. - Ryan's Hope

    01:00 P.M. to 02:00 P.M. - All My Children

    02:30 P.M. to 03:15 P.M. - One Life to Live

    03:15 P.M. to 04:00 P.M. - General Hospital

    04:00 P.M. to 04:30 P.M. - The Edge of Night

     

    01/16/1978 to 06/24/1983

    12:30 P.M. to 01:00 P.M. - Ryan's Hope

    01:00 P.M. to 02:00 P.M. - All My Children

    02:00 P.M. to 03:00 P.M. - One Life to Live

    03:00 P.M. to 04:00 P.M. - General Hospital

    04:00 P.M. to 04:30 P.M. - The Edge of Night

     

  7. If you look at the history of daytime soap ratings on Wikipedia, and assume that what is written there is correct, this is actually an easy question to answer. For the sake of discussion, I'll define a successful/long-running daytime soap as The Doctors or any program that lasted longer. This means that there have been fourteen successful soaps. Before I comment on each of these soaps, what is really apparent is that--in virtually all cases--it would take at most five years to determine if a soap was a commercial hit or disappointment (if not outright failure). The biggest exception to this "five-year rule" was OLTL, which didn't become a smash hit until the tail end of the 70s. (Obviously, being sandwiched between AMC and GH played a big role in helping OLTL. But the decision to make Llanview into Buchanan Country--and the popularity of those characters--was also an important factor.) GH also took longer than five years to become a huge hit.

    Below is an analysis for each of the fourteen long-running soaps:

    *All My Children: This show had terrible ratings during its first few years. But it moved into the middle of the pack during the 1972-73 Season and was ranked # 5 during 1974-75.

    *Another World: In spite of all that I've read about NBC wanting to cancel the show during its infancy, it seemed to have respectable, middle-tier ratings during much of its first three years on the air. AW became a smash hit during the 1967-68 Season, when it shot up to # 2.

    *As the World Turns: This soap had a very poorly rated first season on the air, but it was # 2 during the 1957-58 Season. It began its long run at # 1 (albeit tied with SFT) the following season.

    *The Bold and the Beautiful: This soap had respectable ratings from the start (I believe always besting AW). It was # 6 for the 1989-90 Season and # 5 the following year (obviously showing that it was able to build an audience in a way that Capitol never did).

    *Days of Our Lives: As was the case with AW, I've read much about how NBC seriously considered cancelling this show during its infancy. During its first three seasons, it was ranked # 10, which obviously wasn't all that good, though I'd hardly say that was a terrible showing for a new soap (given the sheer number of soaps on the air back then). The 1968-69 Season was the breakout year for this show, as it rose to # 5 (albeit in a tie with Love of Life and The Doctors).

    *The Doctors: This show was lower rated than GH during its first few years, which had to be embarrassing given that ABC (at the time) was considered a subpar network relative to NBC and CBS. But The Doctors' fortunes turned around, as it became the # 5 soap during the 1967-68 Season.

    *The Edge of Night: EON was a hit from the beginning, with a rank of # 4 for the 1956-57 Season.

    *General Hospital: GH pretty much had mid-tier ratings during its infancy, which was impressive given that it was/is an ABC soap. For much of the 60s, however, it didn't seem to be showing growth potential. However, that changed in the early-70s, when it became # 6 during the 1970-71 Season and # 2 the following year.

    *Guiding Light: I have no idea how long it took GL to become a hit on the radio, but it must have had a turbulent ratings history, given that (I believe) it was cancelled three times, only to come back on the air. GL appeared to do very well making the transition to television: It was ranked # 4 for the 1951-52 and 1952-53 Seasons and # 2 during 1953-54. (Note that Wikipedia only lists four soaps for the 1952-53 Season, but I have my doubts if that was an accurate number, given the eight soaps for the prior season and the ten soaps for the 1953-54 Season.)

    *Love of Life: This was ranked # 2 during its first year on the air, so it was a hit from the beginning.

    *One Life to Live: Like its sister soap AMC, it had horrendous ratings at first. (The early-70s were a very rough time for ABC soaps apart from GH, and AMC and OLTL were very lucky to avoid cancellation, as they could have met the same fates as The Best of Everything, A Word Apart, and Dark Shadows. I'm guessing that ABC kept AMC and OLTL over those other shows because of the network's faith in Agnes Nixon.) But for much of the 70s, OLTL had respectable, though not great ratings (which nevertheless likely meant that OLTL was still earning a decent profit for ABC). Per Wikipedia, OLTL's massive boost in popularity can be witnessed by the fact that it was ranked # 7 for the 1977-78 Season, # 6 for 1978-79, # 4 for 1979-80, and # 3 for 1980-81. 

    *Search for Tomorrow: This was the # 1 soap for the 1951-52 Season and remained that way for several years.

    *The Secret Storm: It did not take long for this soap to become a hit, as it rose to #5 for the 1954-55 Season and # 3 during the 1956-57 Season.

    *The Young and the Restless: This soap, like AMC and OLTL, had a terrible first year. But it did not take long for it to experience an astonishing rise in popularity, going from 17th (and last) place during the 1972-73 Season, 13th place during 1973-74, 9th place during 1974-75, and 3rd place during 1975-76. The 1980-81 Season was the only year since then that Y&R fell out of the top five (with a 6th place ranking that season); I believe that the ratings dip that year was attributable to the difficulties of adjusting to its then-new 60-minute length. (Perhaps Y&R's ratings problems were the main reason why CBS decided to shuffle its daytime lineup in June 1981, moving Y&R from 1:00-2:00 to 12:30-1:30, ATWT from 2:00-3:00 to 1:30-2:30, and upsetting P&G by moving SFT from 12:30-1:00 to 2:30-3:00.)

  8. 2 hours ago, amybrickwallace said:

    I don't care what he says - I don't trust him. 

    A lot of liberals, along with the relatively few anti-Trump conservatives who remain, truly believe that none of what Christie is doing is sincere. Rather, they think that his criticisms of Trump are purely self-serving. Here's an article that echoes this sentiment:

    https://www.thebulwark.com/the-biggest-bully-is-a-half-decade-late/

    I'm really not sure if Christie is genuine when he criticizes Trump, but I do think that Christie was one of the few individuals in Trump's orbit who cares about other people. To be honest, Christie's prior sycophancy towards Trump surprised me, since Christie (at least during his first term as governor) fashioned himself as somebody who could well work with Democrats, including President Obama; that's such a huge contrast to how Trump was the birther-in-chief and to how Trump was completely unable to work with Democrats when he was president. IMO, having somebody with Christie's intellectual heft challenge Trump in a presidential primary is a good thing, since there are so few other Republicans even willing to go as far as Christie. (Out of all the Republicans who may run for president, the only ones who have gone further than Christie are Larry Hogan and Liz Cheney. But both of these individuals face even greater odds of getting the nomination. And in the case of Hogan, he is not nearly as well known as Christie.)

  9. On 11/9/2021 at 2:07 PM, ~bl~ said:

    Was GH the lowest rated soap in its time slot or on ABC and ABC was thinking to replace it as their lowest rated show?

    I have serious doubts that GH spent many, if any, weeks as ABC's lowest rated soap in the era that immediately preceded Monty. For the 1975-76 Season, GH had a 7.2 rating compared with 7.1 for OLTL, 6.7 for EON, and 5.7 for RH; while ABC probably cut RH some slack due to it being a new soap, the weeks during the 75-76 Season when EON was on CBS were also taken into account when computing that average rating. Over the next two seasons, the ratings gap between GH and EON only got larger: in the 1976-77 Season, GH averaged a 7.0 rating compared to EON's 6.2, while the 1977-78 averages were 7.0 for GH and 5.2 for EON.

    GH was certainly underperforming AW during this time, and was likely also underperforming its CBS competition as well. So perhaps ABC was going to cancel GH in spite of it not being at the very bottom of the soap rankings. However, I would think that GH would have been safe so long as EON was still on ABC, though perhaps EON's demos were better than GH's (or perhaps ABC was planning a dual cancellation of both GH and EON).

  10. Over the years, I've read on the internet that Gloria Monty took GH from last to first place. (Perhaps my memory is faulty, but that is what I recall.) I just searched through this thread, and it's certainly possible that I missed something, but I don't see any statistic showing GH dead last, though I know that many of the rating lists only showed the top ten soaps.

    Based on the following season averages posted on Wikipedia, it doesn't seem like GH spent many, if any, weeks in last place:

    *1976-77 Season: Ranked 10th out of 15 soaps, with a 7.0 rating

    *1977-78 Season: Ranked 9th out of 14 soaps, with a 7.0 rating

    *1978-79 Season: Ranked 2nd out of 14 soaps, with an 8.7 rating

    *1979-80 Season: Ranked 1st out of 13 soaps, with a 9.9 rating

    Is it possible that the "Gloria Monty took GH from last to first place" statement was one of those mistaken beliefs that people held onto for a long time (similar to how people erroneously believed that GL was #1 for a few weeks in 1984)?

  11. I very much applaud the work of the January 6 committee, but I've sort of resigned myself to the fact that Trump will never be brought to justice for his criminal behavior that day or for anything else. I really, really had high hopes that Trump would get his comeuppance when the Muller report was released, yet Trump emerged unscathed. Yes, that was the fault of cowardly Republicans, but it still doesn't erase my anger at Trump's perceived ability to seemingly get away with anything (and my pessimism about things going forward).

    This may be an absurd belief, but I do think that apart from his GOP sycophants, Trump won't be brought to justice because it would be too "traumatic" (for a good deal of Americans) to have a former president go to prison. Having a former president face that kind of punishment is a far different matter than if we were talking about former vice presidents, governors, or members of Congress.

    Obviously, I hope that I am wrong in what I just wrote, but I'm not getting my hopes up.

  12. 21 minutes ago, dragonflies said:

    Sadly this won't shock me at all. Ohio has gone to shyte 

    Ohio turning so solidly red has been one of the most surprising political swings of the last decade, as it was the quintessential swing state for over 100 years. The long-time swing state of Iowa has seen an even more rightward shift. On one hand, that may not be so surprising given the state's demographics. On the other hand, Iowa had been considerably more Democratic than Ohio.

    I personally believe that Georgia will become the next Virginia or Colorado, in the sense that it won't be long before Georgia is solidly blue. While I think that Republicans will still win statewide elections in Georgia, such victories will be few and far between (such as this year's VA elections or when Cory Gardner won a narrow Senate race in Colorado in 2014).

    What's a real question mark, IMO, is just how much further Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, and (to a lesser extent) Minnesota will drift rightward and how much more favorable Texas will become for the Democrats. I already think that Arizona is a lean-Democratic state, but I don't see it completely following Georgia's transformation; instead, I think that Arizona will become a lot like Nevada politically.

  13. 6 hours ago, JaneAusten said:

    I believe it's unfair to keep dragging out this "high minority of women" talking point.. Part of the problem is how the right has portrayed the issue. Its intentional. Also you mention that but fail to mention over 70% of Americans believe Roe should stay in place.

    1. No where have I heard the right say  Legalizing abortion has decreased the number of abortions overall. Women are counseled and educated now because it's legal by physicians, counselors, and in some cases faith members. Also legalizing forms of birth control has  been a huge factor as has education. Oh that's right sex education is a no no in schools also. Forget that it has led to lowered teen pregnancies.

    2. The right focuses on late term abortions when they represent less than 2% of abortions. That should indicate that women who have to have them are intending to carry the fetus to birth and the rational to have one is dire. Ralph Northam the current Gov of Vi who is also a Child Neurologist said as much and talked about late term abortions on a radio show. OF course the right misrepresented what he said and called him a baby killer. You really think it's easy for a woman and man to decide to end a pregnancy due to severe problems where the babe would not live? You know nothing about this. You say abortions should not be legal after 20 weeks due of pain to the fetus but then on the flip side your said YOU believe a fetus should be carried to term regardless subjecting that same fetus to pain to term, and a tragic death. You believe in science when it comes to information about "pain" to a fetus but not certain death of a babe upon delivery. I guarantee you I know what I am talking about. 

    3. Nothing presented by the right is going to lessen abortions in fact it will increase them. And who is impacted? Poor women. But that's intentional. It's just another way for our gvmt to punish poor people especially women and women of color by the way who already have the highest mortality rates when it comes to giving birth in the western world.

    What you have done is demonstrated how hypocritical the argument is and yet again how the women and in many cases the couple must have the gvmt legislate their decision. Your lucky you never had to go through anything like that. With that I am done with this discussion. 

    I don't have personal animus towards women who get late-term abortions or those who support that issue. But I do believe that men--including those who have never been in the situation of supporting women with troubled pregnancies--are entitled to their opinions. The fact of the matter is that I am moved by science such as this:

    "Abortions performed after 20 weeks gestation, when not done by induction of labor (which leads to fetal death due to prematurity), are most commonly performed by dilation and evacuation (D & E) procedures.[1]  These particularly gruesome surgical techniques involve crushing, dismemberment and removal of a fetal body from a woman’s uterus, mere weeks before, or even after, the fetus reaches a developmental age of potential viability outside the mother.[2]  In some cases, especially when the fetus is past the stage of viability, the abortion may involve administration of a lethal injection into the fetal heart in utero to ensure that the fetus is not pulled out alive or with the ability to survive."

    https://lozierinstitute.org/the-reality-of-late-term-abortion-procedures/

    And opposition to abortion after 20 weeks is not some out-of-the-mainstream position by global standards, since the United States is only one of seven nations on earth to allow abortions after that point.

    https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/09/house-democrats-unite-to-advance-barbaric-abortion-bill/

    If one wants to take the position that government just shouldn't be telling women what to do, one could take such an argument to absurd new issues that have nothing to do with reproductive rights; for instance, when women (and men) are required to wear seat belts, it's because the government is telling them to do so.

    6 hours ago, JaneAusten said:

    By the way Jim Acosta from CNN (still detest CNN) ran this segment. Makes you wonder since the right was setting up Va to be another "Stolen" election narrative, would Youngkin have conceded had he not won? The GOP candidate in NY hasn't conceded though he lost by more votes than McAuliffe lost by.  I had no idea the "they are stealing another election" narrative was pushed as hard as it was. Funny how when the right wins it's all nice and clean.

    Acosta: No more whining, sore losers or lies. Just stop the squeal (msn.com)

    I've already said that Ciattarelli should have conceded, and the longer this drags out the more politically damaging it becomes for him. Just today, Governor Murphy has called for Ciattarelli to concede.

    I try extra hard to avoid being hypocritical, which is why there are so many politicians I cannot stand. Democratic State Senate President Steve Sweeney is also refusing to concede, in spite of his opponent (whom as I said before, is a vile human being that has no place in government) having a lead that cannot be overcome. So how, exactly, do the Democrats (who are outraged over Ciattarelli's refusal to concede) feel about Sweeney's post-election behavior? And while Murphy did say that Sweeney lost, he still hasn't yet called for Sweeney to concede.

    https://www.insidernj.com/sweeney-puts-murphy-pickle-ciattarelli/

    Hypocrisy like this is one major reason why I don't see myself ever putting on a "Team Blue" jersey, or see myself ever again putting on a "Team Red" jersey. And I strongly disagree with those who say I have to choose between the two major parties, "because it's a binary choice" bulls**t. (I may vote for certain Republicans and even certain Democrats, but I'll likely not vote for either choice in future elections. And I will continue to hope for a viable, third alternative.)

    I also agree that the two of us should end this conversation, given how heated and intense it has become.

  14. 1 hour ago, JaneAusten said:

    Well you missed what I said most which is the majority of abortions don't occur after 20 weeks as it is. So basically what your suggesting is that it needs to be legislated because the small number of women who have to have them need to be monitored to make sure their life is at risk or the situation is dire enough to warrant it. It's not enough to trust the woman to consult with her doctor. That is the part I find offensive. Its not an attack on you it's the entire mindset that if a baby was found to have so many congenital defects that the babe would not live, it should be the gvmt's decision as to whether I should or shouldn't carry the baby to full term. If there is pain beyond 20 weeks to the fetus, the fetus would be in pain for the duration also.

    Jane, I overreacted to what you wrote, and I do apologize.

    I understand why you feel the way you do, and that it's a deeply moral issue to you. But those on the opposing side also see it as a deeply moral issue. And as I stated earlier, a sizable minority of women are pro-life, and they certainly aren't motivated by a desire to have men regulate their bodies.

    If a fetus were found to have congenital defects, it obviously would be a tragic development. My own view would still be to do all that was possible to carry the baby to term, even if the doctors thought the baby (once born) had a low chance of survival. I acknowledge that as a man, my view is not as important as yours. But again, I'm sure that there are women who feel the same way.

  15. 2 hours ago, JaneAusten said:

    AMEN!!! 

    And I really don't get the "I support abortion for 20 weeks and for situations where a moms life is in danger after 20 weeks @max.  This is assuming that there are tons of people getting abortions after 20 weeks. There aren't. What your asking people to legislate is a restriction looking for a problem. There are not millions of abortions every year for women past 20 weeks In fact that number is small which should tell everyone out there that its being done on an exception basis already.

    It still comes down to lack of autonomy and not trusting that the person carrying their child knows what's best. The state policing reproductive rights frankly is sick.

    I hadn't read this post until just now, but I've already indicated that abortion is a complicated issue with people of goodwill on both sides. As Democrats have rightly criticized many in the GOP for being anti-science, I should point out that yet another reason why people are opposed to abortion at the 20-week point is because--while the scientific research has concluded varying results--there is some research indicating that fetuses can feel pain at that point (or shortly after that point):

    https://jme.bmj.com/content/46/1/3#xref-ref-30-1

    I've tried very hard to keep my conversations with you respectful, but I really think it's a low blow for you to suggest that I'm "sick" because I support a policy that limits abortions after a certain point. (In fairness, you didn't explicitly call me "sick," but you painted my position as such, which--IMO--isn't all that different.)

  16. 1 hour ago, JaneAusten said:

    @max

    I wanted to respond on a couple things

    1. Moderates in the democratic party. Uhm no one is chasing these people out. Biden is a moderate. A MODERATE lost the race in Virginia. Lauren Underwood is a moderate, Joe Manchin, Josh Gottheimer are Corporate democrats. Meaning they answer to their donors. Both accept money from the pharmaceutical industry which is why they are both opposed to allowing Medicare to negotiate drug pricing. Lauren Underwood who represents a swing district in Illinois and actually works in congress has supported both bills. She's a moderate. No one is chasing her out.  When Manchin puts his own interests and the interests of the crooked No Labels Caucus(Wall Street are their donors) above the 6th poorest state in the country you better believe he should be called out. Kristin Sinema is a turncoat. You cry for her. She campaigned when she ran on everything she is now opposed to. She can't meet with the PRESIDENT(the head of her own party) because she had to go meet with donors? Spare me. There are 6 corporatists in the house that were holding up everything in terms of legislation. I refuse to call them moderates.

    2. MSNBC has lets see Joe Scarborough(not an ally), Stephanie Ruhle(Former rich Wall Street banker), Chuck Todd(no comment). Rachel Maddow and Joy Reid. That's it.

     

    Unless candidates are self-funded, they all have donors whom they have to take into account when making their decisions. Members of Congress are free to make their own decisions without walking in lockstep with their party's leadership.

    I also never said that anybody is being chased out of the Democratic Party, but the vitriol that you are showing to some of these Democrats certainly shows they are unwelcome by some liberals. And if those Democrats aren't welcome, a center-right person such as myself wouldn't want to join that party, regardless of how I feel about Trump and his GOP sycophants. (I may vote Democratic in a particular election, but I certainly won't join the party.)

    MSNBC features Joe Scarborough, and it also features a slew of mainstream news reporters. But its roster of liberals goes way beyond Rachel Maddow and Joy Reid: witness Chris Hayes (whom I most definitely consider a liberal), Lawrence O'Donnell, Al Sharpton, Jonathan Capehart, Michael Eric Dyson, Ari Melber, and others (including Mika Brzezinski, though she's not as liberal as those I just mentioned). If you strongly disagree with this list, we could argue about it until the cows come home, but such a disagreement would be yet another indicator that it would make little sense for the two of us to belong to the same political party.

  17. 3 hours ago, JaneAusten said:

    @MaxI have to say one last thing. I and a lot of other pro choice women have been told for years we're being hysterical and how SCOTUS would never overturn Roe yet they have been chipping away at it for years. WE SEE IT. Same way as PoC are being told their voting rights are fine as we see in PLAIN SIGHT states across the country stripping away rights. How about no abortion laws and let the decisions be made between a woman and her doctor.  Men somehow think that having an abortion is easy peasy and that women don't struggle with that decision. And how nice of your guy to say he's put a law in place to protect women ONLY up to a certain point and then they state is back to telling us what we can and cannot do with our own bodies. I just can't

     

    2 hours ago, JaneAusten said:

    I have zero issue with folks like you who are anti abortion. What I have issues with is anti abortion folks perpetuating their own beliefs on the rest of us.  I also resent the movement lying about things like fetal heartbeats. There is no fetal heartbeat at 6 weeks for example. What is formed is a bunch of cells - there is no HEART. It's an electrical current.

    My problem has always been about imposing ones beliefs on another. I will admit I had an abortion years ago and trust me when I say it was the most difficult decision I had to make in my life and that was 20 years ago. It's no ones business but my own why and that's how we should keep it. 

    Barry Goldwater was a bit of a kook but he did support one thing I agree with. He was against abortion laws, all of them. Why. Because he said it was a medical procedure between a woman and her doctor. It should not be legislated. This idea that women all over the country are running around having abortions as if it's like going to a cash station is pure garbage. I was in a support group for a long time of women who have had one and no one spoke of it casually. Women can teach children, raise children, but we are not allowed to have autonomy over our own bodies.  But a lot of those who are anti abortion also support capital punishment. Even my former church - the catholics - have finally pushed back against that.

    And I wanted to say how sorry I am about your past experience with sexual abuse. That is absolutely horrid. 

    2 hours ago, amybrickwallace said:

    I am actually against abortion except in the most dire cases, and I recognize that it is not a one size fits all issue. I also recognize the hypocrisy of old, rich, conservative white men making these laws (including the absurd and potentially dangerous vigilante law) who want to keep women in their place. It's patriarchy, pure and simple.

    These are the same men who would be happy to see rape crisis centers and battered women's shelters go away. As a sexual abuse survivor, I have no idea what I would have done had I conceived.

    Here in Ohio, laws are being considered that would be even MORE extreme than the Texas laws. It's not so hard to believe once you factor in that the statute of limitations for rape victims over the age of 18 in Ohio is ONE year. No wonder they call us the Mississippi of the North. 😡😡😡😡😡

    Jane, I am sorry to hear about your difficult personal decision. But I think that there are many people on both sides of the abortion debate who are good human beings and who are doing what they think is best. Jane and Amy, I actually I don't support the far-right abortion laws being passed in many red states. However, it's way too simplistic to assume that what motivates pro-life individuals is a desire for men to control womens' bodies. For goodness sake, 43% of women identify as pro-life, and it's certainly not because they want men to make reproductive decisions for them:

    Abortion Trends by Gender (gallup.com)

    I find the position of opposition to abortion after 20 weeks (save for the life of the mother) to be perfectly reasonable. And I feel that there are provisions of the proposed New Jersey Reproductive Freedom Act (that Governor Murphy supports) to be highly objectionable:

    RFA Key Points.pdf (d2y1pz2y630308.cloudfront.net)

    Reproductive Freedom Act - Diocese of Paterson - Clifton, NJ (rcdop.org)

    Regarding MSNBC, if somebody took a survey of 100 independents at random and asked them about the partisan lean of that network, I would be absolutely shocked if at least 90 (if not at least 95) classified it as a liberal channel. And I find the CNN primetime anchors of Chris Cuomo and Don Lemon to be highly liberal. If The Young Turks isn't always an ally of the Democratic Party, it's because they're criticizing the party for not being liberal enough; it's not because they're supporting the GOP.

    IMO, the "conservative" (in quotes, because I think that most of these people aren't genuine conservatives) media ecosystem doesn't exist to promote conservative ideals (as people like William Buckley, Barry Goldwater, or George Will would define them), or even to elect GOP candidates. Outlets like Fox News, Newsmax, OAN, and Breitbart (along with talk radio) gin up a lot of hysteria, but it's for the purpose of lining their own pockets. This ecosystem didn't really exist 35 years ago, and yet that was an era when GOP presidential candidates performed much better and when the country was more conservative than it is today (so if the goal of these media outlets really was to help the GOP and promote conservative ideals, they failed miserably). There are a few--and I mean very few--outlets which genuinely exist to promote conservative ideas in a thoughtful manner. My favorite of these is a website called The Dispatch, which features articles written by prominent anti-Trump conservatives. I also enjoy the National Review, but I'll readily admit that at least half of the articles on its website are written by Trump sympathetic individuals. (Obviously, it's the articles written by the National Review's anti-Trumpers that I enjoy.)

    The major reasons why I just can't automatically vote Democratic so as to punish the GOP are (1) the fact that some prominent Democratic moderates don't seem to be welcome in that party and (2) the very big disagreements I have with the Democrats on major issues. There's abortion, which we've spent a lot of time discussing. But I recall you also mentioning your support of Governor Murphy's legalization of marijuana and his raising the minimum wage. On those issues (not to mention many others), my beliefs do not line up with the Democratic Party.

    I totally get your point about simply not voting at all or voting third party. In Congressional races, that is what I'm inclined to do. In 2018, as a matter of fact, I voted for the Democratic House candidate, for the sole purpose of penalizing the GOP and having a Congress that would provide oversight against Trump's corruption. In 2020, I didn't vote at all, as I expected a Biden victory and didn't want unified Democratic government. In 2022, I don't intend to vote for a major party House candidate (unless the GOP candidate shows support for Trump's impeachment); I don't want continued Democratic control, but I also don't want to see Kevin McCarthy become Speaker. In state and local races in a dark blue state such as New Jersey, I'm a lot more inclined to actually consider voting for GOP candidates (as opposed to not voting), for all the obvious reasons and because there's a minimal chance of Trump trying to steal New Jersey's electoral votes in a future presidential election.

  18. 2 hours ago, DramatistDreamer said:

    Are there people who still believe that Johnson can produce good results for the people? He seems to over-promise and under-deliver quite a lot.

    Also, the assertion that anyone can make about NJ is a long-time blue state when Chris Christie was governor not too long ago seems weird.

    I don't know about NYC but many areas had poor turnout, which has had a history of favoring GOP candidates.

    I still think it's a weird flex for media to use municipal and non-Congressional elections as some sort of bellwether for midterms, but I guess we'll see. Anti-CRT campaigns flopped in more than they succeeded but this was only half-discussed days after the election. Doesn't sell headlines and clicks, I guess.

     

    DramatistDreamer, governor's races tend to be unique animals, in which it's not uncommon for members of the "wrong" party to win. While this somewhat undermines my argument about Murphy's margin of victory being embarrassing, he vastly underperformed pre-Election Day expectations (which wasn't the case with more recent Democratic governors of New Jersey who ended up losing). And in 2017, he won by over 14 points in an election with only 38.5% turnout. So it certainly appears that there were a good deal of normally Democratic-leaning voters who swinged against Murphy.

    Going back to what I was saying about governor's races being unique animals, the governors of Kansas, Kentucky, and Louisiana are all Democrats, yet those states are solidly red. Likewise, the dark blue states of Vermont, Massachusetts, and Maryland all have Republican governors. If you look at the other key indicators of a state's partisan lean--Democrats have won every U.S. Senate election since 1976, won every presidential election since 1992, have a 10 to 2 advantage in the U.S. House delegation, and have majorities in both houses of the state legislature--New Jersey is a heavily Democratic state.

    2 hours ago, DramatistDreamer said:

    I agree with @JaneAusten that McAuliffe ran a lazy campaign. If reports are to be believed, he was hoping for the infrastructure bill to pass before the election to deliver a "win" for him to run on??? WTF! How about telling the people of VA what you as governor plan to do specifically to make life better for constituents and keep reiterating this and the fact that your opponent has no real ideas for improving daily life for everyday Virginians, other than making them afraid. Emphasize that America is at its best when operating on hope and optimism, not fear. Why did he even run again anyway? Part of me wonders whether he was the best that the Dems could do in VA. And don't get me started on that new Lt. Governor. Ugh, I do not claim her. 

    I know gun-toting Sears is no Democrat but she is of my ethnic group and neither I, nor anyone else I know, claim her.

    What's wrong with the state of VA anyway?

    I do think that you have some good observations. Though I don't follow VA politics, I believe the state Democratic party was badly reeling in the immediate aftermath of the Northam scandal. Soon after Ralph Northam's skeletons came out of the closet, Attorney General Mark Herring (who nevertheless got renominated for a second term this year) admitted to also wearing blackface while in college. The biggest blow to the party, however, were the sexual assault allegations made against Lt. Governor Justin Fairfax. Mr. Fairfax, who is Black, was seen as a rising star and was poised for a gubernatorial run in 2021.

    So given all that chaos, Terry McAuliffe wound up with the Democratic nomination. When one thinks about it, it's not much of a surprise that he ran a terrible campaign: Due to his extremely close ties to the Clintons, he served as the chair of the Democratic National Committee from 2001 to 2005, a period of time that was arguably the party's lowest point of the past thirty years. He then served chairman of Hillary's failed 2008 campaign. In 2009, he ran unsuccessfully for the VA Democratic gubernatorial nomination. When he was finally elected governor in 2013, he won by a margin of 2.6% against a terribly flawed GOP opponent. (Granted VA was considerably less Democratic eight years ago than today, but also keep in mind that the Libertarian nominee in 2013 got 6.5% of the vote.)

  19. 1 hour ago, JaneAusten said:

    I was talking about in general. In fact it's been reported, you should know this, that Murphy got fewer votes than Biden did by a considerable margin and democratic turnout was significantly lower.  You live there and  I assumed knew that.

    Virginia did have higher turnout. McAuliffe IMO ran a *hitty and lazy campaign. But I am not going to pretend that CRT is not anything but fear mongering. Someone pulled the term out and turned it into something it doesn't mean because the right wants to gin up hatred to local school boards, as if the board members are not mostly parents of kids themselves. You can certainly have concerns about schools and it's natural at this point with over a year of a pandemic but bringing race into it was the GOP strategy.

    The democrats don't have a talk radio infrastructure and news networks all over that have been funded by right wing billionaires that the right does. Rush Limbaugh was all over the country on the airwaves for 30 years. And they have purchased spanish radio networks and have been the past several years. The democrats don't have a network of billionaires that have built a party infrastructure(The Koch Network) or media all over the country. It's a problem and has been for years. So lets not pretend this has not been going on. What did Limbaugh do 5 days a week for years on the radio if not gin up hate and fear.  I'd be interested in understanding why now over 75% of the GOP believes that 2020 was rigged when less that 30% believed this after Jan 6th? That message is coming from somewhere. And I know very well what the right is doing at school board meetings because it's happening in the district I live in. I don't have kids there but I have been going to school board meetings now as a show of support for the board.

    No one said the democrats are perfect. I certainly haven't but they are a dysfunctional democratic political party, not a party that no longer believes in democracy. For every issue the democrats have had, not once did anyone try to orchestrate the overthrow of an election. THat includes the president aided by his party infrastructure.

     

    I can probably best respond to this is list format:

    1. If Democratic turnout was low in NJ, that's their fault. Phil Murphy is extraordinarily wealthy, and he could have used that money to fund a state-of-the-art GOTV organization. The state Democratic Party has more money than the state GOP. And Lt. Governor Sheila Oliver (who is African-American) has long-standing ties with the Black community and comes from one of the bluest parts of the state. Furthermore, as a resident of NJ, I can tell you that there was no shyness on the part of Democrats to run on fear, as a frequent commercial advertisement featured a woman tearing into Ciattarelli over reproductive rights and saying that the thought of him becoming governor terrified her. (FYI, Ciattarelli supports a ban on abortion after 20 weeks and favors parental notification laws, but also said he would support writing abortion rights into state law if Roe v. Wade were ever overturned.)

    2. I do feel that Youngkin made way too made winks and nods to the MAGA cult, and as such I couldn't support him if I lived in Virginia. However, I do believe that race wasn't the only issue that led to Youngkin's victory. To win, he had to have won over a decent share of Biden voters, and economics and school concerns (independent of anything race-based) appealed to those people. Also, I really think that some in VA just wanted a change, as the Democrats have controlled that state's governorship for 16 of the past 20 years.

    3. The right-wing has had a longstanding media ecosystem; IMO, this ecosystem can no longer even be considered "conservative," as it's morphed into a series of MAGA propaganda outlets. But liberals have plenty of allies of their own in the media. MSNBC is a huge megaphone for the left. There's also a ton of vlogs and online publications (The Young Turks and Slate, for example) that provide support. It was long suspected that some once powerful people in legacy media had a liberal bias; witness all the claims of bias that Dan Rather faced, which--based upon what I see on his Facebook page--turned out to be true. (I'm in complete agreement when Rather trashes Trump or cowardly Republicans. But a good chunk of what Rather writes on Facebook has nothing to do with Trump.) And finally, Hollywood is a very liberal place (the below article is just one example of this):

    Top Hollywood Execs Give Overwhelmingly to Democrats for Midterms – The Hollywood Reporter

    4. The Democrats never did anything as nefarious as what happened on January 6, and I have left the Republican Party. But with all due respect, I'm not sure exactly what it is that you and like-minded individuals want from anti-Trump conservatives? Would you like me to give unconditional support to Democrats (because Tom Nichols and some other former Republicans have suggested this)? Quite honestly, that's extremely hard to do when moderates like Joe Manchin, Kyrsten Sinema, Josh Gottheimer, and Abigail Spanberger are made to feel so unwelcome. What I desperately want to see is a major third-party emerge that consists of moderate Democrats and center-right Republicans that have the courage to stand up to Trump. Sadly, it doesn't look like such a political party will emerge. So in the meantime, there will be occasions when I support the Republican, when I support the Democrat, and when I simply don't vote (or support a minor candidate). It will all depend on the election.

  20. 1 hour ago, JaneAusten said:

    Polling has been problematic for a while across the board. 

    Last thing I read was democratic turnout in NJ was down.  As I mentioned to someone else, democrats sadly don't turn out generally as well because that party doesn't work to keep it's base in a constant state of fear as the GOP has done for years. Murphy did a lot of things democrats wanted. Min wage, pot legalization, family leave. Overall dems need to do better to support people who are delivering. Frankly I am not sure why a principled republican should be opposed to these things.

    I also must say I am surprised you voted for Ciattarelli. The guy is refusing to concede even though he's behind by 65,000 votes. What's next a claim of voter fraud. Is that the playbook you support because that's the playbook the GOP seems to run for every race they lose. They were talking about potential voter fraud in Virginia before election day probably not confident they were going to win. Somehow there was none now since Youngkin won.  

     

    I believe that Terry McAullife received more votes in VA than even in Ralph Northan received in his victorious 2017 bid, so that goes against your narrative that Democrats just didn't bother to show up on Tuesday. Maybe a lot of voters--even in a dark blue state such as New Jersey--wanted a change because the state is a very unaffordable place in which to live and do business. But you're so incredibly partisan that you have to tell yourself that whenever the GOP wins, it's because of fear. So thank goodness the Democrats always run such rosy, uplifting campaigs, right? Like when the Democrats trashed John McCain for being a war monger in 2008. Or when all sorts of very ugly, anti-Mormon smears were hurled at Mitt Romney in 2012. Or when age became a major issue against Reagan, McCain, and Dole, even though they were all a good four-plus years younger when they ran than when Biden got elected. (And don't even get me started about how Democrats always seem to "forgive" or "forget" any racism on the part of their own, whether it's Ralph Northam's infamous photo, Hillary's very racially charged 2008 primary campaign, Howard Dean's statement that he wanted to get the votes of "guys with Confederate flags on their pickup trucks," or the anti-Semitism of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.)

    If I were Ciattarelli, I would have conceded by now. But there's quite a bit of Democratic hypocrisy on this matter, since the Democratic State Senate President, Steve Sweeney, lost by a margin that can't be overcome, and Governor Murphy has indicated Sweeney can concede on his own timetable. (I want to make clear that I am in no way supportive of the very bigoted GOP candidate who defeated Sweeney. I merely mentioned this race because I wanted to point out Democratic hypocrisy on this matter.)

    Some liberals--and here I am not referring to you, as you specifically did not address this matter--seem to be shocked and under the impression that a person cannot be genuinely anti-Trump without voting Democratic up and down the ballot. Life is a hell of a lot more complicated than that, and as somebody who is on the center-right of the political spectrum, I'm not about to relinquish my political beliefs and instead give Democrats my unconditional and undying support simply because I despise Trump and the MAGA cult. I will evaluate each election and choose the person whom I genuinely believe is best for the job, and that doesn't make me an evil person.

  21. On 11/3/2021 at 2:31 PM, dragonflies said:

     

     

    I actually agree that Tuesday's election results don't necessarily spell doom for the Democrats in 2022. That said, the result in New Jersey was horrendous for the Dems. While a win is a win, the fact of the matter is that Phil Murphy won a very close race against a little known (and underfunded) opponent in a state with over one million more registered Democrats than Republicans. IMO, the result in New Jersey is a lot more embarrassing for Democrats than Virginia considering the former state is much bluer than the latter. (I also realize that Murphy defied the historical "curse" in becoming the first Democratic New Jersey governor to win re-election since 1977, but it's also important to consider that the state is more Democratic than when Jon Corzine lost re-election in 2009 and a lot more Democratic than when Jim Florio lost in 1993.)

    And once again, we have another election in which the polling was absolute garbage. The final Real Clear Politics polling average gave Murphy a 7.8% lead, while the "respected" Monmouth University poll had Murphy up 11 points. Given the supposed "hopelessness" of the race, part of me figured that showing up to vote for Republican Jack Ciattarelli was a total waste of time. But now, I'm so glad I cast that vote for Ciattarelli, as I feel that my vote really meant something in spite of the fact that Murphy still won.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy