The Politics Thread

[DRW50]

What bothers me about the transparency criticism is that it was her own doctor who told the press. If there had been a coverup, that wouldn't have happened. I think they realized someone would likely find out, so decided to be honest, and it was only really a few hours between the "overheated" excuse and the pneumonia reveal. If you listen to the press, this was a long-term FDR-style coverup. If people expected her to immediately say she had pneumonia and to not just try to deal with it, as most people do, then they are getting to a point where they expect a nominee to tell them every time they use the toilet.

 

A lot of people want her health to be an issue, the press wants it to be an issue, so they seize on an opportunity to make it an issue. They will do anything to make sure she loses. 

Edited September 12, 2016 by DRW50

[JaneAusten]

I think as Vee has said they want it to be a horserace. I don't even know that they care who wins. It's all about ratings. The thing is if Trump were to win they are so dumb IMO to think he's continue to cowtow to them. I have no doubt he'd freeze them out and call them every name in the book.

 

The need to push Trump to make him equal is transparent IMO. They continue to talk about how the polls are tightening(they normally do) but then refuse to talk about how states like Georgia and Arizona are neck and neck. Arizona not having gone democratic in how many years? Yet what blue states are turning red or close to. None.

[DRW50]

I don't even know if I believe at this point that they want it to be a horserace. I think a lot of them want a Trump win. The media likely feels they created Trump, back in the '80s, and they benefit from him. Like Les Moonves bragged about how good Trump was for the industry, even if he wasn't good for America. 

 

If Trump wins, he will crush them. 100%. A lot of the people who have his ear loathe the media and will make power grabs as quick as they can. But the media is insulated and drunk with power. Moonves, Jeff Zucker, etc. lap it up.

[DRW50]

Another great example of why Democrats lose - other Democrats relish the chance to be a part of it. 

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/david-axelrod-clinton-privacy-228017

[JaneAusten]

Ok when exactly have democrats lost. Yes I know they have blown the senate and house and have let the GOP take over the states stupidly. I blame the DNC for the later. But in terms of the presidency when?

 

You do know Sanders or Clinton, the cards were already stacked against a democrat winning. 2 terms of a democrat already, a lukewarm economy, etc. And let's be honest if her opponent was anyone other than Trump(and maybe Cruz) she would be struggling right now. I actually blame both parties(Dems and GOP) for putting forward such lackluster candidates and not grooming real viable forward thinking talent.

 

As for the media, I don't think they necessarily want Trump to win. In fact they are probably salivating at a Clinton win do that they can continue to drum up a lot crap and keep the negativity in the news cycle.  They love beating up on her.

Edited September 12, 2016 by JaneAusten

[DRW50]

Gore. Many Democrats would not go anywhere near him because of years of antipathy and apathy. 

 

These "experts" are always popping up to get attention, and yes, I do think they help Democrats lose. 

[JaneAusten]

Well that hasn't happened with Clinton. Axelrod is the only one I have seen do this and he's done it long before today. I have no idea what his agenda is to be honest.  I haven't seen democrats running away from her.

 

And what basis do you have that Gore was going to win. History has shown that it's difficult to get a third term of the same party. Bush Sr. was the first in how many years. And FDR doesn't count.

 

Now you won't get an argument from me on state level offices, even the senate and congress. Democrats have done a terrible job at the grass roots level as well as getting people out to vote in interim elections.

Edited September 12, 2016 by JaneAusten

[JaneAusten]

So Trump just stupidly turned the news cycle back to him

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/trump-no-debate-moderator-228016

 

He wants a moderatorless debate. No one is going to buy this. I was wondering how he was going to slither out of the debates.

[DRW50]

What I said was that Democrats are always happy to help Democrats lose elections. I never said, "Gore would have won if all Democrats had fallen into line." I do think that they helped contribute to his loss, because they zeroed in on things that shouldn't have mattered anywhere as much as they did (like attacks on his personality).

 

There are always Democrats, every year, who pop up with criticisms and contrarisms just to get their name out there, be contrary, and sandbag their party. Odious Lieberman used to be one until he was booted out in 2006. Ed Rendell is another. And Axelrod. 

[JaneAusten]

Oh I get that. I personally think Gore lost because he distanced himself from Clinton. Yeah I know about the scandals blah blah blah but by the time his campaign started, people had already tired of the Clinton beating and public opinion was already in Clinton's corner.  I am not suggesting he should have married himself to Clinton, but he waited until the very end to finally leverage it and by that time IMO it was too late.

[marceline]

Trump can't stand not being the center of attention even when it would be in his best interest.

 

Slate looks at polling data and finds that Hillary was right. It is about half of Trump's supporters.

[DRW50]

I actually agree with Trump, even if it's not for the reasons he has (he doesn't want anyone to interrupt or question him). Moderators at Presidential debates are increasingly prone to showboating and blatant partisanship. 

 

Anyway, this is Trump's "deplorables" ad.

 

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/trump-ad-deplorable

 

I know you can never go broke underestimating the stupidity of the American public, but this is a remarkably cheap-looking ad, overwrought, flatly narrated, and overlong. I have a feeling they had her drone on and on because they know her voice will irritate some viewers, but it breaks away from whatever outrage the ad is supposed to stoke. 

[JaneAusten]

Frankly it looks more like a Clinton ad to me.

[DramatistDreamer]

Came across this on Twitter and thought it was very well stated.

 

 

[DramatistDreamer]

Interesting piece by Ta-Nihisi Coates

 

How Breitbart Conquered the Media