Jump to content

The Politics Thread


Toups

Recommended Posts

  • Members

I'm glad. The network has steadily become a complete joke over the last 2 years. It's one thing to be partisan. It's another to be blatantly foolishly partisan. At least some anchors manage to contain it but you've got Ed Schultz who's basically the DNC head chair on MSNBC. Then you'e got 8-11PM block which is a hot mess of boring/awkward Chris Hayes followed by boring, way too loud, obnoxious and holier than thou Rachael Maddow, and then unabashed liberal Lawrence O'Donnel who I don't mind as much since it is quite late.

Even Chris Matthews is starting to irk me. Morning Joe has devolved into whatever Mika and Joe's crusade of the moment is....it's no longer interesting/exciting political discourse/analysis. Instead it's just NFL this or this stupid story or another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 45.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Vee

    6817

  • DRW50

    5990

  • DramatistDreamer

    5521

  • Khan

    3462

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

  • Members

These are both insightful criticisms. I personally think that the network could benefit if it brought in someone new--who is liberal, but not liberal 100% of the time--and made his or her show the network's flagship program. I think that having Rachael Maddow's show serve this purpose is not helping MSNBC.

For all of Fox News' flaws, they do not have a program as hard-lined as Hannity serve as the network's flagship. The O'Reilly Factor echos the conservative talking points most of the time, but the host sometimes says things you don't expect, and I think that is when the show is at its most interesting.

Edited by Max
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I'm shocked that I am the first to bring this up but Rick Scott's performance at last night's debate was the worst debate performance that I have ever seen (far worse, IMO, than Rick Perry's "Oops" moment, which at least was understandable to anyone who has ever had a brainfreeze, although it indicated that he most definitely was not ready for primetime).

Please register in order to view this content

I think that Charlie Crist is an total opportunist, but Scott sucks. (I personally would not vote in that race if I lived in FL, but after last night I have changed my mind and am starting to think that Crist may be the lesser of the two evils.) Even though Crist had a tiny lead in the Real Clear Politics "poll of polls" (which I consider to be the best election prognosticator), I had always thought that Scott was going to win because of the Republican nature of the year and because many liberals mistrust Crist since he isn't a true believer. But after last night, I would be shocked if Scott pulls out a victory.

This won't really matter in terms of the 2016 general election because I feel the adage of governors "carrying" states for their party's nominees is one of the most overhyped "nuggets of wisdom" in politics. (Unless it's Florida 2000 close, it rarely seems to make a difference.) But primary elections are a different matter, and this has to be a terrible day for the Chris Christie 2016 Presidential Campaign; the whole reason why Christie has been spending so much time on behalf of Scott is because Christie knows that Scott--if re-elected--will owe him big during the Florida primary (which will be Christie's make-or-break primary).

Edited by Max
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

He won in 2010 even though he was obviously going to be a disaster. I wouldn't be shocked if the same happens again.

Of course one of the reasons he won was because his opponent screwed up at a debate...

I read that the moderator was trying to claim Crist brought the fan to deliberately throw Scott off. So if the media runs with that, they may make Scott a victim to the public.

I guess we'll see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I totally forgot about Al Sharpton who's an absolute embarrassment to me. To this day I don't know why or how he's amassed this much influence with President Obama or in the political realm.

The bold part is absolutely true. They need someone who can manage to handle the issues has his own opinions and can voice them without coming across as too obvious or over the top like Hayes or Maddow.

That Florida debate was a hot mess but I'm glad it happens since I do believe Crist will definitely win now. Rick Scott is just plain weird. The guy came across as so petty because of a stupid fan. Like there are so many issues that the voters need to hear about and you're b*tching about a FAN? I do think Florida will be warzone in 2016....especially if Jeb Bush runs. So whoever is governor will definitely have a huge role.

One thing I heard on Morning Joe the other that struck me is how Joe and Mika claim that Mitt Romney isn't worried about Chris Christie and doesn't think he can win. Same for Jeb Bush and Bushworld. They both don't think Christie has the temperament or the ability to make it all the thru the primary or even the general....

Edited by ThePrinceOfSunspear
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

MSNBC actually has a decent talent base. I feel like all of the ones I like are relegated to the weekends. I like Jonathan Capeheart, Willie Geist, Melissa Harris-Perry, Alex Wagner and Joy Reid. I also like Andrea Mitchell even though I agree that there are some concerns about conflict of interest. I'd like to see the network bring on other personalities. Not necessarily for shows but just to add to the mix. That said, I still consider Maddow and O'Donnell to be MSNBC royalty

Edited by marceline
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Chris Christie can't win. The guy has an unlikable personality and except for Richard Nixon how many unsmiling sour pusses have been elected in the TV age? He is also obese, of which there have been no obese presidents in the TV age. He is also from NJ, a state republicans don't like because it is not in their base of the south. They only went for Romney because it was the weakest field any party ever put forward and there was no one to choose.

The republican field is pretty pathetic. You have Governor Oops, no personality Jindal, a bunch of Jesus freaks, and the elder statesman of the party: the guy who was Speaker and got run out of town on a rail. Add to them you have the Queen of all republicans who spends her spare time white trashing it up as a wrestler at parties, and finally the last Bush who doesn't seem all that excited to run. Hillary would have any of them for lunch. Probably the one she would like to run against is Rand Paul, the isolationist radical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

In an effort to save Mark Udall, whose candidacy appears to be just about over, Deadspin (which is owned by the far left website Gawker) makes up a story about his opponent Cory Gardner, only to have it blow up in their faces:

http://www.denverpost.com/election2014/ci_26734964/source-disputes-deadspin-account-cory-gardners-football-career

Edited by Max
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

At this point I'm afraid to say that it's not quite in the bag for Madam Secretary. No matter who the Republicans nominate the problem will still be after 8 years of President Obama the country will be yearning for something more down to Earth, less "hope and change". In short the state of US while not bad may be all over the place. Even I as a staunch supporter of the President can admit that his leadership has been kinda lax at very crucial times. I don't know if he just has terrible people advising him in these last two years but if he doesn't get it together soon, his legacy will be very mixed and I'm afraid he'll be known for incompetency in some arenas/circles.....

Because of that the right Republican (say Bush) can run on competency and getting ish done. It may not be sexy but if he can convince people that he'll make the right decisions then he has a good shot again Secretary Clinton. Of course she'll be running on competency too and her wide experience. It will definitely be interesting.

Still can't believe Mitch is probably going to win in Kentucky. I really don't give a rats a$$ who Grimes voted for and I doubt Kentucky does it but leave it to the useless media to focus on that rather than on the real issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

McConnell was winning even before that. I think the coal issue (which is often pooh-pooed by many but is hugely relevant in KY and WV, among other states) and Grimes being a little too polished without being tested did her in. Her gender is probably an issue too.

The media sucks, as always. They won't rest until we are officially a banana republic. If we aren't already.

Edited by DRW50
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

He had a slight lead in some polls and in others shes was ahead. I think she could have pulled off a squeaker if not for this unfortunate episode/manufactured outrage by the media.

On another topic I am really digging Meet The Press these days with Chuck Todd. I don't care if the ratings are about the same (I blame Gregory for the steep decline) but the show is so much more polished and the format is just so much more tighter. I liked the panelists and the transitions from interviews to the panel.

The Republican field for 2016 is like 16 people here but it's the type of field where if Person X says they're going to run then Persons Y and Z are definitely NOT going to run. And vice versa. There are of course people like Cruz and Paul who are in no matter what. But I have to think Rubio and Bush and Christie will think twice if there's too many establishment people in it.

Losers like Jindal may run since they know they're unliked in their current jobs and have nothing to lose. The midwest governors also have a shot but there's only so much room for Kasich, Pence, AND Scott Walker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



  • Recent Posts

    • I haven’t watched since Daisy’s last episode. Part of me feels like its a good place to end it because outside of The Platt’s, Tracy, Todd, and Carla and Swain I haven’t really enjoyed the show. Too many depressing stories and irksome characters, I especially hate what they’re doing to Debbie. I do think its funny they spent all this time investing into that awful new family and apparently they’ve already been canned, feedback must have been horrid.
    • I think the pre-Barnabas episodes are very underrated both for dialogue and character. They're slow but they really create a world and fill out the characters, imbuing them with heavy dimension that ultimately will have to sustain them for years as the show largely stops writing for character after it returns from 1795. What we know about them by then is what they have to power them. (I don't think the show was bad after, I actually love it in '68 and often in times after that, but it was very different.) I think the B&W episodes with Barnabas' early days are especially frightening - they terrified me as a kid - but the color stuff in '67 is also very strong, especially in the stretch where Julia is on the run, Carolyn is under Barnabas' control, and you get the sense that events have gone off the rails for the regular characters and anything goes. As a child viewer seeing it in syndication on the Sci-Fi Channel, who had no idea who lived or who died, it was a lot. Mitch Ryan is especially powerful in the early pre-Barnabas era as the sort of Byronic Burke Devlin character. You knew they had to kill him once Barnabas comes in, despite Ryan's alcohol problem making it impossible to keep him at the show - Burke dominates the first year or so as the fulcrum character, he's incredibly magnetic and charismatic. You couldn't see him becoming a dupe for Barnabas and Julia, as Anthony George's more benign, mild version briefly does before getting unceremoniously killed off. I always found Burke's offscreen plane crash death very eerie and suspicious, and I think the show does toy with the question if Barnabas' powers somehow got him on that plane and if he took it down. I had always wanted Burke to return one day, in any revival project, as a kind of vengeful power broker and puppet master, driven by Vicki's inevitable demise to get revenge on Barnabas and co. I still have Art Wallace's "Shadows on the Wall" DS bible somewhere. IIRC in the earliest versions of the plot Vicki was going to somehow be tied to the butler or his daughter - Betty Hanscomb or something. I don't remember the exact details. I do know there's all sorts of raised and dropped plotlines and characters offscreen in '66, like Ned Calder, the man they clearly intended to pair with Liz and so on. I've always found '66 very rich, but I don't begrudge the show after for it because it's still awfully well-written, specifically the early Barnabas stuff.
    • I totally agree with this, as most of you seem to. Mary Carney was at least competent and reasonably likable; I just feel like she barely had anything of substance to do before she was abruptly given the hook. And I get the backstory of Kathleen Tolan having done a play with Helen Gallagher, but...at any point did they ever actually READ her before they greenlit her? Because...OOF. First time I saw her on SoapNet was right when this GODAWFUL actress named Charity Rahmer played Belle on Days of Our Lives for all of three weeks before she was mercifully recast; her line readings were straight out of a Charlie Brown special. I remember thinking Kathleen Tolan could have played her mother! In the Frank/Jill/Delia triangle, Delia WAS the one who was cheated on, so I got why she was upset and thought it was perfectly valid in theory at least, but of course it was blown up to Wagnerian proportions including falls involving staircases and tricycles. But with Pat/Faith/Delia I had no sympathy for her...especially because it was mainly with Catherine Hicks's Faith and I really liked her.
    • I was going through those episodes from 1984 and early 1985 before they were taken down. Some of the older characters, like Don and even Tom, looked a little out of place, like they were on the wrong show. But the newer characters were fun. It's too bad they lost the character of Melissa. I guess Jennifer took her long-term place on the canvas. 
    • How I will remember him...

      Please register in order to view this content

       
    • The black and white episodes of the show are very special. An atmosphere the color run loses. Dark Shadows was filmed live-on-tape. They could do a retake but it would be very expensive. I think there was a claim that if actors wanted a retake they would curse. There was also a rumor that at one point Joan Bennett accidentally said "Hollywood" instead of "Collinwood" and that necessitated a retake.
    • Please register in order to view this content

      Angela Lansbury stars as Jessica Fletcher in one of the longest-running and most beloved TV series of all-time, Murder, She Wrote. Set in Cabot Cove, Maine, Jessica is a mystery writer and amateur detective who is quick to outwit both criminals and the police when it comes to solving a murder. Winner of 4 Golden Globes and nominated for 12 consecutive Primetime Emmy Awards for Best Actress in a Drama, the series showcases unforgettable guest stars including Tom Bosely, George Clooney, Shirley Jones, Courteney Cox, Leslie Nielsen, Mickey Rooney, Tom Selleck, John Amos, Dorothy Lamour, Cyd Charrise and many more. In Murder, She Wrote: The Complete Series, help Jessica get to the bottom of every crime she encounters in this completely remastered collection featuring all 264 episodes, 4 TV movies, and bonus features. Special Features: "Novel Connection" (Crossover Episode of Magnum P.I.); The Great 80's TV Flashback; Origin of a Series; Recipe for a Hit; America's Top Sleuths; The Perils of Success
    • Loved this IG post from Ambyr about how she and Trisha work together. You can tell these ladies go above and beyond the script, and that they really trust and enjoy working together. https://www.instagram.com/reel/DJpJufFPOQ2/?igsh=MXBmcWs0YzIwaXVhNA==  

      Please register in order to view this content

    • It is a shame that more characters didn't go the ATWT-Barbara route and make the ingénue into an antagonist. Sort of like they did with Liza/Hogan/Sunny, less successfully. It is a credit to ATWT's creativity that breathed life in that character for years after she was fighting off bulls in Spain.  But, a character like Liza can only have so many true loves and high jinks on the high seas.  They need another reason to be in the story. Liza's wealth, as well as her acumen to see through fraud, was fertile ground for tons of stories.  But, I feel like the business stories for Liza were always about her being easily overwhelmed, rather than exploring things like her leadership and managerial skills.
    • STFU!! Dante!!! This nonsense of blaming Gio is just ridiculous! Alexis and Lucky are becoming so unlikable. Why are the writers writing these characters so poorly?
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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