|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On May 19 2016 04:04 SolaR- wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2016 03:54 Plansix wrote:On May 19 2016 03:51 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On May 19 2016 02:56 oBlade wrote:On May 19 2016 02:02 xDaunt wrote:On May 19 2016 01:28 ZasZ. wrote:On May 18 2016 23:53 xDaunt wrote:On May 18 2016 23:30 farvacola wrote: Asserting that a black president was elected by "a lot of white and black people" on the basis of race is just as superficial as voting for a president because of his race. Two of the biggest drivers of Obama's 2008 victory were his race and and his vacuous, soaring rhetoric. You're giving the voters a little too much credit. Source? I would think one of the biggest drivers of both his 2008 and 2012 victories were the Republicans putting up extraordinarily weak candidates along with a lunatic VP in 2008. For me personally, my decision was made for me in both years and I found myself saying "Obama is only OK, but jesus the Republicans are so much worse." In 2008, I was planning on giving McCain a shot until he picked up Palin. What do you mean "source?" That 2008 election was retardedly hyped for the very reasons that I set forth. How can anyone forget it? It was a media and pop culture phenomenon. The republicans probably weren't going to win anyway with all of the electoral headwinds that they were facing that year. But you can't possibly overlook the fact that Obama was awarded a fucking Nobel Peace Prize on the merits of teleprompted speeches. Yes, he got a Nobel Peace Prize for talking about nuclear nonproliferation and now the DPRK has multiple bombs. DPRK tested their first nuke in 2006 during the Bush2 administration, after he walked away from all the deals the Clinton administration had set up. The ongoing struggle of everything that was bad about the Bush administration somehow being connected to Obama. Just last week I talked to someone who blamed him for TARP and the poor response to Katrina. Lol well that person sounds like an idiot. They were not super well informed and they did not like me raining on their Obama hate session. They brought up pulling troops out of Iraq, which I had to remind them was an agreement created by Bush. I should have told them to blame him the ACA website, but they were already pretty grump by that point.
|
On May 19 2016 04:10 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2016 04:05 oBlade wrote:On May 19 2016 03:51 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On May 19 2016 02:56 oBlade wrote:On May 19 2016 02:02 xDaunt wrote:On May 19 2016 01:28 ZasZ. wrote:On May 18 2016 23:53 xDaunt wrote:On May 18 2016 23:30 farvacola wrote: Asserting that a black president was elected by "a lot of white and black people" on the basis of race is just as superficial as voting for a president because of his race. Two of the biggest drivers of Obama's 2008 victory were his race and and his vacuous, soaring rhetoric. You're giving the voters a little too much credit. Source? I would think one of the biggest drivers of both his 2008 and 2012 victories were the Republicans putting up extraordinarily weak candidates along with a lunatic VP in 2008. For me personally, my decision was made for me in both years and I found myself saying "Obama is only OK, but jesus the Republicans are so much worse." In 2008, I was planning on giving McCain a shot until he picked up Palin. What do you mean "source?" That 2008 election was retardedly hyped for the very reasons that I set forth. How can anyone forget it? It was a media and pop culture phenomenon. The republicans probably weren't going to win anyway with all of the electoral headwinds that they were facing that year. But you can't possibly overlook the fact that Obama was awarded a fucking Nobel Peace Prize on the merits of teleprompted speeches. Yes, he got a Nobel Peace Prize for talking about nuclear nonproliferation and now the DPRK has multiple bombs. DPRK tested their first nuke in 2006 during the Bush2 administration, after he walked away from all the deals the Clinton administration had set up. That would be a really sharp observation if George W. Bush had gotten a Nobel Peace Prize for nuclear nonproliferation just after being elected. The Clinton administration is actually the reason we're in this shit to begin with because the US allowed Pakistan to develop nukes in the 90s which is where all our nuclear problems now come from. Anyway, it's been the Obama administration that has seen 1) the collapse of six-party talks 2) three DPRK nuclear tests and 3) slow buildup of warheads and ICBM technology. So your saying Obama should have gone to war with China? Because that is the only way your stopping North Korea. Yeah, that's exactly what I'm saying, obviously I support world war if I'm critical of the president.
|
On May 19 2016 04:15 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2016 04:10 Gorsameth wrote:On May 19 2016 04:05 oBlade wrote:On May 19 2016 03:51 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On May 19 2016 02:56 oBlade wrote:On May 19 2016 02:02 xDaunt wrote:On May 19 2016 01:28 ZasZ. wrote:On May 18 2016 23:53 xDaunt wrote:On May 18 2016 23:30 farvacola wrote: Asserting that a black president was elected by "a lot of white and black people" on the basis of race is just as superficial as voting for a president because of his race. Two of the biggest drivers of Obama's 2008 victory were his race and and his vacuous, soaring rhetoric. You're giving the voters a little too much credit. Source? I would think one of the biggest drivers of both his 2008 and 2012 victories were the Republicans putting up extraordinarily weak candidates along with a lunatic VP in 2008. For me personally, my decision was made for me in both years and I found myself saying "Obama is only OK, but jesus the Republicans are so much worse." In 2008, I was planning on giving McCain a shot until he picked up Palin. What do you mean "source?" That 2008 election was retardedly hyped for the very reasons that I set forth. How can anyone forget it? It was a media and pop culture phenomenon. The republicans probably weren't going to win anyway with all of the electoral headwinds that they were facing that year. But you can't possibly overlook the fact that Obama was awarded a fucking Nobel Peace Prize on the merits of teleprompted speeches. Yes, he got a Nobel Peace Prize for talking about nuclear nonproliferation and now the DPRK has multiple bombs. DPRK tested their first nuke in 2006 during the Bush2 administration, after he walked away from all the deals the Clinton administration had set up. That would be a really sharp observation if George W. Bush had gotten a Nobel Peace Prize for nuclear nonproliferation just after being elected. The Clinton administration is actually the reason we're in this shit to begin with because the US allowed Pakistan to develop nukes in the 90s which is where all our nuclear problems now come from. Anyway, it's been the Obama administration that has seen 1) the collapse of six-party talks 2) three DPRK nuclear tests and 3) slow buildup of warheads and ICBM technology. So your saying Obama should have gone to war with China? Because that is the only way your stopping North Korea. Yeah, that's exactly what I'm saying, obviously I support world war if I'm critical of the president. So please. enlighten me on what Obama should have done differently.
|
On May 19 2016 03:46 Mohdoo wrote: The amount of people who don't realize congress chooses the president if no one hits 50.1% is staggering. It's amazing how many people think all you need is a majority. Bernistas screaming for a 3rd party run are screaming for the worst congress in our history choosing the president.
That's presuming Hillary wins any/a significant amount of states in a 3 way general election race. I'd be curious which states you think those are. Because you don't need 50.1% in a particular state just to win 50.1% of the electoral college votes. They each have ~1/3 of the electorate (maybe Bernie's third is the smallest), with people having a visceral hate for two of them Bernie would be a natural option, even if people don't like/agree with him, he'd be the only one they don't have a guttural and longstanding hate for.
Even with her winning some, you can map out a path for Bernie to get to 270 in a three way race. There should absolutely be some general election polling out of what a 3 way race would look like. With the likely nominees being the least liked nominees in modern history there's never been a better time to run an independent campaign so not polling what it would look like is borderline malpractice. .
|
On May 19 2016 03:58 killa_robot wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2016 03:38 Lord Tolkien wrote:http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/17/hillary-clinton-policy-donald-trump-attention-spanIn small groups, Hillary Clinton answers questions in perfect paragraphs, sometimes long ones. It can be a dazzling display. She is so prepared that she rarely needs a pause to think about what to say.
One aspect of her precision and careful phrasing, with nary a “like” or “you know” ever tumbling from her mouth, is that you need to listen hard to take it all in.
Clinton is definitely the candidate for voters with long attention spans.
That could be a challenge in a world where the human attention span has fallen to eight seconds, shorter than a goldfish, according to a recent Microsoft study.
At rallies, her studied speeches can drag on. In Kentucky last weekend, some of the school-age girls standing behind her with their Fighting for Us signs openly yawned or fiddled with their hair during the talk. One put her back to the audience to chat with a friend. Time described a recent stop at a Virginia bakery as “so boring that you could practically hear the muffins get crusty”.
As president, Bill Clinton, of course, was also famous for his long-winded, policy-rich speeches. But this was before the iPhone, Twitter, YouTube and Snapchat helped usher us into the age of distraction.
No one is better suited to these times than Donald Trump, the candidate of short attention spans.
Unlike Clinton, who often starves the press pack following her, Trump is constantly feeding them a 24-hour diet of delectable and irresistible snacks.
He almost always wins the morning. Then he orchestrates at least three or four “news events” a day. His Cinco De Mayo buffoonery – the tweet showing him eating his taco bowl and declaring “I love Hispanics” – kicked off one recent day.
Then came Paul Ryan’s announcement that he was not ready to support Trump and Trump’s immediate rejoinder that he was “not ready to support Speaker Ryan’s agenda”. Then he drew 12,000 people to a rally in West Virginia where he made the far-fetched promise “to put the miners back to work. We’re going to get those mines open!” Afterwards, there were pithy, quotable lashes at Hillary Clinton.
By generating so much “news”, Trump keeps the press in a reactive state. It’s head-spinning for reporters, unless they are the “chosen ones” he calls between stops. And some of their bosses don’t mind: Trump is traffic and ratings gold. In return, he gets more than a billion dollars in free media.
The hyping of stories, like the inconclusive meeting between Trump and Paul Ryan, only adds to the din of distraction. For efficiency’s sake, Politico’s Playbook has launched a feature called “The Daily Trump”, which aggregates many of the lesser stories about him.
There have been some long investigations recently that examined Trump’s past, including his apparent use of the false identity “John Miller”, which he denies, and his treatment of women. But to absorb these stories requires more than one swipe of the mobile screen. Then, in serial tweets, Trump blasted the unfair hit-jobs, reclaiming the headlines. With so many Americans reading with their thumbs, Trump’s advisers seem to believe he’s helped by any attention as long as you spell his name right.
Nate Silver studied the headlines over the nine months since Trump entered the race. He concluded: “With his ability to make news any time he wants with a tweet, news conference or conveniently placed leak, Trump has challenged news organizations’ editorial prerogative.”
Then he asked, “Should the press cover a candidate differently when he makes trolling the media an explicit part of his strategy, on the theory that some coverage is almost always better than none?”
It’s a dilemma. As the presumptive nominee of his party, the campaign press corps has to cover much of what he says and does. But his own background as an entertainer means that Trump makes the line between news and entertainment fuzzier than ever. He’s unbelievably clever at exploiting that.
Clinton, meanwhile, has all but disappeared from the coverage in recent days, except for a Washington Post front-page piece about her supporters worrying about how bad a campaigner she is. Her wariness of the media is well known. Although she’s made repeat appearances on shows anchored by favorites like NBC’s Andrea Mitchell and did a hilarious turn as Val the bartender on Saturday Night Live, she never seems like a natural.
Given that she is the long attention span candidate, it’s not surprising that she doesn’t have a memorable or catchy campaign slogan that sums up what she wants to change or do as president. Is it Hillary for America or Fighting for Us? I can’t remember (perhaps my withering attention span is to blame). It’s certainly nothing memorable like Making America Great Again, or Hope and Change, Morning in America, or even Bill’s It’s the Economy, Stupid.
The press, too, is bored with her. Some reporters have covered her since the Clintons arrived in the White House. Even if they have shorter attention spans, they have long memories. Revisiting Whitewater or watching reruns of the Benghazi hearings isn’t an exciting prospect.
The Clinton supporters I called last week sounded worried but resigned. Having been criticized for being inauthentic, she can only be who she is, they say: a sincere policy wonk who has the experience to be an excellent president, even if she’s a dull candidate. Compared to Trump, “She can never be entertaining in the same way,’’ one supporter noted.
Trump is the exploding watermelon of politics. Recently, 800,000 people, a record audience for Facebook Live, watched two employees of Buzzfeed wrap rubber bands around a watermelon to see how long it would take to explode (44 minutes, it turned out). One Buzzfeed editor said suspense was the key element of the experiment’s success. Trump builds the same kind of suspense: you never know what he might say.
It’s unclear whether the public, or for that matter any goldfish who cares to tune in, will find the spectacle entertaining or horrifying. That's about as biased as you can get in an article lol.If you want to blame anyone for Trump's rise, you can blame the media and their obsession with covering things they think will upset people. Without an article every other day about the outlandish things Trump was doing, he likely would have just been ignored. ...how so?
Keeping in mind that this is Jill Abramson, someone who's investigated and covered the Clintons as a reporter and a former editor since Whitewater, I'm not sure how you'd accuse her of bias here, especially since your followup is essentially the short of what she's written.
|
On May 19 2016 04:20 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2016 03:46 Mohdoo wrote: The amount of people who don't realize congress chooses the president if no one hits 50.1% is staggering. It's amazing how many people think all you need is a majority. Bernistas screaming for a 3rd party run are screaming for the worst congress in our history choosing the president. That's presuming Hillary wins any/a significant amount of states in a 3 way general election race. I'd be curious which states you think those are. Because you don't need 50.1% in a particular state just to win 50.1% of the electoral college votes. They each have ~1/3 of the electorate (maybe Bernie's third is the smallest), with people having a visceral hate for two of them Bernie would be a natural option, even if people don't like/agree with him, he'd be the only one they don't have a guttural and longstanding hate for. Even with her winning some, you can map out a path for Bernie to get to 270 in a three way race. There should absolutely be some general election polling out of what a 3 way race would look like. With the likely nominees being the least liked nominees in modern history there's never been a better time to run an independent campaign so not polling what it would look like is borderline malpractice. . hahahahahahahahahahahahah
Your telling me that even tho Bernie could not win the Democratic primary he can win a general election as a 3e party candidate?
I'm sorry but you lost touch with reality a long long time ago.
|
On May 19 2016 04:21 Lord Tolkien wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2016 03:58 killa_robot wrote:On May 19 2016 03:38 Lord Tolkien wrote:http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/17/hillary-clinton-policy-donald-trump-attention-spanIn small groups, Hillary Clinton answers questions in perfect paragraphs, sometimes long ones. It can be a dazzling display. She is so prepared that she rarely needs a pause to think about what to say.
One aspect of her precision and careful phrasing, with nary a “like” or “you know” ever tumbling from her mouth, is that you need to listen hard to take it all in.
Clinton is definitely the candidate for voters with long attention spans.
That could be a challenge in a world where the human attention span has fallen to eight seconds, shorter than a goldfish, according to a recent Microsoft study.
At rallies, her studied speeches can drag on. In Kentucky last weekend, some of the school-age girls standing behind her with their Fighting for Us signs openly yawned or fiddled with their hair during the talk. One put her back to the audience to chat with a friend. Time described a recent stop at a Virginia bakery as “so boring that you could practically hear the muffins get crusty”.
As president, Bill Clinton, of course, was also famous for his long-winded, policy-rich speeches. But this was before the iPhone, Twitter, YouTube and Snapchat helped usher us into the age of distraction.
No one is better suited to these times than Donald Trump, the candidate of short attention spans.
Unlike Clinton, who often starves the press pack following her, Trump is constantly feeding them a 24-hour diet of delectable and irresistible snacks.
He almost always wins the morning. Then he orchestrates at least three or four “news events” a day. His Cinco De Mayo buffoonery – the tweet showing him eating his taco bowl and declaring “I love Hispanics” – kicked off one recent day.
Then came Paul Ryan’s announcement that he was not ready to support Trump and Trump’s immediate rejoinder that he was “not ready to support Speaker Ryan’s agenda”. Then he drew 12,000 people to a rally in West Virginia where he made the far-fetched promise “to put the miners back to work. We’re going to get those mines open!” Afterwards, there were pithy, quotable lashes at Hillary Clinton.
By generating so much “news”, Trump keeps the press in a reactive state. It’s head-spinning for reporters, unless they are the “chosen ones” he calls between stops. And some of their bosses don’t mind: Trump is traffic and ratings gold. In return, he gets more than a billion dollars in free media.
The hyping of stories, like the inconclusive meeting between Trump and Paul Ryan, only adds to the din of distraction. For efficiency’s sake, Politico’s Playbook has launched a feature called “The Daily Trump”, which aggregates many of the lesser stories about him.
There have been some long investigations recently that examined Trump’s past, including his apparent use of the false identity “John Miller”, which he denies, and his treatment of women. But to absorb these stories requires more than one swipe of the mobile screen. Then, in serial tweets, Trump blasted the unfair hit-jobs, reclaiming the headlines. With so many Americans reading with their thumbs, Trump’s advisers seem to believe he’s helped by any attention as long as you spell his name right.
Nate Silver studied the headlines over the nine months since Trump entered the race. He concluded: “With his ability to make news any time he wants with a tweet, news conference or conveniently placed leak, Trump has challenged news organizations’ editorial prerogative.”
Then he asked, “Should the press cover a candidate differently when he makes trolling the media an explicit part of his strategy, on the theory that some coverage is almost always better than none?”
It’s a dilemma. As the presumptive nominee of his party, the campaign press corps has to cover much of what he says and does. But his own background as an entertainer means that Trump makes the line between news and entertainment fuzzier than ever. He’s unbelievably clever at exploiting that.
Clinton, meanwhile, has all but disappeared from the coverage in recent days, except for a Washington Post front-page piece about her supporters worrying about how bad a campaigner she is. Her wariness of the media is well known. Although she’s made repeat appearances on shows anchored by favorites like NBC’s Andrea Mitchell and did a hilarious turn as Val the bartender on Saturday Night Live, she never seems like a natural.
Given that she is the long attention span candidate, it’s not surprising that she doesn’t have a memorable or catchy campaign slogan that sums up what she wants to change or do as president. Is it Hillary for America or Fighting for Us? I can’t remember (perhaps my withering attention span is to blame). It’s certainly nothing memorable like Making America Great Again, or Hope and Change, Morning in America, or even Bill’s It’s the Economy, Stupid.
The press, too, is bored with her. Some reporters have covered her since the Clintons arrived in the White House. Even if they have shorter attention spans, they have long memories. Revisiting Whitewater or watching reruns of the Benghazi hearings isn’t an exciting prospect.
The Clinton supporters I called last week sounded worried but resigned. Having been criticized for being inauthentic, she can only be who she is, they say: a sincere policy wonk who has the experience to be an excellent president, even if she’s a dull candidate. Compared to Trump, “She can never be entertaining in the same way,’’ one supporter noted.
Trump is the exploding watermelon of politics. Recently, 800,000 people, a record audience for Facebook Live, watched two employees of Buzzfeed wrap rubber bands around a watermelon to see how long it would take to explode (44 minutes, it turned out). One Buzzfeed editor said suspense was the key element of the experiment’s success. Trump builds the same kind of suspense: you never know what he might say.
It’s unclear whether the public, or for that matter any goldfish who cares to tune in, will find the spectacle entertaining or horrifying. That's about as biased as you can get in an article lol.If you want to blame anyone for Trump's rise, you can blame the media and their obsession with covering things they think will upset people. Without an article every other day about the outlandish things Trump was doing, he likely would have just been ignored. ...how so? Keeping in mind that this is Jill Abramson, someone who's investigated and covered the Clintons as a reporter and a former editor since Whitewater, I'm not sure how you'd accuse her of bias here, especially since your followup is essentially the short of what she's written. I think the main problem with the article is that it assumes that making headlines constantly is both good, and something that a candidate should be trying to obtain. And that the click, view driven media something Clinton should cater to. I am not convinced of any of this either.
The press being bored says more about the press and the quality of their coverage lately. Politics should not be reality TV or youtube reaction videos.
|
If bernie ran third party, i would be curious as to who would fund his campaign.
|
The only use of a Sanders 3rd party campaign would be to probably win the election for Trump.
Sanders cannot mount a serious 3rd party challenge to win the presidency between:
1) his campaign hemorrhaging staff, at present, and running short on funds (even without considering the constant FEC violations)
2) the large numbers of Sanders supporters who will not follow him into a 3rd party run when he loses
3) his only positive demographic in a GE match-up sans the Democratic coalition (which, by in large, has voted for Clinton), predominantly white millennials, is extraordinarily fickle, even in comparison to minority millennials. Just look at 2012 demographic voting patterns (less white millennials voting, while a historic amount of minority millennials voting; incidentally Romney also carried the former demographic, while Obama's victory in the millennial category was heavily carried by the latter)
On May 19 2016 04:26 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2016 04:21 Lord Tolkien wrote:On May 19 2016 03:58 killa_robot wrote:On May 19 2016 03:38 Lord Tolkien wrote:http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/17/hillary-clinton-policy-donald-trump-attention-spanIn small groups, Hillary Clinton answers questions in perfect paragraphs, sometimes long ones. It can be a dazzling display. She is so prepared that she rarely needs a pause to think about what to say.
One aspect of her precision and careful phrasing, with nary a “like” or “you know” ever tumbling from her mouth, is that you need to listen hard to take it all in.
Clinton is definitely the candidate for voters with long attention spans.
That could be a challenge in a world where the human attention span has fallen to eight seconds, shorter than a goldfish, according to a recent Microsoft study.
At rallies, her studied speeches can drag on. In Kentucky last weekend, some of the school-age girls standing behind her with their Fighting for Us signs openly yawned or fiddled with their hair during the talk. One put her back to the audience to chat with a friend. Time described a recent stop at a Virginia bakery as “so boring that you could practically hear the muffins get crusty”.
As president, Bill Clinton, of course, was also famous for his long-winded, policy-rich speeches. But this was before the iPhone, Twitter, YouTube and Snapchat helped usher us into the age of distraction.
No one is better suited to these times than Donald Trump, the candidate of short attention spans.
Unlike Clinton, who often starves the press pack following her, Trump is constantly feeding them a 24-hour diet of delectable and irresistible snacks.
He almost always wins the morning. Then he orchestrates at least three or four “news events” a day. His Cinco De Mayo buffoonery – the tweet showing him eating his taco bowl and declaring “I love Hispanics” – kicked off one recent day.
Then came Paul Ryan’s announcement that he was not ready to support Trump and Trump’s immediate rejoinder that he was “not ready to support Speaker Ryan’s agenda”. Then he drew 12,000 people to a rally in West Virginia where he made the far-fetched promise “to put the miners back to work. We’re going to get those mines open!” Afterwards, there were pithy, quotable lashes at Hillary Clinton.
By generating so much “news”, Trump keeps the press in a reactive state. It’s head-spinning for reporters, unless they are the “chosen ones” he calls between stops. And some of their bosses don’t mind: Trump is traffic and ratings gold. In return, he gets more than a billion dollars in free media.
The hyping of stories, like the inconclusive meeting between Trump and Paul Ryan, only adds to the din of distraction. For efficiency’s sake, Politico’s Playbook has launched a feature called “The Daily Trump”, which aggregates many of the lesser stories about him.
There have been some long investigations recently that examined Trump’s past, including his apparent use of the false identity “John Miller”, which he denies, and his treatment of women. But to absorb these stories requires more than one swipe of the mobile screen. Then, in serial tweets, Trump blasted the unfair hit-jobs, reclaiming the headlines. With so many Americans reading with their thumbs, Trump’s advisers seem to believe he’s helped by any attention as long as you spell his name right.
Nate Silver studied the headlines over the nine months since Trump entered the race. He concluded: “With his ability to make news any time he wants with a tweet, news conference or conveniently placed leak, Trump has challenged news organizations’ editorial prerogative.”
Then he asked, “Should the press cover a candidate differently when he makes trolling the media an explicit part of his strategy, on the theory that some coverage is almost always better than none?”
It’s a dilemma. As the presumptive nominee of his party, the campaign press corps has to cover much of what he says and does. But his own background as an entertainer means that Trump makes the line between news and entertainment fuzzier than ever. He’s unbelievably clever at exploiting that.
Clinton, meanwhile, has all but disappeared from the coverage in recent days, except for a Washington Post front-page piece about her supporters worrying about how bad a campaigner she is. Her wariness of the media is well known. Although she’s made repeat appearances on shows anchored by favorites like NBC’s Andrea Mitchell and did a hilarious turn as Val the bartender on Saturday Night Live, she never seems like a natural.
Given that she is the long attention span candidate, it’s not surprising that she doesn’t have a memorable or catchy campaign slogan that sums up what she wants to change or do as president. Is it Hillary for America or Fighting for Us? I can’t remember (perhaps my withering attention span is to blame). It’s certainly nothing memorable like Making America Great Again, or Hope and Change, Morning in America, or even Bill’s It’s the Economy, Stupid.
The press, too, is bored with her. Some reporters have covered her since the Clintons arrived in the White House. Even if they have shorter attention spans, they have long memories. Revisiting Whitewater or watching reruns of the Benghazi hearings isn’t an exciting prospect.
The Clinton supporters I called last week sounded worried but resigned. Having been criticized for being inauthentic, she can only be who she is, they say: a sincere policy wonk who has the experience to be an excellent president, even if she’s a dull candidate. Compared to Trump, “She can never be entertaining in the same way,’’ one supporter noted.
Trump is the exploding watermelon of politics. Recently, 800,000 people, a record audience for Facebook Live, watched two employees of Buzzfeed wrap rubber bands around a watermelon to see how long it would take to explode (44 minutes, it turned out). One Buzzfeed editor said suspense was the key element of the experiment’s success. Trump builds the same kind of suspense: you never know what he might say.
It’s unclear whether the public, or for that matter any goldfish who cares to tune in, will find the spectacle entertaining or horrifying. That's about as biased as you can get in an article lol.If you want to blame anyone for Trump's rise, you can blame the media and their obsession with covering things they think will upset people. Without an article every other day about the outlandish things Trump was doing, he likely would have just been ignored. ...how so? Keeping in mind that this is Jill Abramson, someone who's investigated and covered the Clintons as a reporter and a former editor since Whitewater, I'm not sure how you'd accuse her of bias here, especially since your followup is essentially the short of what she's written. I think the main problem with the article is that it assumes that making headlines constantly is both good, and something that a candidate should be trying to obtain. And that the click, view driven media something Clinton should cater to. I am not convinced of any of this either. The press being bored says more about the press and the quality of their coverage lately. Politics should not be reality TV or youtube reaction videos. The article is abit more nuanced than that. Her point is that this is the concept and driving force behind the Trump campaign, and it's succeeded beyond all expectations in the Republicans primary, and that this gives the Trump campaign a great deal of free advertisement and control over the media (for instance he can say something about building an aqueduct between the US and Timbuktu, and making us pay for it, and the media would report it and attempt to debate the merits of the plan).
In comparison, the Clinton campaign doesn't have nearly the same amount of media influence via headlines as does the Trump campaign at present, and in the eyes of the average voter, which on average has incredibly short attention spans, Clinton's policy speeches and proposals are boring.
As a policy wonk, I would prefer she didn't water down her message either. Nonetheless, it's a valid concern to highlight, especially considering the relative dearth of media coverage of Clinton in comparison to Trump (unless it's right wing hit pieces)..
|
Norway28665 Posts
On May 19 2016 02:02 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2016 01:28 ZasZ. wrote:On May 18 2016 23:53 xDaunt wrote:On May 18 2016 23:30 farvacola wrote: Asserting that a black president was elected by "a lot of white and black people" on the basis of race is just as superficial as voting for a president because of his race. Two of the biggest drivers of Obama's 2008 victory were his race and and his vacuous, soaring rhetoric. You're giving the voters a little too much credit. Source? I would think one of the biggest drivers of both his 2008 and 2012 victories were the Republicans putting up extraordinarily weak candidates along with a lunatic VP in 2008. For me personally, my decision was made for me in both years and I found myself saying "Obama is only OK, but jesus the Republicans are so much worse." In 2008, I was planning on giving McCain a shot until he picked up Palin. What do you mean "source?" That 2008 election was retardedly hyped for the very reasons that I set forth. How can anyone forget it? It was a media and pop culture phenomenon. The republicans probably weren't going to win anyway with all of the electoral headwinds that they were facing that year. But you can't possibly overlook the fact that Obama was awarded a fucking Nobel Peace Prize on the merits of teleprompted speeches.
Meh, he was mostly given the peace prize on the merit of not being George Bush / random republican hawk. (For the record, I absolutely agree that giving him the peace prize was completely ridiculous, and while the peace prize is certainly political in nature, it is not supposed to be partisan. This was basically an attempt at telling american unilateralists to go fuck themselves, but even europeans who shared in the desire to tell american unilateralists to go fuck themselves thought it was just downright stupid. )
|
Trump polled well for a long time, even early on. But people bent over backwards to justify why it wasn’t going to translate into votes. Those people now admit they misread the data and the party at the time.
And we have discussed previously that the voters who decide elections do not follow the political theater. People hate how longer this primary death march is. The millions of voters who care about elections will tune in when the political WWE gets on the real elections.
As with last election, hardcore politics super fans develop this case of tunnel vision around this time.
|
I'd be interested to see 3 way Sanders v Trump v Clinton polling just out of curiosity.
|
On May 19 2016 04:28 SolaR- wrote: If bernie ran third party, i would be curious as to who would fund his campaign. Phonebanks.
|
LMFAO sanders as 3rd party presidential run, that's a good one. I'm sure no one would get tired about hearing of all the politicians sanders' campaign would be sending death threats to all the way until the election.
|
On May 19 2016 01:35 Plansix wrote: In theory, congress should be handling a lot of these issues. But congress isn’t functioning and hasn’t for about 8 years. Which is part of how government works and why we have elections. Hopefully the next congress will remove some of the rules put in place to allow the majority party to grid lock the entire systems. while they should be; it's also the case that the world has gotten so complicated; and the number of issues to dael with so vast; that congress cannot effectively handle all of them. Having subordinate systems is useful to handle the smaller details; it'd also help with the proliferation of overly long texty bills. So it seems fair for the legislature to have some subordinate bodies.
|
Sanders has already touted the line that if he loses he will back Hillary. Is there new information stating otherwise? He's already said in an interview, "should I lose the nomination, I will campaign to beat Donald Trump".
|
On May 19 2016 06:30 SK.Testie wrote: Sanders has already touted the line that if he loses he will back Hillary. Is there new information stating otherwise? He's already said in an interview, "should I lose the nomination, I will campaign to beat Donald Trump".
You could drive an entire Independent Presidential Candidate Bus through the loopholes in that quote.
|
On May 19 2016 06:33 CannonsNCarriers wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2016 06:30 SK.Testie wrote: Sanders has already touted the line that if he loses he will back Hillary. Is there new information stating otherwise? He's already said in an interview, "should I lose the nomination, I will campaign to beat Donald Trump". You could drive an entire Independent Presidential Candidate Bus through the loopholes in that quote. Bernie is a crazy old man, but I don’t think he is that big of a loon. He knows what happens to his support when he tries to run against the popular vote.
|
On May 19 2016 06:30 SK.Testie wrote: Sanders has already touted the line that if he loses he will back Hillary. Is there new information stating otherwise? He's already said in an interview, "should I lose the nomination, I will campaign to beat Donald Trump".
No surprise. Hillary wants to turn the federal government into a wing of the DNC and Sanders has pretty much always sided with the Democrats.
|
On May 19 2016 06:35 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2016 06:33 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On May 19 2016 06:30 SK.Testie wrote: Sanders has already touted the line that if he loses he will back Hillary. Is there new information stating otherwise? He's already said in an interview, "should I lose the nomination, I will campaign to beat Donald Trump". You could drive an entire Independent Presidential Candidate Bus through the loopholes in that quote. Bernie is a crazy old man, but I don’t think he is that big of a loon. He knows what happens to his support when he tries to run against the popular vote.
He lost Nevada by 5% and his goons tried to riot in order to get Bernie more delegates than Hillary. Two weeks ago, yeah, I agree, Bernie isn't that much of a loon. The Nevada state level caucus riot has changed my perceptions about how much Bernie respects the process.
|
|
|
|