Donald Trump

[StringJunky]

 

 

I didn't know so many people were racists...

 

clinton flag.jpg Obama flag.jpg sanders flag.jpg

'Racist' against those who are not American but reside in the US. I have extended family in Texas and my mother tells me that the Mexicans are viewed with some disdain, she noticed, as an example.

[John Cuthber]

As far as I can tell, the stars + stripes in the background of an American politician is more or less the "obligatory" set up.
The confederate flag... is different.

However there's something about patriotism- what's so damned special about t a country just because it happens to be the one I was born in or live in?

[dimreepr]

As far as I can tell, the stars + stripes in the background of an American politician is more or less the "obligatory" set up.

The confederate flag... is different.

However there's something about patriotism- what's so damned special about t a country just because it happens to be the one I was born in or live in?

 

 

Whilst I basically agree, I do have to say, pride in your tribe is a very useful attribute for survival; which is why it’s so often used as a motivator for those with lesser insight.

[overtone]

We need a flag more than others, because we are such a disparate collection of ornery subpopulations.

 

It's a way to signal a basic willingness to deal with each other as countrymen.

 

The Kurds in Iraq began flying their own flag as soon as Saddam was deposed. That was a sign.

 

So is the Confederate flag, at a Republican rally.

[dimreepr]

Prophetic...

[Phi for All]

Prophetic...

 

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/11/bogus-meme-targets-trump/

 

Made up.

[dimreepr]

Darn it, that’ll learn me to believe what I see on the tinternet; in my defence, it not only sounds plausible but I actually wanted it to be true.

Edited March 21, 2016 by dimreepr

[StringJunky]

Darn it, that’ll learn me to believe what I see on the tinternet; in my defence, it not only sounds plausible but I actually wanted it to be true.

I wouldn't put passed him, He's got a lot of 'front'.

[overtone]

There is a genuine interview with Trump on Oprah, from around that time, when he talks about how bad the US government is at making deals (Japan, at the time) and how much better he would be at it.

[dimreepr]

Thanks for the attempt to soothe my grief, ‘overtone’, at the news but my sorrow was more that such a delicious irony isn’t true (yet).

[Ten oz]

Trump to date has still only won 37% of the popular vote in the GOP primary. No candidate since Nixon in 1968 has become president after receiving less than 40% support within the primary. Nixon recieved 37% in 1968 but that election saw RFK killed and the Democrats hold a contested convention. In 1976 Carter only received 41% in the primary but was running against Ford who had never been elected president in the first place. Despite a media drum beat that insists that Trump is wildly popular and a force that demands to be taken seriously he is actually not doing very well. Since Nixon in 1968 all Republicans who have won the general election won their primaries with 60% or greater support: Reagan 60%, H.W. Bush 67%, and W Bush 62%. Trump needs to increase his support to be a viable threat.

 

Another dead canary in the coal mine for Trump is whose turning out:

"So far, according to exit polls posted on CNN.com, whites have cast at least 90 percent of the votes in every Republican primary except Florida (83 percent) and Arizona (89 percent). In every other state except Michigan (92 percent) and Nevada (90 percent) whites have comprised at least 94 percent of the GOP vote this year. That includes Georgia (94), Virginia (94), Ohio (96), Oklahoma (96), Tennessee (97), South Carolina (98), Massachusetts (98), Iowa (99), New Hampshire (99), and Vermont (99).

By comparison in the 2008 general election, whites cast only 74 percent of the total vote."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/3/9/1072522/-Republican-primary-voters-older-over-90-white

 

Trump is only managing 37% in an all white Republican primary? Minority turnout for the GOP, which was already very low, has gone down. Trump is also doing poorly with with women:

"in Florida, exit polls conducted by Edison Research showed that Trump's support among Republican women voters was 40 percent, versus 52 percent among males. In Ohio, where Trump came in second to the state's governor, John Kasich, 33 percent of women voters backed Trump, compared with 40 percent of men.

If the GOP frontrunner were to run against Democratic hopeful Hillary Clinton in the general election, likely women voters would support Clinton over Trump by nearly 14 percentage points, according to the March polling data. Among men, Clinton would win by about 5 percentage points."

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-women-idUSKCN0WJ155

[CharonY]

Prophetic...

 

Also, 1998 Fox News was not as prominent as it was now, IIRC. I think it only really started to win over republicans as viewers over CNN around 2000-2001.

[Ten oz]

unday marked the 286th day of Trump’s campaign, which began June 16. From the start, he’s been a media phenomenon. According to The New York Times, Trump has received the equivalent of $1.9 billion in television coverage while having spent only $10 million on paid advertising. By contrast, Trump’s Republican rivals combined have received slightly less than $1.2 billion worth of television coverage, meaning that Trump has been the subject of the clear majority (62 percent) of candidate-focused TV coverage of the Republican race.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-donald-trump-hacked-the-media/

[dimreepr]

unday marked the 286th day of Trump’s campaign, which began June 16. From the start, he’s been a media phenomenon. According to The New York Times, Trump has received the equivalent of $1.9 billion in television coverage while having spent only $10 million on paid advertising. By contrast, Trump’s Republican rivals combined have received slightly less than $1.2 billion worth of television coverage, meaning that Trump has been the subject of the clear majority (62 percent) of candidate-focused TV coverage of the Republican race.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-donald-trump-hacked-the-media/

 

 

“There are hardly any excesses of the most crazed psychopath that cannot easily be duplicated by a normal kindly family man who just comes in to work every day and has a job to do.”

― Terry Pratchett, Small Gods

 

We should be afraid, very afraid.

[Ten oz]

 

 

“There are hardly any excesses of the most crazed psychopath that cannot easily be duplicated by a normal kindly family man who just comes in to work every day and has a job to do.”

― Terry Pratchett, Small Gods

 

We should be afraid, very afraid.

Trump has had more media exposure than the other GOP candidates combined but has failed to win 50% of the vote in a single state yet and isn't on pace to get the need delegates. It is actually a hopeful thing. Even within the GOP and amongst their primary voters the last 6 months of continuous media focus on how great Trump is doing hasn't been able to make it so. Which implies most people are thinking for themselves to an extent. That is good.

[Bill Angel]

Trump argues that this is about more than just him, pulling in Bernie Sanders and his fight against Hillary Clinton and the establishment for the Democratic Party nod -- into the fray. The message from Trump is that the power brokers on both sides are trying to rig the game.

"You see what's happening to me and Bernie Sanders," Trump said Sunday in Rochester, New York. "It's a corrupt deal going on."

See http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/12/politics/donald-trump-rages-against-the-machine/index.html

 

On the other hand, here is Bernie Sanders "take" on Donald Trump:

 

As is the case virtually every day, Donald Trump is showing the American people that he is a pathological liar, Sanders said.

See http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-unloads-on-donald-trump_us_56e4847ae4b0860f99d9475f

[iNow]

Sanders did get a bit screwed in Wyoming. Joe Scarborough went off about this yesterday (as shown in this video which has become a bit viral):

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HRxIXtjtFkw

[Ten oz]

Sanders did get a bit screwed in Wyoming. Joe Scarborough went off about this yesterday (as shown in this video which has become a bit viral):

 

I like Sanders. I would be happy if he were the nominee and vote for him. That said Sanders is being treated fairly in my opinion. The reality is he does better in caucus states and Clinton is beating him fair and square in primaries getting more votes. She's gotten over 2 million more votes than Sanders to date. She also leads in both earned and super delegates. She is winning.

 

While there is an argument to be made that if the media would do ABC Sanders would be doing better but I also think there is an equally stronger argument to be made that media in general is more negative on Clinton than they are dismissive on Sanders. Clinton is under constant attack from right wing media and amongst the GOP. Sanders is not. The lack of negative Sanders media has been as helpful to Sanders in my opinion than a little extra positive media would be. Far more energy is going into demogouging Clinton. She is battling multiple fronts. Sanders is just battling her.

[overtone]

The reality is he does better in caucus states and Clinton is beating him fair and square in primaries getting more votes.

In closed primaries among black people, she has dominated. Otherwise, she's breaking even or losing.

 

 

 

Clinton is under constant attack from right wing media and amongst the GOP. Sanders is not

Those are not Democratic primary voters. Clinton is getting a lot of good press in the MSNBC and related media, where the Democratic primary vote gets their news and Sanders has been oddly shut out. And her name recognition is very high - Sanders still struggles there, especially among black voters.

 

The winning candidates in both Parties are the ones who started with the highest name recognition.

Edited April 13, 2016 by overtone

[iNow]

Oddly shut out? I see Sanders on television and hear about him on the radio far more than Hillary, and nearly as much as Trump.

 

The "he's being shutout" of media narrative was somewhat valid... like 5 months ago, but not any more.

Edited April 14, 2016 by iNow

[Ten oz]

In closed primaries among black people, she has dominated. Otherwise, she's breaking even or losing.

 

 

 

Those are not Democratic primary voters. Clinton is getting a lot of good press in the MSNBC and related media, where the Democratic primary vote gets their news and Sanders has been oddly shut out. And her name recognition is very high - Sanders still struggles there, especially among black voters.

 

The winning candidates in both Parties are the ones who started with the highest name recognition.

I don't understand why you pointed this out. Clinton has gotten two and a half million more votes. Why would we subtract ones by specific racial groups and say Sanders is even?

Oddly shut out? I see Sanders on television and hear about him on the radio far more than Hillary, and nearly as much as Trump.

 

The "he's being shutout" of media narrative was somewhat valid... like 5 months ago, but not any more.

Clinton has many detractors and negative Clinton naratives are better click bait than real or positive ones. Sanders benefits from this in that Clinton's detractors like the narative that she is in the fight of her life against Sanders so that is the narrative the media is pushing because it is the one that sells. Between the email scandal, Bernie or bust, and the notion that she is unlikable Clinton is mostly stuck is a negative media loop. Yet, she still is still leading and will be the nominee. Bernie has down well but is not on pace to win.

 

This whole primary the media has been bad as I have ever seen. They kicked the year off declaering Trump the GOP nominee. They listed multiple precedents Trumps was said to have already achieved which assured he'd be the nominee. We spend months reading that no one every won NH and SC without being the nominee, No one ever polled so well ahead of supertuesday, Trump's record ratings for debates, Trump, Trump, Trump. I have been pointing out for months that Trump was under performing his poll numbers, failing to win delegates at a good enough clip, and wasn't on pace to win the nomination. Yet because the media was so overwhelming in their Trump is winning narative everyone looked at me like I had 3 eyes or was just a purely partisan Trump hater. I had a close friend (liberal) even tell me that I wasn't seeing the forest through the trees. Now, finally, as the races draws closer to its end the narative is slowly turning and then media is finally reporting on the fact that Trump isn't on pace to win the needed delegates.

 

For Sanders it has been the oppisite. The media has been slowly spooling him up. I like Sanders and would prefer him over Clintons but it is late in the race and he isn't winning. Yet the media is working this down to the wire narrative where by Sanders will/would win if not for XY and Z tactics by Clinton supporters. It only serves to divide the deomcratic base.

[overtone]

Why would we subtract ones by specific racial groups and say Sanders is even?

Is anyone doing that?

 

 

Clinton has many detractors and negative Clinton naratives are better click bait than real or positive ones.

Not in the Democratic oriented media. The people who listen to Fox for their news are mostly Republican voters.

 

 

This whole primary the media has been bad as I have ever seen. They kicked the year off declaering Trump the GOP nominee.

Really. Was this before or after every single pundit on TV declared that they were completely surprised that Trump was still in the race? That "nobody saw this coming"? That was I believe early March.

 

 

Yet the media is working this down to the wire narrative where by Sanders will/would win if not for XY and Z tactics by Clinton supporters.

Who, exactly, is running that as their narrative? Major media, now.

 

The lefty bloggers I follow have been bemoaning their inability to get that obvious point shoehorned into a major pundit's "narrative" since the debate schedule was published - summer of last year.

 

 

It only serves to divide the deomcratic base.

The Democratic base has been "divided" about the prospect of a Hillary Clinton nomination for twenty years or more.

Edited April 15, 2016 by overtone

[Ten oz]

In closed primaries among black people, she has dominated. Otherwise, she's breaking even or losing.

 

 

 

Is anyone doing that?

 

 

Not in the Democratic oriented media. The people who listen to Fox for their news are mostly Republican voters.

 

 

Really. Was this before or after every single pundit on TV declared that they were completely surprised that Trump was still in the race? That "nobody saw this coming"? That was I believe early March.

 

 

Who, exactly, is running that as their narrative? Major media, now.

 

The lefty bloggers I follow have been bemoaning their inability to get that obvious point shoehorned into a major pundit's "narrative" since the debate schedule was published - summer of last year.

 

 

The Democratic base has been "divided" about the prospect of a Hillary Clinton nomination for twenty years or more.

For starters take a lot of media figures for Foxnews and then compare them to MSNBC. You are arguiing that constant negative media against Hillary from the right is not relevant because MSNBC treats her good. That is nonsense. Foxnews has triple the audience, triple the cultural influence, triple the impact. More over "liberal/democrats" do not follow MSNBC as their primary source of news. Liberal actually are more likely to watch CNN and NPR than MSNBC.

http://www.journalism.org/2014/10/21/political-polarization-media-habits/

 

Who pushes the narrative, capitalism!!! The media is a business. Feel good Clinton stories don't go viral. Write a reasoned Clinton op-ed or tweet and it doesn't get shared a million times over. People want numbers. Clinton has a whole party (GOP) that have been foaming at the mouth waiting to combat her since 2004. I recall the day after Bush was re-elected Hannity telling his audience to not celebrate Bush's win for more than a day because Hillary was coming and they had to get ready to defeat her. Clinton also has enemies on the left. She was already defeated in a primary back in 08'. If you don't understand how much more time, money, energy, and effort there is out there that is and has been going into beating Clintion that you simply have not been paying attention. White water, Filegate, Vince Foster's death, Travelgate, Emial server, Benghazi, etc, etc, etc. How many "scandals" how many conspiracies? All of those stories sell. All those stories drive media numbers. That is why the narrative continues.

 

Yes, the are members of the Democratic party that do not like Hillary Clinton. I do not like Hillary Clinton. I support Bernie Sanders over Hillary Clinton. I think Hillary Clinton is far to hawish on foriegn policy and criminal justice. However that doesn't make me blind to reality. That doesn't mean I allow myself to buy into conspiracy. Bernie Sanders has been treated fair and is losing this primary fair and square.Hillary is winning more votes, winning more earn delegates, winning over more super delegates, and is do all that under a much higher level of scrutiny and attack than Sanders has dealt with.

[overtone]

You are arguiing that constant negative media against Hillary from the right is not relevant because MSNBC treats her good. That is nonsense. Foxnews has triple the audience, triple the cultural influence, triple the impact. More over "liberal/democrats" do not follow MSNBC as their primary source of news. Liberal actually are more likely to watch CNN and NPR than MSNBC.

CNN and NPR - essentially the entire non-Fox major TV - have treated Clinton very well. And treated Sanders poorly.

 

Meanwhile, there is a large and persistent demonstration in front of CNN headquarters right now by Sanders supporters, attempting to force them to cover Sanders at all - has that demonstration made the news where you live? Has the current demonstration in Washington against the financial industry's influence on the US government made the news? Has the recently reported ongoing failure of most of the major banks (all bigger than they were when they were too big to fail) to meet the Dodd-Frank safety requirements been analyzed with respect to how the policies of Sanders, Clinton, Trump, and Cruz, would approach the problem we have with them?

 

Not only Sanders himself, but all issues likely to benefit his candidacy and agenda, are missing.

 

 

 

Bernie Sanders has been treated fair and is losing this primary fair and square.

That's not so and you know it. From the polling of the superdelegates taken before Sanders was a real possibility and then included in the Clinton delegate count, to the original debate schedule, to the sudden appearance of Clinton's stump speech framing in all the major news reporting from DNC influenced sources, the bias has been nothing if not obvious. You can argue that that is a good thing, and appropriate behavior for a major Party, but you can't argue that it's "fair".

 

Hillary is winning more votes, winning more earn delegates, winning over more super delegates, and is do all that under a much higher level of scrutiny and attack than Sanders has dealt with.

Getting attention - even some criticism - from the media is not a bad thing, for a political candidate. Scrutiny and publicity are often the same thing.

 

Sanders has had little scrutiny. Or attention. And name recognition alone - familiarity - explains most of his vote gap. Look at his poll numbers before and after he shows up in some place about to have a primary or caucus - that's proof, statistical proof, of the inadequacy of the news coverage of his campaign. His biggest problem in New York even - near his home State, media center of the universe - is that the New York Democratic primary is closed and the deadline for registering was two weeks ago, before Sanders started campaigning in person. He will not get his normal surge in the vote that we see from exposure.

 

We had a situation similar to this in Minnesota years ago, when a college professor named Paul Wellstone ran for Senate. He had been running for months and was polling around 4%, when he blew up at the media: yet another reporter asked him whether he thought he should still be running if he couldn't get more than 4% of the vote, and he pointed out - bluntly - that one of his problems in getting more than 4% of the vote was that the journalists covering the election were not writing anything about him except about the fact that he was only getting 4% of the vote.

 

How much of the already inadequate coverage of Sanders has been about his percentage of the vote?

 

And the thing was, that changed the election in Minnesota. Because the journalists were embarrassed, and they started covering his issues and comparing his programs and policies and quoting his speeches as they did with the respectable candidates. Scrutiny, in other words. And he won.

 

That's the thing about real journalism - you can embarrass it. It's kind of like Popper's criterion for real science, that it can be falsified. You can't embarrass MSNBC or ABC any more. You can't embarrass CNN - although there are some people trying. Shamelessness is Fox's business model.

Edited April 15, 2016 by overtone

[Ten oz]

@Overtone, I like Sanders. I prefer him to Clinton. He is better on the issues. However that doesn't I must believe he has been mistreated. You are claiming media attention is the reason why Clinton has received two in a half million more votes in the primary? No one has received more media attention than Trump and Clinton has received over a million more votes than Trump.

 

Sanders is actually doing worse than his share of the delegates implies. Sanders has received a larger share of delegates than he has votes.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/bernie-sanders-is-even-further-behind-in-votes-than-he-is-in-delegates/

 

As for the media and Clinton Nate Silver did an analysis back in Sept showing that Clinton had spent the whole summer in a negative media feedback loop that drove her poll numbers and likability down. In my opinion you are not being honest about the way the media has handled Clinton. She has not been done any favors.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/hillary-clinton-is-in-a-self-reinforcing-funk/