Holy......

[Gaoics79]

We agree that the definition is too mild.

[DonaldD]

As I recall you are Canadian, so none of what happens will affect you (directly).

I guess it depends on what you mean by "directly".  For instance, the USA bailing on its commitments to address climate change very well could lead to the complete collapse of the current international agreements pushing us all back, globally, a good 20 years in our ability to address the projected effects of even mitigated climate change and possibly making it impossible to avoid its worst effects.

At the very least, it will directly make it far more difficult, if not impossible, to implement any level of effective carbon pricing inside Canada if all it means is that the Canadian economy will be falling on its sword while the US economy capitalizes at the expense of Canadians and the rest of the world.

[NobleHunter]

If Trump refuses to honor NATO defense agreements, some of our troops might be hung out to dry in the Baltics.

[TheDeamon]

If Trump refuses to honor NATO defense agreements, some of our troops might be hung out to dry in the Baltics.

I think NATO is going to be a case of brinksmanship and seeing who calls whose bluff first.

I doubt he'll pull out, or refuse to honor the commitment. But he can try "to get a better deal" for the United States, although I have no idea what form such a deal would take. But with that level of vagueness, the German's agreeing to provide the troops based there with free movie vouchers every 3 months might be declared a win, and he'll move on.

[rightleft22]

spin the win!  something Trump is very good at

[D.W.]

Sorry, Fenring, but it is your reasoning that is truly bizarre.

The question on the ballot was not "Should Hillary Clinton not be President?"  The question was "Who should be President?"

People did not vote against Hillary Clinton. They voted for Donald Trump.

I personally know people who voted against Hillary Clinton and don't particularly care for Trump.  Then again I know people who seem to be his fans as well.

On the flip side, I did NOT vote for Hillary and voted expressly to reject Trump.  I'm glad the 3rd party candidates did nothing for me or I may have been complicit in getting Trump in office by "throwing away my vote" towards one of them.

If political parties can count on their subjects to vote for any candidate they field, even if the candidate is poor, all that means is the'll keep fielding poor candidates. It also betrays a sense of entitlement, a sense that they own your vote by virtue of your political or ideological alignment.

This touches on a gut feeling impression I've had of Hillary from the start.  That somehow she felt she was entitled to the position if only the voters would get out of her way and let her have her due.  Now, that may not be true but it's been my impression since she ran the first time. 

The same with Jeb.  Dynastic presidency just bothers me at a gut level regardless of one's qualification.  One of the first things I saw after the results was people suggesting we see Michael Obama run for the office.  Made me cringe and shake my head wondering if my party (or parts of it) had lost their damn minds.

I grew up during the Nancy Reagan years of "Just Say No" and I realize I'm old fashioned when it comes to drug use and don't expect many if any people to hold that against politicians the way I do

You DO realize your problem is that Obama admitted to it.  If you disqualified all the politicians who did drugs I doubt you'd have enough left to do a roll call let alone govern.  It's a nice principle that it should disqualify someone from holding office but it has no place in reality.  I'm right there with you on being raised by inconsiderate smokers trying to kill me through my asthma/allergies.  They mostly also drink like fish...  Probably for the same reasons as you I frown on drug use and drinking to excess in general, but I don't rank marijuana any more harshly than the other already legal vices people have.

[cherrypoptart]

Some of the liberals are really learning something from all this.

http://cnsnews.com/blog/mark-judge/chris-matthews-rachel-maddow-ive-never-heard-country-didnt-have-border

He added, "It was a legitimate campaign on those issues. I never heard Hillary railing against these stupid wars, I never heard Hillary railing genuinely against these trade deals...I never heard her really come out with a comprehensive immigration program which included enforcement on illegal hiring...sure, she went out and got Latino votes, but did she ever come out for a sound, workable, progressive, enforceable, immigration policy? No."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And then there's this guy who gives a profanity laced tirade that really hits the mark but it's not quite as offensive since it's with a British accent.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLG9g7BcjKs

He makes the point that you don't win arguments by simply hurling insults, and it's well taken.

But the one thing many Democrats are still missing, the thing that matters most, is simply results. The results of Obama's policies have been disastrous, bad for America, bad for a good part of the world, and too many people are feeling the pain of his and the Democrats' bad policy decisions. So they gave Trump a chance and what's going to matter again, more than anything, are results. That's the one thing you can't just talk your way out of or fake.

[D.W.]

Yep, still missing that.
From my perspective he's made SLOW progress back from a disaster he inherited.  Am I disappointed it hasn't been faster?  Yep. 

Do I think several things need changed compared to his slow and steady wins the race that I believe Hillary would have continued with?  Yep.  I (we?) still feel that instead of stomping on the accelerator pedal, Trump is going to put the country in reverse and back over a lot of people in the process.  This will get worse for everyone but those at the very top.  Certainly not the vast majority of those who voted for him.

And, the media will continue to convince us that we don't have all we should and we should stay angry, catering to all political persuasions it can pushing that theme in different ways.  Until the economy is in a large boom that benefits all, we will see the most outside of the outsiders having an edge.  That much Trump clued in on.  As he is now on the inside... it's up to the Democrats not to go with an "establishment candidate" and the pendulum will swing back and forth to extremes. 

[JoshCrow]

But the one thing many Democrats are still missing, the thing that matters most, is simply results. The results of Obama's policies have been disastrous, bad for America, bad for a good part of the world, and too many people are feeling the pain of his and the Democrats' bad policy decisions.

Oddly, I'm not familiar with the metrics that indicate it was "disastrous". Most of the metrics I know suggest it was, at worst, somewhat status quo... and at best, a modest step forward.

If the Democrats are learning lessons, what about people who need to overstate the "awfulness" of the other team?

[Fenring]

Oddly, I'm not familiar with the metrics that indicate it was "disastrous". Most of the metrics I know suggest it was, at worst, somewhat status quo... and at best, a modest step forward.

I do view parts of it as disastrous, but I'm not necessarily willing to lay the blame on Obama for it. The continuation of W's internal security policies, the surveillance, the drone strikes, the proxy wars - all of this continued or was even augmented under Obama's administration. For all intents and purposes in these areas he was running a Republican administration. In other areas, as JoshCrow mentions, there may have been modest advances. Likewise, I view as utterly disingenuous most reports put out about job growth and employment, which I believe use every trick in the book to make things look better than they are. And yet, again, I'm not sure Obama is to blame for this, as he inherited not only a financial disaster but also a crumbling economic system on a broader scale. One man can't be expected to grapple with that and come out ahead. That doesn't mean one man can't, but it takes a certain kind of leader to make bold changes, and we haven't seen a leader like that for a while.

[cherrypoptart]

This guy spells out a bunch of them. Some I don't agree with but most of them are legit disasters and there are others that aren't even on the list such as the Flint water supply.

http://www.martinoauthor.com/list-obama-failures/


IRS targets Obama’s enemies, Benghazi, Spying on the AP, ATF “Fast and Furious” scheme, VA, New Black Panthers Voter Intimidation, The hacking of Sharyl Attkisson’s computer, Obama’s LIES about the Affordable Care Act, “I’ll Pass My Own Laws” - phone and pen, NSA Spying on American People, Disaster with the Arab Spring, Crimea, Leaving Iraq too soon and letting ISIS take over, Syrian Red Line, ISIS “JV”, Iran Nuclear Deal (this is a BIG one!), Traded 5 Taliban Prisoners For Deserter Bergdahl, Waging war by attacking Libya without Congressional approval, Paying ransom to Iranian for hostages and lying about it, spreading the border wide open, trillions more in debt with no infrastructure improvements to show for it, Racial Division at all-time high,  Disrespect for Cops, Constant disregard for the Constitution with more unanimous Supreme Court decisions against him than any President in history (to my knowledge), Price of healthcare has drastically risen for those purchasing it, Highest percentage of Americans on Food Stamps and Medicaid, Record 92,898,000 Americans over 16 years not working, Lowest Labor Force participation rate of 62.7%, Refusing to Listen to CIA/FBI that there is no way to properly vet certain immigrants from Muslim nations, Colorado EPA Disaster, Worst economic recovery since the depression with anemic GDP numbers, and let's not forget his lies about giving them American people five days to see his proposals and offer feedback before they are put into action and showing the debate about healthcare on TV instead of having it behind closed doors and making us wait until after the bill is passed to find out what's in it.

It just goes on and on and on with this guy.

I'm also adding the Fukushima nuclear disaster. There was a window of a few days when Obama should have mobilized every military resource, in fact every resource, at his disposal to help Japan keep water on those reactors. That was key. It wouldn't have been easy but he didn't even try. And yes Japan didn't ask but that was a time when he should have insisted. That was a time when the world needed leadership and he showed none. Instead he didn't do anything to stop the irradiation of basically the entire Pacific Ocean not to mention all of our forces stationed in Japan. I mean that is literally a disaster.

If you say there was nothing he could do, I mean we could go into all the logistics of it and talk about the resources of our military and what it would take to keep water on those reactors and I find it impossible to believe that we couldn't have done it. We go in by sea, establish a beach head, and get pumps and hoses going from the ocean up to the reactor. One destroyer has enough juice to power a small town. Get the whole fleet up there. Do helicopter drops of water on the reactors if need be. Get forest fire fighting equipment from the U.S. over there to help. Put our military including the Army Corps of Engineers to work clearing the roads. Treat it like it is life and death and preventing a nuclear meltdown is on the line, which it was. Instead, Obama had his Rudy Giuliani moment of opportunity to demonstrate real leadership and he just didn't step up. If there was nothing he could do then he wasn't the right man for the job. We needed someone who could do something. But we didn't have that person. All we had was Obama.

A far as I know, we still don't have a world plan in place to deal with such a nuclear disaster if it happens again. That's just ridiculous. Obviously, relying on the country that was just struck by a tsunami is absurd, as it would be if they got hit by a terrorist attack or even in the case of Russia just have an accident. Work should be done to establish such a quick reaction force and have all nuclear powers join together to contribute personnel, material, expertise, and get a plan in place because it's only a matter of time before it happens again.

[NobleHunter]

I do view parts of it as disastrous, but I'm not necessarily willing to lay the blame on Obama for it. The continuation of W's internal security policies, the surveillance, the drone strikes, the proxy wars - all of this continued or was even augmented under Obama's administration. For all intents and purposes in these areas he was running a Republican administration. In other areas, as JoshCrow mentions, there may have been modest advances. Likewise, I view as utterly disingenuous most reports put out about job growth and employment, which I believe use every trick in the book to make things look better than they are. And yet, again, I'm not sure Obama is to blame for this, as he inherited not only a financial disaster but also a crumbling economic system on a broader scale. One man can't be expected to grapple with that and come out ahead. That doesn't mean one man can't, but it takes a certain kind of leader to make bold changes, and we haven't seen a leader like that for a while.

It also takes a certain kind of support to make bold changes. Given that the GOP has no stomach for bold changes and a willingness to prevent them, I don't think Obama could have made bold changes.

[Fenring]

It also takes a certain kind of support to make bold changes. Given that the GOP has no stomach for bold changes and a willingness to prevent them, I don't think Obama could have made bold changes.

Yes. But I believe that a certain kind of leader can generate that support, rather than merely requiring it. Obama turned out not to be that guy, although the reasons for that are unclear. I wouldn't expect of any given politician that they could be that guy either, but I think such an animal can certainly exist, even if it's rare.

The optimist in me thinks that at some point an enlightened decision might be made by the right leader to trust the populace and embark on a big reform. The pessimist in me thinks the reform will only happen at a crisis moment when no other action is possible any more.

[NobleHunter]

I think there needs to be a willingness to offer support. I think that willingness was lacking in the GOP. They seemed more interested in prevent Obama from making significant accomplishments than making effective change.

[JoshCrow]

This guy spells out a bunch of them. Some I don't agree with but most of them are legit disasters and there are others that aren't even on the list such as the Flint water supply.

Cherry, while there were a few scattered items where I might agree with you (Syria "red line", which was a PR disaster), most of the things on that list can be classified as "bad world events" that happened from 2009-2016, for which the degree of attribution to Obama's leadership ranges from "maybe, in a certain light" to "are you kidding me?". Some don't even make sense at all (disrespect to cops?) and others are actually the fault of people at state/municipal levels of government (Flint).

And then there's your wild divergence into Fukushima, where I literally have no idea what to make of it... you are suggesting the US should ram support into foreign countries without an ask? I thought you were someone who believed in reigning in spending... now you want the US to put out fires around the world? Excuse me, but you can't have it both ways man.

I would posit that you have created, in essence, an impossible standard that you will hold up for a D president, but (I suspect) not for an R president. Time will tell. I look forward to your critique of Trump's failures in this regard when a bad thing happens in the world.

[cherrypoptart]

Has Obama even OFFERED them all the help they could possibly use? Fukushima is STILL spilling out radioactive contamination all these years later. That is a massive disaster. It's not Obama's fault it happened of course, but just like with Bush and Katrina, the failure of an effective response is telling. And we can't just say it's Japan's problem because really, it isn't just their problem. If Obama had put literally a trillion dollars worth of resources into solving the Fukushima pollution problem would it have been a lot less of a problem than what we have now? Because he's spent trillions of dollars and we pretty much have nothing to show for it. I bet we could have contained it years ago for less than fifty billion. Maybe instead of invading Libya with special forces we'd all be better off if he had invaded Japan with nuclear accident response teams and construction assistance to help them clean up that mess.

If terrorists had set off a dirty nuke in Japan or successfully attacked one of their nuclear plants, is this all we would do to protect them and ourselves from the radiation? We should have treated this much more seriously than we did. Does anyone really think that Obama did everything he possibly could have to help them? All of the billions we've wasted on Obamacare could have been spent much more constructively and would have done much more good for the health of Americans if they would have been spent cleaning up that nuclear site and minimizing the pollution from it. If Japan could have done it, then they just didn't. So what, we should shrug our shoulders and say, oh well? It needed to get done. It still needs to get done. People are freaking out about global warming and carbon emissions when the entire Pacific Ocean is getting irradiated and our food supply poisoned. That's just a ridiculous assignation of priorities.

Even the left admits Obama's failure here, perhaps not so much giving him the responsibility to help mitigate the disaster at the site in Japan, but certainly for downplaying the danger to Americans which is another failure on Obama's part and one over which he had complete control.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/09/24/how-obama-made-fukushima-worse/

[AI Wessex]

Cherry, you are beating a tiny drum,  but don't give up hope that every bad thing Trump does can be blamed on Obama. You could get lucky.

[noel c.]

Hello... it's been awhile.

I cannot spend much time here, but had to stop by to see how everyone was weathering the storm. Ornery should provide an excellent barometer of the Trump trauma, and I must admit... you all seem to be doing fine. In reading through most of the posts, I noticed something almost entirely missing from this thread that Cherry has lightly touched upon; the reaction of liberal "journalists" to a reality show that is now the United States Presidency.

During the primary season I was struck by the unified effort of news outlets to saddle the Republican Party with a nominee who voted for John Kerry in 2004, called Bush II a conspirator in 911, and accused "W" of orchestrating a WMD deception to facilitate the vendetta execution of Saddam. There is more, but you see the pattern?

The Democratic Party salivated at the prospect of a Trump candidacy, and candidly, he is probably the only one of the original seventeen Republican contenders that should have lost to Ms. Rodham. A worse nominee than Donald can hardly be imagined with a single exception; "Hillary". Ongoing congressional investigations into the Clinton email security breach, foundation scam, and Benghazi fiasco will in my opinion ultimately lead to criminal charges, and conviction of more than just the Clintons. It is all part of the national disgust surrounding self-styled D.C. elites who have made an art of feeding at the public trough.

I have two questions directed to any Democratic Party loyalists willing to answer:

- Is it a mistake for contemporary professional journalists to play the game of kingmaker?

- I understand how conservatives ended up with Donald, but how/why did liberals end up with Hillary?


 

Cherry, you are beating a tiny drum,  but don't give up hope that every bad thing Trump does can be blamed on Obama. You could get lucky.

Al, if Donald follows Barry's template he has at least four years before he must take responsibility for anything that goes bad during his tenure. Wasn't it WJC who said Obama needed to start acting like he was responsible for the result of his policies, including the "craziest thing he had ever seen... Obamacare."

http://freebeacon.com/politics/bill-clinton-takes-shot-obama-economy/

[D.W.]

- Is it a mistake for contemporary professional journalists to play the game of kingmaker?

Absolutely.  I firmly believe their neglect in covering Sanders early on despite the support he was gathering cost him the nomination.  People go on and on about how he lost the vote.  My opinion is people didn't realize he had enough support to be a credible alternative.  The narrative that Hillary WAS the nominee was just taken for granted.  All Sanders was seen as was a gauge on the party for how far left the platform had to go... under Hillary.

That, in turn, (again IMO) cost the Democratic party the election.


- I understand how conservatives ended up with Donald, but how/why did liberals end up with Hillary?

She has been laying the groundwork for this building up the campaign machine and making the connections needed for years.  The feeling one gets is that the establishment felt they owed her the nomination.  It was "her turn".  I also feel that she believed this as well.  The whole thing to me, reeked of entitlement and quid pro quo.  That said, her politics don't bother me much.  We could do a lot worse... But that's how we got here.

Well that and the party wanted to be seen as not only the party to elect the first black president but the first woman as well.  They wanted to PROVE that our party is the champion to take down racism and sexism.  We got a bit wrapped up into that even if she herself seemed to be conscious of this pit trap and tried to cautiously avoid bashing people over the head with it.

An old white man, who votes his principles rather than voting with the party, which he wasn't even a part of (even if ideologically he followed their talking points)...  well he never had a chance.  Accept he almost did... despite every possible maneuver the party and their media associates could do to maintain control.

[AI Wessex]

Al, if Donald follows Barry's template he has at least four years before he must take responsibility for anything that goes bad during his tenure. Wasn't it WJC who said Obama needed to start acting like he was responsible for the result of his policies, including the "craziest thing he had ever seen... Obamacare."

http://freebeacon.com/politics/bill-clinton-takes-shot-obama-economy/

Welcome back, Noel.  As ever, nothing would give me more pleasure than responding to your typically deprecatory comments drawn from your vast store of misleading information, so I will say nothing.

[Wayward Son]

I still question how professional journalists played "kingmaker" in this election by reporting on Trump.

From the start, everything I saw reported about Trump made him a less desirable candidate, even worse than the other candidates (in spite of the vigorous contest to the bottom ).

So while "all publicity is good publicity" still holds true somewhat, I can't imagine any scenario where professional journalists decided that the best way to get Trump to win was to publish and talk about every gaff, stupidity, lie and hypocrisy he said. 

If you try to make a candidate look bad, how is that supposed to make him win?

 

[Fenring]

I still question how professional journalists played "kingmaker" in this election by reporting on Trump.

From the start, everything I saw reported about Trump made him a less desirable candidate, even worse than the other candidates (in spite of the vigorous contest to the bottom ).

I think you misunderstood the comment. The kingmaking was done by way of sidelining Bernie and giving the nomination to Hillary, which in turn handed Trump the victory.

[yossarian22c]

You're right, the media was so in the bag for Clinton that her email server was a top story in the news for over a year, despite being very similar to what every SoS had ever done (maintain a private email in addition to their .gov email).  The "media" was so in the bag for Clinton they just couldn't help but cover non-stop the technical minutia of classification law and which side of the rules/law line Clinton's server fell on.

The only real flaw in the media coverage is that they were too slow (as I think DW pointed out) to recognize that Bernie actually had a chance of beating her.  I don't really attribute that to anything nefarious on their part, just confirmation bias and laziness in digging into the details of the campaign.  Clinton also did a masterful job of putting off and scheduling debates at times when they were likely to have the least impact.  She didn't want to give Bernie the free air time, and he wasn't crazy enough for the media to broadcast every single rally live.

[Fenring]

yossarian, you only need to look at leaked emails outlining how news networks were running copy by the DNC for content to realize it's not some weird conspiracy theory. Of course they ran the story about the emails, they are also running a business and if they don't run huge stories they'll be overrun by their competitors. That fact is completely incidental to whether they colluded with the DNC or not.

[Gaoics79]

If you try to make a candidate look bad, how is that supposed to make him win?

Well they were the ones who gave Trump his megaphone. Yes, they thought they were making him look bad because they were showcasing his "gaffes". What they didn't realize until it was too late was that a substantial portion of the American electorate a) Didn't care about the gaffes; b) Was hearing something else in what Trump was saying that media types were deaf to (basically a dog whistle); and 3) Their increasingly negative and hostile coverage was in of itself fuel for Trump's supporters.

I think alot of people are going to conclude (and have concluded) rightly that the media did play kingmaker in this election, directly, by energizing Trump's campaign with billions of dollars of free advertising.

[TheDeamon]

If you try to make a candidate look bad, how is that supposed to make him win?

Well they were the ones who gave Trump his megaphone. Yes, they thought they were making him look bad because they were showcasing his "gaffes". What they didn't realize until it was too late was that a substantial portion of the American electorate a) Didn't care about the gaffes; b) Was hearing something else in what Trump was saying that media types were deaf to (basically a dog whistle); and 3) Their increasingly negative and hostile coverage was in of itself fuel for Trump's supporters.

I think alot of people are going to conclude (and have concluded) rightly that the media did play kingmaker in this election, directly, by energizing Trump's campaign with billions of dollars of free advertising.

Pretty much exactly, during the Primaries, I know a lot of the popular draw for Trump was that the Media was perceived as hating him. For most of those people, that probably carried Trump through the general election. I don't know so much that the gaffes were "dog whistles" so much as they were demonstrations of his being human, that he had flaws and was unafraid to show them. Much like America itself, yeah, we're not perfect, never have been, but we as a nation, have accomplished amazing things that we have every right to be proud of. We also have more than a few things to be ashamed of, but it is part of our heritage all the same.

In many respects, I think Glenn Beck was more eerily prescient than he wants to think about, as I think he hasn't (yet) recalled his comments about "the next American President" after Obama's win(during his run on Fox News as I recall).

He compared two skyscrapers in NYC, IIRC. One if them was a sleek ultra-modern  building with a nearly flawless mirrored glass facade(which he compared to Obama). The other skyscraper was more of a checkerboard patchwork of many different styles and types of windows. It had it's own kind of unique appeal, but it wasn't your typical expectation for a building. That was the one he pointed to and said "the next President will be a lot like that building."

[noel c.]

Jason is right.

Hillary's "deplorables" put a big finger in the eyes of the media who shared essentially the same public trust rating that she did.

News outlets knew exactly what they were doing, because polls are the bread and butter of political maneuver in a modern campaign... the media just outsmarted itself by half.

[AI Wessex]

I'm amused by the emerging narrative from people on the far right that the media was on Hillary's side (lie #1) and that "real Americans" were too smart to be fooled into believing that Trump was dishonest (lie #2).  Therefore, they voted for the only honest candidate (lie #3) and will take American back from those fascist-communist-socialist deceivers (false hope #1) and return it to the people (false hope #2) who will make America great again (false hope #3) under a President who will bring good wages, jobs and prosperity back to the blue collar workers (false hope #4) who actually never had any such thing (true statement #1). 

More likely the federal government will become more like the seemingly effortless reality TV spectacle that they ultimately believed in than the complicated and messy process that it actually is.  Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, EPA, Energy, Education will all become things seen receding in the rear view mirror of their lives.  Believe in whatever phony facts you want, but those are things you will feel directly.  Then say, "I'm glad I voted for him."

[D.W.]

I'd have to dispute lie #1.  First in the primaries, she was the favorite.  As much as they acknowledged Sanders was even competing.  In the general they were only "out to get her" in so far as to keep things interesting.  A blow out is hard to keep people interested in.  So... email, email, email.  It's not like they relented for a second about what Trump was saying or what "his party" was saying about him.  Or who tried to distance themselves from him every time he opened his mouth. 

Did "the media" hurt Hillary?  In as much as she allowed them to by avoiding them... ya.  But only because they feared being boring news because everyone knew who the next president would be. 

Was that enough to tip things against her?  Seems likely now.  I don't think that was the expectation by any of them at the point.  It's more of an, "Oh *(^%$!  Did we do that?", than an evil/partisan plot against her.

[cherrypoptart]

> D.W.

>  It's more of an, "Oh *(^%$!  Did we do that?"

The media on getting Trump elected:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ya2xifdO_l0

[rightleft22]

Well they (media) were the ones who gave Trump his megaphone. Yes, they thought they were making him look bad because they were showcasing his "gaffes"

Of course the media reported Trumps “gaffes” it’s good TV, it was and is good business. The media give the people what they want even if, maybe especially if it upsets them... We couldn’t and can’t take our eyes off the car crashing into the wall which is why we will hit that wall.   

News outlets knew exactly what they were doing

Only I think in as much with respect to ratings, other than that I very much doubt they understood what was happening.

It is true that most media (social and ‘business’) assumed people would reason past the absurd and rise above the rhetoric of fear, hyperbole and shaming. 
This assumption seems reasonable to me. We want to believe we as a people have evolved to be reasonable, good, strong and not so easily fooled by the smoke and mirrors.
And it’s understandable that the “media” failed to realize the movement wasn’t/isn’t about reason… and or wasn’t able to get ‘the people’ to understand.

Enough with this blaming media!

In today electronic web of connection and sudo information, WE ARE the Media.
We watch it, we create and participate in it. We fail to discern the difference between News, editorial and opinion and to often allow opinion to become the news we react to.

Men like Trump know how easily OUR failure of discernment can be manipulated. 

[LoverOfJoy]

I get my news through the internet so my perception may be skewed but my impression is that it's more than just the media giving Trump a megaphone. It's also that there was such reduced coverage for all the rest of his opponents and when they DID cover his opponents, it seemed they were always asking for a response to something Trump said. It seemed pretty clear that many candidates wanted to get their message out but the media always shifted toward what asking the candidate what they felt about Trump's antics. Many candidates tried to quickly answer and get back to their message but so many interviewers that I watched wouldn't let it drop and kept bringing it back to Trump. Eventually, some of the candidates tried to mirror Trump and say outrageous things about him...but while that might get a blip in the news, it never really helped them as it always came across as reactionary.

The media quickly chose to give certain candidates a near media blackout and others an emphasis on their response to Trump's statements.

[AI Wessex]

Did "the media" hurt Hillary?  In as much as she allowed them to by avoiding them... ya.  But only because they feared being boring news because everyone knew who the next president would be.

Another reason that the media was NOT favoring her is that she presented something like 200 different detailed policy positions on her web site and in speeches, but I can't recall a single one of them being reported in any depth by any online media.  The media made it a fashion and beauty contest, which she couldn't win against even a 72 year old rival in her own party and an airbrushed orange colored opponent in the other party.

The media was slow to pick up on Sanders for reasons we've discussed many times, but the narrative that the media was somehow in her corner doesn't stand up to scrutiny.  That they were complacent about her even they now admit.

[Fenring]

The media was slow to pick up on Sanders for reasons we've discussed many times, but the narrative that the media was somehow in her corner doesn't stand up to scrutiny.  That they were complacent about her even they now admit.

It's been pretty much proven that the DNC was trying to make Sanders lose, and that certain media sources were colluding with the DNC. It can perhaps be asserted that we don't know how much they were colluding, because of course it's all a matter of total actions taken. Did they do a few things here and there to help Hillary, or was it more systematic? That much we can only speculate about based on indirect evidence, but that they were helping her - no, it's not really controversial as I see it.

Typically when one suggests collusion behind the scenes such insinuations are branded as "conspiracy theories", but in this case it seems to me that denying the collusion is the tinfoil hat position, where you'd have to assert that all the evidence from leaked emails must somehow be a conspiracy to make it look like there was collusion.

[rightleft22]

The media quickly chose to give certain candidates a near media blackout and others an emphasis on their response to Trump's statements.

If the word “chose” implies conscious intent and I think that that is arguable.

Trumps rhetoric was is polarizing and as such got attention. The failure of the other candidates to push past that rhetoric says more about our society and the impact of the “information age” then it does about media. 

I started a thread about truthful hyperbole because I noticed how debate after debate the candidates failed to push past it. Like the many media pundits the candidates perhaps felt that reasonable people would see pass the hyperbole for like it was and when they didn’t, didn’t know what to do.
Like the pundits the candidates failed to realize this happening was a backlash against reason. Reason becoming a tool of elites.

The media made it a fashion and beauty contest

WE made it a fashion and beauty contest

[Gaoics79]

I'm amused by the emerging narrative from people on the far right that the media was on Hillary's side (lie #1)

I don't so much as consider it a "narrative" as undisputable fact. This is particularly true if we're talking about the contest between Clinton and Trump.

and that "real Americans" were too smart to be fooled into believing that Trump was dishonest (lie #2). 

No idea what this even means.

Therefore, they voted for the only honest candidate (lie #3)

This is a bit of a mischaracterization. I don't actually think that most people saw Trump as more "honest" per say. A better word would be "authentic".

and will take American back from those fascist-communist-socialist deceivers (false hope #1) and return it to the people (false hope #2) who will make America great again (false hope #3) under a President who will bring good wages, jobs and prosperity back to the blue collar workers (false hope #4) who actually never had any such thing (true statement #1). 

Agreed mostly on all that with the caveat being that sometimes a false hope or shall we say, a foolish hope, holds more appeal than 0.0 or nearly 0.0 hope, which is basically what Clinton was selling. In my experience, if you promise someone the faint possibility of a big payoff (like say with a lottery ticket for a $1,000,000 draw) you are going to create alot more enthusiasm and excitement than promising a moderate chance of a modest payoff (like say $50). Even if the $50 payoff is much more likely to occur and the $1,000,000 is just a pipe dream - no politician ever did badly to aim high.

By the way regarding your last statement, you're saying blue collar workers never had good jobs or prosperity?

[Wayward Son]

There is one other factor we should consider before blaming the media for Donald Trump.

On Feb. 1, Donald Trump came in second in the Iowa primary.  Only 3 candidates got double-digit support.

On Feb. 9, he was first in New Hampshire, among 5 candidates with double-digit support.

On Feb. 20, he was first in South Carolina, among three with double-digit support.

On Feb. 23, he was first, among three with double-digit support.

Then on Super Tuesday, he was in the top three, too.

From the start, Donald Trump was one of the major contenders for the Republican nomination.

So ask yourself, what would be your conclusion if the media did not report on what Donald Trump, one of the main contenders, was saying?

The media was obliged to give Donald Trump air time.  I won't argue whether they went overboard or not--he did say outrageous, and thus entertaining, things, which helped ratings--but they had to.  It would have been irresponsible for them not to.

It was the voters--first the Republican voters, in the primaries, then the voters in the general election--who bought what he said.  And they bear full responsibility.

And thank you, jasonr and TheDaemon, for agreeing that it was not "the media's" intention of getting Trump elected as the Republican nominee.  While the media may be a kingmaker, in that without the media's reporting, no one can gain the support they need.  But that doesn't mean that the person "the media" wants elected gets elected.

As Fox likes to say, they report, we decide.  And the decision lies solely on us.

[Fenring]

There is one other factor we should consider before blaming the media for Donald Trump.

I personally don't blame them for it at all. They were just doing their bidding.

And thank you, jasonr and TheDaemon, for agreeing that it was not "the media's" intention of getting Trump elected as the Republican nominee.  While the media may be a kingmaker, in that without the media's reporting, no one can gain the support they need.  But that doesn't mean that the person "the media" wants elected gets elected.

I think the media may well have been attempting to help sabotage some of the other candidates, more so than outright trying to help Trump win. I think that initially there was a big target painted on Jeb's forehead and various parties went all-in on him. After that if may have been Carsen and Fiorina. It was a hit job, rather than a puff job for Trump. He just happened to come out of it as the last man standing since he was a useful wrecking ball for the media to use to knock down opponents that seemed like potential threats. The DNC leaks showed they thought Rubio might be a legit threat, but I wasn't seeing him targeted as much until later on in the primary season.

This is still them playing kingmaker, but just not specifically with the agenda to make Trump the king.

[rightleft22]

I think the media may well have been attempting to help sabotage some of the other candidates, more so than outright trying to help Trump win

When you use the word like ‘the media’ is it global as in all forms of media conspired to sabotage ...
What about social media?

Who is this media?

[Fenring]

What about social media?

Who is this media?

Yes, why don't you go find out who this media is, it's a good idea. Private companies are owned by someone, and run by someone, and answer to someone. They don't just privately each do their own thing any more than the big banks do, and that analogy can be extended quite a bit since there are many similarities. Even Facebook is owned by someone.

[rightleft22]

Media is business and one outlet may have different intentions then another and discerning those intentions is the responsibility of the consumer.

When I hear people making blank statements of ‘the media’ conspiring to do this or that I can’t help but wonder they are trying to duck responsibly. 

[Fenring]

Conspiracy also doesn't have to involve any intent to conspire. If I'm a powerful man, and I privately contact three different news stations and tell them how I want them to dress a topic, and they do it, there is a coordinated effort there which could be called a conspiracy even though the media networks themselves are not intending to conspire. They're just doing what they're individually told to do, but the net effect is a "they" that are pushing a similar narrative.

[noel c.]

WS,

Do you believe the "media" had any preference regarding the outcome of the Republican primary?

[AI Wessex]

By the way regarding your last statement, you're saying blue collar workers never had good jobs or prosperity?

With the unions from the end of WWII until the late 70's, yes.  Otherwise, not so much and certainly not before WWII.

I think the media may well have been attempting to help sabotage some of the other candidates, more so than outright trying to help Trump win

When you use the word like ‘the media’ is it global as in all forms of media conspired to sabotage ...
What about social media?

Who is this media?

The right wing media certainly gave Donald every bit of fawning attention it could, but I will admit that so-called reputable right wing media tried to reject him, but Trump ran over them. 

It goes without saying, which means I have to say it, the people who voted for Trump wanted him and they got him.  So did we.

Do you believe the "media" had any preference regarding the outcome of the Republican primary?

Yes.

[noel c.]

Al,

I would still like WS to respond, but since you are engaging me; Who do you think the aggregate news establishment wanted to win the Republican primary, and why?

[Greg Davidson]

Negative news coverage of Hillary's emails outweighed all of the coverage of actual adverse actions and actual crimes which Donald Trump actually (see, where actually paid fines) and likely committed (first trial starts November 28th). And of course we will never hear anything about those emails again, because despite being the biggest adverse story about Clinton for over a year, there never was a real issue there. It's just another round of the Ground Zero Mosque, something big right before the election and then never heard from again.

And for all the concerns about potential corruption in the Clinton Foundation, there's going to be far less concern on the right for the actual corruption that is unavoidable with Trump as President while his children run his business. I care less about this - if the only bad thing that happens from the Trump Administration is that he enables his family to siphon off a few billion dollars trading on his name, I'd call that the good scenario

[Fenring]

That's the thing, Greg. The email issue wasn't negative news coverage, it was just plain old news coverage whose effects harmed her. I make this distinction between some 'news' segments are designed to smear candidates, while others are merely picking up a hot story that all networks are going to carry. I very much doubt you'll be able to find me many CNN clips where the talking heads insinuated that the email thing made Hillary look guilty. On FOX News, sure. There is obviously a shady line separating running hot news stories with running stories that are there to be negative press. When the major networks reported on Trump during the early primary season they were out to make him look bad, but they failed spectacularly apparently. They weren't just covering big stories, they were creating big stories, sometimes out of nothing, to show off how outrageous he was. At the end of the day it probably did get them viewers, but it wasn't a current event in the world that the public had a 'right' to know. It was a smear job gone wrong. Similarly, I'm sure a lot of what FOX ran about Hillary was a smear job. But the email issue was such big news that it would have been almost unthinkable for everyone not to run with it. And yes, whether or not she was guilty, it was a major story.

So when discussing who got what benefits from MSM networks, tell me: how many puff pieces about Bernie did you ever see on MSNBC or CNN? How many dismissive statements about Hillary? Few, and fewer? Even the editorializing of "Bernie has no chance" was a smear job, as that kind of claim was being made far before they could have legitimate numbers to back it up. It was a con to make people believe he had no chance, so that they could avoid 'wasting their vote' by going over to Hillary.

The press was playing kingmaker from the get-go on both sides of the fence, and, anticipating where noel is going with his question to AI, I do think it was happening in regards to the GOP candidates as well.

[AI Wessex]

Al,

I would still like WS to respond, but since you are engaging me; Who do you think the aggregate news establishment wanted to win the Republican primary, and why?

I don't think they pick winners; they go for eyeballs.  They would have been fine if Trump had not won the nomination, as long as they got good ratings.  That doesn't apply to FOX, which clearly wants a Republican to win and liked Trump because he would liven up their puny reportage.  They had an uneasy time adjusting to him, but that they gave him $$billions in free air time says it all.

[noel c.]

Al,

Possibly I misunderstood you. Are you saying that, collectively, American journalism had no preference on the outcome of the Republican primary... that as a group they are apolitical except when marginalizing an committed socialist in favor of a faux-socialist allied with Wallstreet?

I noticed in school that certain majors attracted a predictable social-change mindset in disproportion to the student body norm. These included law, education, and journalism. Does that comport with your experience?

[AI Wessex]

As I've said, nothing would give me more pleasure...