US Politics Thread

[britbox]

You're really missing the point on an unholy scale. Trump obviously has zero political parallels with Corbyn... but what both have in common is that they are totally off the spectrum to the status quo of politics. People are rejecting the status quo... it doesn't matter whether it's right or left... the populace is fed up with mealy-mouthed career politicians. You can keep clutching at excuses like media representation, Russian interference... but you are really missing the mood.

 

[britbox]

Clinton actually experienced a level of bias I don't think I've ever seen in politics before

She was the preferred candidate by all the major networks other than Fox. Keep kidding yourself fella....

 

[Federberg]

Nope. You're taking the easy route and rather simplistically rationalising everything that happened to one factor. Yes change was important, but it was not the only thing that happened in 2016. If you don't see that then that's a pity

 

[Federberg]

She was the preferred candidate by all the major networks other than Fox. Keep kidding yourself fella....

You're missing the point. She was the expected winner. And Trump's non-conventional actions reinforced that. It resulted in both the media and Comey making calculations that led to her loss. The very fact you use the adjective "preferred" instead of expected winner shows how confused your understanding is

 

[britbox]

You're missing the point. She was the expected winner. And Trump's non-conventional actions reinforced that. It resulted in both the media and Comey making calculations that led to her loss. The very fact you use the adjective "preferred" instead of expected winner shows how confused your understanding is

She was the expected winner also. Most of the networks were predicting a landslide victory.

 

[Federberg]

She was the expected winner also. Most of the networks were predicting a landslide victory.

There's a vast difference between expected winner and preferred candidate.

 

[britbox]

There's a vast difference between expected winner and preferred candidate.

She was both... so it's null and void.

 

[Federberg]

She was both... so it's null and void.

No she wasn't mate. That's just in your head. What we had was a candidate who broke all norms. That doesn't confer on the other favouritism from the press, no mater how much you imagine it. What it did do was create a situation where assumptions and actions were taken that prejudiced Clinton's chances. The press did it, and convinced potential voters of the inevitability of her victory, and in the end Comey made the same calculation and ended up being the straw that broke the back of her campaign

 

[britbox]

Sorry, you're dreaming... she was the expected winner and she was also the preferred candidate by the majority of the mainstream networks.

If you disagree... then tell me which networks predicted Trump would win... and which networks supported Trump winning. Let's cut straight to the hard facts rather than hysterical personal persuasions.

ABC... who did they think would win?
CBS.... ditto
NBC...
CNN...
Bloomberg...

Give me a valid response buddy, backed up by some reasonable facts rather than personal prejudice.

 

[Federberg]

I can tell you quite easily that all of those networks expected Clinton to win. I repeat expecting a candidate to win doesn't mean you prefer them. They made an assessment based on how each candidate was campaigning and flawed polling. I think I've said this several times already. But I repeat that doesn't imply preference. That's just your imaginings mate. Nothing I can do about that, that's entirely your deal

 

[britbox]

OK, I'll humour you for a second... out of ABC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN and Bloomberg... name one that furthered Donald Trump as their favoured candidate,

 

[Federberg]

Lol! You make it seem like it’s the responsibility of the networks to promote a specific candidate. I don’t know what you were watching mate but all these guys were pontificating about who they thought was winning. Not who they wanted to win. Seems like you missed it all

 

[britbox]

Lol! You make it seem like it’s the responsibility of the networks to promote a specific candidate. I don’t know what you were watching mate but all these guys were pontificating about who they thought was winning. Not who they wanted to win. Seems like you missed it all

Actually, quite the reverse... but we all know the networks I mentioned were supporting Clinton. Are you seriously trying to tell me that networks like MSNBC didn't want Clinton to win? You'll be telling me the Daily Mirror are neutral next!!

 

[britbox]

Here is a sample of the embarrassing electoral coverage provided by MSBNC... largely provided by Rachel Maddow, who you called an investigative journalist once upon a time (I'm guessing you'd been out on the town having a few drinks)...



Trump, the preferred candidate? I'd suggest No.

 

[Federberg]

Actually, quite the reverse... but we all know the networks I mentioned were supporting Clinton. Are you seriously trying to tell me that networks like MSNBC didn't want Clinton to win? You'll be telling me the Daily Mirror are neutral next!!

Lol! The networks weren't campaigning for the candidates mate. I repeat that's your imagination. There were of course pundits on all the networks that effectively acted as surrogates for both candidates. Advocacy doesn't really work that way, at least not effectively. Otherwise they would have been softballing Clinton with policy questions and avoiding email controversies. In fact quite the opposite happened. Even on the most liberal of networks. You've clearly drunk the Trump persecution koolaid. That don't make it true

 

[britbox]

Lol! The networks weren't campaigning for the candidates mate. I repeat that's your imagination. There were of course pundits on all the networks that effectively acted as surrogates for both candidates. Advocacy doesn't really work that way, at least not effectively. Otherwise they would have been softballing Clinton with policy questions and avoiding email controversies. In fact quite the opposite happened. Even on the most liberal of networks. You've clearly drunk the Trump persecution koolaid. That don't make it true

OK, you lost me with that post. If you can't tell the political bias between CNN/MSNBC and the likes of Fox then it's really not worth discussing further.

Anyway, this weekend is about Champions League Football... so over and out for a couple of days, on this thread.

 

[Federberg]

Here is a sample of the embarrassing electoral coverage provided by MSBNC... largely provided by Rachel Maddow, who you called an investigative journalist once upon a time (I'm guessing you'd been out on the town having a few drinks)...



Trump, the preferred candidate? I'd suggest No.

I've never been particularly impressed with video clips as evidence of general observation. It's just not statistically relevant. I don't think anyone is under any illusion about what Maddow's politics are. I seem to recall she came up in a comparison with Hannity, and I argued that she put together pretty good investigative pieces, whereas Hannity was a liar. I stand by that. The different between the two is that one actually looks at the facts. Where Maddow would simply not report on an issue if the facts don't support her view point, Hannity would flat out like. There's a difference

 

[Federberg]

OK, you lost me with that post. If you can't tell the political bias between CNN/MSNBC and the likes of Fox then it's really not worth discussing further.

Anyway, this weekend is about Champions League Football... so over and out for a couple of days, on this thread.

Even Fox and MSNBC employ surrogates who work for the other side. You have constructed an imaginary narrative that fits the argument you want to sell. That's ok, but pick your market, I'm not buying

 

[britbox]

Even Fox and MSNBC employ surrogates who work for the other side. You have constructed an imaginary narrative that fits the argument you want to sell. That's ok, but pick your market, I'm not buying

Lol, you think the Conservative and Liberal biases of Fox and MSNBC are imaginary?... OK Fella, each to their own.

 

[Federberg]

Lol, you think the Conservative and Liberal biases of Fox and MSNBC are imaginary?... OK Fella, each to their own.

I didn't say that. You contend the networks were supporting her. You're talking about active advocacy which simply didn't happen. Yes some networks had a preponderance of pundits that could be identified as supporting one side or the other. But most of those guys, particularly the journalists, focussed on the task at hand, i.e., trying to enable the electorate to better understand the candidates. What went wrong however was that one candidate was so egregiously flawed that in order to avoid the appearance of bias networks focussed on the most glaring weakness of the other candidate. This magnified the importance of the whole email controversy quite beyond anything it should have been. This was actually illustrated perfectly with how Matt Lauer interviewed Clinton vs how he softballed Trump.

We only have to look at the current administration and the fact that more than one WH official is known to use personal email yet no one even bothers going on about it