This gave me an idea: I'd like to see a study about coverage of Trump from non-profit outlets like NPR or Democracy Now! If they were covering Trump the same way, and if they picked him up at a similar timeframe as the mainstream networks, then I would consider that evidence against my thesis that it's mainly the profit-motive driving the media to boost Trump they way they have done.
I listen to NPR and watch PBS extensively and the coverage is very different over traditional and cable news outlets. There's less of the obsessive coverage of every stupid thing he does and far more in-depth coverage of actual Trump-related news stories. PBS news in particular does what I'd call 'long-form' stories where they'll spend an entire 5-7 minutes on a subject and bring in expert guests to talk about a subject from both sides. The guests they bring on are also far less likely to be talking head sensationalist shills. It helps that their nightly news is a full hour and doesn't have commercials, of course but overall the quality is a step up from the other news outlets.
Something that just hit me... is that this wouldn't have been possible in a country that has State-driven, rather than profit-driven news media. So we would never be able to do to Russia, what Russia did to us, precisely because of Russia's State-run news media. I don't know what that means, I'm not advocating State-run news, but it was an interesting epiphany.
I also hope that by 2020 Hillary will finally be out of the limelight. She isn't doing anything useful except self promotion at this point. We need to move on from 2016 and step 1 is for her to go away.
I also hope that by 2020 Hillary will finally be out of the limelight. She isn't doing anything useful except self promotion at this point. We need to move on from 2016 and step 1 is for her to go away.
I don't know... @Lexicus and I have discussed/debated this subject in the past and I lean towards thinking that Hillary running again in 2020... and this is the key... losing... would have a dramatically favorable impact on whoever the Democratic nominee is. I think beating Hillary had a nonzero positive impact on Obama's candidacy for example, as it made him something of a dragonslayer/folk hero... as it has done with Trump. If Brenie had pulled it off I'm guessing he would have enjoyed similar status...
I listen to NPR and watch PBS extensively and the coverage is very different over traditional and cable news outlets. There's less of the obsessive coverage of every stupid thing he does and far more in-depth coverage of actual Trump-related news stories.
Sure, yes, but I'm talking about what the coverage was like at the very beginning of the Republican primary when Trump first showed up and the idea that he might win the primary (let alone the general) was considered ludicrous by most people.
I don't know... @Lexicus and I have discussed/debated this subject in the past and I lean towards thinking that Hillary running again in 2020... and this is the key... losing... would have a dramatically favorable impact on whoever the Democratic nominee is. I think beating Hillary had a nonzero positive impact on Obama's candidacy for example, as it made him something of a dragonslayer/folk hero... as it has done with Trump. If Brenie had pulled it off I'm guessing he would have enjoyed similar status...
Something that just hit me... is that this wouldn't have been possible in a country that has State-driven, rather than profit-driven news media. So we would never be able to do to Russia, what Russia did to us, precisely because of Russia's State-run news media. I don't know what that means, I'm not advocating State-run news, but it was an interesting epiphany.
We interfere with everyone's governments, which creates some undeniable ironic tension with all our hand-wringing over Russian interference with our election.
Sure, yes, but I'm talking about what the coverage was like at the very beginning of the Republican primary when Trump first showed up and the idea that he might win the primary (let alone the general) was considered ludicrous by most people.
We interfere with everyone's governments, which creates some undeniable ironic tension with all our hand-wringing over Russian interference with our election.
The thing is though, when Yeltsin took office he was genuinely popular. During the August Coup attempt it was Yeltsin who stood atop a tank in front of the Russian White House defying the Soviet hardliners. It was only after the Russian economy quite literally collapsed and Yeltsin drank himself to death did his popularity and competence tank. In 1996, Yeltsin was perfectly capable of bribing and rigging the election without any American help.
Usually Owen Jones is better than this, notably with regards to Operation Ajax and not a peep about our Definitely Not Assassinating Anyone policy in the Congo.
With The D(onald Tr)ump’s callous response to recent deaths in the military, he might lose his party’s support. The military is overwhelmingly Republican so Republican candidates are best not to attack them in any way.
With The D(onald Tr)ump’s callous response to recent deaths in the military, he might lose his party’s support. The military is overwhelmingly Republican so Republican candidates are best not to attack them in any way.
Even though he didn't lose GOP support when he insulted McCain for getting shot down over Hanoi or when he got into a fight with a Gold Star family?
Those were clear cut incidents where we had audio of it, as opposed to this slightly confusing kerfuffle where there is no audio (yet).
As @Gori the Grey@Timsup2nothin@Bootstoots and others have pointed out repeatedly... Trump will not lose his base as long as he is pissing off the hated liberals, regardless of anything else he does.
As @Gori the Grey@Timsup2nothin@Bootstoots and others have pointed out repeatedly... Trump will not lose his base as long as he is pissing off the hated liberals, regardless of anything else he does.
If we're throwing out names I'll throw in Cory Booker from New Jersey, He'd be a seasoned second term Senator in 2020 and looks to be very charismatic. Not sure if he is good at his job but haven't heard of any scandals involving him so maybe he's either honest and decent or at least smart enough not to have been caught.
He already has some scandals. I think he can be attacked for his homophobic record. The progressive camp/wing of the Democrats will surely oppose him, just like with Kamala. With a candidate like Cory Booker, you risk giving a second term away to Trump.
My favourite American politicians are Tulsi Gabbard (and i'm belgian, and i know her), Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. I hope one of those three will win.
Even though he didn't lose GOP support when he insulted McCain for getting shot down over Hanoi or when he got into a fight with a Gold Star family?
Those were clear cut incidents where we had audio of it, as opposed to this slightly confusing kerfuffle where there is no audio (yet).
His fight with the Khan family was Trump's nadir in terms of polling and approval ratings; he went lower then than even in the immediate aftermath of the Access Hollywood tape becoming public.
I don't think this will cause immediate abandonment of him or anything, but this really is a low he has stooped to that is new in terms of what he has done during his presidency, and it cuts very strongly across partisan lines. He's also now commander-in-chief and personally responsible for creating the new Gold Star families that he is now battling with and being unbelievably callous towards. And there is no easy path to rehabilitating his image with the boogeyman of his opponent - he owns these things, full stop, and his approval ratings do not seem to bounce back much once something like this drives them downwards.
It's all cumulative. There is a tipping point, and while it's probably still pretty far away, things like this bring him closer to it. And he seems utterly incapable of doing anything to right the ship and move away from said tipping point. At least, not without upsetting the apple cart again and ruining whatever modicum of goodwill he is able to obtain in fleeting moments of seeming competence (hurricane response in Texas and Florida, and surprisingly human-like remarks in the wake of Las Vegas).
As @Gori the Grey@Timsup2nothin@Bootstoots and others have pointed out repeatedly... Trump will not lose his base as long as he is pissing off the hated liberals, regardless of anything else he does.
Nah... just ignore him, as you have pointed out before.
At a minimum, stop all the apoplectic outrage over every stupid thing he says/does and resist the temptation to respond to what is obvious trolling on his part. Focus more instead on the damaging actions that the administration is taking/considering and focus fire on the Republicans in Congress.
So in overall terms... stop trying to prove that Trump is unfit for office. That has already been conclusively established. Continuing the "OMG look what stupidity Trump did/said today!!" cycle is just beating the proverbial .
Everyone knows he's unfit, even Republicans. So maybe now the narrative should shift to "What are you/we gonna do about it" with "Trump is unfit" as the concrete, unassailable, grass-is-green, underlying assumption.
For example... an interview of a Republican should go "So Senator, given that Trump is obviously unfit/irresponsible/deranged/misguided/clueless/lying etc., are you supporting his policy of X? When they try to challenge the notion that he's unfit, just cut them off and steamroll them as if they questioned whether water is wet.
The problem is that nobody is saying he's unfit. The media, oft-accused of harboring intense anti-Trump bias, as of yet are unwilling to report this painfully obvious truth as fact. Many outlets even appear to be unwilling to countenance it as a legitimate question. As long as they and Republicans not named Bob Corker aren't willing to state the obvious, which is that Trump is manifestly unfit for the presidency (in no small part because that would involve admitting Hillary Clinton was right all along and that they were wrong), there are few options. Questions about Trump's fitness for office just get laughed off by the likes of Paul Ryan. Mitch McConnell is still willing to stand next to Trump like Trump is actually executing the office. Until those things change, all you can really do is continue to try to highlight Trump's total lack of fitness in the hopes people will get it.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
cycle is just beating the proverbial 
.
