4 ms·

As a non-Trump supporter who's frightened that a loose cannon like him can have his finger on the big red nuclear button, I'm disappointed but not surprised tha

by jasode 10y ago

As a non-Trump supporter who's frightened that a loose cannon like him can have his finger on the big red nuclear button, I'm disappointed but not surprised that the mainstream media was smug. Here's an example MSNBC video clip showing what the article is talking about: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zL-ip6GH4c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zL-ip6GH4c At the 23 second mark in the video, you can see Brian Williams' body language struggling to contain his condescension for Mark Halperin's interpretation of the poll statistics that could point to a Trump victory. Mark wasn't saying Trump will win or even has a good chance of winning. Mark was just saying there's a possible path to winning. Even discussing what's mathematically possible with plenty of hedging, disclaimers, caveats, and uncertainty -- is ridiculed by the mainstream press. Everyone who thinks like Brian was caught up in the same delusion. If they dismiss one of their own professional peers with a minority perspective, it shouldn't be a surprise they treat rural Americans with condescension. (It turned out that Mark was correct in that Trump's late surge would affect the battleground states and that Clinton would misjudge the continued support of previous Obama voters.) Looking back, a journalist could have assessed Mark's interpretation of the data in 2 ways: #1) the poll data is a priori correct (there is no hidden Trump vote missed by pollsters) and therefore Mark sees something in the data because he's sympathetic to Trump #2) Mark is open to the possibility of Trump winning and therefore can see something in the poll data and make (hedged) conclusions about it that all Trump opponents are blind to It may seem like positions #1 and #2 are just rearranging the words but they are stating opposite cause & effect. They have profound differences in reality. Brian and the rest of msm interpreted any favorable Trump conclusions about the data as situation #1. It's the same situation with taking Trump's chances seriously when he's characterized as "a clown" or "he insults women": #1) Trump can't win because he insults women. #2) Trump can win regardless of whether he insults women. The mainstream media and elites focused on #1. The election results proved the actual voters standing in line to choose Trump saw the reality as #2.

cmdrfred 10y ago
I think against Elizabeth Warren for example the anti-women sentiment would of had a greater effect on the outcome. Hillary Clinton's comments about Monica Lewinsky while first lady and her defence of Bill's actions makes this a bit of a pot kettle black situation. Somebody like Bernie can take the moral high ground on sexism and racism in a way that Hillary's record prevents her from doing so.
- pawn 10y ago
  Hillary getting a child rapist out of serving a very long sentence in prison was a big one, in my own opinion. The fact that she had a taped interview where she laughed it off as no big deal and said she did it 'as a favor' made it indefensible to anyone except an apologist.
- jasode 10y ago
  >I think against Elizabeth Warren for example the anti-women sentiment would of had a greater effect on the outcome. Sounds plausible but it's very hard to tell with a black swan candidate like Donald Trump. So many msm articles about Trump insulting blacks[1] and yet, he got more of the black vote than Romney in 2012[2]. It's another glaring example of the disconnect between what narrative the msm feeds us and what actually happened at the voting booths. [1]https://www.google.com/search?q=trump+insults+blacks https://www.google.com/search?q=trump+insults+blacks [2]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/11/11/trump-got-more-votes-from-people-of-color-than-romney-did-heres-the-data/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/11/1...
  - jessaustin 10y ago
    ISTM black Americans are used to (I'm not saying "happy about") being insulted. They meet lots of admitted racists, but also lots of insincere infantilizing jackasses. Obama was neither of those things. The candidates this time around? One of each. Occasionally, one might prefer a different sort of insult...
dingaling 10y ago
> who's frightened that a loose cannon like him can have his finger on the big red nuclear button I grew up during the Cold War and in Europe we were gobsmacked and terrified when a loudmouthed former actor was voted in as President on a ticket of opposing the SALT II agreement. Indeed he started funding SDI and emplaced GLCM and Pershing II in Europe and it looked like the US nuclear policy was heading towards survivable-first-strike. Survivable for the USA, that is. But he went on to sign the INF Treaty and very nearly signed START II ( he would have done so if his advisers hadn't derailed him at the Moscow Summit ). He stood on the steps of the Kremlin and recanted his former accusations of 'evil empire' and he pulled us back from the nuclear brink. You just never can predict...
lagadu 10y ago
As a non-American, I completely agree. One of the things I found to be most egregious was how some people used "The KKK endorses Trump" as an argument as to why you shouldn't vote for him. If people only voted based on an organization's endorsement then that organization would have complete control over the election. They just couldn't comprehend that people could or would vote despite the KKK's endorsement. And reading a lot of opinion articles on a few bigger media outlets (hi NYtimes!): instead of realizing that something may be flawed with their perception, you see them doubling down; saying that people are so racist/sexist/homophobic/<insert insult here> that they actually voted because of that. A massive election figuratively slapping them straight in the face wasn't enough to make so many people think about what they might be doing wrong. Obviously some did, like the linked article but it seems to be such a minority. It's uncanny.

by jasode 10y ago

cmdrfred 10y ago

I think against Elizabeth Warren for example the anti-women sentiment would of had a greater effect on the outcome. Hillary Clinton's comments about Monica Lewinsky while first lady and her defence of Bill's actions makes this a bit of a pot kettle black situation. Somebody like Bernie can take the moral high ground on sexism and racism in a way that Hillary's record prevents her from doing so.

pawn 10y ago
Hillary getting a child rapist out of serving a very long sentence in prison was a big one, in my own opinion. The fact that she had a taped interview where she laughed it off as no big deal and said she did it 'as a favor' made it indefensible to anyone except an apologist.
jasode 10y ago
>I think against Elizabeth Warren for example the anti-women sentiment would of had a greater effect on the outcome. Sounds plausible but it's very hard to tell with a black swan candidate like Donald Trump. So many msm articles about Trump insulting blacks[1] and yet, he got more of the black vote than Romney in 2012[2]. It's another glaring example of the disconnect between what narrative the msm feeds us and what actually happened at the voting booths. [1]https://www.google.com/search?q=trump+insults+blacks https://www.google.com/search?q=trump+insults+blacks [2]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/11/11/trump-got-more-votes-from-people-of-color-than-romney-did-heres-the-data/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/11/1...
- jessaustin 10y ago
  ISTM black Americans are used to (I'm not saying "happy about") being insulted. They meet lots of admitted racists, but also lots of insincere infantilizing jackasses. Obama was neither of those things. The candidates this time around? One of each. Occasionally, one might prefer a different sort of insult...

dingaling 10y ago

> who's frightened that a loose cannon like him can have his finger on the big red nuclear button I grew up during the Cold War and in Europe we were gobsmacked and terrified when a loudmouthed former actor was voted in as President on a ticket of opposing the SALT II agreement. Indeed he started funding SDI and emplaced GLCM and Pershing II in Europe and it looked like the US nuclear policy was heading towards survivable-first-strike. Survivable for the USA, that is. But he went on to sign the INF Treaty and very nearly signed START II ( he would have done so if his advisers hadn't derailed him at the Moscow Summit ). He stood on the steps of the Kremlin and recanted his former accusations of 'evil empire' and he pulled us back from the nuclear brink. You just never can predict...

lagadu 10y ago

As a non-American, I completely agree. One of the things I found to be most egregious was how some people used "The KKK endorses Trump" as an argument as to why you shouldn't vote for him. If people only voted based on an organization's endorsement then that organization would have complete control over the election. They just couldn't comprehend that people could or would vote despite the KKK's endorsement. And reading a lot of opinion articles on a few bigger media outlets (hi NYtimes!): instead of realizing that something may be flawed with their perception, you see them doubling down; saying that people are so racist/sexist/homophobic/<insert insult here> that they actually voted because of that. A massive election figuratively slapping them straight in the face wasn't enough to make so many people think about what they might be doing wrong. Obviously some did, like the linked article but it seems to be such a minority. It's uncanny.