I would really like to see Trump’s attack on the media back fire. Any media outlet that he withdraws press credentials from should just stop covering Trump completely, just ignore him and pretend he doesn’t exist and only cover Clinton and the GOP down ticket races. Within a week one of Trump’s flunkies would be begging them to come back and start covering him again.
Well, I see it not as important as a conspiracy, but more as in: Trump knows how to pick them huh?
In other words, one shouldn’t blame malice when incompetency and stupidity will do. **And Trump is marinating on it. **
But this issue also hits on the double standard that I see coming from the right. As a writer in Clinton’s Reddit put it:
Yes, she’s been pounded by that right-wing crap year after year for decades …and people wonder why her unfavorable ratings are so high, it skunks up the public psyche. No wonder she’s so paranoid about her email, etc.
Salon has an article combining what other reporters have uncovered about Trums finacial ties to Russia.
The problem with Trump’s daily meltdown is that there have been and still are opportunities to attack Hillary and put her on the defensive. But he decided to ignore his advisers and make this campaign all about himself. In the primaries, people said “Don’t worry, we’ll teach him this campaign stuff.” They’ve tried to teach him. He’s unteachable. It’s not working. All signs point to a disastrous fall for the republican party.
And there is also new information about Paul Manafort’s ties to Russia through Ukraine’s pro-Russian ruling party.
Seriously, the Republicans are in danger of forever being branded the party of Putin. It will be interesting to see what happens in the next day or two in terms of news coverage because if this somehow becomes the narrative, I think we’ll finally see the republican party unofficially renounce their candidate. I say unofficially because there’s really nothing they can do officially at this point. I guess for Trump and the GOP it’s a good thing that most people are taking a break from politics to watch the games in Rio. The armed robbery of the US swimming team made more news than Trump yesterday, which is rare.
Trump withdrew press credentials from the Washington Post. But they have continued to follow his campaign. In depth. Yes, they’ll run a critical comment on Ms Clinton. But The Donald gets most of their attention.
No, they shouldn’t ignore him.
You have it completely backwards. Because they are denying access, the following happens:
- Relationships are not created between the campaign and the Press, leaving the campaign unable to spin.
- The Press, no longer having access to Trump, have no fear about releasing information that may cause them to “lose access”
- In addition, the campaign no longer gets the benefit of a doubt.
Naw, my advice is the opposite: cover him until he breaks.
Anti-evolution nonsense is largely harmless? It leads to a distrust of science and scientists in general, which can fuel things like climate change denial.
It also has an impact on the understanding of biology and lead to misunderstanding of things like the evolution of antibiotic resistance in infectious bacteria, and the CDC has estimated that there are more than 23,000 deaths a year due to antibiotic resistance.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/17/health/cdc-report-finds-23000-deaths-a-year-from-antibiotic-resistant-infections.html?_r=0
Evolution denial is anything but harmless.
He’s been a rich guy who never had to listen to anyone his entire life. At age 70, he is not going to develop a new personality. Cheetoface is a finished product. His skillset is fine for reality TV, Miss Universe pageants, and bankrupting casinos. His skillset his woefully lacking for the complexities of running an election campaign, dealing with the political system, understanding international relations, etc.
He’s like the Jon Hamm character on 30 Rock, except instead of the Handsome Bubble, he’s living in the Rich Bubble.
Agreed. Ignorance is almost never “harmless”.
As someone wisely (and pithily) posted upthread:
If this election is about Clinton, Trump will win.
If this election is about Trump, Clinton will win.
Both candidates have decided that this campaign should be about Trump.
truer words were never spoken, and the real success of this anti-Clinton campaign (begun in earnest by the uberhack Jeff Gerth and his cohorts at the New York Times)was the ‘‘loss’’ of the 2000 election, because Gore would NOT allow them to campaign with him, and that loss of Clinton patina, whose approval number was approaching 60% at that point, would have surely helped the non charismatic Gore to osmose some good vibes. that, and refusing to follow Chris Sautter’s sage advice to COUNT all the counties in Florida. that, and the SCOTUS’s completely illegal refusal to allow ALL the votes to be counted. look at what happened following that sad day.
Trump wants to grill immigrants on their political beliefs before allowing them into the country. One wonders what he thinks the correct answer is to the question about gay rights.
I’m predicting that as we get closer to election say, the race will go one of two directions.
-
Clinton maintains her lead. If this happens I think Trump’s behavior will become completely unhinged. More traditional and sane Republucans will abandon him and he will lose in a landslide. I could see Clinton winning Georgia, Arizona, South Carolina, Utah, Missouri, and perhaps even Texas.
-
The race tightens if we get some kind of surprise that significantly damages Clinton. Trump seizes on whatever the event is and focuses on that, keeping his craziness temporarily in check. The final outcome is extremely close, likely hinging on Pennsylvania.
I doubt that the current state of the race will continue through Election Day. Trump doesn’t have it in him to not have a total meltdown unless he has a new significant Clinton scandal to seize on, in which case the second scenario might occur.
Absolutely. Hillary Clinton is not a ‘strong’ candidate…above and beyond the scurrilous attacks over the years, there are more than enough ‘incidents and accidents’ that should be keeping her on the defensive…and to be honest, while I’m sure she is a perfectly nice person in real life, most people don’t care for her all that much (include me in that category and I plan to vote for her).
But just about the time that something could take hold in the news, well, here’s Donald with something even more outrageous.
I’d like to believe (personal fantasy) that in some bar in the United States, Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, and John Kasich are slowly getting drunk drinking whiskey and saying “I’d be up 7 points in the polls today and Clinton’s problems would be the focus of the news people every day if I had won the nomination instead of that Mango Mussolini.”
Sitting three tables away is Uncle Rico from Napoleon Dynamite saying “If only coach had put me in the fourth quarter. Then we would have won state!”
I absolutely agree that the surge in religious activism in schools is a clear and present danger to future generations of Americans. What appalls me is to see physicians who can on the one hand prescribe medicine and reject the anti-vaxx nonsense yet turn around and claim the global warming is a hoax and that evolution is just some sort of hypothesis.
It’s tempting to say that we just need to beat back religion in schools – and yet I honestly don’t see it happening. Whether we like it or not, we live in a society that was founded in no small part on fundamentalist theology. Sure, I get that the United States itself post-1787 was not, but it’s not like the Framers of the Constitution cleansed American culture and started over with a clean slate.
We’ve always fought with religious interests and we always will. I think some fights are worth having. I can see disallowing prayers before compulsory school classes or meetings, but even as a non-Christian and non-religious person, I really don’t give a rats ass about taking down religious displays at Christmas time or eliminating prayers and invocations before Friday night football games. All it does is create a perception that religion is under attack, which it’s not, but when people don’t know where lines of common sense ought to be drawn, that’s one possible perception that people who are religious might develop.
I know it would be controversial with some on the left or among people who aren’t particularly religious, but I sometimes wonder if it might not be bad to just give in a little and allow creationism or intelligent design to be taught in schools as an elective – with the proviso that it is an elective, it’s not mandatory, it cannot replace scientific curricula, and it ought to be acknowledged that scientists do not support these ideas.