Jump to content

Type keyword(s) to search
Celebrating 1,000 NCIS-franchise episodes

Rhodes Scholar Reporting the News Show Discussion

maraleia

By maraleia
in The Rachel Maddow Show

  • Start Topic

Recommended Posts

bluepiano

bluepiano

(edited)

Yeah, along with O'Donnell, Matthews, and Hayes, she spends a lot of time complaining about the mainstream media's obsession with Trump. But of course, while they're talking about this, they're also giving Trump more coverage.

 

Reminds me of how during sweeps week, local news is full of exposes on topics like child pornography and prostitution, taking a high moral ground while they're exploiting these subjects for ratings.

Edited by bluepiano
Link to comment
  • Replies 2.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

jjj
jjj

What she actually said was "*thirty-five-year-old* real estate developer", and while age is not a criterion for wisdom (just look at the 70-year-old menace in the news), part of her point was that he

represent

represent

(edited)

I think Rachel made it pretty clear last night, as Chris Hayes has in the past, that her preference was to NOT switch to live Trump coverage, but that MSNBC makes it happen. It was great to see her last night trying to bestow on us the power to make Trump shut up and go away.

Although I do feel she covers him more than is necessary.

MSNBC covers him way too much overall.

 

But I agree with you, I do think she and Hayes definitely try to limit the Dump clips, they know the sound of his voice causes serious trauma to viewers like us.  But on the other hand, they have to cover the political season which she loves in general; unfortunately, Dump tragically has taken hold of the entire system.

 

If that was Chris Matthews last night, he would have let that farce play till the end. He's pretty much up Dump's ass just like Joe Scarborough. He's even admitted as much, that Dump is exciting to watch to him. 

Edited by represent
Link to comment
NextIteration

NextIteration

If that was Chris Matthews last night, he would have let that farce play till the end. He's pretty much up Dump's ass just like Joe Scarborough. He's even admitted as much, that Dump is exciting to watch to him. 

 

Tweety just can't keep himself from getting too caught up in whatever or wherever a primary goes.  I can forgive his exuberance about the political anomaly that is Trump as long as he keeps himself in check with the misogyny he has historically dealt out against Clinton.

 

I had to squee just a little bit tonight about the nerdiness of Rachel with McCaskill, I do appreciate political nerds that are as addicted to the process as I am. 

Link to comment
EarlGreyTea

EarlGreyTea

(edited)

Rachel's hosting a panel along with Brian Williams tonight. I'm kind of miffed that not only is Williams on my TV screen, he's pretty much acting as host. He's getting twice as much speaking time as Rachel is. Whether it's a network call or what, I'm annoyed. Would kill to know what Rachel really thinks of him.

 

Loving the election cycle, it means six hours straight of Rachel.

Edited by EarlGreyTea
  • Love 5
Link to comment
represent

represent

(edited)

I didn't flinch when the girl cursed, I died laughing.

 

Then I realized I wasn't watching a premium channel so a big to do was about to follow. 

 

I loved it, the young people being so involved, forget her cursing.

 

It wasn't like she was cursing for the hell of it, every other word, she clearly built up to that crescendo. And IMO, rightly so I might add.

 

Can I just say that Rachel makes just about anything bearable, and I believe that might be the sentiment of TPTB when it comes to Williams.   But it does bug me as a minority twice over since I fit into two minority groups, that had I done what Brian Williams did, please, no fucking way would I have a job, much less be given a chance to actually anchor. No way in hell.  That shit bugs me more, that's what runs through my mind when I see him. I don't mind second chances until I think of people from certain groups not being given those chances equally. Shit, does anyone think that Rachel could have done what he did and been given a second chance?

Edited by represent
  • Love 3
Link to comment
M. Darcy

M. Darcy

 

I didn't flinch when the girl cursed, I died laughing.

And, it wasn't that big of a swear anyway. 

 

At least when we get to election night, when there is coverage on NBC, it will be Lester and Brian will be (hopefully) not be there.  I have to admit, its not just the lying that I’m upset about, it the inflicting of his daughter on us.  I watched Peter Pan – there is no forgiveness  of that.

 

Hopefully when Rachel's normal show is back tonight, she can cover this.  The real victim in the Flint disaster is Gov Synder http://gawker.com/thanks-to-flint-gov-rick-snyder-cant-even-go-out-and-1756369711

  • Love 3
Link to comment
represent

represent

(edited)

 

“I mean, I did have my meal I didn’t just leave,” Synder said. “But, yeah, I was heckled and other things like that have been going on for some time now….And from a personal perspective, I’ve had things aimed even at my family.”

Aw....

 

Bwaah, if it wouldn't get a waiter/waitress fired, I would have loved to learn that one of them had the balls to put not just a glass, but a pitcher of Flint River water right in front of him.

You know, to accompany his bowl of bread and butter, while he waited for his appetizers and main course.

Edited by represent
  • Love 1
Link to comment
EarlGreyTea

EarlGreyTea

Seriously. Anyone hear from Martin Bashir recently?

 

Good point. God I loved his show. So wonderfully snarky and disdainful of the GOP in particular.

 

Rachel looked kind of bemused by Williams all night. She's too nice. Would like for Chris Matthews to rip him to shreds.

Link to comment
bluepiano

bluepiano

Seeing Brian Williams with Rachel and other MSNBC correspondents made me think of the old Sesame Street song, "one of these things is not like the other."

 

He's so stiff in that "official news anchor" way. When I was young, and you had anchors like Walter Cronkite, it made sense for them to have that demeanor, to show that they were journalists and not TV entertainers. The problem for the last 30 years or so is that the news anchors still try to carry off that demeanor when in reality they're just highly paid news readers. And the state of TV "journalism" for a long time has just been about repeating whatever the official Presidential press release says.
 

  • Love 1
Link to comment
shok

shok

I'm getting tired of Rachel's cheerleading for Bernie Sanders and her constant sniping at Hillary Clinton. Yes she declared she won. Big effing deal that MSNBC hadn't made the same declaration, the fact of the matter is, Hillary DID win. By the narrowest of margins, yes, but a win is a win is a win.

  • Love 3
Link to comment
Sesquipedalia

Sesquipedalia

(edited)

Actually, Hillary did not declare victory in her speech. She said she was "relieved" and overall put a positive spin on the results. That's not the same as declaring victory. She never said anything about "winning." Rachel often does this thing where she willfully misreads what people have said. Usually I just let it slide because we're on the same side and the person she's clearly misinterpreting is a Republican, but after last night, I'm taking a break from TRMS and MSNBC for a good long while.

Edited by Sesquipedalia
Link to comment
NextIteration

NextIteration

(edited)

Actually, Hillary did not declare victory in her speech. She said she was "relieved" and overall put a positive spin on the results. That's not the same as declaring victory. She never said anything about "winning." Rachel often does this thing where she willfully misreads what people have said. Usually I just let it slide because we're on the same side and the person she's clearly misinterpreting is a Republican, but after last night, I'm taking a break from TRMS and MSNBC for a good long while.

 

When it occurred (Hillary's declaration) supposedly her staffers were describing it as a victory declaration behind the scenes according to the usual suspects (Todd and H&H), on Nate Silver's blog it was described as a very lawyerly way around actually declaring victory.  I think Rachel was reflecting what she experiences absorbing all of that Hillary-hating nonsense that she sits in the middle of on MSNBC.  Unlike her morning counterparts, she seems to take in what everyone else is saying on MSNBC.  Todd was very snarky about it Monday night and all day Tuesday - what a horrible and distasteful mistake it was.  But the fact is, Clinton did win, and I suspect that they could see it their internal data, but it was pretty much a forgone conclusion for anyone applying logic given what precincts still needed to report (most of which were in Polk county).  Rachel comes nowhere close to the display of dislike for Clinton and preference for Bernie that Melissa Harris Perry does, she's becoming difficult to watch due to her oft expressed bias.

Edited by NextIteration
Link to comment
Wax Lion

Wax Lion

Actually, Hillary did not declare victory in her speech. She said she was "relieved" and overall put a positive spin on the results. That's not the same as declaring victory. She never said anything about "winning." Rachel often does this thing where she willfully misreads what people have said.

 

 

I didn't finish Tuesday's show so I rewatched the whole thing. She said what happened, that Clinton campaign staffers declared victory to the press when there was a 3-4 point difference. When Clinton came out to speak, she avoided declaring victory. Rachel and Chuck Todd spent time discussing the topic.

 

People complain that Rachel repeats herself too much but when she doesn't fill the show with different retellings of the same thing people end up getting offended that she said something that she didn't say.

  • Love 2
Link to comment
attica

attica

Good Rachel interview in the now-not-nude Playboy.

 

Stray thoughts:

  • I too would like Amy Klobuchar as VP.
  • "It took me a long time to figure out the Kardashians don't have jobs." Hee!
  • Good shade thrown at Bill O'Reilly's handshake
  • No Coulter interviews! Whoo hoo!
  • It's depressing how matter of fact she is about the 15 percent of her correspondence that's hate mail and how much of it is death threats. I mean, you do what you gotta do to not curl up in a ball, but it fills me with despair that it's a) that much; b) that constant throughout time; c) nobody seems to have any idea how to make that better; d) I bet no media man's correspondence totes up nearly that way. [/rage headache]
  • Rachel says that she 'loves covering Republican politics more than anything else.' Sigh. Some days I can't shake the feeling that Republican politics are all that we ever get to talk about, that Dem or liberal politics are afterthoughts, that the public discourse is set by the Right. And that makes me crazy. It's sad-making that Rachel likes doing that stuff, because I want her to be a counterweight to all the other coverage.  (Because it's all about me!)

 

In other media, Known Hack Howard Kurtz tweeted about the dem debate: "Rachel Maddow's smart & did a good job last night. But why did MSNBC put a liberal commentator on that debate stage?" To which stalwart Dave Weigel replied: "The first sentence answers the second sentence." 

  • Love 10
Link to comment
jjj

jjj

Good Rachel interview in the now-not-nude Playboy.

Wow, I never would have come across this!  (!!!)  What a terrific interview, and pieces of background about Rachel I had not known.  Many thanks for posting this. 

  • Love 1
Link to comment
represent

represent

(edited)

 

Good Rachel interview in the now-not-nude Playboy.

I second the thanks for posting this. She sounds like such a cool human being IMO.

 

And this quote, no truer words, it's kind of scary: 

 

We need to restore American enthusiasm for our civic processes, because it’s the only government we’ve got. Whether or not you like the people who are running it, we have to believe in the system of government. It sucks, but it’s better than all the others. I’d fix that.

I believe this is where Bernie Sanders is coming from with his "political revolution," he's trying to restore the enthusiasm. I get it, even though he's not my first choice.

 

And also Obama, in his last SOTU address, when he commented on representatives in gov't not even wanting to be seen talking to someone from the other side of the aisle. How can gov't work without even wanting to talk? Because you don't want to be seen with someone because they are from an opposing party?

Edited by represent
  • Love 2
Link to comment
EarlGreyTea

EarlGreyTea

(edited)

Thirded, great article. I enjoyed when she talked about her schedule; I've often wondered how much time she actually gets off from work. It sounds totally exhausting, especially after that six hour long panel she did last week with Brian Williams.

 

Playboy's always had great articles. She got some great questions. The one about how Obama has been disappointing was especially illuminating.

Edited by EarlGreyTea
  • Love 1
Link to comment
shok

shok

Chiming in with my thanks too for posting the interview. She's so sharp and funny. I loved her answer to the question about whether she had sex with boys. More people in the public eye should learn to use it. "It's none of your business!"

 


 

I believe this is where Bernie Sanders is coming from with his "political revolution," he's trying to restore the enthusiasm. I get it, even though he's not my first choice.

 

 

My problem with Sanders is that he has no answers, no ideas, no plans for how to run this "revolution". He just wants lots and lots and lots of people to vote for him. Fomenting 'enthusiasm' for radical revolutions are normally not such a good thing for countries.

  • Love 2
Link to comment
represent

represent

(edited)

 

 

My problem with Sanders is that he has no answers, no ideas, no plans for how to run this "revolution". He just wants lots and lots and lots of people to vote for him. Fomenting 'enthusiasm' for radical revolutions are normally not such a good thing for countries.

 

I see it this way too. But I'll vote for him in a minute if he's the nominee. I'm just not sure either of the Democratic candidates can win. Bernie I think actually has more of a chance of winning as I do believe that Independents go for him more. And while I support Clinton, I have no problem voting for Bernie if he's the choice, but I don't think the same can be said for his supporters. 

 

Clinton did it before for Obama, for the party, she got her supporters on board to support him in the end, I hope she can do the same this time for the party, if it comes to that. My poor Hillary, it's never her turn. 

 

This woman is so hated even by some people who call themselves Democrats. I don't think she can carry Independents like Bernie. Then there are Republicans who really like Bernie, they'll vote for him. But there are also Republicans that don't necessarily like him, but hate Hillary enough to switch parties just to vote against her. Yeah, I think a lot of that kind of voting is going on as well.

 

I mean if Bernie can get the black vote, particularly the black female vote in the south, then he could really win. I'll vote for him but I'm not a black female from the south, I'm one from the north, Brooklyn, NY just like Bernie. So he reminds me of  a number of my high school teachers. He's not unfamiliar to me like he is to black folks in the south.  But if he doesn't get the black vote in the south, and what about the Latino vote? I don't hear anyone speaking on that vote as much where are they where Bernie is concerned? Where are they where Hillary's concerned for that matter? I just realized I haven't heard enough about their vote, because these are the demographic groups they always speak on as groups that can swing elections. He'll have to carry just about every Independent and get about half if not more of the Republicans to vote for him and even then, I don't know.

 

But, I'm still going to root for Hillary until all is said and done. 

 

 

On a funnier note:

Chiming in with my thanks too for posting the interview. She's so sharp and funny. I loved her answer to the question about whether she had sex with boys. More people in the public eye should learn to use it. "It's none of your business!"

 

This was funny, because she began by saying something to the effect of oh that's right, this is Playboy, before she told them to mind their business. 

Edited by represent
Link to comment
jjj

jjj

Well, if it's time for us to let them eat cake, that surely means the guillotines cannot be far behind.  I swear, they are setting up for Rachel like  you would a T-ball for Babe Ruth.

Gosh, Attica, that is a remarkable story.  I used to live in Ann Arbor, and you can't black out a popular restaurant's windows without attracting a lot of attention -- people are on the streets all evening!  Here is the initial blog post about the "secret" party.  I do have to admit the cake is amazing.  Just disgusting at the same time.  Surely Rachel can find a minute to display this image!  http://markmaynard.com/2016/02/fiddling-while-flint-burns-a-blind-item-about-an-administration-that-clearly-doesnt-care/   (And the little blue box is a Tiffany box, which no one mentioned.) 

  • Love 1
Link to comment
bluepiano

bluepiano

(edited)

Is Rachel working for the Hillary Clinton campaign? That's a facetious question, but given the frequency that HRC is on The Rachel Maddow Show, it's like Hillary is using it as unofficial medial channel. Anytime there is some controvery or issue surrounding Hillary's campaign, or if Bernie Sanders has said something Hillary doesn't like, there she is on the Rachel Maddow Show, giving her position.

 

I think that many people might believe that Rachel's personal politics would make her a Sanders supporter. I don't know who Rachel would vote for, and as a journalist she's not going to say. But clearly, she seems to be totally enamored of HRC as a person. Others on these forums have used the term "fan girl." I don't think the word "obsession" would be far fetched.

 

Many liberals think of MSNBC as the counter to mainstream media, but so far they have been no different than the networks in terms of their heavy emphasis on covering Hillary. Especially Rachel. Given this reality, I don't ever want to hear Rachel slamming Fox News for the amount of air time they give to Trump. Because Hillary is her Trump.

Edited by bluepiano
Link to comment
slensam

slensam

Is Rachel working for the Hillary Clinton campaign? That's a facetious question, but given the frequency that HRC is on The Rachel Maddow Show, it's like Hillary is using it as unofficial medial channel. Anytime there is some controvery or issue surrounding Hillary's campaign, or if Bernie Sanders has said something Hillary doesn't like, there she is on the Rachel Maddow Show, giving her position.

 

I think that many people might believe that Rachel's personal politics would make her a Sanders supporter. I don't know who Rachel would vote for, and as a journalist she's not going to say. But clearly, she seems to be totally enamored of HRC as a person. Others on these forums have used the term "fan girl." I don't think the word "obsession" would be far fetched.

 

Many liberals think of MSNBC as the counter to mainstream media, but so far they have been no different than the networks in terms of their heavy emphasis on covering Hillary. Especially Rachel. Given this reality, I don't ever want to hear Rachel slamming Fox News for the amount of air time they give to Trump. Because Hillary is her Trump.

Sanders has been on a lot. I've seen plenty of interviews between Rachel and Bernie. She's fair.

  • Love 5
Link to comment
nowandlater

nowandlater

(edited)

Re: Rachel and Hillary...I've nothing against Clinton's frequent appearances....It's just jarring for Hillary to totally ignore Rachel all these years to suddenly being on her show constantly.

 

By the way, here's a great podcast interview with Rachel by Ezra Klein (I'm still listening to it.)

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/2/9/10951090/rachel-maddow-ezra-klein

Edited by nowandlater
Link to comment
bluepiano

bluepiano

(edited)

Sanders has been on a lot. I've seen plenty of interviews between Rachel and Bernie. She's fair.

 

I can't even remember the last time I saw Sanders on Rachel's show. Hillary is on about every other day. I'm talking about the candidates themselves, not some "campaign surrogate."  A spokesperson is far less impactful than the actual candidate. And they are not getting anything even approaching equal time. 

 

Every time Hillary is on it's "a very special interview" that takes up probably more than half the show. (Edited into smaller chunks, because few people will watch a half hour interview straight through).

Edited by bluepiano
Link to comment
EarlGreyTea

EarlGreyTea

(edited)

Be advised, Rachel again is sharing hosting duties tonight with Brian Williams. Luckily MSNBC seems to have read this thread and she's getting more airtime than he is so far.

 

Bernie's been on TRMS a lot, and interestingly I think in person a few times - I've never seen Hillary on there in person. At the very least, our Rachel not as insufferable, blowhardy, and biased as that pompous Joe Scarborough is when it comes to Trump.

Edited by EarlGreyTea
  • Love 2
Link to comment
represent

represent

(edited)

Speaking of Joe, he was on with Matthews during the coverage, he and Mika.  I hope I don't see them again for the rest of the night. But I'm sure they'll be there when Rachel and Brian send it back to Chris. 

 

I can't stand looking at Joe's face.  They completely ruin the coverage for me. I like the Republican guests they have on, have no issues with their coverage at all. They don't come off as bobble, headed fangirls/fanboys, they appear to make an attempt to report with facts.

 

But Joe I can't take and don't want to see his ass in the PM. He has three hours in the morning.

Edited by represent
  • Love 3
Link to comment
Grommet

Grommet

Very belated thanks for the link to the Playboy interview. It made my day! "I mean, Ben Carson!" And the bit about Ann Coulter was just so perfect. This is why I love Rachel even when she annoys me with her roundabout telling of the first story of the night.

 

But, that being said, I have had to mute the MSNBC coverage of New Hampshire. I'd need several of her aviator (?) cocktails to watch this, but I don't drink.

Link to comment
jjj

jjj

But, that being said, I have had to mute the MSNBC coverage of New Hampshire. I'd need several of her aviator (?) cocktails to watch this, but I don't drink.

I am with you!  I have not had the sound on even once, just am watching the numbers on the screen.  But Brian Williams looks out of place even with the sound off. 

Link to comment
Padma

Padma

(edited)

Really appreciated Rachel pointing out tonight (brief, very brief little snippet before Brian Williams cut her off) that if you eliminated the Independents who voted Democratic in NH today, Hillary and Bernie were tied.

 

Not that anyone should spin it as a genuine "tie", but I think that's an important piece of information to know. Just like the delegate count, which no one ever mentions, at least no one that I'm watching and I switch among several channels. Last week there was Iowa which the media insisted was an "important win for Cruz", "great momentum for Rubio" (at third) and a "big loss for Trump" (at second).  Hard to find out that the delegate count was actually 8, 7, and 7 (out of a needed 2300+).

 

This is going to be a tough election to watch as the media, so far, from debate questions (GOP particularly) to election coverage commentaries seems really really BAD.

 

And last week Howie Kurtz (of all people) was going on and on about Rachel being so blatantly biased in hugging Hillary and Bernie after the debate. (I had to like Megyn Kelly reminding him that CNN had Hugh Hewitt who applauded for an answer Trump gave. Still, he was "shocked! shocked!" that such a thing would happen in news.)  And tonight O'Reilly was still going on about "The Hugs".

 

I actually thought she went too far with that, and also the informality with telling voters "not to screw it up". But overall the questioning was very good--far superior to the GOP questioning (except for FOX which seemed to be making a critical effort), so is "hugging or not hugging" really that important?  On FOX they still seem to feel it can be used to confirm the "MSNBC has a liberal bias" pov (not that anyone really thinks otherwise).

Edited by Padma
  • Love 1
Link to comment
M. Darcy

M. Darcy

(edited)

 

Be advised, Rachel again is sharing hosting duties tonight with Brian Williams.

Yeah, when I put it on at 8 and it seemed to be all Brian Williams, I switched to Adult Swim.  When I switched back a bit later, she was on but still.  If Brian is going to be on, I probably won't watch.  Heh, especially when at 8 pm they declared both winners.  No real reason to watch :-)

 

And last week Howie Kurtz (of all people) was going on and on about Rachel being so blatantly biased in hugging Hillary and Bernie after the debate.

Rachel said (on twitter I think) that if she moderated a Republican Primary debate she would hug them also.  She's a hugger.

Edited by M. Darcy
Link to comment
jjj

jjj

I finally had time to watch the impromptu Maddow/Christie conversation from last week; and was surprised that it was over five minutes long!

 

Have you seen the film version of "West Side Story"?  When Tony and Maria encounter each other for the first time on the dance floor, all the noise and people surrounding them blur and fade away, so only Tony and Maria are heard and seen -- it is magical.

 

That is what happened when Rachel and Chris Christie locked eyes long enough for Rachel to pitch her giant beachball of a softball question ("how are these Iowa and NH townhalls different from NJ townhalls?")  They were surrounded by a scrum of reporters and cameras from other venues, and everyone fell silent and completely still to hear Christie's response -- and they remained completely still and silent for the next five minutes as he kept answering and she prodded a bit, with Rachel and Christie at the center of the screen and everyone frozen around them.  It was magical. 

  • Love 2
Link to comment
represent

represent

(edited)

That is what happened when Rachel and Chris Christie locked eyes long enough for Rachel to pitch her giant beachball of a softball question ("how are these Iowa and NH townhalls different from NJ townhalls?")

 

 

 

She did admit that the questions were softballs, and that he survived. So he should take it a step further and come on the show for the hard ones. I think she said something like and those weren't even the tough questions.

 

 

 

On another note, I just need Rachel to show the latest Ted Cruz ad. on Trump tonight if she insist on covering the Republicans. They need to run that ad. nonstop all over the airwaves.  

 

It's by far the most entertaining ad. with those kids talking about imminent domain complete with a Hillary Clinton barbie doll dressed in a light blue pants suit. The doll even had a white/off white blouse under the suit jacket, LOL.  There were a couple of other barbie dolls.  I think there's an Anthony Weiner one, or was it Pelosi?  I just have to see that again, OMG it's so hilarious. Ted Cruz is the last person I associate with any kind of laughter.  But I could not stop laughing.

Edited by represent
Link to comment
Padma

Padma

She did admit that the questions were softballs, and that he survived. So he should take it a step further and come on the show for the hard ones. I think she said something like and those weren't even the tough questions.

 

 

 

On another note, I just need Rachel to show the latest Ted Cruz ad. on Trump tonight if she insist on covering the Republicans. They need to run that ad. nonstop all over the airwaves.  

 

It's by far the most entertaining ad. with those kids talking about imminent domain complete with a Hillary Clinton barbie doll dressed in a light blue pants suit. The doll even had a white/off white blouse under the suit jacket, LOL.  There were a couple of other barbie dolls.  I think there's an Anthony Weiner one, or was it Pelosi?  I just have to see that again, OMG it's so hilarious. Ted Cruz is the last person I associate with any kind of laughter.  But I could not stop laughing.

I enjoyed that commercial too! I hope they'll run it on television not just the web.

 

The second time I saw it I had the unhappy image of Trump loving it -- ignoring the message and deciding to market a new Trump action figure to his fans. After all, he made $6.5 million from campaign merchandise sales last year. I see him figuring the "Candidate-to-President Trump" doll could be ready in time for Xmas.  (Maybe he could make it talk like Chatty Cathys, "Merry Christmas! I'm the greatest at everything! Merry Christmas!")

 

Between this one and Bernie's, it's nice to see some less formulaic, more artistic or creative ads than, oh, what Jeb's $120 million SuperPac has brought out (2 minute dvd mailer notwithstanding). I haven't seen any evidence that Cruz actually -has- a sense of humor but kudos to whoever it was who took some chances with that one. It worked!

Link to comment
represent

represent

(edited)

 

The second time I saw it I had the unhappy image of Trump loving it -- ignoring the message and deciding to market a new Trump action figure to his fans.

Really? Oh man, I haven't seen this one yet. 

 

What 's so funny about it is that even though the kids are playing "political" doll house, they are literally making fun of Trump.  The one curly headed boy chuckles while making fun of him. And you know how much that just warms Trump's heart. They look like they are in what? First grade?

Then they demolish the doll house and the parents stand at the door holding on to each other petrified. 

Edited by represent
Link to comment
represent

represent

All I have to say about the delegates/super delegates is fix that shit after this election, because nobody was punching the shit out of one another on the convention floor when this system worked out for Obama.  She had the popular vote but he played a system that was already in place and he played it well and nobody was crying

revo-fucking-lution then.

 

Yeah, and this comes from a voter who yes, voted for Obama and switched from Hillary in part because he was of African descent as I am. The ethnic part of me beat out the female part. If people want to act like it doesn't matter that's their business, yeah right it doesn't matter.

But, If it wasn't for that and I was in a caucus/primary state it would have been Hillary. Obama came out of nowhere and I was like, oh shit, I have problem.

 

Anyway, now they want to cry corruption and it needs to be fixed now when it might help Clinton. 

 

No, send out your petition to change the system in between elections thank you.

  • Love 1
Link to comment
represent

represent

(edited)

 

By the way, here's a great podcast interview with Rachel by Ezra Klein (I'm still listening to it.)

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/2/9/10951090/rachel-maddow-ezra-klein

Thanks for posting this, I'm still listening to it.

 

On another note, I hope MSNBC really does have some snipers on the rooftops of their building like Rachel mentioned on the podcast because she, Hayes and O'Donnell do their homework and continue to put people on blast.

 

I can't believe, please, of course I can, that Lansing MI is pulling up pipes yet Flint...

 

Yeah, I wasn't surprised, but my jaw still hit the floor.

 

Thanks Rachel and hopefully that Mayor of Flint gets promotion in the future. She is truly representing the people of her city.

Edited by represent
Link to comment
shok

shok

She had the popular vote ...

 

Not really. Obama won the caucuses overwhelmingly but since they are not one person, one recorded vote, those numbers aren't included in the 'popular' vote. More people voted for Obama in the primary season than Clinton.

  • Love 1
Link to comment
NextIteration

NextIteration

Not really. Obama won the caucuses overwhelmingly but since they are not one person, one recorded vote, those numbers aren't included in the 'popular' vote. More people voted for Obama in the primary season than Clinton.

 

Getting all those pledged delegates at the Caucuses was a major part of Obama's winning strategy, the Clinton Campaign actually came off looking stupid and unprepared not going after every single caucus delegate.  Obama's data and planning teams were platinum standard, and they repeated their dominance in planning in the micro-targeting that they deployed against Romney.

Link to comment
Wax Lion

Wax Lion

As I recall, Obama was pretty clearly ahead among Democratic voters but it was close enough that the superdeligates were long seen as a danger to overturning the voice of voters/caucus goers. There was talk (talk that got quieter with time) that Clinton might fight for the nomination at the Convention with her superdelagates (instead she memorably released her delegates and encouraged them to support Obama). Obama didn't really outmaneuver Clinton, except that it was clear that if she challenged him for the nomination it would have torn the party apart (remember the PUMAs?) and handed the Presidency to McCain.

 

I'm still seriously undecided in this race and I appreciate Rachel bringing up that the Democratic turnout is down. That's a serious issue and one factor I think about is that the Democratic nominee will have to be someone who can (like in 2008) counter Republcans' disenfranchement efforts and motivate voters to stand in line for hours to vote. To me, that's a major factor in assessing electability. Even though Sanders is drawing crowds, it looks like he's not bringing the first-time and young voters at the level of Obama.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...