Jump to content

Type keyword(s) to search

Rhodes Scholar Reporting the News Show Discussion

maraleia

By maraleia
in The Rachel Maddow Show

  • Start Topic

Recommended Posts

  • 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

slensam

slensam

I had to change the channel during another version of her continuing amazement over Bernie's large crowds. She just got finished with a story about larger Republican turnout over the Democrats being a worrying issue and then that. It seems to me that the two kind of contradict. I voted for Hillary this time and supported Obama in 2008. He got the crowds in 2008 and now it's Bernie with the big rallies. Hillary got a lot of votes both times. Her voters should get some kind of acknowledgement. A little annoying is all I'm saying.
 

  • Love 1
M. Darcy

M. Darcy

When she showed the clip of Trump saying "Bob" my first thought was that it was Governor Ultrasound but figured that couldn't be right.  But, it was him.   Why would he go to a Trump rally?

 

I admit it - when I heard Scalia had died one of my first thoughts was that I hope that makes it easier for McDonnell to finally go to jail.

  • Love 3
ktwo

ktwo

(edited)

I had to change the channel during another version of her continuing amazement over Bernie's large crowds. She just got finished with a story about larger Republican turnout over the Democrats being a worrying issue and then that. It seems to me that the two kind of contradict. I voted for Hillary this time and supported Obama in 2008. He got the crowds in 2008 and now it's Bernie with the big rallies. Hillary got a lot of votes both times. Her voters should get some kind of acknowledgement. A little annoying is all I'm saying.

I stopped watching for the segment as well. Rachel seemed to be indicating that because Bernie was getting large crowds in places like Oklahoma, he could win a general in places like Oklahoma, which is absurd. And she was ignoring the fact that Bernie is moving on to places like Oklahoma because he has basically conceded South Carolina. So when Hillary wins easily there, she and the rest of the media can/will downplay it because Bernie wasn't making an effort. I think generally that Rachel has been pretty fair between the two, coming from someone who has stopped listening to the Progressive channel on Sirius because of the nonstop Bernie love, but this piece annoyed. Edited by ktwo
  • Love 1
attica

attica

I didn't think too much of Rachel's leading with the story that there was an anonymous leak to WaPo about a  possible SCOTUS vetting going on. What does it meeeeean?!? Nope, sorry. Not a story. A leak to WaPo is not a story. If the leaker wants to leak to you, that's different. Still not 'everybody freak out' level of story, but better. And anyhow, anybody who doesn't think the Sandoval leak wasn't Harry Reid trolling McConnell hasn't been paying attention. If that's the story you want to report on, then I'm with you.

  • Love 3
slensam

slensam

I didn't think too much of Rachel's leading with the story that there was an anonymous leak to WaPo about a  possible SCOTUS vetting going on. What does it meeeeean?!? Nope, sorry. Not a story. A leak to WaPo is not a story. If the leaker wants to leak to you, that's different. Still not 'everybody freak out' level of story, but better. And anyhow, anybody who doesn't think the Sandoval leak wasn't Harry Reid trolling McConnell hasn't been paying attention. If that's the story you want to report on, then I'm with you.

Yeah, at this point Obama is not going to nominate a Republican unless they were they were the reincarnation of Earl Warren. Sometimes, way too much pearl-clutching and rending of garments here.

  • Love 1
Padma

Padma

I liked the commentator (can't remember the name -- election year! it's all a blur) who said that the rumor/leak allowed Hillary to position herself to the left of Obama for a change--and at a very good time--by advocating that the SC justice should be a progressive.  Have to agree, it -did- make her seem stronger and more liberal than usual. If it was a gift from Reid (or Obama)... nice going!

  • Love 1
alias1

alias1

I wondered about that leak, anyway.  The information didn't make sense.  Sandoval said today he wasn't interested in being a nominee, which is of course what I would have predicted.  Why would he want to commit political suicide with Republicans.  And nominating a Republican might demoralize Democrats enough that they would not turn out to vote in November.  Maybe this (fake?) leak was done to keep the issue alive in the press.  

 

I have a question about the process.  Maybe someone here knows.  If Obama nominates someone like Loretta Lynch, and the Senate refuses to even have hearings, can she be nominated again when the new President takes office? 

M. Darcy

M. Darcy

 

If Obama nominates someone like Loretta Lynch, and the Senate refuses to even have hearings, can she be nominated again when the new President takes office?

I'm pretty sure she can be - the new President can nominate anyone they want.

 

I think Rachel's showing that tape of the Chris Matthews interview with Bernie Sanders had the opposite affect of what she thought.  It just made me question what reality Bernie is living in.  1) that line he's not a inside the beltway guy.  He is a United States Senator that has been serving in Congress since 1991.  That makes him inside the Beltway.  2) That when he becomes President that Mitch McConnell will cower in fear about the millions of people in the revolution (I know, I'm paraphrasing).  Has he not paid attention to the man who he has been serving with since 2007?  McConnell's statement about Scalia's passing included the line that President Obama will not get a person on the Supreme Court.  If McConnell can ignore a twice elected President of the United States with 11 months left as President, why would he pay attention to a President Sanders.

  • Love 10
attica

attica

I'm pretty sure she can be - the new President can nominate anyone they want.

 

Def yes. A sibling of a coworker got nominated to one of the federal courts right after sequestration ended. Hearing happened, but no vote. Congressional session ended, which killed the prior nomination. Had to be renominated in the new session. Still no vote, though, which means they're in professional limbo: can't lawyer on stuff that might come before the court after taking the bench, can't take the bench. (Still gets paid, but that's hardly an efficient use of taxpayer money)  

  • Love 2
M. Darcy

M. Darcy

 

Still no vote, though, which means they're in professional limbo: can't lawyer on stuff that might come before the court after taking the bench, can't take the bench.

Rachel's mentioned this quite a  few times - the lack of actual voting on nominees.  She said the other day that they still haven't voted on the Secretary of the Army.  But its not like our Army is currently in war zones or anything (or whatever they are calling areas these days).

  • Love 4
jjj

jjj

(edited)

 I have a question about the process.  Maybe someone here knows.  If Obama nominates someone like Loretta Lynch, and the Senate refuses to even have hearings, can she be nominated again when the new President takes office? 

It would be possible but fruitless to re-nominate someone who had failed the nomination process -- but this situation is not a vote (or lack of a vote) on the nominee, but on the President, so yes, a new President could re-nominate the same person and hope for a productive result.

Edited by jjj
  • Love 1
shok

shok

Rachel's mentioned this quite a  few times - the lack of actual voting on nominees.  She said the other day that they still haven't voted on the Secretary of the Army.  But its not like our Army is currently in war zones or anything (or whatever they are calling areas these days).

 

And of course none of this ever gets mentioned elsewhere in the media, even when one of the biggest stories nowadays is the Republican obstruction over a potential Supreme Court nominee. Instead all we ever get from anywhere is false equivalence about 'wah wah the Democrats do it too'.  It really is all quite unbelievable.

  • Love 7
Padma

Padma

I'm pretty sure she can be - the new President can nominate anyone they want.

 

I think Rachel's showing that tape of the Chris Matthews interview with Bernie Sanders had the opposite affect of what she thought.  It just made me question what reality Bernie is living in.  1) that line he's not a inside the beltway guy.  He is a United States Senator that has been serving in Congress since 1991.  That makes him inside the Beltway.  2) That when he becomes President that Mitch McConnell will cower in fear about the millions of people in the revolution (I know, I'm paraphrasing).  Has he not paid attention to the man who he has been serving with since 2007?  McConnell's statement about Scalia's passing included the line that President Obama will not get a person on the Supreme Court.  If McConnell can ignore a twice elected President of the United States with 11 months left as President, why would he pay attention to a President Sanders.

Yes, I was disappointed that Bernie's only answer to "how will you make change HAPPEN" was to talk about how senators would look out their window and see "a million millenials (maybe with some of their parents)" and not dare to say no!

 

Is he really that naïve? First, millions of millenials aren't coming to Washington to support him. They didn't even show up in vast enough numbers to win the Nev. caucus for him. And second, the Republicans Don't. Care.   The only way change will come to Washington is if there's a Democratic majority in the House and Senate (a veto proof one). And Sanders--who's not even a Democrat--can't deliver that.kind of result.

 

The other day I read that Hillary's raised $3million so far for electing candidates around the country. Sanders has raised $1000. I don't fault him, but he's not a party leader and when you are facing the current, completely intransigent GOP, you need party organization --and party numbers--to get anything done. Obama's presidency probably would have been amazing, if he could have controlled Congress for at least one full term.  No such luck, and Bernie would fare much, much worse.

  • Love 5
alias1

alias1

I like Bernie, and I sure do love his message.  I love that he attracts large crowds and gets grass roots money.  But as Rachel has pointed out several times now, he can't seem to translate those large crowds into actual votes.  There goes the revolution.  I'm actually for Hillary, but I do think a revolution is needed in this country if we want to take our democracy back.  But the revolution needs to start at the local level.  Until we get can vote out these super majority republican legislatures nothing is going to change.  My state has a super republican majority and they have done the stupidest things, like allowing guns in state parks.  And they just passed a bill that people can now have a skunk as a pet.  They really do important work.     

  • Love 13
jjj

jjj

(edited)

Boy, what a blistering indictment of the Michigan Governor on a set of new issues on Friday's show.  It really is hard to believe how dreadfully the emergency "managers" have handled situations that affect so many lives, especially children.  Those picture of schools were terrible to see.  And I had not heard about the kickback scheme and federal case against a Detroit principal. 

 

ETA:  so glad MSNBC is re-running Chris Hayes and Rachel on Friday at the later hours.  I hope it continues! 

Edited by jjj
  • Love 6
alias1

alias1

I loved the ending to last night's show.  The story about how if a small group of people make a fuss over something inside the Beltway, everyone acts like it's a big deal.  Followed immediately by, "Next up, MSNBC's town hall with Marco Rubio!"   The look on Rachel's face said it all.

I know.  It was worse than when she says we're going to prison next.

  • Love 1
represent

represent

(edited)

Thank you Elizabeth Warren, they are very much related. 

 

Warren is scary, she don't play; I love it. She's scarier than the boogieman himself, LOL.

 

You wanna talk about Drumpf peeing in his pants, let Warren have a crack at him. 

 

Republicans and my dear Hillary, who I strongly support is lucky Warren didn't run. That would have been it, game over.

Edited by represent
jjj

jjj

I'm glad that I kept watching last night - Rachel really kicked ass.

She really did -- and I have not had a chance to see if any other media outlets have followed up on whether or not Trump actually did meet/talk with police before deciding to cancel the event.  I realize "police" could be broadly interpreted, not necessarily the CPD. 

 

Those clips she showed of escalating invitations to thuggishness?  Need to be seen on a regular basis. 

  • Love 1
nowandlater

nowandlater

I'm glad that I kept watching last night - Rachel really kicked ass.

 

I'm glad that I have my DVR programmed to record the Friday 7 pm PT/10 pm ET hour on MSNBC, even though it's usually that prison show. (I have it manually set up to record lawrence o'donnell monday through friday.)

 

The second hour was terrific and the top of it has gone viral.

Padma

Padma

I was really surprised that Bernie called Trump a pathological liar in the townhall with Chuck Todd. He is, but I just didn't think Bernie would get into name-calling (even if it's really "truth-telling").

 

Trump didn't get advice from CPD or campus police to cancel the event. It makes me wonder if he ever planned to show up. They had room for 11,000 and gave out "many more" than 25,000. In that area (as Rachel said).  I think he put his own supporters in danger by cancelling the event the way they did with so little guidance and a lot of emotions running.  And he keeps lying about how "everyone is  me credit --even around the world-- for the decision I made."

 

I have to say, though, that I hope protesters will drop the idea of making noise during Trump rallies. Silent visual protest inside and pickets outside are a lot more likely to not turn people off, imo, especially since Trump is so good at twisting his critics' words against them.  

Sesquipedalia

Sesquipedalia

(edited)

I was so excited to hear the TargetSmart info, but then I was bummed that it was all about Florida. I want to know about the states where the polling is less clear cut, like Ohio and Illinois. Of course if there's a big upset and Rubio wins in Florida, the information about "establishment voter" turnout might be important in retrospect, but as of now that race is not exactly a nail biter. And the Democratic data just reaffirms that the polls are likely to be correct this time, at least in Florida. I wanted something juicy! Clinton's aides are once again downplaying her chances in all the midwestern states that are voting tomorrow. Is this just the usual tendency to lower expectations combined with extra caution after Michigan, or do they know something we don't? I  can't wait to find out what happens tomorrow!

Edited by Sesquipedalia
NextIteration

NextIteration

Clinton's aides are once again downplaying her chances in all the midwestern states that are voting tomorrow. Is this just the usual tendency to lower expectations combined with extra caution after Michigan, or do they know something we don't? I  can't wait to find out what happens tomorrow!

 

The Clinton camp is not just playing the expectations game, they are reading the polls:

 

Real Clear Politics Democratic Polls for March 15.

represent

represent

There are too many Democrats in the open primaries taking Republican ballots to vote against Trump. In closed primary states where only Democrats can vote, Hillary wins convincingly.

I think this time, it hurt Bernie. 

 

I love Maddow, the piece on the Virgin Islands' primary, LOL, OMG, the evil. If there's trickery she and her staff will surely find it.

 

 I even think I remember her saying, I think it was the last super Tuesday, she was questioning why it was taking the VI so long to send in their totals.

  • Love 3
attica

attica

I liked Rachel's getting misty over Garland's getting misty.  (Although, my mind has been playing a trick on me since Garland's nom was announced. I read some article about Judge Garland, and my brain shortcuts the 'ge' in Judge to 'y' in Judy, and then I keep expecting to hear a rendition of "Somewhere Over the Rainbow." And knowing my synapses as I do, I doubt that will improve should he become Justice. Sigh.)

  • Love 5
M. Darcy

M. Darcy

Oh, just shut up Bernie.  If you win the Presidency, you aren't president until January 2017 so you don't get to pick whose on the Supreme Court until there is a vacancy during your term.  Until then, President Obama is President and its his choice who he wants to have on the Court- he shouldn't listen to you and withdraw Merrick Garland.  Heh, not that I think President Obama would ever do that if the next President asks him to.

 

And, (if he didn't say this during the Rachel interview ignore me, I was tired when I got home and not sure if that is when he said it)....also quit it with the only litmus test for you is overturning Citizens United.  There are other just as important issues...such as, being a woman...Roe V Wade.

 

 

He just seems so sweet and humble.

From what I've been reading, everyone just loves him who knows him.  It should be interesting to see the Republicans go after him - it just seems like there is no dirt on him at all. 

  • Love 7
NextIteration

NextIteration

I'm glad I wasn't in the corner all alone in being irritated by Sanders last night, between his cockamamie plan to flip super-delegates and his lack of (no surprise here) a litmus test for women's reproductive rights, I was about to cancel my monthly contribution to him.  And I actually want him to stay in until California, but I might have to rethink that stance.  I want him to have real power at the convention to hold Clinton's feet to the fire on a lot of issues in the platform.

  • Love 2
alias1

alias1

I actually think overturning Citizens United should be the litmus test.  It is the biggest problem to our democracy.  When you don't have (mysterious) billionaires buying elections you won't get the kind of candidates that want to overturn Roe Vs. Wade.  There are a lot of issues that are important, but I think overturning Citizens United is the first step in getting our democracy back.  And I applaud Bernie for having a litmus test.  Both Obama and Hillary have stayed away from overtly saying there is a litmus test (at least I haven't heard them say it).  I am for Hillary but I like what Bernie has to say and I'm glad he's staying in the race.  Even if he were to become the nominee, I would surely vote for him over any Republican.

  • Love 2
AmandaPanda

AmandaPanda

Remember that this is not a place to discuss the views of the particular candidates. This is a place to discuss how Rachel covers them. Feel free to mention what people say in interviews, but this is not the forum to discuss whether Bernie or Hillary should have litmus tests about Supreme Court nominees and what they should be. This isn't a political forum. It's a television forum. If you want to discuss politics, there are thousands of other places on the Internet where you can discuss them.

Sesquipedalia

Sesquipedalia

I felt like Rachel was leading Sanders on, trying to get him to say something controversial so she could get a scoop. I hate when reporters do that, even when they do it to Trump or someone else I don't like. All Sanders really said is he would try to flip the superdelegates in states where he won by large margins. That doesn't seem all that unreasonable to me in the highly unlikely hypothetical scenario that Rachel was putting forth in which the delegate count will be close enough for the unpledged delegates to be a significant factor at the convention. I also think Sanders is dreaming when he says he's more electable, but of course he's going to say that. Rachel is trying to make things sound shocking when they're really not. And yes, I know that's what cable news people always do, but I continue to expect more from the Rhodes scholar.

alias1

alias1

I felt like Rachel was leading Sanders on, trying to get him to say something controversial so she could get a scoop. I hate when reporters do that, even when they do it to Trump or someone else I don't like. All Sanders really said is he would try to flip the superdelegates in states where he won by large margins. That doesn't seem all that unreasonable to me in the highly unlikely hypothetical scenario that Rachel was putting forth in which the delegate count will be close enough for the unpledged delegates to be a significant factor at the convention. I also think Sanders is dreaming when he says he's more electable, but of course he's going to say that. Rachel is trying to make things sound shocking when they're really not. And yes, I know that's what cable news people always do, but I continue to expect more from the Rhodes scholar.

I totally agree with you on this. Rachel was trying to make this a big scoop and I really didn't see it that way either.  I think Bernie has said this before, maybe not quite this overtly, that he thinks the superdelegates of states that he has won should ultimately go with what their state voted. I was a little disappointed in her analysis of this, too.   She usually doesn't try to make the news.  

Thank you for the link!

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