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

M. Darcy

M. Darcy

Oh, Rachel it is adorable that you think so but no one is saying that about Steve K. 

Wow, an interview with Bernie tonight. I just can't imagine what he will say - hmm, maybe oh I still have a chance to win, will of the people, citizens united..yada, yada yada....I really hope Rachel just does that math for him - showing he needs 110% of the delegate which is impossible. 

  • Love 5
  • 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

jjj

jjj

1 hour ago, M. Darcy said:

Oh, Rachel it is adorable that you think so but no one is saying that about Steve K. 

You are so much nicer than I am!  I could not believe she said Kornacki's name!  No we think of *Rachel* when we think of excellent coverage of the election cycle.  Now make that true tonight with a Sanders interview that does not let him off the hook!

  • Love 1
jjj

jjj

(edited)

I am watching Rachel's show and all I see is Steve Kornacki and his board and Steve showing where Sanders can win enough delegates by winning with very high margins.  No matter how many cat toys I throw at Kornacki, he just will not go away.  Grrrrrrr. 

ETA:  Wow, it worked!  Now there is a segment about Chris Christie and Bridgegate!  You're welcome!

And for anyone who did not get to hear it, the judge in the Bridgegate case has written a decision ordering the release of the names of the unindicted co-conspirators (a list that has been secret until now, and which may or may not include Christie), and one of the precedents she cited is a case Christie himself prosecuted as U.S. Attorney, convicting the father of Trump's son-in-law.  And the son-in-law is now also on the transition team that Christie was just appointed to head.  As Rachel's guest Andrea Bernstein of WNYC said (in combination with Rachel), gee, look how well it turned out the last time Christie put an executive staff in place.  Two on trial and one convicted via a plea deal.  If this were fiction, it would be criticized as too contrived (the Christie/Trump son-in-law history).  http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-05-10/prosecutors-must-name-accomplices-to-former-christie-allies

Edited by jjj
  • Love 7
nowandlater

nowandlater

I liked (loved?) Steve Kornacki. He got me through the 2012 campaign with his Salon columns that used a lot of history. I actually enjoyed him on TV. I didn't always watch Up!, but I thought he did a respectable job as a substitute host and guest.

I even listened to his podcast , which he discontinued late last year, which was taped at a bar.

Now? Now, I can't stand him. He's the boring wonky guy with the white spewing out numbers that I don't care about. Even his twitter has become boring.

  • Love 4
represent

represent

(edited)

Can't stand Kornacki, he annoys me more than Chuck Todd. If he would badger the topic of Trump's taxes as hard as he badgered Wasserman Shultz on whether she would debate her appoinent for her re-election campaign I'd have more respect for him.

See that's when my female sensitivity kicks in and I see a bully, a sexist. He gets on fucking MTP Daily with that shit eating smirk of his while he covers everything Trump. The way he tried to get into Shultz's asshole...he's full of shit, cause no way if he had the chance would he try that shit with Trump.

I'm glad she indirectly told him to fuck off, just cause it's him and I'm tired of that little shit. I'm not even that much of a fan of Shultz, but I know what I was feeling during that interview and my woman card was out.

I'm tired of the men on MSNBC (minus Chris Hayes and Lawrence O'Donnell) and their hard on for everything Trump including pumping up those dumbass nicknames he tries to give to his opponents. There is so much shit they could get into his ass on, but they don't bother. Can't stand them.  Rachel covered that blob of shit from Jersey last night, and I don't think not one other show on this network picked it up to run with it. The Jersey Blob who Trump just picked to head up his transition team and yet, no coverage of his legal troubles. NONE, fuck MSNBC.

The white supremacist  delegate who just step down that the Trump camp tried to pretend they didn't know about. Where the fuck is this story? They dig into every organization and individual donor and person who Hillary comes in contact with, where the fuck is this kind of coverage for Trump on this network?

I want Trump harassed by the media within an inch of his life. The way they have harassed Hillary for twenty plus years by way of the right wing. The right wing makes the accusations and the media runs with it 24/7. I want him harassed to the point in which he stops calling in and is only left with FoxNews to call in his bullshit. Rachel knows what good political journalism harassment looks like and the rest of her colleagues aren't doing it. She will not get off LePage's ass nor the Blob from Jersey. She never leaves the story. 

Edited by represent
  • Love 8
nowandlater

nowandlater

I don't think it's a product of him being gay. (Here's his coming out story, by the way.) He also seems to be advancing the narrative that Trump has a chance to beat Hillary.. I think he's just trying to make it interesting, like the rest of the media.

Kornacki, by the way, has been perhaps the person who has been leading the charge to debunk the "Perot Myth" -- that Perot cost Bush the 1992 election. In fact, he likes to defend Bill Clinton's legacy, especially over his gay-rights legacy.  (I have no idea if this means he loves/hates Hillary.)

Kornacki in 2007: http://observer.com/2007/06/not-a-spoiler-not-ross-perot/

Kornacki in 2011: http://www.salon.com/2011/04/04/third_party_myth_easterbrook/

Kornacki in 2015: http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/ross-perot-myth-reborn-amid-rumors-third-party-trump-candidacy

Sesquipedalia

Sesquipedalia

I think the mainstream media or "beltway press" is still pretty influential. Arguably they helped get Donald Trump the nomination by giving him lots of free press and failing to vet him because they were following their own narrative that he wasn't a serious candidate. Maybe Rachel is trying to disrupt another false narrative so the press will stop treating Trump like a sideshow and start treating the race like a real presidential race.

The media is right that Trump is wreaking havoc in the Republican party "establishment", i.e. leaders and big donors. But Rachel is defining the party as the voters, and they seem to be fine with Trump. Since the party establishment's opinion made no difference in the primary, maybe we should start worrying less about what they think and more about the voters. That's my take-away from Rachel's attempt to correct the "beltway" record.

  • Love 3
ktwo

ktwo

Quote

Kornacki, by the way, has been perhaps the person who has been leading the charge to debunk the "Perot Myth" -- that Perot cost Bush the 1992 election. In fact, he likes to defend Bill Clinton's legacy, especially over his gay-rights legacy.  (I have no idea if this means he loves/hates Hillary.)

Kornacki in 2007: http://observer.com/2007/06/not-a-spoiler-not-ross-perot/

Kornacki in 2011: http://www.salon.com/2011/04/04/third_party_myth_easterbrook/

Kornacki in 2015: http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/ross-perot-myth-reborn-amid-rumors-third-party-trump-candidacy

Good for Kornacki, but i learned that from Rachel - she led a show with it within the past year.

jjj

jjj

(edited)
8 minutes ago, M. Darcy said:

If anyone was excited about the release today of the list from NJ, the judge postponed the release of the list.  :-(  I'm sure Rachel will go into more coverage tonight.

Yes, apparently there is one "John Doe" who is particularly objecting to his name being released.  More for Rachel to cover.  I'm hoping for a cocktail moment tonight, more than the Friday News Dump! 
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/14/nyregion/chris-christie-bridgegate-list.html?_r=0

Or she could always talk more about:    gum paste.jpg

Edited by jjj
NewDigs

NewDigs

On May 11, 2016 at 10:50 PM, nowandlater said:

I liked (loved?) Steve Kornacki. He got me through the 2012 campaign with his Salon columns that used a lot of history. I actually enjoyed him on TV. I didn't always watch Up!, but I thought he did a respectable job as a substitute host and guest.

I even listened to his podcast , which he discontinued late last year, which was taped at a bar.

Now? Now, I can't stand him. He's the boring wonky guy with the white spewing out numbers that I don't care about. Even his twitter has become boring.

Russert excitedly adding up numbers on a dry-erase board was oddly endearing.

Kornacki swiping across multiple monitors loaded with numbers and charts?

Manic.

And I was starting to like him! Now it seems every time I turn MSNBC on, Theeere's Steve!

  • Love 1
NewDigs

NewDigs

27 minutes ago, jjj said:

No, was Russert on Rachel's show? 

Sorry. That was my OT bad.

Was referring to Tim Russert's on-air dry-erase mathematics as opposed to Kornacki's ultra-mega-fast more-info-than-anyone-cares monitor swipes. 

IMHO very few additions don't sully TRM show. BW is a top sullier and Kornacki is working in that direction.

represent

represent

(edited)


 

1 hour ago, nowandlater said:

From CBS Sunday Morning, this morning:

 

Not surprising, I never got the impression that she was an irrational lefty. She seems pretty balanced to me, just cause you're liberal/progressive doesn't mean you can't like guns. 

That was her mother on the train with John Doe.

Edited by represent
  • Love 2
represent

represent

5 minutes ago, jjj said:

Wow, I had never seen most of the older photographs in this profile -- the Stanford picture with California blonde pageboy hairstyle and matching pearl earrings and necklace is lovely, but I would never have recognized her if this were a quiz. 

I wouldn't have either, but I do remember her mentioning that she was a blonde on the podcast with Ezra Klein that someone posted. I couldn't imagine what she would have looked like so it was cool to see the picture. 

represent

represent

(edited)

I don't know who those ads. are suppose to get, but they do nothing for me. Fine, run those ads. but you better also take half those billions and put them into POSITIVE Hillary ads. noting bullet points from her platform. Where are those ads.? The ads. on what she stands for in addition to the negative that Trump stands for have to be equally if not more on display.

Another thing, those ads. are too long, there's too many people in them. You need to cut the ads. down to three lines. Attention span across the board is short, and it's easy for folks to remember a maximum of three short lines. 

All ads. need to be short and catchy one to three liners at the most.  

Also WTF would you put his face on a t-shirt?  I don't want to see his face on a t-shirt. That's too much, it plays into his ego, all I see is his face and it's actually distracting from what the people are saying.

Also get off the ads. that repeat everything he's said about women. Pick three of the most offensive lines and then throw in what she stands for paid leave, equal pay etc.. Or roll out a set of ads. that takes some of his so called "policies" against women. Do one policy at a time don't load them all into one ad..

Point is, all the ads. can't be Trump hates women, that can't be it, it's not enough IMO.

I know they have some millennials working for them but looking at these ads. they aren't putting them to good use.  Young people know how to shorten shit up, because they don't have patience/ time to sit still/concentrate for too long and wait for you to get to your point. They better be showing these ads. to various age groups. 

Edited by represent
  • Love 3
jjj

jjj

7 minutes ago, represent said:

I don't know who those ads. are suppose to get, but they do nothing for me. Fine, run those ads. but you better also take half those billions and put them into POSITIVE Hillary ads. noting bullet points from her platform. Where are those ads.? The ads. on what she stands for in addition to the negative that Trump stands for have to be equally if not more on display.

Another thing, those negative Trump ads. are too long, there's too many people in them. You need to cut the ads. down to three lines. Attention span across the board is short, and it's easy for folks to remember a maximum of three short lines. 

All ads. need to be short and catchy one to three liners at the most.  

Also WTF would you put his face on a t-shirt?  I don't want to see his face on a t-shirt.

I agree so much with ALL of your points!  For heaven's sake, don't mention the name of the competition or show its chassis!   I am hoping that the hopeful, positive ads just were not as attention-getting for TRMS.  "Just Do It"  (Oh, that one's taken...) 

ebk57

ebk57

I understand the desire for positive ads.  And I'm hoping the super pac will run positive ads when the nomination is secured.   But in reality, negative ads work.  As sad as that is.  And for me and those in my living room, the second ad worked.  Really well.  Of course, they don't have to convince me, but I thought that ad was good.  The first one, not so much, but the second one, definitely.

  • Love 4
represent

represent

(edited)

Yeah, I'm not saying no negative ads. but you need to cover your bases and I'm looking for the positive ones about Hillary. I want short ads. with bullet points on what she stands for in conjunction with the Trump ads.. I haven't seen those ads. since I don't know how many Super Tuesday's ago. Where are the ads. displaying Hillary's smart power?   So they shouldn't just rely on running ads. solely focused on his sexism. Not when  a former employee is showing up all over the airways talking about how she welcomed his comments on her weight and how you have to be tough and take it. Yeah, this is what is to be dealt with in this election and I'm just saying they need to cover all bases here.

Edited by represent
  • Love 2
Sesquipedalia

Sesquipedalia

I like both ads. I'm sure the Clinton campaign itself will put out plenty of positive ads for her. The Super PAC will be in charge of the negative ones.

Normally I would hate to see a campaign I support go too negative, because usually that entails exaggerating the opponent's flaws, taking their words out of context, and other nasty tricks. But I remember the context for all these quotes, and the ads are not misrepresenting Trump at all. I think they're totally fair.

  • Love 3
jjj

jjj

Okay, this is happening during what is called TRMS hour with Rachel interviewing Chuck Todd, so I'll comment here:  he is gruuuudgingly, gruuuudgingly admitting that  Hillary Clinton is on the road to the nomination; but while he is commenting on the close Kentucky race (with 99% votes counted and Clinton narrowly winning), he has said three times that "there might be some clerk that wrote down the wrong number" or "maybe we will find out tomorrow that some precinct didn't report its votes," but still saying that *tonight*, there is not going to be a change in the outcome of Clinton winning Kentucky.  But each time, he dredges up some scenario of an overnight discovery of error.  Sheeeesh.  Let it go.  Move on. 

And all the work for a couple of delegate votes of difference.  No wonder they did not want to spend campaign money there.  But I get the optics of having a winning night. 

  • Love 4
jjj

jjj

3 minutes ago, represent said:

Joy Reid is there with Rachel instead of BW, awesome. 

Yes, this seems more like TRMS with election coverage, rather than election coverage where Rachel barely has a chance to speak in her own time slot.  (I know, things are more porous on election nights, but this one has a different structure.)

alias1

alias1

I just can't stand Nicole Wallace (i don't care how she spells her name).  Where does she get off telling Democrats they need to find someone to tell Bernie, in no uncertain terms, that he needs to get out of the race.  I agree he is hurting Clinton right now (somewhat) but he has every right to go until people stop voting for him.  I'm for Hillary all the way, but last I checked this is a democracy, something the republicans probably don't get.  Besides, I have every confidence that Hillary will beat Trump, and even that Bernie will get his supporters to go with her when the time comes.

  • Love 1
car54

car54

Joy Reid is awesome--so glad they gave her the Sunday show.   

I've seen like 3 guests say that the party just needs go give Bernie what he wants at the convention--he wants more of his delegates on committees, give it to him...he wans speaking time, give it to him.   I'm with Hillary, but I have a lot of respect for the way Bernie has worked his heart out for a year and has accomplished amazing things, and I think he deserves to have his say.   It would make the end less angry, and I think if he gets that, he will be fine making a good transition if he does not win.   And shut up, Nicole, tell your own party what to do.

  • Love 2
represent

represent

(edited)

I wish Rachel would do a bio on Paul Manafort  that guy makes my skin crawl. If I didn't know any better I'd think he played in Good Fellas. He's got thug/mob written all over him, its oozes through the tv screen.

I know I'm not going to get anything on him by the likes of her colleague Chris Matthews, he thinks he's impressive.

Edited by represent
  • Love 1
jjj

jjj

I am furious at the way MSNBC is letting Kornacki display the actual ballot vote in Washington State.  He is showing the *CAUCUS* percentage win of Sanders from over a month ago with "PROJECTED WINNER" on his picture.  But with his finger Kornacki is DRAWING the actual ballot results, which are early, but which show Clinton winning.  This is supposed to be live coverage.  I think this is not in Rachel's time slot, so will move my comments over to the MSNBC thread. 

  • Love 1
represent

represent

(edited)

You know what the results in Washington prove?  That once again, the shitty press needs to stop cosigning on this theory that Hillary Clinton doesn't have an actual large percentage of the electorate who actually wants to vote for her because we really like her.

I won't be holding my nose when I pull the lever for her but the press just loves say exactly that, whether they compare her to Trump or Bernie. Trump supporters really love him, Bernie supporters really love him, but Hillary supporters are settling, because what?  Most of us  are sane enough to say that we would vote for Bernie if we have to. 

Edited by represent
  • Love 12
jjj

jjj

(edited)

Yes, I said back when the Washington caucuses were held that I knew so many Clinton supporters who could not take half a Saturday to be yelled at by their neighbors who supported Sanders -- because that was what was expected and what happened.  So yes, he had a huge majority of over 70% (around 18,000 votes, mind you), and they split the delegates.  The fact that she won with over 54% of the ballot vote last night shows that the caucus system was extremely flawed here.  (Maybe other states have better controls over the yelling.)  Now the Sanders supporters are yelling "voter suppression".  But they knew the outcome of the ballot vote would influence the superdelegate affiliations.  It was churning to hear MSNBC say before the results that if Sanders won the ballot vote (which no one expected, even the Sanders supporters), he would have a good case to make for taking the Washington superdelegates.  MSNBC never followed up on that point, because they became "all riots, all the time" at exactly the time the results came in.  And then returned to the previously recorded Rachel Maddow show around 10:15 PM Pacific Time, at exactly the moment they should have been covering the results that laid waste to the Sanders case. 

Finally heard this segment -- she made a terrible math error when she said the "primary turnout was about double the caucus turnout" -- it was more like 30 times the turnout, 26,000 versus 719,000:

Edited by jjj
  • Love 2
Padma

Padma

I appreciated Rachel breaking down the caucus participants (23,000 or so) and primary voters (170,000 I think)

Then there's this from the link above: "The Washington caucus process has multiple steps, which means 26,345 delegates were selected on Saturday. Raad says these delegates will move on to the legislative district and county caucuses, where 1,400 delegates will be chosen from the more than 26,000 to move on to the congressional district caucuses. At those congressional district caucuses, it will be pared down to 67 delegates that will go to the Democratic National Convention, and then at the state convention, the other 34 delegates who go to the national convention will be selected."

And, per Bernie, that's supposed to be "fairer" than everyone who wants to easily just casting their vote for who they want via a primary ballot?  If Hillary were mainly getting votes this way, by getting her people to caucus in Washington, but Bernie got 53% of the many-thousands-more votes tallied in the primary--and none of them counted--I don't think he'd be praising the Washington state results.  I was interested that 700,000+ Democrats voted in the primary but the state party "wasn't interested" in the results. To me, it seems like they want to control the process--and heavily influence the result--through keeping it a caucus only state.

Similarly, I don't see why Sanders says "the system is rigged" when Hillary has received 3 million more votes overall and has 300 more delegates.  If that were -his- situation, but she was going to win just because of superdelegates then I'd say, "Yes, shenanigans, and a rigged system." But she's ahead of him by -every- measure--and if, like me (in rare agreement with Chris Matthews) you think primary voting is more accurate than caucuses anyway--then her winning numbers are even -more- convincing.  

I can't remember if Howard Dean was on tonight with Rachel or Hayes, but I loved that he was so positive about the Platform Committee membership--that the DNC had done great to give Bernie's people such a big presence and that ALL of the people on it were really great. That is the first optimistic thing I've heard about Hillary v. Bernie in months! Also made me optimistic that the platform they draft might be something a lot of people would take seriously, think about, and unite around for the fall.

And kudos to Rachel for taking Bernie to task for asking Trump to debate. I hadn't seen it as undercutting Hillary--until Rachel pointed it out.  Now I get it, since he has zero chance of being the nominee but would be making a play for more Calif. votes THIS way, with Trump-provided publicity and a chance for BOTH of them to bash Clinton before the primary. Sneaky. And an unearned privilege, imo.  I liked how Hillary isn't taking them seriously.  

  • Love 3
jjj

jjj

36 minutes ago, Padma said:

I appreciated Rachel breaking down the caucus participants (23,000 or so) and primary voters (170,000 I think)

 I was interested that 700,000+ Democrats voted in the primary but the state party "wasn't interested" in the results. To me, it seems like they want to control the process--and heavily influence the result--through keeping it a caucus only state.

As you note in your lower paragraph, there were over 700,000 Democratic voters in the primary (not 170,000).  I came to Washington State when it was *all* caucus primaries (Republican and Democrat), and I came from an eastern state where you had to declare a party affiliation to vote by ballot in a primary.  I did not find the caucuses charming, but because they are part of the populist history of the state, there is an attachment to the caucuses.  The Republicans *did* switch to using ballot votes to apportion delegates after some debacles in the caucuses.  By law, the Democrats must use the caucus votes to apportion delegates, but the Democratic candidates still appear on the general ballot with the Republican candidates, although the Democratic ballot results do not "count".  It is a ridiculous system.  State legislators are ready to change the system for the next presidential election in four years, so the Democratic system will be based on ballot votes, in all likelihood, in 2020.  The caucuses were very confrontational this year, and no one will be satisfied with the results, because Sanders will still not get the superdelegates.   It is not a populist system if the results are so completely different than when ballots are cast. 

I still have not seen the segment about the prospective Trump-Sanders debate, but when I heard about it, the plan struck me like they guys building a debate treehouse with a sign that says "No Gurlz Allowed."   

  • Love 3
Grommet

Grommet

Great show last night. I wish Rachel had pondered why Trump thinks giving the theoretical huge network fee to "women's health issues" would be appropriate. Such a weird choice of words, and of a recipient of such largesse. What's the thinking - we're excluding the female candidate from the debate, but we're giving money to other women so no one will complain!

If I were 30 years younger, I'd be going to Bernie rallies. But I'm old enough to be very, very afraid of Trump so I'm glad Rachel pointed out that Bernie is helping him every time he undermines Hillary.

  • Love 4
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...