MSNBC: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (Vaulted)

[represent]

Quote

Last night was probably the first time that I really didn't care for Rachel at all.  Whatever the Clinons' marriage is, it is their marriage. Yes, obviously they have had to work through a lot, but it's also obvious there is affection there.  And I don't believe for a second that she knows either one well enough to have some grand insight into it.  In short, I found her comments mean-spirited, harsh, and off-putting.  I expect much better coming from her.

I agree too.

But I also get this idea that when you are the president "the people" pretty much seem to have the right to know what the hell your damn colon looks like. But every time I hear these political "journalists" nimrods talk about the Clinton marriage I'm always thinking, mind your fucking business. I hear it all the time that no ones knows shit about anyone's marriage, only the two people in the marriage know. I was listening to the CNN panel and  the way they were talking, I was like, you are not family and you're not in that marriage, you really don't need to understand it. They're puzzled by it,  sigh, whatever. 

 

Quote

And I loved the comments LOD made about all the things we never knew before, like the 1100 square foot house, etc.  And then he brought the whole college thing into perspective when he mentioned that there would have been a motorcade bringing Chelsea to college and there would have been bullet proof glass.  I thought Bill Clinton did a brilliant job of humanizing Hillary.

Yeah, that house is like a museum now. They left it as it was and it has all Bill and Hillary mementos in it. 

Edited July 27, 2016 by represent

[Mumbles]

The "nimrods" make a point of their marriage because the Clintons  have made it an issue for the past 25 years. There's a reason people don't pry into the Obama or Bush marriages, and that is because (a) neither Obama or Bush said that the voters would be getting "two for the price of one" and appointed Michelle or Laura in charge of a major policy area and (b) both Obama and Bush, to the best of our knowledge (and hopes) respected their vows and didn't engage in reckless personal extramarital behavior that resulted in part in impeachment and disbarment.

Some argue that Hillary would have been politically successful without following Bill Clinton to Arkansas. Maybe, but we'll never know, and as such, her marriage to him is fair game. Bring it on, MSNBC.

Edited July 27, 2016 by Mumbles

[33kaitykaity]

4 minutes ago, Mumbles said:

The "nimrods" make a point of their marriage because the Clintons  have made it an issue for the past 25 years. There's a reason people don't pry into the Obama or Bush marriages, and that is because (a) neither Obama or Bush said that the voters would be getting "two for the price of one" and appointed Michelle or Laura in charge of a major policy area and (b) both Obama and Bush, to the best of our knowledge (and hopes) respected their vows and didn't engage in reckless personal extramarital behavior that resulted in part in  and disbarment.

Some argue that Hillary would have been politically successful without following Bill Clinton to Arkansas. Maybe, but we'll never know, and as such, her marriage to him is fair game. Bring it on, MSNBC.

I can name several examples of president/first lady marriages that have met both a and b criteria that still have not been as examined or as excoriated as the Clintons' marriage has been, so there is obviously more to the irrational hatred of the Clintons by the nimrods.  

[pennben]

Well, I just watched the news on MSNBC and Trump invited the Russians to spy and interfere in our elections.  So, please excuse me if I'm not going to re-litigate marriage difficulties from 20ish years ago. Oh, to be back in the days when we were titillated by a president's infidelity.

Edited July 27, 2016 by pennben

[jjj]

I have to wonder if MSNBC will find a way to deal with the bullhorn shouting at their outdoor location.  I applaud Chris Jansing and her interviewees for talking right through it.  But some faction has latched onto their outdoor studio as a place to get attention. (I have no idea if what they are shouting has anything to do with the convention -- saw a big sign that said "REPENT", so that could mean the end of days or the Clinton nomination, who knows!?)

[ruby24]

What's so bad about saying he met a "girl" when they were both young and in college? I have no idea what Rachel was talking about.

[WendyCR72]

This is becoming an issue once again of going into politics independent of the DNC coverage. Which, as stated a million times, is not acceptable. So get back to the topic on screen and cut it the hell out with the grandstanding.

[jjj]

I love Rachel, but this discussion is reminding me of a segment she did (6 to 12 months ago) where she showed current politicians in their early days working on big issues and protests like civil rights.  And she included pictures of the men doing protests (I think Bernie was one of them, in his twenties), in political situations, and the picture she included of HRC was of her wedding.  Posters here, me included said WTH? 

13 minutes ago, ruby24 said:

What's so bad about saying he met a "girl" when they were both young and in college? I have no idea what Rachel was talking about.

As I said above, I see nothing but nostalgia in the "girl" reference, coming from an almost-70-year-old man recalling when he first saw his wife 45 years ago. However, if a law professor would call a 23-year-old woman in a class "girl", today or in 1971, that law professor would get an incredulous "*what*?!"  Context!  Rachel was considering it as though it were a current reference to a current 23-year-old woman. 

Edited July 27, 2016 by jjj

[Mumbles]

Because some people - presumably Rachel - take offense at calling a woman of majority age a "girl."  Clearly some people have no issue with it. But Rachel did and many agree with her. Classic YMMV.

[jenrising]

Just got home and turned on MSNBC for a second. By the time I walked back into the room my screen had Chuck Todd, Nina Turner and Ed Rendell (my former mayor then governor and now chief WTF generator). 

Nope! Back to CSPAN where I belong.

Meanwhile, Joy Reid's twitter feed has been a delight all day. Smart, thoughtful, funny, informative. They should just let her run the place. 

Edited July 27, 2016 by jenrising

[jjj]

6 minutes ago, jenrising said:

Meanwhile, Joy Reid's twitter feed has been a delight all day. Smart, thoughtful, funny, informative. They should just let her run the place. 

THANK YOU for this tip!  It will make me appreciate her comments even more this evening! 

She said that Trump asked a reporter (Katy Tur, she thinks) to "be quiet".  I know some here would agree, but if Katy Tur can rankle him, good for her! 

[represent]

Christ on a cracker, these "journalists" never get people to answer a damn question directly. Give me a straight fucking answer. The answer is yes, they actually would elect Putin over Hillary that's how much they hate her on the other side and some in the middle for that matter. That's the answer Donna Brazile, to  Chris Matthew's question, yes.

They also need to clean house at that DNC and get some young people running things if they are serious about growing the party. I like Donna Brazile, she goes back to working right along side Martin Luther King Jr. in the movement, just like Lewis, but they need to "youth" it up and fast. 

Edited August 3, 2016 by represent

[magdalene]

I didn't care for Rachel last night and I usually like her very much. Whenever somebody starts ranting about the sexual morals of this particular president - where is the outrage over President Kennedy's busy penis? - my eyes roll and then glaze over.  Maybe it's a cultural thing, I am European born and unless a politician harasses or rapes a woman or molests minors I can't be arsed to care about their sex lives. The Clintons obviously have an arrangement that works for them and that's their business. 

What I care about in an elected official is whether they are competent and are doing their job.  Bill Clinton was very competent on the job as I recall.

[Padma]

Watching MSNBC tonight, it's a good thing there are some white men on stage. Because, with Hillary's supposed "white male problem" the MSNBC cameras photographing the audience have only shown women (other than one black man and Charlie Rangel--) all night! It really seems there are -only- women in that huge crowd, based on the camerawork, although I'm sure that's not the case. Weird! Especially after the RNC that appeared on camera to be mainly men and  nearly all white.

Edited July 28, 2016 by Padma
Edited to keep to the topic of the MSNBC panelists and DNC

[Grommet]

I think I'm going to break up with MSNBC. Again with interviewing a Sanders supporter!

[jjj]

7 minutes ago, Grommet said:

I think I'm going to break up with MSNBC. Again with interviewing a Sanders supporter!

I know, it is like it is 1960 and they are on Pacific islands looking for denial holdouts from WW II.  In 2020, MSNBC will still be looking for Bernie-or-bust holdouts. 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/may/28/secondworldwar.japan 

Edited July 28, 2016 by jjj

[represent]

Oh no, Paul Manafort better call Putin to get him to release more emails, stat.

Damn that was a superb,I'm teary eyed.

[Mumbles]

This election may hinge on whether the people who supported Sanders vote for Clinton, or whether they stay home or vote for another candidate. MSNBC wouldn't be doing its job if it didn't speak to supporters and ascertain what direction the Sanders supporters were going. Plus I found the woman who was interviewed on the floor after the president's speech really thoughtful and I was glad to hear from her; she wasn't "Bernie or Bust", she said she was thinking how best to use her vote to promote her values. Were that everyone took voting so seriously.

Edited July 28, 2016 by Mumbles

[jjj]

No, MSNBC, after an evening of moving speeches (mostly) and the appearance of the nominee with the sitting President on stage, we do not need a "special" SNL Weekend Update, not unless you have managed to get Jon Stewart and Mark Twain to deliver it.   Let us who have gone to other coverage know how it went. 

[Queena]

6 minutes ago, Mumbles said:

This election may hinge on whether the people who supported Sanders vote for Clinton, or whether they stay home or vote for another candidate. MSNBC wouldn't be doing its job if it didn't speak to supporters and ascertain what direction the Sanders supporters were going. Plus I found the woman who was interviewed on the floor after the president's speech really thoughtful and I was glad to hear from her.

I really don't think so. Bernie had a problem with minorities. This election will depend on the minority vote. If Bernie people had came out in the numbers that they supposedly have, he would be the nominee. 

 

Why is MSNBC showing a rerun of Weekend Update? Tonight was to historical for reruns! Upon further watching, this isn't a rerun... Just... Why? 

Edited July 28, 2016 by Queena

[xaxat]

I'm really going to miss that guy.

I don't know what management was expecting with the SNL skit. But I would like to inform them that it a) isn't going to get me to watch SNL and b) got me to change the channel.

[nowandlater]

They are having a reporters hanging out in the seats roundtable giving their thoughts. I really don't want to watch this.

[jjj]

4 minutes ago, nowandlater said:

They are having a reporters hanging out in the seats roundtable giving their thoughts. I really don't want to watch this.

Except it is hilarious to watch the camera people use crazy angles to avoid the photo bombers!  "Okay, zoom in on the nape of the back of Kelly's neck when she talks."  "Okay, aim the camera at the middle where there are no reporters, but also no photo bombers." 

MSNBC just redeemed itself by showing a clip of the Obama 2004 speech.  12 years ago today.  I remember telling everyone the next day, "you have to see that speech, not read it, but see it."  I had never heard of Obama before that night. 

Edited July 28, 2016 by jjj

[33kaitykaity]

30 minutes ago, Queena said:

I really don't think so. Bernie had a problem with minorities. This election will depend on the minority vote. If Bernie people had came out in the numbers that they supposedly have, he would be the nominee. 

That is true, Bernie not being able to reach minorities in numbers, but Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and the DNC being in the bag for HRC before Bernie ever even announced had a whole hell of a lot to do with Bernie not being the nominee as well, nasty tricks perpetrated by HRC/DNC that thanks to Assange and possibly the Russians on behalf of Trump we now know to be factual assertions. 

[KBrownie]

40 minutes ago, 33kaitykaity said:

That is true, Bernie not being able to reach minorities in numbers, but Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and the DNC being in the bag for HRC before Bernie ever even announced had a whole hell of a lot to do with Bernie not being the nominee as well, nasty tricks perpetrated by HRC/DNC that thanks to Assange and possibly the Russians on behalf of Trump we now know to be factual assertions. 

Weren't the emails actually from when it was very clear that Sanders wasn't going to be the nominee?  Yeah they were wrong, but let's not exaggerate.  These were emails between staff at the DNC.  They in no way demonstrate any sort of real, actual plan to to thwart Sanders from becoming the nominee.  They do not show in any way that on a large scale that actually would have made some difference that voters were influenced to vote for Clinton over Sanders.  And why wouldn't they, at the Democratic National Convention, prefer the actual Democrat to someone who only joined because that was his only chance at winning.  Especially if as the above quote claims, this was done before he announced he was running, before he claimed he was a Democrat.  I agree with a lot of Sanders's positions, but he's not a Democrat.  He's an opportunist who is going to return to his seat in the Senate as an Independent.  Which says a lot.  TBTB at the DNC did him a huge favor in even allowing him to run as a Democrat knowing it was BS.  That has been lacking in MSNBC's coverage this week.  Why don't they ask about that? 

 

Minorities were not voting for him.  Period.  Some emails don't wash that away.  He was losing the minority vote by 30 or more points in some states.  A few emails aren't the cause of that.  And no, it's not because blacks didn't understand him or whatever condescending reason Sanders supporters came up with at the time, they just didn't choose him.  It happens.  Such is life.  Hillary Clinton understands that all too well.  I will be very glad when the coverage on MSNBC moves away from Sanders.  It's not like he's the first person who didn't get the nomination.  From some of the coverage it's like his supporters are the first ones ever to not have their choice win.  They aren't owed anything.  It's overkill at this point.  They can do what they feel is best with their vote, but the media needs to move on.  It's no longer about him.  He ran a good campaign and moved the party forward, but he lost.  Yes, he resonated with a lot of people, but there are a lot of people who didn't vote for him.  And still wouldn't.  I wish MSNBC would talk to more of those people.  Clinton got 3 million more votes than Sanders. There's a reason for that that can't just be hand waved away.  I'm tired of MSNBC ignoring that in favor of the losing side.  

Edited July 28, 2016 by KBrownie
Had more to say.

[33kaitykaity]

3 minutes ago, KBrownie said:

Weren't the emails actually from when it was very clear that Sanders wasn't going to be the nominee?  Yeah they were wrong, but let's not exaggerate.  These were emails between staff at the DNC.  They in no way demonstrate any sort of real, actual plan to to thwart Sanders from becoming the nominee.  They do not show in any way that on a large scale that actually would have made some difference that voters were influenced to vote for Clinton over Sanders.  Minorities were not voting for him.  Period.  Some emails don't wash that away.  He was losing the minority vote by 30 or more points in some states.  A few emails aren't the cause of that.  And no, it's not because blacks didn't understand him or whatever condescending reason Sanders supporters came up with at the time, they just didn't choose him.  It happens.  Such is life.  Hillary Clinton understands that all too well.  I will be very glad when the coverage on MSNBC moves away from Sanders.  It's not like he's the first person who didn't get the nomination.  From some of the coverage it's like his supporters are the first ones ever to not have their choice win.  They aren't owed anything.  It's overkill at this point.  They can do what they feel is best with their vote, but the media needs to move on.  It's no longer about him.  He ran a good campaign and moved the party forward, but he lost.  Yes, he resonated with a lot of people, but there are a lot of people who didn't vote for him.  And still wouldn't.  I wish MSNBC would talk to more of those people.  Clinton got 3 million more votes than Sanders. There's a reason for that that can't just be hand waved away.  I'm tired of MSNBC ignoring that in favor of the losing side.  

I think the media is only just beginning to realize how big the Trump/Russia/election tampering story really will be, i.e., a foreign government interfering in a US federal election, i.e., arranging a document dump at a specific time so as to injure one party's nominee in a way that helps the other, i.e., the email leak damaged Clinton and helped Trump.  

If the story progresses, then the complaints on behalf of the Sanders' campaign will gain credibility and what the DNC actually did on Clinton's behalf to harm Sanders will also come into clearer focus.  The media keeping an extended focus on Bernie's supporters could be the start of some real reporting on an important, much larger story.  

[jjj]

I will be very surprised if MSNBC stays on the Bernie supporter angle.  That was a convention story.  Any stories about Senator Sanders will be about his support for HRC.   There is a lot of forward momentum for the campaign, assuming all goes well on Thursday, and you can tell that the commentators on MSNBC are relishing the stories to come of the Obamas and Clintons and Bidens and Kaines, a combination of past and future that has not occurred for a very long time -- and whether the Trump campaign can get organized and take control of its candidate. I think this will be a more active August that is usual in presidential years -- I will be very surprised if the Clinton campaign plans to wait until Labor Day for the big push.  It will be a relief for MSNBC to get the reporters on the road, and to stop trying to figure out how to use all the reporters currently in Philadelphia -- they will be all over the country, so no more group huddles to fill time. 

[Queena]

6 hours ago, KBrownie said:

Weren't the emails actually from when it was very clear that Sanders wasn't going to be the nominee?  Yeah they were wrong, but let's not exaggerate.  These were emails between staff at the DNC.  They in no way demonstrate any sort of real, actual plan to to thwart Sanders from becoming the nominee.  They do not show in any way that on a large scale that actually would have made some difference that voters were influenced to vote for Clinton over Sanders.  And why wouldn't they, at the Democratic National Convention, prefer the actual Democrat to someone who only joined because that was his only chance at winning.  Especially if as the above quote claims, this was done before he announced he was running, before he claimed he was a Democrat.  I agree with a lot of Sanders's positions, but he's not a Democrat.  He's an opportunist who is going to return to his seat in the Senate as an Independent.  Which says a lot.  TBTB at the DNC did him a huge favor in even allowing him to run as a Democrat knowing it was BS.  That has been lacking in MSNBC's coverage this week.  Why don't they ask about that? 

 

Minorities were not voting for him.  Period.  Some emails don't wash that away.  He was losing the minority vote by 30 or more points in some states.  A few emails aren't the cause of that.  And no, it's not because blacks didn't understand him or whatever condescending reason Sanders supporters came up with at the time, they just didn't choose him.  It happens.  Such is life.  Hillary Clinton understands that all too well.  I will be very glad when the coverage on MSNBC moves away from Sanders.  It's not like he's the first person who didn't get the nomination.  From some of the coverage it's like his supporters are the first ones ever to not have their choice win.  They aren't owed anything.  It's overkill at this point.  They can do what they feel is best with their vote, but the media needs to move on.  It's no longer about him.  He ran a good campaign and moved the party forward, but he lost.  Yes, he resonated with a lot of people, but there are a lot of people who didn't vote for him.  And still wouldn't.  I wish MSNBC would talk to more of those people.  Clinton got 3 million more votes than Sanders. There's a reason for that that can't just be hand waved away.  I'm tired of MSNBC ignoring that in favor of the losing side.  

This! All of this! I love Bernie Sanders. Lord knows that I do. The Democrats have done a lot more than they did for Hillary in 08, she's a Democrat! Bernie has become our special snowflake, and MSNBC is one of the reasons for that. Bernie Sanders proves the point that I try to make to Republicans, and scared Democrats.... You need minorities in order to win elections. Bernie Sanders didn't really try to reach out to minorities. He had one ad where he he didn't show a minority for the first 2 minutes. 

I tuned to MSNBC last night after watching the convention on c-span. The bit that I saw before the Saturday night live special, everyone seemed so down. I know that the night was historical, but they all seemed subdued to me. Just me? 

Edited July 28, 2016 by Queena

[Grommet]

Wordy McWord to kbrownie and Queena. I wish there were more talk of this on MSNBC. A little depth to the reporting, even from the panel, would be great. I hope jjj is right and the post convention narrative focuses on the actual nominee.

[potatoradio]

I tried, but I can't anymore with MSNBC and their identity crisis. They don't want to lean forward, but they can't oust Fox News just yet. They can't fix it.

I think back to 2000, when Ellen Goodman warned of the dangers of corporate media mixing with journalistic integrity (and I count depth and reasonable neutrality as part of integrity), and it's really hard not to have a moment of 'told ya so!' when I see a commentator of Maddow's caliber continually reduced to second banana and now also moving away from thoughtful and in-depth commentary in order to appease whatever corporate drone is holding the reins. 

Chris Matthews screaming about Philly cheesesteak and how HE GREW UP IN PHILLY....HE KNOWS PHILLY and...Oh, these SNL guys are SOOOO funny....HA HAHA...wait, WHAT? There's a serious election coming up? Oh, BAH!  I GREW UP IN PHILLY! SHUT UP, JOY! I WANT TO TOUCH IVANKA TRUMP'S BOOBS!!! SHE SAYS WORDS CORRECTLY!

Oh, h*ll, no. Nail in my MSNBC-viewing coffin.

Not even Kornacki with his random numbers and map antics ("if I turn all of these states blue, then Clinton wins. But look, if I turn them all red again, it's a toss-up! Get excited!) is worth it. Not even my guilty crush on Jeremy Peters is worth it (because I tried Morning Blow Hard Joe once to see if I could catch him and....what a disgusting show. Not going there ever again and need brain bleach badly). 

Congrats, though, MSNBC. You made this old, grumpy lady discover the joy of Twitter while watching C-SPAN. In a completely non-scientific study, this particular viewer discovered her mood and blood pressure were greatly improved when I could watch the speeches and catch a few comments when I wanted to, from the people I wanted to hear from.

Therapy, MSNBC. You need it.*

*And I probably need it, too, after trying to suffer through your botched transformation from left-leaning commentators to full blown vacuous sideshow, so, once again, thanks for nothing. 

Edited July 28, 2016 by potatoradio

[NextIteration]

It's clear that MSNBC wants to keep sowing seeds of divisiveness, and are attempting to keep this a close horse race.  Andrea Mitchell has become a vile manipulative ass and I actually eye-rolled and got pissed at my beloved Rachel Maddow.  The only two of these folks I can take anymore on the evening coverage are Joy Reid and Chris Hayes.  Jansing remains the diamond in day-side coverage.

I really hope that America wakes up and sees tRump as the threat that he is.

I hope this is Kosher, but the Democratic Convention reminds me why I've been a proud Democrat my whole life.

[stormy]

Watching Jose this morning got me to thinking and wondering.  Does anyone really thing the RNC doesn't have the same kind of emails and voice mails?  They're probably like that times 10.

Edited July 28, 2016 by stormy

[represent]

Tamryn and MSNBC I don't give a shit about what those rude protesters are saying, I'm trying to hear the damn interviews and cannot.  Take your asses indoors for coverage like CNN has the good sense to do. The unrest is not entertaining nor informative at this point.

Edited July 28, 2016 by represent

[jjj]

Agree they should move the panels indoors -- I did not hear the Tamryn hour, but it got out of hand yesterday morning.  On the other hand, Andrea Mitchell was just trying to interview over the sound of Katy Perry rehearsing in the arena!  It was not that noticeable to us, but apparently distracting to Andrea. 

[Mumbles]

Quote

The bit that I saw before the Saturday night live special, everyone seemed so down. I know that the night was historical, but they all seemed subdued to me. Just me? 

Yeah, I don't like those guys, even on SNL, but a big problem was that there is no live audience (I think whatever laughs we hear are from the crew) so the energy level is all off. But they got a great joke off about Hillary's speech tomorrow being the cheapest speech she ever gave. The crew howled.

[represent]

17 minutes ago, jjj said:

Agree they should move the panels indoors -- I did not hear the Tamryn hour, but it got out of hand yesterday morning.  On the other hand, Andrea Mitchell was just trying to interview over the sound of Katy Perry rehearsing in the arena!  It was not that noticeable to us, but apparently distracting to Andrea. 

Yeah, I'll take Katy Perry over shouts of warmonger and she stole it any day. I'm ready to celebrate and have had enough to the negativity. And they better get rid of the hecklers tonight, they can practice their first amendment rights the hell out of that hall and out in the streets. I have no interest in hearing warmonger shouted out as Hillary takes this historic step into the limelight.

Like I said before, sometimes the dems are too soft, they need to take a page from across the aisle once and awhile. They cut off mikes and throw people out left and right when they good and ready. I really don't want to hear that shit tonight.

Matt fucking Lauer, why the hell are you asking Hillary's only daughter about her disconnect with the public you turd, ugh. Really? How the fuck would she know? Why would she know what the hell you and the rest of the disconnected people with regard to Hillary feel? Bye, just bye.

Christ on a cracker, Andrea Mitchell is literally repeating the same question to every, fucking guest. LOL, I can't, I gotta take a break, this is just stupid. She's cutting a fat check for this shit. Nobody has the answer Mitchell. No one!

Edited July 28, 2016 by represent

[jjj]

I like that MSNBC finally embraced Katy Perry as part of the coverage -- in Chris Jansing's hour, she cut away with "we'll be right back, and here is Katy Perry doing a sound check."  Sounded great. 

[NextIteration]

Yesterday morning, I'm not sure if it was Morning Joe or where, they were interviewing Claire McCaskill, she talked about when they showed all the presidents and then Hillary came crashing through and Sen McCaskill said there were hardly any dry eyes in the house amongst the women and how she missed her grandmothers and mother in the moment..  I bawled my eyes out for the same reasons, my mom passed in November so she just missed this amazing moment.

This moment is every bit as historical as Barack Obama's and I'm on a slow burn that these people are not concentrating on that and that after Monday they haven't moved away from the rude protesters, because from what I've of seen many of them, they still don't understand the process and how this works any better than they did Monday night..  I'm absolutely mystified how anyone voted them in as delegates.  Stole it, indeed.

Edited July 28, 2016 by NextIteration

[maraleia]

Well you have to hand it to this network for not reporting on the claims that John Ashe & Seth C. Rich were killed by the Clinton's both of which were proven false by Snopes.com.

I dared to question a twitter feed that was RT these claims by others and they blocked me without engaging so I know its malarkey as Biden would say.

[represent]

I don't know who the hell MSNBC and the rest are polling, or how they ask the polling questions, since they insist on reporting them every damn minute. If you ask me if the country is the going in the wrong direction, I would yes and no, and the only reason I'd say no is because from my perspective the neo-nazis have come out of the woodwork. And in my mind they aren't coming out via any fault of the current administration, so add that to your polls.

I'm pretty sure they aren't polling the likes of people like me. 

Edited July 28, 2016 by represent

[Queena]

3 minutes ago, represent said:

I don't know who the hell MSNBC and the rest are polling, or how they ask the polling questions, since they insist on reporting them every damn minute. If you ask me if the country is the going in the wrong direction, I would yes and no, and the only reason I'd say yes is because from my perspective the neo-nazi's have come out of the woodwork. And in my mind they aren't coming out via any fault of the current administration, so add that to your polls.

I'm pretty sure they aren't polling the likes of people like me. 

They never poll people like us. I'm convinced that they only poll the elderly. 

[Padma]

The other day (start of the week, post RNC), MSNBC quoted a new poll (might have been NBCs or maybe the LA Times) that said Trump was 7 points ahead.

That struck me as very very odd, so I looked to see who had been polled. It was "registered voters" and, I think, it was also via landlines.

This skews results greatly, as tv people know but hardly ever bother to tell us. If they wanted to reflect the best numbers for Trump, that would be the way to do it. If they wanted the worst for him, they'd poll "likely voters" instead of registered ones (and could also skew it by getting younger people via cell phones and other methods though "likely voters" is the easiest)

The fact that MSNBC doesn't tell how the polling is done (and often doesn't repeat "within the margin of error" when there's a 5 point spread or so--unless that goes in HRCs direction in which case I've heard them say it and call it "basically, a tie".)

Whatever happened to "lean forward"? I was happy with that. I can't imagine what these networks would do if Hillary surged so far ahead that it became impossible to keep reporting it as "anyone can win", particularly in the battlegrounds. My guess is that they'd just stop reporting poll results completely. That's how "journalism" MSNBC-style seems now, much less anything "forward leaning".

[tenativelyyours]

Polls are in the business of Polling.  If they showed a continuous huge gap these days there is no 'story' or money.  Pay attention to Nate Silver.  Or google the same polls this time 4 years ago.  And eight years ago?  According to most of the polls the NBC news division pulled out we are currently seeing out the last months of the McCain administration even as we enjoy the upcoming Romney second swearing in.  I have been polled twice and by Quinnipiac and it was not non-partisan in the least.  The questions were aimed at specific scenarios (this during 2012) that tried to get my answers to skew pro-Romney.  One was something like 'with the failure of Obama to work with Congress, do you feel the next holder of office should be someone who has a better chance at bi-partisan work'  If you answered yes they followed up with, so you would vote Republican since it seems there will still be a Republican congress in effect". 

And just look at the polls leading through the primaries.  Several of the headlines on Comcast, NBC and ABC all had a screaming 'shocking results in new poll!"  Polls have become click bait as well as starting an incestuous relationship with the media.   The polls drive the ratings grabbing stories and the ratings grabbing stories show which makes for the most interesting and marketable poll. 

[Moose135]

20 hours ago, jjj said:

MSNBC just redeemed itself by showing a clip of the Obama 2004 speech.  12 years ago today.  I remember telling everyone the next day, "you have to see that speech, not read it, but see it."  I had never heard of Obama before that night. 

Quite a coincidence that it was 12 years to the day.  Like you, I had no idea who Obama was at the time, but I remember telling people "he's going to be President some day..."  I never expected it to happen just four years later.

[jjj]

55 minutes ago, Padma said:

Whatever happened to "lean forward"? I was happy with that. I can't imagine what these networks would do if Hillary surged so far ahead that it became impossible to keep reporting it as "anyone can win", particularly in the battlegrounds. My guess is that they'd just stop reporting poll results completely. That's how "journalism" MSNBC-style seems now, much less anything "forward leaning".

One of the regular hosts, and I think it was Rachel, made a big deal of showing us the "real" polls that the campaigns actually pay attention to (when they know what they are doing, so there is an automatic exemption for the Trump campaign).  These polls affect big money and tell candidates where their time will be best spent (not where they will definitely lose or definitely win).  Was this in the 2014 cycle?  At any rate, those particular polls were indeed very accurate; I'd love it if someone would start doing a regular segment on *those* polls. 

I just realized Steve Kornacki has not been irritating me this week.  Has he been put on daytime hours, or vacation?  I only get to see Chris Jansing's hour, no other daytime shows. Again, thanks for pointing me/us to Joy Reid's Twitter account!  That and following the DNC hashtags is very therapeutic!

[xaxat]

At this point, I have become so desensitized to the constant use of the "Breaking News" bug that they could probably run "Breaking News: Giant asteroid headed towards Earth!" and I would be like "Get back to me when you have footage."

[Medicine Crow]

1 hour ago, Moose135 said:

Quite a coincidence that it was 12 years to the day.  Like you, I had no idea who Obama was at the time, but I remember telling people "he's going to be President some day..."  I never expected it to happen just four years later.

I was also watching & saw Obama for the first time.  I was in tears!!!  I called my Sister (an American) the next day & she hadn't even watched.  I was "blown away" & really disappointed that she (& her husband) weren't watching.  I've been a fan of his ever since.

Note:  Canadian health care is not "free"!!!  Just sayin'.

[jjj]

Oh, heavens, Nicole Wallace!  She is going on and on about how "partisan," "too partisan," the HRC speech was.  "Too progressive".  Ridiculous.  HRC had Bernie in the room and protestors in the room -- and Nicole thinks she should have played to the Republicans who might vote for her? 

Boy, the balloons were impressive.  Can't image how freaky it must be to the Secret Service to have all that popping and loss of sight lines. 

[Grommet]

Oh how I hate Nicole Wallace. I'm glad Steve Schmidt was there to present a reasonable Republican voice.

There should have been a drinking game based on the use of the word "progressive" - not a dirty word anymore, I guess!

[represent]

8 minutes ago, jjj said:

Oh, heavens, Nicole Wallace!  She is going on and on about how "partisan," "too partisan," the HRC speech was.  "Too progressive".  Ridiculous.  HRC had Bernie in the room and protestors in the room -- and Nicole thinks she should have played to the Republicans who might vote for her? 

Boy, the balloons were impressive.  Can't image how freaky it must be to the Secret Service to have all that popping and loss of sight lines. 

Wallace is an idiot. Yes, those balloons were impressive, wish I could get one with the stars on them. They are huge.