Media Meltdown Sinking Hillary
- Thread starter babe
- Start date
Well, of course the stories about busloads of voters cruising from voting place to voting place are nonsense.
So are the stories about community action groups like ACORN working to get the voters to the voting booths.
And the UN will no doubt have some officials looking in on American elections to make sure we comply with UN standards.
If Trump mobilizes some voters to do what the Dems have done, it might be more like a counterbalance to what has been going on already.
I admit, it was more than a hunch. Here's a graph
(To be fair the margin of error was probably like +-3% so Trump could be as low as -2% with the blacks)
The data is old, and one of the outliers to boot.
Here's more recent results:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/polls.html
most of the polls included do not include Johnson. Nor is there any racially-segregated polls included. The results for Clinton and Trump add up to between 78% and 92%, with the one poll that includes Johnson adding up to 92% plus Johnson's 7% making 99%,
I don't believe any poll which has less than 15% undecided, really. The pollsters are giving a biased presentation of the choices when they do not break it down in a way that allows the soft or undecided voters to respond accordingly.
It would be my judgment that Hillary's support is pretty solid, and Trumps less committed, simply because Hillary's support comes from largely unmoveable people who are financially vested in the status quo. I estimate Hillary's solid support at 40%. Trump's solid support at 30%. Johnson's solid support at 5%. I think Trump would actually get 40% of the vote, Johnson 6%, others 1%, and Hillary 43%.
In order to defeat Hillary, Trump has to appeal to her base, which he appears to be trying to do. In order to do that, he will need to appear solidly reasonable and spend a lot of effort addressing that base specifically and effectively, without alienating his base.
Last edited:
Here's a recent result shown on Breitbart:
https://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/09/08/trump-gains-hispanics-africanamericans/
I heard about this on the radio show over a week ago, I think on the day it was released or announced (Sept 4). It was the basis of my speculation in starting this thread.
overall, it has about the same general results as the NYTimes average.
https://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/09/08/trump-gains-hispanics-africanamericans/
I heard about this on the radio show over a week ago, I think on the day it was released or announced (Sept 4). It was the basis of my speculation in starting this thread.
overall, it has about the same general results as the NYTimes average.
Here's a NY Times discussion of the Black and Latino voting blocks:
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/15/...support-for-hillary-clinton-is-overrated.html
Hillary getting not much "lift" here.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/15/...support-for-hillary-clinton-is-overrated.html
Hillary getting not much "lift" here.
fixed
how does replacing "being sympathetic" with "to only report confirmable facts" fix a statement that explains a beneficial for Hillary aspect I noticed, about how displacing a bad press over sensational reports of Hillary's actual deeds in real life with a compassionate discussion of her health. This really is helping Clinton, and is putting normal American good will into play on a large scale.
I think you're a little Quixotic seeing that as something to "fix". Almost no segment of Americans is beyond putting a pause on their attack on someone having an ordinary sort of health problem.... say, even cancer...... . WE don't beat people who are down, really.
If you really want Hillary to win, anything that humanizes her will help.
well, anyway, a lot of people will not be sympathetic with her enemies attacking her over this, unless the effort to deny it is even more distasteful.
Question here:
Is this NBC article pro or agin Hillary?
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/20...s-health-scare-9-unanswered-questions-n646551
exploring the "media meltdown" or phase shift away from boosterism support for "TheHillary".
Is this NBC article pro or agin Hillary?
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/20...s-health-scare-9-unanswered-questions-n646551
exploring the "media meltdown" or phase shift away from boosterism support for "TheHillary".
What you said was irrational so I thought I'd fix it.
What is irrational about my theory that the real effect of the incident on 9/11 a few days ago will be public sentiment more in Hillary's favor, and that attempts to attack her on it will backfire? Americans are generally decent people with empathy. I don't think you can make a conspiracy theory out of that, really.
Red
Well-Known Member
That's a fav website of the alt right. Right up there with Drudge. Well known for pure, unadulterated BS.....
So anyway, back to the conspiracy theory of this thread, that high-level support for Hillary is weak, meaning that long-term community leadership generally vital to successful political campaigns..... the very influential community leaders like those who have been invited into the Council On Foreign Relations, for example. While all kinds of community leaders get the invitation and become members of this private organization nominally managed by Rockefeller people, Republicans and Democrats, Corporate bosses and Media personalities, and every other imaginably influential sort of person you'd ever hear about, it is also true that most of our actual politicians receive support from this set of leaders. One of the charges being circulated by the extreme "alt right" is that Trump has checked in with the CFR and has also gotten a nodding approval from the head of the CFR, so they expect Trump to be a "team player" if elected.
So what I'm doing here is looking for a shift in the mainstream media towards Trump and away from Hillary, following media ownership directives, perhaps, to tip the scales in Trump's favor.
That's it, Game. A "conspiracy theory" that there will be continuity in American politics even while Trump is given the Presidency, as fundamental American leadership gets in front of the Trump wave, and rides it for the next four or eight years, meaning essentially that nothing will change much.
So what I'm doing here is looking for a shift in the mainstream media towards Trump and away from Hillary, following media ownership directives, perhaps, to tip the scales in Trump's favor.
That's it, Game. A "conspiracy theory" that there will be continuity in American politics even while Trump is given the Presidency, as fundamental American leadership gets in front of the Trump wave, and rides it for the next four or eight years, meaning essentially that nothing will change much.
you're paving your rep with characterizations lacking factual reasons. Drudge and Breitbart, and Alex Jones have significant audiences, and back up what they say with some kind of information, which you omit in your analysis, which leaves you in the mire more than they.
Anybody can pop off with an unfounded opinion. I'd prefer to look at different viewpoints for the information they have, rather than the conclusions they support. You can post Mother Jones or any of the progressive sources, and it would be useful to the discussion for whatever information they are producing.
Red
Well-Known Member
Brietbart is one of the conservative movement's principal purveyors of conspiracy theories....
https://www.nydailynews.com/news/po...nspiracy-theories-head-spin-article-1.2755173
https://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/...hief-executive-and-his-bigoted-website/212456
https://www.nydailynews.com/news/po...nspiracy-theories-head-spin-article-1.2755173
https://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/...hief-executive-and-his-bigoted-website/212456
Red
Well-Known Member
I love ya, babe, but if you like the information Alex Jones uses as backup, you're beyond hope, lol...
https://www.alternet.org/election-2...iracy-theorist-and-trump-supporter-alex-jones
How can an intelligent man like yourself possibly take that man seriously? You're choice, but good luck finding any truth.
So here's a reason why Trump may be getting the nod from real communitarian leadership. The Progressives have just gone off the charts and we need to get back to some kind of normal. And Trump is the kind of dealmaker they can work with. Yes, he has gotten in front of the segment of Americans that is not at peace with Progressivism, including a lot of ordinary mainstream people who just think some things we've been doing don't make much sense.
But business needs to go on. Every businessman wants continuity on that. Obama and Huillary look disturbing, and we're not doing so good. Common sense leadership is called for.
Here's Harvard economist discussion the malaise in America the root problem. . .
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/hbs-...arization-trust-michael-porter-104219596.html
The divisive political rhetoric is the culprit.
So here's the answer: Trump. He's not a real consiervative, no reason to see any goblins in him. He's an ordinary common sense sort of goofball with a lot of charm for his common speech style..... but even more charming to real American ownership interests because he is a dealmaker, meaning he is someone who will listen to them.
The ideological extremists of the Progressive sort, the Obamas and Hillarys, have just done poorly for Mainstreet.
But business needs to go on. Every businessman wants continuity on that. Obama and Huillary look disturbing, and we're not doing so good. Common sense leadership is called for.
Here's Harvard economist discussion the malaise in America the root problem. . .
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/hbs-...arization-trust-michael-porter-104219596.html
The divisive political rhetoric is the culprit.
So here's the answer: Trump. He's not a real consiervative, no reason to see any goblins in him. He's an ordinary common sense sort of goofball with a lot of charm for his common speech style..... but even more charming to real American ownership interests because he is a dealmaker, meaning he is someone who will listen to them.
The ideological extremists of the Progressive sort, the Obamas and Hillarys, have just done poorly for Mainstreet.
Red
Well-Known Member
But, babe, I'm really familiar with the site. Have often browsed their content and stories. I can be my own judge. You don't have to buy into my biased sources, or pay any attention to my opinions at all. I'll tell it like it is, you tell it like it is, and if ever our twains meet, it will likely be a frozen day in Hell. I can't help but find it sad that anyone would pay attention to Brietbart, or even worse really, Alex Jones. But, your not alone. At least in the realm of pop culture, we are living in the Age of Conspiracy Theories. You 're certainly not going against the grain, in that respect.