But don't Republicans pine for small government and don't we all like efficient government?
Why is the big-spending Clinton campaign with its gigantic staff held up as the standard compared to which Donald Trump falls short?
You could answer that it's wrong to compare the style of a campaign to the style by which the candidate would govern. And yet we're continually pushed to infer that Donald Trump, as President, will speak the same way and display the same demeanor we see at rallies. But perhaps that's because the speech and demeanor strike people as inappropriate for a State of the Union address or a face-to-face meeting with a foreign leader. It works as anti-Trump, so the media like that argument, and they don't like the argument that he's running an innovative, efficient campaign. It's the same reason the media don't stress Hillary Clinton's extreme resistance to press conferences and frame that as a terrible characteristic for a President.
The media feel like lawyers for the Clinton campaign, taking whatever the evidence is and presenting it as advantageous to their client.
From the above-linked article:
Mr. Trump spends little on polling and made his first advertising purchase of the general election campaign only last week. His rapidly growing digital fund-raising and voter-targeting operation is a partnership with the Republican National Committee, relying significantly on lists built and maintained in recent years by the party....Clinton is the one running on the argument that Citizens United is a horrific Supreme Court case that must be overruled because it's wrecking the way we do politics, but ironically she's the one doing politics that way and Trump — despite the freedom of the outside groups to spend money on his behalf — is running his operation on his own and relying the resources of the party whose nomination he worked hard to win.
Although he has opened offices in Ohio and Florida in recent weeks, Mr. Trump’s field efforts rely primarily on roughly 500 Republican National Committee organizers scattered across 11 swing states.
The arrangement is a kind of throwback to the pre-Citizens United era, when party organizations — not independent “super PACs” and political nonprofits — assumed many of the financial and organizational burdens of national campaigns....
But, we're told, Karl Rove and the Koch Brothers don't want to help him. And some GOP insiders are trying to figure out how to deprive Trump of the resources of the GOP.
The difficulty, though, is that as November approaches, the Republican National Committee is more reliant on Mr. Trump for cash than on other recent nominees. Millions of dollars are coming in through a small-donor-focused committee operated jointly with the committee, which is splitting a share of the proceeds with Mr. Trump. Over half the money raised by the Trump campaign and the committee combined in July came from donors giving less than $200, far more than for any recent Republican nominee....I would think that sounds great, and yet — to the NYT — it's a "difficulty."
Posts
29 comments:
"It's the same reason the media don't stress Hillary Clinton's extreme resistance to press conferences and frame that as a terrible characteristic for a President."
If the media was halfway honest it would be screaming about Hillary's lack of interaction with the press. A woman could conceive and deliver a baby in the time between Hillary press conferences. CNN should have one of those countdown clocks.
Irony? You expect them to detect irony? The ability to detect irony is mostly absent in Democrats. It goes along with their inability to detect hypocrisy.
The media feel like lawyers for the Clinton campaign, taking whatever the evidence is and presenting it as advantageous to their client.
Y'think?
Hillary's campaign is modeled after Joseph Stalin's successful efforts.
The media feel like lawyers for the Clinton campaign, taking whatever the evidence is and presenting it as advantageous to their client.
What I find interesting is that a dying segment of the economy is so willing to alienate a significant portion of its potential customer base. The left wing bias of the mainstream media helped create the alternative media. Now the mainstream media is doubling down on the behavior that got them in trouble in the first place.
The hole they have dug is deep. The mainstream media lacks the contacts and resources to convert to a balanced coverage model: "I don't know anyone who is voting for Donald Trump."
And what's more, that nasty Trump Man is using his perfect health to make three times the campaign trips where he throws out money to rent huge places to fill up with white privileged people that cheer at ethnocentric humor. Will this shameful scandal will never stop?
I don't like Trump, and yet I agree with every sentiment, every syllable of this Althouse post.
But in the end, by Trump's apparent definition, it is all about winning. Just win, baby. And you gotta hand it to the Dems; they had the smarts and the foresight to install a system of super delegates, to make sure that they weren't stuck with a Trump or a Sanders.
"But don't Republicans pine for small government [...]?"
On paper, yes.
In office, no.
Thus the Tea Party four years ago, and Trump now.
Again, you misunderstand the media.
They are performing according to plan, under instructions.
And of course, to a very high degree they are coordinated.
Analyzing their apparent blind spots is pointless. They arent making errors, they meant to do that.
As for the news media business, there really isnt one. They cant make a go of it the old way. These days they all are subsidized political assets. They exist only for the political purposes of their owners.
The Democrats "brilliant" primary system got them stuck with Hillary Clinton--the worst political candidate in American history. Good job!
Most American morons have no idea what Citizens United is really about.
They have no idea it's about free speech and the right to point out Hillary is corrupt without being hauled off to jail.
The media feel like lawyers for the Clinton campaign, taking whatever the evidence is and presenting it as advantageous to their client.
Exactly so.
That's the way the British press works, but they're upfront about it.
Ours pretends to be "objective".
"But don't Republicans pine for small government [...]?" On paper, yes. In office, no. Thus the Tea Party four years ago, and Trump now." Which major programs did the Tea Party want to cut again? Which programs, subsidies, and agencies does Trump want to cut?
Darrell; you need to step back from Hiilary-hate (much of which is completely justified, I suspect) and think about what sort of "mistake" the Democrats have made if Hillary Clinton wins 310 electoral votes.
The media ACT AS lawyers for the Clinton campaign, taking whatever the evidence is and presenting it as advantageous to their client.
FIFY.
And yet the NYT raises an interesting point with their concern trolling, comparing the campaign styles and extrapolating what the governing style would be, neatly eliding the "Hillary does no press conferences" fact. Did Obama's campaign tell us anything about how he would govern? Did a campaign built on hazy promises and fake columns and "no drama" convert into a "reach across the aisles" style as he promised?
Or did it reflect his controlling nature? His secretive make a deal behind the scenes style has taken root and choked out the comity and give and take Congress used to have.
1922, originally used in English in 1920 in its Italian form fascismo (see fascist). Applied to similar groups in Germany from 1923; applied to everyone since the Internet.
A form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion. [Robert O. Paxton, "The Anatomy of Fascism," 2004]
-- etymonline.com
Clinton may be a fascist. Her 1% backers, foreign and domestic, are the traditional and quasi-cosmopolitan elites. Her predisposition to monopoly formation reflects a totalitarian mindset. Her Pro-Choice religion (e.g. class warfare, immigration replacement, progressive wars, selective-child) clinches it.
Clinton's campaign is based on the Dumbocrat concept of governing -- throw lots of money at the problem, build up gigantic staffs so that no one knows who's responsible for what and fostering endless turf wars, and hope that your cult of personality (properly bolstered by a compliant media) will carry you through.
Don Draper came up with the idea that other companies' cigarettes are toxic but that Lucky Strikes are toasted.
Kind of an historical fiction thing.
Republicans will love his strategy if he wins. Polls indicate he's not winning the swing states with his national strategy.
But don't Republicans pine for small government and don't we all like efficient government?
No, not on the whole. Which is why I campaigned for Ron Paul twice. Neocons are about LOTS of government spending and subsidies, make no mistake.
I do not understand it either. The only reason for the RNC to exist is to have a grass roots and immense data trove to utilize. If not, what good are they?
Chuck, you need to hold your breath until you pass out.
Unknown, precisely. What other good reason have they to exist?
Oh there you are Chuck! So, are you going to betray Trump at the polls or what?
The media feel like lawyers for the Clinton campaign, taking whatever the evidence is and presenting it as advantageous to their client.
Free lawyers, free spokespeople, free debate tag-team members...it's Democrat Privilege.
In business, if you pay for something you expect results. The GOP has been riding for decades on their lies, that they would perform as desired if only they got the House, the Senate, the White House, the next campaign contribution! So Trump got elected by pointing out their failure to perform.
Hillary, now, she performs for her money. Except that her husband was just as much a professional politician, paid for his behavior, Hillary could be called the most obvious whore of a politician since the days of Tammany Hall.
The Republicans are in a panic. If Trump is elected, business as usual is in jeopardy. So far, the biggest plus with Donald Trump is you know he's not going to let the media win the election for Hillary. They're trying to lose it for him, but he'll fight that also. The GOP needs to get their act together and start supporting the candidate. Hell, the Democrats are supporting a criminal enterprise and one of the leaders of it and you hear nothing from them about all the lies Hillary is telling. The Republicans, on the other hand, can't wait to get in front of a microphone to knock Trump.
FYI - when pollsters call me (2x in the past month), I tell them I plan to vote for Hillary. It's my own little version of taqiyya. Of course, being in Illinois makes my vote pretty worthless anyway, but I'm surprised by the number of black and hispanic people I talk to who are either planning to vote for Trump or really struggling with the decision to vote for Clinton. It's more than they're telling us. Not sure how much more, but it's more. This election frenzy has led me to talk politics with many diverse people, and though there is a strong contingent of Hillary supporters, there are more and more Trump backers every day.
Post a Comment