If you drive around in some of the places that beat the heck out of me, you cannot get cell coverage for miles. And so, even in towns — so, the president was in Harrisburg. I was in Harrisburg during the campaign, and I met with people afterward. One of the things they said to me is that there are places in central Pennsylvania where we don't have access to affordable high-speed Internet.That got boiled down into a tweet (by Phil Elliot of Time Magazine):
"You cannot get cell coverage for mile," Clinton says of the places that voted against her.Weigel says that reporters knew that Clinton had "a quarter-trillion-dollar infrastructure plan" to help people out in those places that beat the heck out of her, but they nevertheless went for the easy snark that fit the "firmly established narrative of Clinton and Trump is that she couldn't connect to rural voters, whereas he was a 'blue-collar billionaire' who made surprising emotional connection."
__________________
* They surely favored Clinton over Trump, but I think at the primary stage they favored Bernie Sanders. But Trump did figure out how to use the media that hated him just by making himself available and speaking in a way that was compulsively watchable. He got a ton of free media — interviews and rallies — and so did Bernie — who used a very similar approach of being available and chattily interesting. Clinton was so guarded, so withholding. Even when she made herself available she seemed unavailable. And there was that meme — did she believe it? — that she is most liked when people don't see her at all.
Posts
136 comments:
Wisconsin has great cell phone coverage in all the places that she didn't visit during the campaign.
Michigan has great cell coverage unless you get deep into the U.P. Given that she's such an avid hiker, you'd think she would have gone there anyways.
Nothing is ever her fault. I mean, she'll say in some token way it is, but will then go on with litany of failings of other people and organizations. It's the fault of all these evil forces arrayed against her. So now it's the media in rural areas?
She lost because she was a corrupt liar. She was NEVER likable. The only reason she got to where she is, is because Bill was popular, and people liked him. I for one was on the Hillary bandwagon in 2007....then I read up on her, and voted for McCain, because I read up on Obama too...EVERYTHING is out there, and people are shocked now when things come out.
Opppsss....Almost everthing is out there, except for all of the records that Obama sealed.
It is as ridiculous to say that there was no anti-Hillary media machine, as it would be ridiculous to claim that there is no anti-Trump (and indeed anti-Republican) bias in the mainstream media defined by the New York Times, NPR, the broadcast networks and much of Hollywood.
There's the virulently anti-Hillary, anti-Obama, anti-Left Fox News Channel. There's conservative talk radio (Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage, Levin, Ingraham, etc.) There's the alt-right internet. And there's a respectable conservative print media (WSJ, Weekly Standard, NRO) that, on principle, opposed Hillary AND Trump!
There simply is no single media monolith that opposes(ed) Trump or Hillary.
goes a bit against thesis, that Russian internet trolls helped elect Donald. Hard to influence people without internet connection through the internet
The media is indeed lazy and relies matching the narrative. Twitter can make them even more so.
However, in this case, the tweet did indeed capture the essence of her larger thought.
What would actually benefit Mrs. Clinton the most is for her to quit talking. Her highest favorability periods are when she is quiet and people think of the concept of Hillary Clinton, which isn't all bad to most people. She destroys the concept when she speaks and people remember why they don't like her.
If they don't have high-speed internet, how in the world would they know she has a "quarter-trillion-dollar infrastructure plan" to give it to them?
"Even when she made herself available she seemed unavailable. "
And that's how you get more Monica.
Media was cruel to Hillary... Obama didn't make any gaffes...
It's lovely day here on Alt-Earth.
At some point, the 4th, 5th or 6th autopsy on a politically dead body yields no further useful information.
Hillary lost. She and her supporters (including media shills) should move on.
Would Weigel have preferred a tweet that said "Clinton doesn't know the difference between cell coverage and broadband?"
Hillary has to cover up why she lost. It was because most voters did not like her.
And then, as now, she is not asking for your votes. She is accusing you of being deplorable for taking Her Presidency Away. It was hers, all you damn renegade serfs. And she had you serfs totally fooled. It was only Putin and Comeh that beat her.
So much dissecting.
How about the FACT that Hillary Clinton set up a private server while head of one of the most powerful positions in the world, so that she could hide the FACT that she was using her position of power to line her and her family's pockets.
Is there anything else that matters?
Aren't all the inhabitants of "some of the places that beat the heck out of me" just dumb ol' clinger deplorables? As Chuck points out, even if they had high-speed internet, wouldn't they just watch cat videos and read InfoWars?
Those hillbillies out in the sticks probably think you wipe a server "with a cloth or something".
Check out US Cellular's coverage map. Hillary had ATT or Verizon. She had the wrong carrier.
So Clinton supporters hate the media and Trump supporters hate the media. Who says the country is divided?
Her supporters hate the media because they occasionally report something honestly about her.
"There simply is no single media monolith that opposes(ed) Trump or Hillary."
Technically true, but the major media outlets influence smaller media outlets, mostly in traditional media. Most smaller newspapers do very little national reporting of their own. They simply pick up the AP or Reuters or McClatchy or WaPo or NYT stories and fit them into their sheets. These stories are rarely favorable to the conservasphere.
The major media (mainstream, if you like, but not really considering what has happened electorally over the past decade or so) are overwhelmingly liberal (even self-described.) and concentrated in blue-state strongholds on the coasts and in larger cities.
The alt-right and conservative media are constrained (mostly) to the hinterlands of the internet, practically speaking. Fox News is trending to the center-left. Drudge is influential to a degree, but even he cannot match the collective that is ABC, CBS, NBC, NYT, Washington Post, HuffPost, etc. when it comes to dissemination of information to mass audiences.
Very good, vanderleun!
bagoh20 said...
Those hillbillies out in the sticks probably think you wipe a server "with a cloth or something".
5/3/17, 10:00 AM
Yeah, it's a good thing they don't have Internet access because they'd probably fall for phishing emails and wouldn't have the brains to change their passwords. Hell, their passwords would be something like "password."
So, Chuck is really a Clintonista. That's explains a lot.
She was going to bestow gifts on us - with other peoples money! Free stuff!
The media gave Trump an easy ride to the nomination because they thought Corrupt Hillary could easily beat him..
oops.
Sez Chuck:
quote
There's the virulently anti-Hillary, anti-Obama, anti-Left Fox News Channel
/quote
This statement is so revealing, isn't it? Chuck claims to be a "Lifelong Republican." As such, shouldn't any opposition to the left, to Hillary, and to Obama be a good thing, something to celebrate?
Yet he uses "Virulently" as a pejorative. He's blaming Fox for resisting Hillary and the left.
I am staunchly against the left; if they view me as an enemy that would make my day. Yet for Chuck, media opposition to the left is apparently evil.
And then he complains that some don't buy his "Lifelong Republican" claim. Any lifelong Republican should be tickled pink that Fox existed as a counterbalance to the NYT and WashPost domination of the news. Yet Chuck is here, lamenting it. How, then, can he be a "Lifelong Republican?"
--Vance
media obfuscation aside, anybody that EVER had a security clearance will understand that clinton committed multiple felonies handling and disseminating classified information and then lied about it nonstop. anybody else would be in prison for decades after having done what clinton did.
Known Unknown's description of the influence of Wash Post, NYT, LATimes on local newspapers should be filed away. I spent 23 years on newspaper copy desks, and that is 100% true.
What is reported in those newspapers (Times and Post first, LAT a distant third) is re-reported at the local level. It affects local editorial content as well.
And how many newspapers endorsed Trump? 0%.
Also, since I live in Hershey (central PA, about a dozen miles from Harrisburg), I have to wonder what the hell Hillary was talking about. Maybe in true central PA there's a problem with internet reception, because of the mountains, but that doesn't preclude getting internet over the phone lines. That's how I'm getting mine.
That may change. I had a lovely young woman come to the door last week from Verizon. She tried to talk me into getting Fios, and when I refused, again, said I'll pay more and get crappy service from now on.
This is because the FCC allowed phone providers to stop maintaining copper lines, so they can force people to pay more for phone / internet / cable services.
The FCC chairman was a former telecom official. I'm sure the connection is merely a coincidence.
He was appointed by Obama. Surely another coincidence.
Funny how Hillary doesn't mention that if the nation would get high-speed internet service, the Democrats in power for the last eight years (steadily decreasing, but still) was responsible for providing it.
And I'm sure the media will point that out to, once they've finished burying Colbert's "cockholster" remark on national television.
The one thing I am sure of is that no tweet about something a Republican said has ever failed to capture all the nuances of such comment, or failed to interpret it in the most favorable light possible.
What is the connection between lack of cell phone coverage and a lack of high speed internet.
Cell phone coverage is either by satellite or (in our case) cell phone towers. Cell phone dead spots are due to geography (mountains, canyons etc) or just a lack of towers.
High speed internet is a fiber or infrastructure issue. You can get internet connection from satellites as well but it may not be as high speed as desired. Adding reliable high speed internet to less urbanized areas is a good thing....yay Netflix!, but it has jack to do with cell phones.
Unless I am missing something? There is not any equivalence.
Here is the take away.
We didn't really give the Democrat a fair shake in this most recent election. That's why she lost. Next time, the New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, The Washington Post, NBC, ABC, CBS, ESPN, Cosmopolitan Magazine, Time Magazine, NPR, Reuters, MSNBC, CNN, and all the local stations out there need to do much, much, much more to elect the Democrat because Fox News!
Which, as we all know, won't even be Fox news anymore once the next election comes around.
Let's forget the fact that even Brit Hume admits that over 80% of Fox News employees are Democrats. When you make even the slightest attempt to appear fair and balanced, it comes off as Right Wing Republican when compared to the far left broadcasting of the other networks.
I mean, just ask Chuck. Suckers like him actually think Fox News supports Trump and wasn't as much or more anti Trump than the other stations. I mean, Megyn Kelly loved Trump. Amirite?
Blogger TosaGuy said..."Wisconsin has great cell phone coverage in all the places that she didn't visit during the campaign."
I can't get cell coverage at the dark sites I go to with my telescope in west-central and northern Wisconsin.
Rene' Saunce said..."She was going to bestow gifts on us - with other peoples money! Free stuff!"
Yeah, that jumped out at me.
This is prep for the restoration of the monarchy. Clinton mère et fille in 2020.
"I can't get cell coverage at the dark sites I go to with my telescope in west-central and northern Wisconsin."
Whatever, perv. ; )
"Unless I am missing something? There is not any equivalence."
Yeah, it's dumb.
Of course Clinton is right on this particular example. Besides being biased against Republicans, the press is also sloppy in general. Those two things are not mutually exclusive.
If lack of high-speed internet is an issue anywhere in *Pennsylvania*, that's news to me. Maybe up some crabbed back holler on the Allegheny Front where they haven't voted anything but Democratic since the party was founded, but shit - they still think they're voting for the party of Jackson up that way. And we're talking about maybe a hundred, hundred and fifty voters. Total. In the state.
"the press is also sloppy in general."
I would ascribe their sloppiness to laziness. They are remarkably incurious about particular things.
Unknown said...
Sez Chuck:
quote
There's the virulently anti-Hillary, anti-Obama, anti-Left Fox News Channel
/quote
This statement is so revealing, isn't it? Chuck claims to be a "Lifelong Republican." As such, shouldn't any opposition to the left, to Hillary, and to Obama be a good thing, something to celebrate?
And I have, you moron. I have repeatedly advised Atlhouse (a big fan of Meet the Press going back to the days of Tim Russert and before) that the best Sunday news show is Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace. I have written, on these comments pages, that Bret Baier's Special Report is the best weekday news program on television. I like a great deal about FNC; Britt Hume; Krauthammer; Steve Hayes; the WSJ Editorial Report; etc. And I celebrate all of that.
My saying that FNC is "virulently anti-Hillary" is just a fact. Look at the rest of the programming, with Hannity, Stuart Varney, Neil Cavuto, etc. FNC is home to a range of folks, from the conservatives whom I admire (who have no affection for Hillary), to the Trump deadenders like Hannity and Bolling and Varney, whose hatred of Hillary and Obama borders on the pathological. "Virulent" sums it all up rather nicely.
Yet he uses "Virulently" as a pejorative. He's blaming Fox for resisting Hillary and the left.
I never wrote that. I've never said that. That's your furtive imagination, producing that notion.
I am staunchly against the left; if they view me as an enemy that would make my day. Yet for Chuck, media opposition to the left is apparently evil.
"Apparently..." You had to write "apparently," as a substitute for the fact that I've never made any such claim, and to the contrary I have argued for far too many conservative positions to list. I've never once argued for any "left wing" position. Again, this is all about you and your imaginings. Not me.
And then he complains that some don't buy his "Lifelong Republican" claim. Any lifelong Republican should be tickled pink that Fox existed as a counterbalance to the NYT and WashPost domination of the news. Yet Chuck is here, lamenting it. How, then, can he be a "Lifelong Republican?"
--Vance
Vance I don't care what, or who, you believe. I don't care what you think, or who you voted for, or what you hope for. I don't care what you do, or don't do, for a living. As for me (you seem to care and I don't know why), I subscribe to the Wall Street Journal and the National Review, and I support Heritage and the Federalist Society. I am indeed glad that the Fox News Channel exists, along with those other institutions I mentioned, and I watch Fox frequently. Just not when Hannity is on.
"lifelong republican" and Not Too Hot On The Memory Thing Chuck: "And there's a respectable conservative print media (WSJ, Weekly Standard, NRO) that, on principle, opposed Hillary AND Trump."
LOL
Bill Kristol and a entire bevy of "conservatives" at those publications gave public support to Hillary as well as some endorsing her.
You are more open in your alignment with leftist/democrat interests.
At one time in Clinton's world Internet bad, Mainstream Media good.
The Clinton White House "conspiracy commerce memo" warned in 1995 that "THE INTERNET" ... allows an extraordinary amount of unregulated data and information to be available to all.
"The right wing has seized upon the internet as a means of communicating its ideas to people. Moreover, evidence exists that Republican staffers surf the internet...."
I guess 20 years later, Internet good. Kind of like when Republicans get campaign contributions, it is a bad thing. But not a bad thing when Obama was out whoring for contributions.
The above post is from 3 years ago - the Althouse posts stand the test of time.
Known Unknown said...
...
The alt-right and conservative media are constrained (mostly) to the hinterlands of the internet, practically speaking. Fox News is trending to the center-left. Drudge is influential to a degree, but even he cannot match the collective that is ABC, CBS, NBC, NYT, Washington Post, HuffPost, etc. when it comes to dissemination of information to mass audiences.
The Fox News Channel is the number one-rated cable news channel.
After the NPR drive-time (morning and afternoon) news shows -- and nearly tied with them, for numbers of listeners -- Rush Limbaugh's 3-hour midday program is the number one-rated syndicated radio program in the nation. Followed by Sean Hannity's program. With Glenn Beck, Mark Levin and "The Savage Nation" coming in at numbers 8, 9 and 10.
The Wall Street Journal is the 3rd biggest circulation newspaper in America.
And by whatever measure you might care to use, the Drudge Report is among the handful of most powerful media drivers in all of US publishing.
I am not arguing that there isn't a significant left-wing bias among the "collective" you described. I can't do that; nobody can seriously do that. But likewise, you shouldn't argue that all conservative thought and opinion is confined to "hinterlands."
I think this post shoehorns nicely into the prior post on Trump and the Civil War. The comment about how one great man at the right time and place could or could not affect history.
One has to wonder how all of this would have turned out, how different the country and world would be now, if Hillary's parents had chosen to not name her after Sir Edmund Hillary. What alternate path would her life have taken? Oh the mind boggles at the possibilities!
"lifelong republican" and Self-Appointed Director of Althouse Guidance Chuck: " I have repeatedly advised Atlhouse...."
LOL
Alas, Althouse remains as impervious to Chuckies "charms" as every other person on the globe.
Drago said...
...
Bill Kristol and a entire bevy of "conservatives" at those publications gave public support to Hillary as well as some endorsing her.
Prove it. After putting every effort into campaigning against Trump's bid for the Republican nomination, Bill Kristol said that he couldn't see himself voting for Hillary. And I don't think he did. He sure didn't endorse her in the fall of 2016.
As for George Will, he's devoted thousands of words to his own explanation as to why Donald Trump caused him to leave the Republican Party. I have said so many times; I respect Will and I agree with him almost all the time. I disagreed with his 2016 electoral posture.
The National Review did a whole issue that was Against Trump. But no one there endorsed or supported Hillary.
Chuckie pretends he is ignorant as to how much tactical and operational support he and his beloveds provided to hillary and continue to provide to the dems.
Next up: a powerful Chuckie link to Rachel Maddows latest inanity.
"So, Chuck is really a Clintonista. That's explains a lot."
He's made that very clear. He's a prolific, but clumsy, moby. Subtlety is not one of the Leftist graces.
"So, Chuck is really a Clintonista. That's explains a lot."
And next time Chuck will be a Warren-ista, or a Cuomo-ista, or whoever else the dems put up there.
Chuck will also remain firmly wedded to the idea that republicans not really fight back against the dems as that will set us up for an awesome 3 or 4 elections out impeachment possibility of a the dem President!!
Chuck is chock full of really "good" ideas like that.
Chock. Full.
Chuck is and always has been a moby
Blogger Known Unknown said..."Whatever, perv. ; )"
For the record, I do not observe from a white van with no windows.
One of the things they said to me is that there are places in central Pennsylvania where we don't have access to affordable high-speed Internet.
Why, it's only not-especially-fast internet, or not "affordable", whatever TF that means.
Ain't anywhere in the Lower 48 you can't get Internet access.
(She'd perhaps be shocked if she saw a cell coverage map of the Western US, where it's mostly un-covered.
Because it's also mostly empty.
Being Hillary Clinton, of course, why would she know that?)
One of the things they said to me is that there are places in central Pennsylvania where we don't have access to affordable high-speed Internet.
That's true in a lot of places. It simply isn't profitable to lay out cable to rural areas. That's why the government has a fee collected in your phone bill that is used to subsidize phone service to people in rural areas.
Anyway, here is my analysis of why Hillary lost, free of charge.
She was a crappy candidate.
There, I said it.
The real mystery is why she had such a lock on the nomination. Look, the Democrat party big shots had to know she was a crappy candidate, yet they ensured that she got the nomination. Were they that convinced that the fix was in and no Republican could win? Did Hillary wield that much power? Does she have dirt she uses to blackmail people?
So, the Democrat plan was to hope for either Trump or Cruz to win the nomination so that someone so odious to American voters would be the Republican nominee that she would win in a landslide.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlNzUHF9h1k
Also, that video, it demonstrates why she lost. Who authorized releasing that video? Who thought that was a good idea?
The lighting is horrible and the outfit is one of her Star Trek crossed with Dr. Evil specials that make me think her stylist is a GOP mole. You can hear the frustration in her voice, along with the stench of desperation when she asks why she isn't 50 points ahead. The close-up filming reveals bags under her eyes and an unhealthy skin tone that makes you think that at the very least, she is exhausted. And she is sitting down.
Trump was standing up for hours looking relaxed and talking to 50,000 people at a time, but making it sound like he was in your living room having a personal talk.
Chuck says...
Yet he uses "Virulently" as a pejorative. He's blaming Fox for resisting Hillary and the left.
I never wrote that. I've never said that. That's your furtive imagination, producing that notion.
Previously Chuck said.
There's the virulently anti-Hillary, anti-Obama, anti-Left Fox News Channel. There's conservative talk radio (Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage, Levin, Ingraham, etc.)
Chuck is excitedly awaiting the return of Bill ("Better the Deep State than Trump") Kristol and George Will to Fox. BTW, It is exceedingly odd to type the word "excitedly" in any sentence containing the name "George Will."
Will and Kristol will set us straight! They were so spot on during the campaign!
"There's the virulently anti-Hillary, anti-Obama, anti-Left Fox News Channel."
Yeah, Megan Kelly and Shepherd Smith were such big Trump cheerleaders.
Annie C, chuck is catching the same disease other left-wing commenters here have; the one that makes you not only forget, but fervently deny something you wrote in the same thread a few hours earlier.
Donald Trump NYC real-estate billionaire resonated more with the working class whites than the supposed candidate of the working class Hillary Clinton. Are the Democrats even capable of buying a clue?
Chuck the more you know about Hillary the more there is to detest. More internet availability would have only resulted in her losing even more bigly.
"This one Clinton quote shows why her supporters hate the media."
Because someone quoted her fairly accurately?
David Wiggle, making little or no sense since before getting canned from Reason.com
Ron Winkleheimer said...The real mystery is why she had such a lock on the nomination. Look, the Democrat party big shots had to know she was a crappy candidate, yet they ensured that she got the nomination. Were they that convinced that the fix was in and no Republican could win? Did Hillary wield that much power? Does she have dirt she uses to blackmail people?
It all comes down to money. Until Hillary lost the election, the Clinton machine was like a black hole for all left leaning political donation money. Even that white dwarf star Bernie Sanders could not maintain the smallest accretion disk of money in the presence of the powerful Clinton Singularity. And the thinking amongst the elite minds has traditionally been that whomever raises the most money will win the presidency, regardless of whether they're actually a good candidate or not.
But now they Clinton spell may have finally been broken (though they're still some comically feeble attempts to anoint Chelsea as the heir apparent).
@Nonapod
Great imagery, totally agree.
@Nonapod
That's why the GOPe thought JEB! was going to have a lock on the Republican nomination. Because of all the money he was raising.
Not hate, but rather betrayed, when the JournoLists of the Fourth Estate failed in their mission.
"There's the virulently anti-Hillary, anti-Obama, anti-Left Fox News Channel."
Someone doesn't watch Fox News (NTTAWWT).
cubanbob said...
Chuck the more you know about Hillary the more there is to detest. More internet availability would have only resulted in her losing even more bigly.
Last year, before the election, I called Hillary Clinton the worst nominee in Democratic Party history since Al Smith in 1928.
There is no need for you to lecture me on what a terrible candidate she was and is. I really don't get your point. Not as it regards me, anyway.
If only the people had gotten Hillary's emails. What might have been...
She can't effectively communicate through the press. It's a disqualifying problem. She never should have been the candidate. But you know what? I know a couple of those PA hicks, and if you told them that Hillary had a trillion dollar infrastructure plan to get them high speed internet, it would have made them reach to cover their wallets.
Drago said...
Chuckie pretends he is ignorant as to how much tactical and operational support he and his beloveds provided to hillary and continue to provide to the dems.
I told you to prove it, asshole.
You can't.
Annie C.:
I can't even make any sense out of your post at 11:51.
exiledonmainstreet: "Annie C, chuck is catching the same disease other left-wing commenters here have; the one that makes you not only forget, but fervently deny something you wrote in the same thread a few hours earlier"
Chucks usual fallback modified limited hangout position when caught in an obvious contradiction is to simply say gee, that doesn't sound like something I would write. Assuming, that is, Maddow hasn't already provided a better response which Chuck can utilize.
since I live in Hershey (central PA, about a dozen miles from Harrisburg)
No. I grew up in 90 miles NW of Hershey, in the real Central PA. Harrisburg and Hershey are nowhere near central PA.
Chuck: "I told you to prove it, asshole."
I'll bet you tell lots of people lots of things, to no avail.
Do you ever wonder why that might be?
One of the things they said to me is that there are places in central Pennsylvania where we don't have access to affordable high-speed Internet.
And yet the Russians were able to ensure that Central Pennsylvanians had access to WikiLeaks email dumps.
Chuck: "Annie C.:
I can't even make any sense out of your post at 11:51"
That would be the post where Annie shows how you contradicted yourself.
Again.
In your Quixote-like quest to "get Trump" and provide additional cover to hillary.
furious_a: "And yet the Russians were able to ensure that Central Pennsylvanians had access to WikiLeaks email dumps."
Oh now you've done it!
Inga and Chuck are going to be all over you now! Duck and cover!
Her highest favorability periods are when she is quiet and people think of the concept of Hillary Clinton.
Like someone who in person is noting like their TINDER profile.
What's REALLY funny is that after Podesta fell for the phishing and exposed the DNC's email passwords the DNC's crack IT team sent out the replacement passwords via email.
Drago you miserable dumb fucking piece of shit. I never claimed that I didn't write the word "virulent." Of course I did. And I re-explained it to Vance at 10:48.
Vance had claimed, without any evidence (and there is no evidence) that I was "blaming Fox for resisting Hillary and the left."
I never wrote that I was blaming Fox for resisting Hillary and the left. I don't blame anybody for resisting Hillary and the left.
It was one of about three or four ways that Vance had managed to misquote me or mischaracterize me in his single post. And that is what I was correcting.
Your a troll, Drago.
Pennsylvania has a population of about 12 million people. The rural population is at least 3 million, possibly more depending upon the definitions. There must be at least 2 million living in places where high-speed internet is not guaranteed to be available because there is no cable coverage, distances are too far for DSL over landlines, and even cellular coverage is nonexistent or too spotty for data plans. Satellite is often the only option for many rural people, and it tends not to work well.
The net result is that high speed internet coverage misses a significant part of the population of rural area in Central Pennsylvania, and lots of the state north of I-80.
It is factually correct to say many Central Pennsylvanians lack internet service, but pretty dubious to conclude it had any effect on voting patterns in the recent election.
"lifelong republican" Chuck: "Your a troll, Drago."
Can you imagine the conniption fit "lifelong republican" Chuck would have if Trump tweeted "Your" instead of "You're"?
We'd still be hearing about it today!
"lifelong republican" Chuck: "It was one of about three or four ways that Vance had managed to misquote me or mischaracterize me in his single post. And that is what I was correcting."
Hey, if saying that makes you feel better, then by all means.
Clinton supporters hate the media...
...even though the media tossed her in the back of that Good Times Van like a 50-lb bag of Kirkland's Mature Dog Formula™ and did everything they could to drive her over the finish line.
The Ingrates.
Seppo: "It is factually correct to say many Central Pennsylvanians lack internet service, but pretty dubious to conclude it had any effect on voting patterns in the recent election."
Dude, the lefties and "lifelong republicans" need reasons for why they missed it all! They don't have time for your silly logic.
Chuck,
(Replying before I've read all the comments, so some of this is probably duplicated above)
There's the virulently anti-Hillary, anti-Obama, anti-Left Fox News Channel. There's conservative talk radio (Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage, Levin, Ingraham, etc.) There's the alt-right internet. And there's a respectable conservative print media (WSJ, Weekly Standard, NRO) that, on principle, opposed Hillary AND Trump!
OK. On the one side you have the Big Three networks, MSNBC, CNN, NPR, the NYT, the WaPo, the LAT, the SF Chron, nearly all of Hollywood, and nearly all of academia, not to mention the "respectable Leftist print media" (The New Yorker, The Nation, Mother Jones, to say nothing of their UK equivalents). On the other side, you have Fox, non-NPR talk radio, some blogs (I don't think most of them are "alt-Right" -- Stormfront, sure, Instapundit and Powerline and Mark Steyn, no), and the tiny (except for WSJ, which is actually divided on Trump -- I don't know about IBD) "respectable conservative print media." Not even remotely close.
Look, the attack on Trump really is unprecedented. You'll retort that that's because he's an unprecedented President. And he is, in a way, because Hillary was just always supposed to get the spot, and she didn't, and half the country is thereby pissed off. But please don't pretend that he isn't being hammered in a way that Obama, or WJC, or even Dubya never were.
"lifelong republican" Chuck: "And I re-explained it to Vance at 10:48."
Well, harrumph! I'm sure you finally set him straight on that.
Madisonman, I am presently staying near your old hometown, the one with super high speed internet at its public university. You can be less than ten miles from their computer center, or their big old stadium for that matter, and have no high speed internet except through a satellite dish, maybe. Even dial up does not work given the state of the landline service. And that area has tens of thousands of people living like that.
If the Onion wasn't so left leaning, they could have a headline "Hillary, Team Continue to Cast About for Reasons Why Lost Election not Their Fault".
I work for a major cell provider. One state east of the MS River has service issues and that is Why Va. The rest has cell service within a mile or two. The parts that have miles of no service beyond there would be the Dakota's, Utah, TX, etc.
How could Dave Weigel think that any Clinton supporter would hate the media when only the media's totally biased coverage even kept Hillary in the race at all?
The amount of media support and love and kowtowing and throne-polishing for Clinton was astounding. We all remember the picture of the "journalists" covering Clinton on her plane and the look of pure unadulterated love that Andrea Mitchell had. The media was totally "with her"
Dave Weigel's article shows why normal people hated the media and came out of the hollars and farms and hinterlands to vote against her. No matter how criminal and indefensible Hillary's positions, you could always count on a Dave Weigel to see the glass as half full and cover up her complete incompetence and criminality.
Can you imagine Hillary being President right now? Neither could most of the country, thank God!!
Donald "Verizon" Trump had better campaign stop coverage in high-speed-internet-inaccessible areas like MI, WI, PA, OH, NC and FL than Hillary "T-Mobile" Clinton.
OK, we get it. Some of y'all don't like Chuck. Point made.
So can you please stop transmogrifying every freaking comment thread into the "Let's Bash Chuck" show?
Abraham Lincoln lost his 1858 Senate race against Stephen Douglas in large part due to the lack of high-speed internet access in large parts of Illinois.
damikesc, your point holds for cellphone call service, but data is a different matter. Lots of places in other Eastern states where only 3G reception is possible, which is adequate for voice traffic but not good enough for current web traffic. I was at a public event last weekend where the topic presenters could not download their powerpoint on either major carrier's network. The nearest cable coverage was less than a half mile away from the site, but they couldn't make 3G download a 7meg file.
Piers Morgan summed up Hillary's loss nicely in The Daily Mail today.
Nothing is ever her fault. I mean, she'll say in some token way it is, but will then go on with litany of failings of other people and organizations. It's the fault of all these evil forces arrayed against her. So now it's the media in rural areas?
I'm reminded of advice I got when heading off to my first interviews: "Everybody asks what you think your biggest failing is. But they don't actually expect you to criticize yourself - they want to see how smoothly you weasel out of the question. So tell them something like 'I tend to focus on my work to the exclusion of everything else'"
The media didn't like Hillary but they hated Trump (at least the left-media and much of the right-media did). That doesn't mean they didn't provide him an advantage--they covered him because he was interesting (even if you hated him, you found him interesting, therefore ratings, therefore coverage). That meant coverage of his media events, his rallies, and his press conferences, all of which helped him crowd out his primary opponents and engage his followers.
Hillary though long was mistrusted by the media--even the left-media pointed out her "trust issues" and her "unlikability" problems--but also, she was just not interesting. If he held rallies, it's hard to picture the media wanting to give her total coverage of them, because they'd just not drive up viewership. I doubt even her fans would want to watch those.
We can analyze why she lost, and there are many minor reasons to get into, but the biggest is she was genuinely unpopular. Most of the country simply wasn't going to vote for her (and 52% of them did vote against her) to such an extent that a large percentage were even willing to vote for Trump while disliking and mistrusting him. Any "extra campaigning in Wisconsin" or "had Comey not issued his October statement" or "had fake news reports not gone via social media" cannot overcome that.
None of us would ever bash Chuck if he weren't so eminently, well, bashable.
I think my comment above is completely fair and just, and I'd stand by it whoever's name was on the other side. There is absolutely no comparison between the anti-Trump media (print/TV) dominance and the pro-Trump media that has had to seek other outlets. One is, well, "mainstream." The other is forced to find the odd rivulet where it can stay alive. So: Fox, non-NPR talk radio, blogs. Which do you really think is bigger? (And why are you counting only conservative blogs, anyway? Haven't you heard of TPM and HuffPo and Vox?)
Brando, I think the point is that HRC didn't campaign in Wisconsin at all. She assumed she had that one all sewn up.
I think the whole construction of "favors over" has the baked-in premise that the media favored someone. I'd say they were both anti-Clinton and anti-Trump.
1) Nobody in the upper echelons (including all on-air talent) of the media is effected at all by who is President. They're all rich and their lifestyle will be the same no matter what.
2) All they care about is ratings and storylines that drive them. Negative/scandal storylines draw more eyeballs than actual reportage.
3) They just print easy, narrative-driving, scandal-themed crap about both candidates, 24/7.
Michelle, you are successfully arguing that the left-leaning media (networks, major newspapers, Hollywood, etc.) outweigh the new-era right-leaning media. I think we both know that you are correct.
My point -- I hope that you will just as readily agree -- is that there is plenty of room in both the far-left and far-right media bubbles for people to hide and never see the light of day. Someone who wants a steady diet of pro-Trump propaganda can live off of it very easily.
Are the present-day media attacks on Trump unprecedented? I don't know; perhaps. Think hard, about the attacks on President Bush 43. "The Smirking Chimp" was dedicated to him, right? I do think that there are a great many Trump supporters whose memories of Bush-hatred from 1999 to well into the Obama Administration, are skewed by their new adoration of Trump (which entails a fair bit of Bush-hatred too, as is seen regularly from Trump supporters on this blog).
And you are also thoroughly correct, in noting that if attacks on Trump are unprecedented, it is indeed my view that it is because Trump himself is unprecedented. In all the worst ways anyone can imagine "unprecedented." You have got me pegged, and accurately.
I keep coming back to that interview with John Dickerson. Althouse seems to not want to touch it, in commentary. I keep thinking about it. Dickerson was impeccable. He had his facts right, the quotes right; he was insistent without being rude. And Trump just could not take it.
You will see the same thing, Michelle, if you ever get a chance to read a transcript of a Trump deposition or other Trump testimony under oath. When the guy has to answer real questions, and doesn't get to prevaricate and intimidate and slide away with vagaries, he's a mess.
Chuck said, "There simply is no single media monolith that opposes(ed) Trump or Hillary." That statement is true enough, but was anyone arguing that there is single media monolith, etc.? No, but Republicans and conservatives continue to make the case with great accuracy that the unholy alliance of the alphabet networks and the NYT - who have held the attention of average Americans for decades - is clearly and unashamedly biased against them.
Vanderleun at 9:51 for the win!
"Brando, I think the point is that HRC didn't campaign in Wisconsin at all. She assumed she had that one all sewn up."
I just don't know that she could have done anything by showing up. She doesn't seem able to fire up crowds or pump morale. She might have done worse if she had shown up.
"Nobody in the upper echelons (including all on-air talent) of the media is effected at all by who is President. They're all rich and their lifestyle will be the same no matter what."
I agree with this--ultimately, the media is more driven by ratings than the political biases of those individuals in the business (though those biases do exist and do have some effect--but their bottom line is paramount or they're out of business quickly).
And in more "partisan media" (e.g., punditry or opinion journalism) you're actually better off if the person you oppose gets elected. Think about what the Obama years were for conservative pundits and talk radio organs or institutions like Breitbart. You get much more viewership/readership that way. If I was in that business I'd prefer to have my biggest target there, angering and firing up my fans to listen or read what I have to say, at least from a career standpoint.
Brando said...
...
And in more "partisan media" (e.g., punditry or opinion journalism) you're actually better off if the person you oppose gets elected. Think about what the Obama years were for conservative pundits and talk radio organs or institutions like Breitbart. You get much more viewership/readership that way. If I was in that business I'd prefer to have my biggest target there, angering and firing up my fans to listen or read what I have to say, at least from a career standpoint.
You just beat me to it. I think that Rush Limbaugh's ratings over long periods of time provide a metric that proves just what you say. Although I think that even Rush has been surprised at his great-and-growing ratings in the Trump era. (FNC has seen the same bump. Even with changing personnel, their ratings have been good. But so too are MSNBC's ratings now improving, and fast, which only adds to your point.) Privately, I expect we could get Rush to agree on this one point.
Oh; and the Failing New York Times is seeing significant, surprising growth. (This headline is on the Drudge home page right now.)
https://www.yahoo.com/news/york-times-swings-profit-digital-subscriptions-rise-124817510--finance.html
Doug said...
Chuck said, "There simply is no single media monolith that opposes(ed) Trump or Hillary." That statement is true enough, but was anyone arguing that there is single media monolith, etc.? No, but Republicans and conservatives continue to make the case with great accuracy that the unholy alliance of the alphabet networks and the NYT - who have held the attention of average Americans for decades - is clearly and unashamedly biased against them.
No argument! The great weight of mainstream media tilts left. But of course they all carried stories about Hillary's server, and the DNC emails, etc., when those stories broke.
But for anyone who is interested, there is a whole world of alternatives to left-leaning media. As I have said several times.
It was the Althouse post (and the story she linked to) that spoke of a single "the media." That is what I was responding to, in my original comment at the top of this page. There is no "the media" anymore.
I just don't know that she could have done anything by showing up.
And yet Trump did and carried the state. If he hadn't shown up in WI, MI or PA, do you think he would have carried *any* of those states, much less all three?
"lifelong republican" Chuck: "I keep coming back to that interview with John Dickerson. Althouse seems to not want to touch it, in commentary. I keep thinking about it. Dickerson was impeccable."
John Dickerson.
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/04/face-the-far-left-nation.php
This "impeccable" John Dickerson: “Go for the Throat! Why if he wants to transform American politics, Obama must declare war on the Republican Party.”
This guy: "Obama’s only remaining option is to pulverize. Whether he succeeds in passing legislation or not, given his ambitions, his goal should be to delegitimize his opponents."
"lifelong republican" Chuck simply cannot heap enough praise on this far left democrat with a byline.
Unexpectedly!
Here's a bunch more as the examples of Dickersons out of control bias which are simply too voluminous to list again here:
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/geoffrey-dickens/2015/11/13/cbs-democratic-debate-moderator-john-dickersons-most-liberal
Again, note "lifelong republican" Chucks inability to provide the context for the Trump interview where this Dickerson nonsense has been going on for years.
Need I even mention that Dickerson was a long time Al Franken pal on Air America and Dickerson called George W Bush an "eco-villain"?
No wonder Chuck is so very, very, very impressed with Dickerson.
"And yet Trump did and carried the state. If he hadn't shown up in WI, MI or PA, do you think he would have carried *any* of those states, much less all three?"
Right, but what works for Trump (holding rallies) does not work for Clinton--that was my point. She completely lacks political skills. If we were talking about Obama (or her husband for that matter) it'd be a different story.
" I think that Rush Limbaugh's ratings over long periods of time provide a metric that proves just what you say."
Someone like Rush will have to work harder to find targets--where Trump veers away from his base (e.g., "takes Kushner's advice") or is stymied by Ryan, a Trump-supporting pundit will still find their targets and have outraged fans to scoop up. But it's a harder task than say when Obama (or Bill Clinton) is in there, commanding attention and making policy that fire up the masses. Notice how much more you heard about Rush during the Clinton and Obama years compared to the Bush years. Conversely, Maddow's ratings are up, as are Colbert's (compared to Fallon's). Part of this is "who is in power" but another reason is that rage can be easier to focus on a person (e.g. POTUS) than several smaller targets (Schumer, Pelosi, sometimes Ryan, sometimes Kushner).
I keep coming back to that interview with John Dickerson. Althouse seems to not want to touch it, in commentary. I keep thinking about it. Dickerson was impeccable. He had his facts right, the quotes right; he was insistent without being rude.
I heard Dickerson's interview was somehow disrespectful or hateful, but when I saw it and read the transcript of the questions, it was utterly unremarkable, the kind of thing any small-state politician could handle in their sleep.
"But for anyone who is interested, there is a whole world of alternatives to left-leaning media."
Many Americans are not that interested. Most are not political junkies who root around searching for alternatives to left-wing leaning media.
They turn on ABC, NBC or CBS and read the local paper. And those sources - the default sources for people who are casual consumers of the news - all lean left and were and are strongly anti-Trump.
He won anyway.
Chuck @ 5/3/17, 9:49 AM
There simply is no single media monolith that opposes(ed) Trump or Hillary.
Wiki: Newspaper endorsements in the United States presidential election, 2016: daily newspapers says otherwise.
candidate CIRCULATION
Hillary Clinton 22,775,638
Not Donald Trump 4,639,248
Gary Johnson 1,239,677
Donald Trump 711,112
Split endorsement 128,357
Evan McMullin 26,757
Not Hillary Clinton 9,200
No endorsement 5,299,551
Of the newspapers that took a stance, Donald Trump won newspapers with 2.5% of circulation,"not Donald Trump" won 16.2% of circulation, while Hillary won newspapers with 79.5% of circulation.
Your claim is not supported by the facts when it comes to daily newspapers. Far from it.
Roy Jacobsen said...
OK, we get it. Some of y'all don't like Chuck. Point made.
So can you please stop transmogrifying every freaking comment thread into the "Let's Bash Chuck" show?
It's either that or let Chuck turn every thread (including those on underwater basketweaving) into the Let's Bash Trump show. Frankly bashing Chuck is more enjoyable, we can get Trump bashing anywhere. Plus there's always the off chance it'll get him to stop commenting.
Roy Jacobsen: "OK, we get it. Some of y'all don't like Chuck. Point made."
If you don't mind, we are taking a few moments to go after "lifelong republican" Chucks newest media hero, far left democrat with a byline John Dickerson.
There is an astonishingly rich treasure trove of Dickerson acting in direct support of the democrats and attacking republican's of every stripe for decades.
Which is precisely why Chuck so adores him.
And there was that meme — did she believe it? — that she is most liked when people don't see her at all.
During the NV primary there was a Hillary commercial that was a retrospective of clips of her speaking about The Children from her college days onward. They played it for a while until they found it moved the needle the wrong way. It demonstrated that Hil had been a Pain in the Ass her whole life.
Let's summarize things so we can all stay caught up:
According to "lifelong republican" Chuck, Rachel Maddow is "brilliant", John Dickerson is "impeccable", Jon Stewart is certainly worth a few links and the Trump is every worst name thing you can call him.
Correction:
Of the newspapers that took a stance(including "NOT..."- total circulation of 29,529,989), Donald Trump won newspapers with 2.4% of circulation,"not Donald Trump" won newspapers with 15.7% of circulation, while Hillary won newspapers with 77.1% of circulation.
Hillary informs us:
"If you drive around in some of the places that beat the heck out of me, you cannot get cell coverage for miles."
Pennsylvania: Low-cost Internet Service options:
Pennsylvania is the 13th most connected state and has more than 100 broadband providers. Nevertheless, there are still 49,000 people in the state with no access to broadband. No cable. No DSL. No fixed wireless. No mobile internet. Nothing.
Of the 12.8 million Pennsylvanians, 452,000 have access to only one wired provider.
Nice try, Hillary. Maybe we should call you Liawatha II. Chief Lizzie being the first, of course.
It demonstrated that Hil had been a Pain in the Ass her whole life.
"I can't be responsible for every under-capitalized entrepreneur in America."
She's always been a horrible person. She believes ruining people life's work and savings is an unimportant side effect of her power as the wife of some slimy politician.
Take it from someone who has a decently high tolerance for conflict, especially the productive kind:
Your anti-Chuck tale grows tiresome.
If you drive around in some of the places that beat the heck out of me, you cannot get cell coverage for miles.
That usually means that there aren't enough people to justify a tower.
How do I know, well, before dish/directv, there was no cable service where I live. Why? Not enough people to justify running cable to our area.
Maybe Chuck should start a blog, and maybe it would be popular...
He should call it Life-long Republican. Not kidding.
Hillary was going to subsidize the towers, a lot of towers in some very rugged terrain. For people who live there on purpose. Small fee on everybody's bill, I am sure.
So can you please stop transmogrifying every freaking comment thread into the "Let's Bash Chuck" show?
That's up to Chuckles.
Hell, their passwords would be something like "password."
I've felt a lot of disgust for Podesta over the years, along with the rest of the Clinton gang, but the story that he used "password" as his password almost makes me pity him.
Seppo -- were you there for the big storm Monday night?
I don't claim that there is a lot of connectivity in my hometown's environs -- I only dispute the notion that Hershey is in central PA. :)
Also, here's Piers Morgan on Hillary, from the Daily Mail.
So can you please stop transmogrifying every freaking comment thread into the "Let's Bash Chuck" show?
Let's talk about the shared Google Doc phishing email that I received today instead.
Now I'm getting a lot of "Don't open that Google Doc Phishing email" emails.
Ad hominem arguments are a deadly bore.
I'll just point out that the word "virulent" is never, in my experience, meant positively. You get a virulent disease--is that good news? The Invaders are spreading virulently over the homeland.
No one ever says "My investments are going virulently!"
That's the thing Chuck didn't answer: why did he pick a loaded negative word to describe media coverage of Hillary that was negative? He could have said "relentless" or "dedicated to exposing the truth" or something.
Instead, he said it was virulent.
As for focusing on Chuck: I like to think of the scorn and shame heaped on Benedict Arnold, who was by all accounts a decent general before selling out to the British. Other British generals do not have scorn heaped on them-- only Arnold. Yet Cornwall and others were objectively more dangerous to the United States.
Similarly, Judas Iscariot has received the "worst person in history" by some instead of people like Ciaphaius or Pilate, who actually ordered Jesus's death. Why? The whole "you were on my side and sold me down the river" bit.
Chuck is here, claiming to be a Republican but nevertheless bashing and dreaming of impeaching our current Republican president. He relentlessly attacks Trump and celebrates defeats for conservative policies because it reflects badly on Trump. Like other "Centrist GOP" types such as Paul Ryan, he is a greater weapon for the Democrat party than anything he ever did for conservatives or conservatism. As such, he deserves all the scorn and abuse heaped on him. Put simply, he would rather the Democrats win than Republicans or conservatives, and as such, he gets a ton of flack.
I can forgive a commie like Bernie, who genuinely believes his drivel. But my own side saying "Heck, we don't like our people so we'll sell them down the river to the enemy and take their side and work to enact their policies!" is not acceptable.
Chuck's like, say, Montgomery from WWII who didn't like Patton. Imagine if Montgomery said "Well, I can't stand that Patton fellow. I particularly don't like that he is getting credit for winning the Battle of the Bulge, where I failed spectacularly with Market Garden. Here, let me call up Model and Jodl and I'll arrange to surrender my corp so the Germans can really stick it to that punk!" Is it worth surrendering your command and cooperating with Nazi's because you don't like Patton? Chuck apparently thinks so. At least, he demonstrates it constantly.
--Vance
Trump played the media like a harp. Still does.
Roy Jacobsen said...
OK, we get it. Some of y'all don't like Chuck. Point made.
So can you please stop transmogrifying every freaking comment thread into the "Let's Bash Chuck" show?
5/3/17, 1:37 PM
I don't know about you and the earnest prole either. Here, maybe this FIFY will explain.
Literally one million Althouse commenters have said this to Chuck:
OK, we get it. Y'all don't like Trump. Point made.
So can you please stop transmogrifying every freaking comment thread into the "Let's Bash Trump" show?
And literally one hundred billion times Chuck has said 'Not on your life!'
So fuck him.
You want some too?
--Vance
5/3/17, 10:17 AM
Chuck is a lifelong Rockefeller Republican.
Vance
5/3/17, 7:26 PM
Interesting analogy, although I daresay that's not how Chuck sees it. Principles or something. Or maybe he thinks it was just another election.
I don't think he or the other Never Trumpers understand the stakes.
For many of us, Trump was a Hail Mary pass, the Flight 93 option.
The First and Second Amendments were at stake, the SCOTUS and the risk of making permanent the globalist corporatocracy agenda, including wrecking the economy with the CAGW scam.
That's what Hillary represented, as well as corruption on a colossal, untouchable scale. And the continued ratcheting up of the deep state.
To paraphrase Churchill wrt Hitler, I would have voted for Satan over Hillary Clinton.
Oopsie, did I just invoke Godwin's Law?
Post a Comment