Wrap your head around this. Really, really, let it sink in.
August 09, 2016, 10:18 am
Analysis: Trump campaign has spent $0 on television advertising
Less than 100 days before the election, Donald Trump has still not spent a dime on television advertising, even as Hillary Clinton floods the airwaves with tens of millions of dollars in ad spending.
According to an analysis by NBC News, the Clinton campaign has spent $52 million on television ads, many of which have been concentrated in the battleground states that will be critical in determining the outcome of the election.
The Trump campaign, by comparison, has spent zero dollars.
Even the two third-party candidates, Green Party nominee Jill Stein and Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson, have outspent Trump. Stein’s campaign has spent $189,000, while Johnson’s campaign has spent $15,000.When outside groups are factored in, Clinton's advantage over Trump grows to $91 million to $8.2 million in TV ad spending.
The largest pro-Clinton super-PAC, Priorities USA, has spent $37 million.
Meanwhile, the largest pro-Trump super-PAC, Rebuilding America Now, has spent $5 million. The National Rifle Association has spent $3.2 million in TV advertising for Trump.
The Trump campaign did not respond to a request for comment.
The campaign has released several ads, but has only pushed them over social media so far.
It's not for lack of money - the Trump campaign raised $80 million in July and finished the month with $37 million in cash-on-hand.
Any notion that the "mainstream media" hasn't been anything less than historically and staggeringly generous to Donald Trump since the very beginning is ridiculous and ludicrous.
Generous with negativity mostly. How will he ever thank them?
Wrap your head around this. Really, really, let it sink in.
August 09, 2016, 10:18 am
Analysis: Trump campaign has spent $0 on television advertising
Less than 100 days before the election, Donald Trump has still not spent a dime on television advertising, even as Hillary Clinton floods the airwaves with tens of millions of dollars in ad spending.
According to an analysis by NBC News, the Clinton campaign has spent $52 million on television ads, many of which have been concentrated in the battleground states that will be critical in determining the outcome of the election.
The Trump campaign, by comparison, has spent zero dollars.
Even the two third-party candidates, Green Party nominee Jill Stein and Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson, have outspent Trump. Stein’s campaign has spent $189,000, while Johnson’s campaign has spent $15,000.When outside groups are factored in, Clinton's advantage over Trump grows to $91 million to $8.2 million in TV ad spending.
The largest pro-Clinton super-PAC, Priorities USA, has spent $37 million.
Meanwhile, the largest pro-Trump super-PAC, Rebuilding America Now, has spent $5 million. The National Rifle Association has spent $3.2 million in TV advertising for Trump.
The Trump campaign did not respond to a request for comment.
The campaign has released several ads, but has only pushed them over social media so far.
It's not for lack of money - the Trump campaign raised $80 million in July and finished the month with $37 million in cash-on-hand.
Any notion that the "mainstream media" hasn't been anything less than historically and staggeringly generous to Donald Trump since the very beginning is ridiculous and ludicrous.
Generous with negativity mostly. How will he ever thank them?
The coverage is neither positive nor negative. They report what he says. People can draw their own conclusions.
How about some conservatives post some positive things about Trump from conservative media? Show us what we are missing.
Wrap your head around this. Really, really, let it sink in.
August 09, 2016, 10:18 am
Analysis: Trump campaign has spent $0 on television advertising
Less than 100 days before the election, Donald Trump has still not spent a dime on television advertising, even as Hillary Clinton floods the airwaves with tens of millions of dollars in ad spending.
According to an analysis by NBC News, the Clinton campaign has spent $52 million on television ads, many of which have been concentrated in the battleground states that will be critical in determining the outcome of the election.
The Trump campaign, by comparison, has spent zero dollars.
Even the two third-party candidates, Green Party nominee Jill Stein and Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson, have outspent Trump. Stein’s campaign has spent $189,000, while Johnson’s campaign has spent $15,000.When outside groups are factored in, Clinton's advantage over Trump grows to $91 million to $8.2 million in TV ad spending.
The largest pro-Clinton super-PAC, Priorities USA, has spent $37 million.
Meanwhile, the largest pro-Trump super-PAC, Rebuilding America Now, has spent $5 million. The National Rifle Association has spent $3.2 million in TV advertising for Trump.
The Trump campaign did not respond to a request for comment.
The campaign has released several ads, but has only pushed them over social media so far.
It's not for lack of money - the Trump campaign raised $80 million in July and finished the month with $37 million in cash-on-hand.
Any notion that the "mainstream media" hasn't been anything less than historically and staggeringly generous to Donald Trump since the very beginning is ridiculous and ludicrous.
Generous with negativity mostly. How will he ever thank them?
One gets what one earns. Are you actually going to attempt to defend Trump for his foot in mouth disease over the last 2 weeks? He has alienated many in his own party as well as across the aisle. Example follows & the numbers speak volumes about Trump's positive image.
"There are a number of Republicans so horrified by Donald Trump that they’re supporting Clinton, the GOP’s longtime nemesis. According to Politico, more GOP defectors are set to go public this week, and the Clinton campaign will soon roll out an official Republicans for Clinton organization to mobilize them. Crucial to this mini-movement are Republican women. In this election, much has been said about the surge of blue-collar men towards Donald Trump. At least as significant, however, has been the rush of white-collar women away from him. According to a new Monmouth University poll, college-educated white women prefer Clinton to Trump by 30 percentage points, 57 percent to 27 percent. (In 2012, Mitt Romney won this demographic by 6 percentage points, 52 percent to 46 percent.) “I think much of that is Republican women voters who simply can’t vote for someone so vile towards women as Donald Trump,” says Meghan Milloy, an employee at a right-leaning think tank who also serves as chairwoman of the group Republican Women for Hillary."
Wrap your head around this. Really, really, let it sink in.
August 09, 2016, 10:18 am
Analysis: Trump campaign has spent $0 on television advertising
Less than 100 days before the election, Donald Trump has still not spent a dime on television advertising, even as Hillary Clinton floods the airwaves with tens of millions of dollars in ad spending.
According to an analysis by NBC News, the Clinton campaign has spent $52 million on television ads, many of which have been concentrated in the battleground states that will be critical in determining the outcome of the election.
The Trump campaign, by comparison, has spent zero dollars.
Even the two third-party candidates, Green Party nominee Jill Stein and Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson, have outspent Trump. Stein’s campaign has spent $189,000, while Johnson’s campaign has spent $15,000.When outside groups are factored in, Clinton's advantage over Trump grows to $91 million to $8.2 million in TV ad spending.
The largest pro-Clinton super-PAC, Priorities USA, has spent $37 million.
Meanwhile, the largest pro-Trump super-PAC, Rebuilding America Now, has spent $5 million. The National Rifle Association has spent $3.2 million in TV advertising for Trump.
The Trump campaign did not respond to a request for comment.
The campaign has released several ads, but has only pushed them over social media so far.
It's not for lack of money - the Trump campaign raised $80 million in July and finished the month with $37 million in cash-on-hand.
Any notion that the "mainstream media" hasn't been anything less than historically and staggeringly generous to Donald Trump since the very beginning is ridiculous and ludicrous.
Generous with negativity mostly. How will he ever thank them?
Awww, sniff sniff. Poor wittle repwessed Repubwicans.
Dude gets a Presidential campaign for free and is performing horrifically in the polls with 100 days to go. Something to be proud of.
But, once again, like so many GOP candidates before him, he is not to be judged, criticized or held accountable for anything he actually says. The Party of Somewhat Personal Responsibility strikes again.
Wrap your head around this. Really, really, let it sink in.
August 09, 2016, 10:18 am
Analysis: Trump campaign has spent $0 on television advertising
Less than 100 days before the election, Donald Trump has still not spent a dime on television advertising, even as Hillary Clinton floods the airwaves with tens of millions of dollars in ad spending.
According to an analysis by NBC News, the Clinton campaign has spent $52 million on television ads, many of which have been concentrated in the battleground states that will be critical in determining the outcome of the election.
The Trump campaign, by comparison, has spent zero dollars.
Even the two third-party candidates, Green Party nominee Jill Stein and Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson, have outspent Trump. Stein’s campaign has spent $189,000, while Johnson’s campaign has spent $15,000.When outside groups are factored in, Clinton's advantage over Trump grows to $91 million to $8.2 million in TV ad spending.
The largest pro-Clinton super-PAC, Priorities USA, has spent $37 million.
Meanwhile, the largest pro-Trump super-PAC, Rebuilding America Now, has spent $5 million. The National Rifle Association has spent $3.2 million in TV advertising for Trump.
The Trump campaign did not respond to a request for comment.
The campaign has released several ads, but has only pushed them over social media so far.
It's not for lack of money - the Trump campaign raised $80 million in July and finished the month with $37 million in cash-on-hand.
Any notion that the "mainstream media" hasn't been anything less than historically and staggeringly generous to Donald Trump since the very beginning is ridiculous and ludicrous.
Generous with negativity mostly. How will he ever thank them?
The coverage is neither positive nor negative. They report what he says. People can draw their own conclusions.
Exactly. And it worked like a charm in the primaries, we'll see if it works in the general.
How about some conservatives post some positive things about Trump from conservative media? Show us what we are missing.
And extra credit if you can find one that does it without mentioning HRC or Obama.
Here is a positive mainstream article for ole goober. Why it is right up his alley.
TBOMike, please explain:
Media justify anti-Trump bias, claim he's too 'dangerous' for normal rules
By Howard Kurtz
Published August 09, 2016
FoxNews.com
The media’s legions of Trump-bashers are finally acknowledging the obvious.
And trying their best to justify it.
But there’s one problem: Tilting against one candidate in a presidential election can’t be justified.
This is not a defense of Donald Trump, who has been at war with much of the press since he got in the race. Too many people think if you criticize the way the billionaire is being covered, you are somehow backing Trump.
And it’s not about the commentators, on the right as well as the left, who are savaging Trump, since they are paid for their opinions.
This is about the mainstream media’s reporters, editors and producers, whose credo is supposed to be fairness.
2016 Election Headquarters
The latest headlines on the 2016 elections from the biggest name in politics. See Latest Coverage →
And now some of them are flat-out making the case for unfairness—an unprecedented approach for an unprecedented campaign.
Put aside, for the moment, the longstanding complaints about journalists being unfair to Republicans. They never treated Mitt Romney, John McCain, George W. Bush or Bob Dole like this.
Keep in mind that the media utterly misjudged Trump from the start, covering him as a joke or a sideshow or a streaking comet that would burn itself out. Many of them later confessed how wrong they had been, and that they had missed the magnitude of the anger and frustration that fueled Trump’s unlikely rise.
But since the conventions, and fueled by his own missteps, Trump has been hit by a tsunami of negative coverage, all but swamping the reporting on Hillary Clinton. Liberal investigative journalist Glenn Greenwald recently told Slate that “the U.S. media is essentially 100 percent united, vehemently, against Trump, and preventing him from being elected president”—and, given his views, he has no problem with that.
Now comes Jim Rutenberg, in his first season as media columnist for the New York Times. He’s a good reporter and I give him credit for trying to openly grapple with this bizarre situation.
But Rutenberg is, in my view, trying to defend the indefensible:
“If you view a Trump presidency as something that’s potentially dangerous, then your reporting is going to reflect that. You would move closer than you’ve ever been to being oppositional. That’s uncomfortable and uncharted territory for every mainstream, nonopinion journalist I’ve ever known, and by normal standards, untenable.”
Yet normal standards, says Rutenberg, may not apply.
By “closer to being oppositional,” he means openly siding against Trump and thereby helping Clinton. And that’s precisely the kind of thing that erodes our already damaged credibility. If a reporter believes Trump is a threat to America, he or she should go into the opinion business, or quit the media world and work against him. You can’t maintain the fig leaf of neutral reporting and favor one side.
Rutenberg acknowledges that “balance has been on vacation since Mr. Trump stepped onto his golden Trump Tower escalator last year to announce his candidacy. For the primaries and caucuses, the imbalance played to his advantage, captured by the killer statistic of the season: His nearly $2 billion in free media was more than six times as much as that of his closest Republican rival.”
I have to push back on this $2-billion argument. Trump got more coverage not just because he was good for clicks and ratings, but because he did many, many times more interviews than anyone else running. Much of this “free” media, rather than being a gift, was harshly negative. But that too helped Trump, because he drove the campaign dialogue and openly campaigned against the press.
Next Rutenberg argues that Trump is just too over the top in his rhetoric:
“And while coded appeals to racism or nationalism aren’t new — two words: Southern strategy — overt calls to temporarily bar Muslims from entry to the United States or questioning a federal judge’s impartiality based on his Mexican heritage are new.”
What’s disappointing is that Rutenberg doesn’t cite a single example of biased coverage from his paper, or any other paper or news outlet. (He does point to criticism from MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough, who is, as the columnist acknowledges, a commentator.)
Instead he quotes Carolyn Ryan, the Times’ senior editor for politics, as saying Trump’s candidacy is “extraordinary and precedent-shattering” and “to pretend otherwise is to be disingenuous with readers.”
And Rutenberg agrees, saying it would “be an abdication of political journalism’s most solemn duty: to ferret out what the candidates will be like in the most powerful office in the world.”
No one wants to abdicate that duty. No one is pretending Trump’s candidacy isn’t extraordinary. No one is saying he shouldn’t be fully vetted.
But there is an assumption among many journalists and pundits that of course Hillary Clinton is qualified, she’s been around forever, she just doesn’t need the relentless reporting that Trump requires. And so critical stories about Clinton—even when she said she “short-circuited” in that Chris Wallace interview on the email mess—are overshadowed by the endless piling on Trump.
Many of the reporters who feel compelled to stop Trump are undoubtedly comfortable because all their friends feel the same way.
But they are deluding themselves if they think that going after one candidate in a two-candidate race is what journalism is about.
TBOMike, please explain:
One guy from CNN said Phelps should let her carry the flag - not all liberals, etc.
Phelps has had his share of controversy, and I have heard others say he may not have been the best role model to carry the flag - but his medals stand out....
Here is some of the controversy:
RIO DE JANEIRO — The selection of Michael Phelps to be the United States' flag bearer in Friday's Olympic opening ceremony is a testimony to great triumph and hopeful redemption.
Phelps, who at 31 is competing in his fifth consecutive Summer Games, is the most decorated Olympian of all time with 22 medals, 18 of them gold. That, alone, makes him a fitting choice to lead in the U.S. team.
He also has been a tireless supporter of more stringent drug testing, personally volunteering for more scrutiny from the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency over the past decade. Consider the contrast as you watch the tainted and entirely untrustworthy Russian delegation enter Maracana Stadium Friday night.
But Phelps does not arrive at this moment without controversy. In 2004, months after the Athens Olympics, he was arrested at age 19 for driving under the influence of alcohol, pleading guilty.
In 2009, months after the Beijing Olympics, a photograph of Phelps using a marijuana pipe went viral, resulting in a three-month suspension. He was 23.
In 2014, two years after the London Olympics, he was arrested again, this time for driving under the influence, speeding and changing lanes in a Baltimore tunnel. He was lucky he didn't kill himself, or someone else. This time, he was 29.
He pleaded guilty, was suspended for six months, was not allowed to represent the USA at the 2015 world championships and checked himself into rehab.
He and his fiancée now have a son, and he has said he is not drinking. He will compete in up to five events at these Olympics, and will be favored to win a medal in each one.
But his history shows us that his performance in the pool is only one part of his story and his legacy. What happens after the Olympics is telling as well.
So far, after three consecutive Olympic Games, Phelps has followed great success with appalling misjudgment, if not outright failure.
Phelps was always going to be watched closely after these Olympic Games. The scrutiny only becomes more intense with this great honor.
When did carrying the flag at the Olympics get political significance anyway?
TBOMike, please explain:
This guy has won more gold medals than anyone by a large margin.
He has been the face of the US team for the past few Olympics.
There is nothing political here.
How desperate are you?
Media justify anti-Trump bias, claim he's too 'dangerous' for normal rules
By Howard Kurtz
Published August 09, 2016
FoxNews.comThe media’s legions of Trump-bashers are finally acknowledging the obvious.
And trying their best to justify it.
But there’s one problem: Tilting against one candidate in a presidential election can’t be justified.
This is not a defense of Donald Trump, who has been at war with much of the press since he got in the race. Too many people think if you criticize the way the billionaire is being covered, you are somehow backing Trump.
And it’s not about the commentators, on the right as well as the left, who are savaging Trump, since they are paid for their opinions.
This is about the mainstream media’s reporters, editors and producers, whose credo is supposed to be fairness.
2016 Election HeadquartersThe latest headlines on the 2016 elections from the biggest name in politics. See Latest Coverage →
And now some of them are flat-out making the case for unfairness—an unprecedented approach for an unprecedented campaign.
Put aside, for the moment, the longstanding complaints about journalists being unfair to Republicans. They never treated Mitt Romney, John McCain, George W. Bush or Bob Dole like this.
Keep in mind that the media utterly misjudged Trump from the start, covering him as a joke or a sideshow or a streaking comet that would burn itself out. Many of them later confessed how wrong they had been, and that they had missed the magnitude of the anger and frustration that fueled Trump’s unlikely rise.
But since the conventions, and fueled by his own missteps, Trump has been hit by a tsunami of negative coverage, all but swamping the reporting on Hillary Clinton. Liberal investigative journalist Glenn Greenwald recently told Slate that “the U.S. media is essentially 100 percent united, vehemently, against Trump, and preventing him from being elected president”—and, given his views, he has no problem with that.
Now comes Jim Rutenberg, in his first season as media columnist for the New York Times. He’s a good reporter and I give him credit for trying to openly grapple with this bizarre situation.
But Rutenberg is, in my view, trying to defend the indefensible:
“If you view a Trump presidency as something that’s potentially dangerous, then your reporting is going to reflect that. You would move closer than you’ve ever been to being oppositional. That’s uncomfortable and uncharted territory for every mainstream, nonopinion journalist I’ve ever known, and by normal standards, untenable.”
Yet normal standards, says Rutenberg, may not apply.
By “closer to being oppositional,” he means openly siding against Trump and thereby helping Clinton. And that’s precisely the kind of thing that erodes our already damaged credibility. If a reporter believes Trump is a threat to America, he or she should go into the opinion business, or quit the media world and work against him. You can’t maintain the fig leaf of neutral reporting and favor one side.
Rutenberg acknowledges that “balance has been on vacation since Mr. Trump stepped onto his golden Trump Tower escalator last year to announce his candidacy. For the primaries and caucuses, the imbalance played to his advantage, captured by the killer statistic of the season: His nearly $2 billion in free media was more than six times as much as that of his closest Republican rival.”
I have to push back on this $2-billion argument. Trump got more coverage not just because he was good for clicks and ratings, but because he did many, many times more interviews than anyone else running. Much of this “free” media, rather than being a gift, was harshly negative. But that too helped Trump, because he drove the campaign dialogue and openly campaigned against the press.
Next Rutenberg argues that Trump is just too over the top in his rhetoric:
“And while coded appeals to racism or nationalism aren’t new — two words: Southern strategy — overt calls to temporarily bar Muslims from entry to the United States or questioning a federal judge’s impartiality based on his Mexican heritage are new.”
What’s disappointing is that Rutenberg doesn’t cite a single example of biased coverage from his paper, or any other paper or news outlet. (He does point to criticism from MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough, who is, as the columnist acknowledges, a commentator.)
Instead he quotes Carolyn Ryan, the Times’ senior editor for politics, as saying Trump’s candidacy is “extraordinary and precedent-shattering” and “to pretend otherwise is to be disingenuous with readers.”
And Rutenberg agrees, saying it would “be an abdication of political journalism’s most solemn duty: to ferret out what the candidates will be like in the most powerful office in the world.”
No one wants to abdicate that duty. No one is pretending Trump’s candidacy isn’t extraordinary. No one is saying he shouldn’t be fully vetted.
But there is an assumption among many journalists and pundits that of course Hillary Clinton is qualified, she’s been around forever, she just doesn’t need the relentless reporting that Trump requires. And so critical stories about Clinton—even when she said she “short-circuited” in that Chris Wallace interview on the email mess—are overshadowed by the endless piling on Trump.
Many of the reporters who feel compelled to stop Trump are undoubtedly comfortable because all their friends feel the same way.
But they are deluding themselves if they think that going after one candidate in a two-candidate race is what journalism is about.
If I've seen one I've seen thirty....Political commentators claiming Trump is a racist, unstable,
dangerous, can't be trusted with nuclear codes, and on and on. This is somehow considered
neutral coverage, or more amazingly construed by some folks as free media coverage, as if it's
a net positive for his campaign? Sniff glue much?
[Edited on 8/10/2016 by alloak41]
If I've seen one I've seen thirty....Political commentators claiming Trump is a racist, unstable, dangerous, can't be trusted with nuclear codes, and on and on. This is somehow considered neutral coverage, or more amazingly construed by some folks as free media coverage, as if it's a net positive for his campaign?
True, but there are just as many commentators making similar claims about Hillary, saying she will continue the policies that have caused a shocking deterioration of our society, economic inequality, militarism, government surveillance, cut deals for Wall Street and big Pharma, and on and on. Latest is that she is responsible for the deaths of three whistle-blowers. That's OK. That's what commentators do. I think you have pundits (commentators) confused with news reporters. The purpose of pundits is to provide "expert opinions", not facts. They are not expected to give neutral coverage. What you need to ask yourself is why is it when neutral news sources simply report what Trump has said it seems negative? Maybe it's not them. Maybe it's him. He seems to relish the attention so he continues to feed the monster. Don't blame the media for that.
I wish both of these candidates would just go away. I'm voting for Gary Johnson.
If I've seen one I've seen thirty....Political commentators claiming Trump is a racist, unstable,
dangerous, can't be trusted with nuclear codes, and on and on. This is somehow considered
neutral coverage, or more amazingly construed by some folks as free media coverage, as if it's
a net positive for his campaign? Sniff glue much?
If you are talking about "political commentators" within the media, then yes, their job is to give commentary, which is "spoken or written discussion in which people express opinions about someone or something." I guess you think there should be no commentary, which is fine if you really feel that way. But what you fail to recognize is that political commentary cuts both ways and there is plenty of unflattering political commentary out there about both of the major candidates. The thing with Trump is that what he has been saying and doing is unprecedented and he continues goes so far off the rails on what is now a daily basis that it's getting unprecedented media coverage. I would argue that this is not an accident on Trumps part, he is intentionally trying to generate the coverage he is getting, and he loves it because it not only keeps his name in the headlines, but it gives him another thing to rail against, i.e. he wants to have his cake and eat it too. This was a winning strategy during the primaries but not so sure it will have the same intended impact in the general, and in fact I think we may be starting to see it turn on him a bit and of course this will just ratchet up the media bias whine factor. Time will tell I guess in terms of how it all plays out, but to cry about Trump getting unfair treatment is ignoring the obvious.
Republican Persecuted Media Victim Complex...a sight to behold.
shame and embarrassment see to be finally taking hold in the GOP. right now i think pride is the only thing stopping mass defections though.
If I've seen one I've seen thirty....Political commentators claiming Trump is a racist, unstable,
dangerous, can't be trusted with nuclear codes, and on and on. This is somehow considered
neutral coverage, or more amazingly construed by some folks as free media coverage, as if it's
a net positive for his campaign? Sniff glue much?If you are talking about "political commentators" within the media, then yes, their job is to give commentary, which is "spoken or written discussion in which people express opinions about someone or something." I guess you think there should be no commentary, which is fine if you really feel that way. But what you fail to recognize is that political commentary cuts both ways and there is plenty of unflattering political commentary out there about both of the major candidates. The thing with Trump is that what he has been saying and doing is unprecedented and he continues goes so far off the rails on what is now a daily basis that it's getting unprecedented media coverage. I would argue that this is not an accident on Trumps part, he is intentionally trying to generate the coverage he is getting, and he loves it because it not only keeps his name in the headlines, but it gives him another thing to rail against, i.e. he wants to have his cake and eat it too. This was a winning strategy during the primaries but not so sure it will have the same intended impact in the general, and in fact I think we may be starting to see it turn on him a bit and of course this will just ratchet up the media bias whine factor. Time will tell I guess in terms of how it all plays out, but to cry about Trump getting unfair treatment is ignoring the obvious.
So Trump turns on the TV and sees political experts accusing him of being unstable, can't trust
him, is a racist, unhinged, ect, ect, ect.......He loves this? You really believe that?
Republican Persecuted Media Victim Complex...a sight to behold.
It could very well backfire. Much of the public is sick of it.
If I've seen one I've seen thirty....Political commentators claiming Trump is a racist, unstable,
dangerous, can't be trusted with nuclear codes, and on and on. This is somehow considered
neutral coverage, or more amazingly construed by some folks as free media coverage, as if it's
a net positive for his campaign? Sniff glue much?If you are talking about "political commentators" within the media, then yes, their job is to give commentary, which is "spoken or written discussion in which people express opinions about someone or something." I guess you think there should be no commentary, which is fine if you really feel that way. But what you fail to recognize is that political commentary cuts both ways and there is plenty of unflattering political commentary out there about both of the major candidates. The thing with Trump is that what he has been saying and doing is unprecedented and he continues goes so far off the rails on what is now a daily basis that it's getting unprecedented media coverage. I would argue that this is not an accident on Trumps part, he is intentionally trying to generate the coverage he is getting, and he loves it because it not only keeps his name in the headlines, but it gives him another thing to rail against, i.e. he wants to have his cake and eat it too. This was a winning strategy during the primaries but not so sure it will have the same intended impact in the general, and in fact I think we may be starting to see it turn on him a bit and of course this will just ratchet up the media bias whine factor. Time will tell I guess in terms of how it all plays out, but to cry about Trump getting unfair treatment is ignoring the obvious.
So Trump turns on the TV and sees political experts accusing him of being unstable, can't trust
him, is a racist, unhinged, ect, ect, ect.......He loves this? You really believe that?
What about the people that turn on the TV, watch him giving a speech and conclude that on their own? Is that a possibility, or not to be considered in your eyes?
Actually, when it comes to what the media says, here's what he told Hannity last night about the Second Amendment remarks:
“There are few things so powerful, I have to say, in terms of politics. There is few things [sic]. And I happen to think that if they actually did even bring this up, I think it's a good thing for me...because it's going to tell people more about me with respect to the second amendment because Hillary Clinton wants to essentially abolish the Second Amendment."
"It's a good thing for me"
Republican Persecuted Media Victim Complex...a sight to behold.
It could very well backfire. Much of the public is sick of it.
Sick of Republicans whining about everything and not giving a rat's a$$ about governing? Yeah, I agree. Much of the public is sick of it.
Republican Persecuted Media Victim Complex...a sight to behold.
It could very well backfire. Much of the public is sick of it.
Sick of Republicans whining about everything and not giving a rat's a$$ about governing? Yeah, I agree. Much of the public is sick of it.
Then why isn't the public voting them out? Governorships, State Legislators, House, Senate.....Doesn't seem to be happening. Maybe they're sick of it except on election days?
Dislike of the media and their obvious bias is measurable and the numbers don't look good.
So Trump turns on the TV and sees political experts accusing him of being unstable, can't trust
him, is a racist, unhinged, ect, ect, ect.......He loves this? You really believe that?
What about the people that turn on the TV, watch him giving a speech and conclude that on their own? Is that a possibility, or not to be considered in your eyes?
Great non-answer. Pretty much says it all.
If I've seen one I've seen thirty....Political commentators claiming Trump is a racist, unstable, dangerous, can't be trusted with nuclear codes, and on and on. This is somehow considered neutral coverage, or more amazingly construed by some folks as free media coverage, as if it's a net positive for his campaign?
True, but there are just as many commentators making similar claims about Hillary, saying she will continue the policies that have caused a shocking deterioration of our society, economic inequality, militarism, government surveillance, cut deals for Wall Street and big Pharma, and on and on.
Even if she was getting the same amount of negative coverage as Trump, you don't see the difference?
What you mention is policy centered, the other (concerning Trump) is some kind of subjective psychoanalyis.
Page One of the democrat playbook. It's really all they have anymore.....Sad.
So Trump turns on the TV and sees political experts accusing him of being unstable, can't trust
him, is a racist, unhinged, ect, ect, ect.......He loves this? You really believe that?What about the people that turn on the TV, watch him giving a speech and conclude that on their own? Is that a possibility, or not to be considered in your eyes?
Great non-answer. Pretty much says it all.
Totes. Just look at all the poor saps that the liberal media has hoodwinked.
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/290999-republican-exodus-from-trump-grows
But, once again, like so many GOP candidates before him, he is not to be judged, criticized or held accountable for anything he actually says.
HE'S NOT??
Jerry, where do you come up with this stuff?
He's being judged and criticized almost non-stop all over the airwaves practically 24/7.
Wow!
So Trump turns on the TV and sees political experts accusing him of being unstable, can't trust
him, is a racist, unhinged, ect, ect, ect.......He loves this? You really believe that?What about the people that turn on the TV, watch him giving a speech and conclude that on their own? Is that a possibility, or not to be considered in your eyes?
Great non-answer. Pretty much says it all.
Totes. Just look at all the poor saps that the liberal media has hoodwinked.
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/290999-republican-exodus-from-trump-grows
Republican politicians? .........WFC?
Probably ending their own careers for doing what they can to hand the election to H. Clinton. Hope so.
Bye bye, guys.
So Trump turns on the TV and sees political experts accusing him of being unstable, can't trust
him, is a racist, unhinged, ect, ect, ect.......He loves this? You really believe that?What about the people that turn on the TV, watch him giving a speech and conclude that on their own? Is that a possibility, or not to be considered in your eyes?
Great non-answer. Pretty much says it all.
So, there's no way anyone can conclude that they don't like Trump just by watching him speak?
I don't spend a lot of time watching political experts, I guess you do. I'm not talking to them, I'm talking to you.
But, once again, like so many GOP candidates before him, he is not to be judged, criticized or held accountable for anything he actually says.
HE'S NOT??
Jerry, where do you come up with this stuff?
He's being judged and criticized almost non-stop all over the airwaves practically 24/7.
Wow!
I'm not talking about them. I'm talking to you.
Let's be clear. There is nothing that Trump says that he is accountable for TO YOU?
Not pundits, not columnists. You.
But, once again, like so many GOP candidates before him, he is not to be judged, criticized or held accountable for anything he actually says.
HE'S NOT??
Jerry, where do you come up with this stuff?
He's being judged and criticized almost non-stop all over the airwaves practically 24/7.
Wow!
I'm not talking about them. I'm talking to you.
Let's be clear. There is nothing that Trump says that he is accountable for TO YOU?
Not pundits, not columnists. You.
I'm starting to think that he doesn't believe that Trump actually says these things at all and that he believes "the media" is making it all up.