Recent Posts

This election will probably not be what it should

by Dan Burns on November 3, 2016 · 2 comments

trump5The best of the aggregating/predictive sites (not Nate, not after this cycle) has Hillary all but an infinite certainty to win. The Pollster average gives her a six point lead, and that’s probably skewed a little low right now because of outsized influence from lowballed tracking polls, purporting to show things in a virtual tie despite Clinton’s enormous leads among everyone except old people and middle-aged rednecks. (Those lowballed polls will probably continue to creep upward, “herding” in aggregator parlance, in the remaining time, and their proprietors will claim after it’s over that they were accurate all along.) And in one-sided elections, at least recent ones, polling averages have tended to understate actual margins of victory. That being said, Senate control is not the sure thing that it should be, and the House appears to be a long shot.

 

Corporate media has basically placed itself on the side of the most loathsome vileness, in the person of Donald Trump. Its portrayal of Trump’s sexism, bigotry, pathological (and extremely dangerous, if elected) narcissism, and just general horrific failure as a human being as being less “newsworthy” than Hillary’s emails just leaves one flabbergasted and appalled. I mean, we know corporate media’s political “coverage” had gotten really, really bad, but this? The calculation of the reprobates in charge there is clearly that since Trump can’t win (he has, after all, made it very clear that he’ll consider media his slavish lackeys, if he‘s prez), it’s fine to continue to pander to corporate media’s own conservative base, and help to blunt any Democratic downballot wave in the process. That is despicable and corrupt to an extreme. We have to figure out how to hold corporate media accountable for it, and make it happen.
 
Comment below fold.
 

Comments
 
From Mac Hall: What it should be about is the amount of money raised (and spent) in this election. And yes, much of that money comes from corporations buying — err — donating to politicians.
 
Let’s take Erik Paulsen … who is the winner here … well, I say DMM Media who will bill him over a million dollars (actually north of $1.4M) And look at how much money he has been given … over $4,680,906. And he has spent it too … over $4,247,018.
 
And did any media outlet ask him to defend his need to seek that much money or spend that much money ?
 
No, the big question was : Will you vote for Donald Trump after his “nasty” comments?
 
When the question should have been :
Will you vote for Donald Trump who says the trade deals that you have supported have cost American jobs ?
Will you vote for Donald Trump who says America needs a new national family leave policy that would provide six weeks of paid leave and you have failed to sponsor H.R.1439 – Family and Medical Insurance Leave Act ?
Will you vote for Donald Trump who acknowledges that he has not paid federal taxes — “That makes me smart” and chided Congress “Now, if you want to change the laws, you’ve been there a long time”… and you have failed to close the Trump loopholes ?
Will you vote for Donald Trump who says “you know is one thing to have twenty trillion debt and our roads are good and are bridges are good everything is in great shape. Our airports are like from a Third World country. You land at LaGuardia, you land at Kennedy, you land at LAX, you land at Newark and you come in from Dubai and Qatar and you see these incredible — you come in from China — you see these incredible airports and you land… we become a Third World country. So the worst of all things has happened. We owe twenty trillion dollars and we are a mess.” … and you have voted for more tax cuts and failed to invest in our infrastructure ?
 
The media was helped by the challengers who have focused on Trump’s antics instead of some of the issues that he has raised which show a failure of the Washington establishment.
 
From Mac Hall: How can we hold corporate media responsible for candidate’s constant appeals for more money ?
 
Case-in-point … I just got an email from the Angie Craig campaign
“Jason Lewis just dumped $75,OOO into his campaign in a final effort to pull ahead!
 
CHIP IN TO HELP ANGIE ANSWER HIS LAST MINUTE SPENDING”
 
Of course as anyone who has followed this contest knows, Angie Craig has “dumped” $975,000 of her own money into the campaign while Lewis had not contributed a dime of his own money. And no mention that in six days, Angie Craig got more than $78,000 from larger donors (more than $1000 donation) — ranging from locals like the Pohlads and Entenza to out of state film producers and PAC.
 
It is kinda odd that Rick Nolan and David Jolly offered a bipartisan bill to address incumbent fundraising … and now are both in competitive re-election campaigns … and both may lose. You know about Nolan, but David Jolly FL13 has brought in over $1.9 million for his contest and polls show that although Trump should win the district, Charlie Crist will beat Jolly (Crist raised in excess of $1.5 million.) Add to the dollars the Nolan, Mills, Jolly and Crist campaigns may spend to the dollars from outside groups HouseMajorityPAC and Norm Coleman’s Congressional Leadership Fund, the winner will not be the public but media that produces and runs the commercials.
 
Heck, even Republican Representative Erik Paulsen who has raised in excess of $4,680,906, may not be enough as NRCC is not taking any chances and is up with another ad against Democratic challenger Terri Bonoff in this final week.
 
If America really wants to discuss real issues, then there must be a cap on how much can be spent in any elective office.
Case-in-point, a candidate for Macomb County Michigan public works commissioner has received $150,000 for her campaign.
 
Yep, any elective office.
 

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: