... I've never before in my life seen the press as willing to go easy on a candidate's claims to still be a viable contender.
Okay, so his life has not yet been so long. Still, Matthew makes sense.
I am sick beyond belief at the wide-eyed eagerness of the MSM to lap up the daily spin from the Clinton campaign about how they're "actually ahead, if you only consider …" and report it as gospel, just so they can keep this nomination "battle" alive and not have to think about finding some real stories to cover.
She. Can't. Win. All she can do is destroy the Democrats' chances in what should have been the easiest election ever.
(h/t: Scott Lemieux)
[added] Bonus Matthew:
One of my new lines when print journalism types start fretting about the blogosphere is to remind people that the emerging media landscape can't possibly be worse than 24 hour cable news, which often seems to be going out of its way to be uninformative.
[added] Via Oliver Willis: Timothy Noah issues a challenge:
Here's a rule I would like every political reporter, campaign official, TV talking head, and politician in the United States to follow. Go ahead and say, if you like, that Hillary Clinton retains a serious chance of winning the Democratic nomination. If you say this, however, you must describe a set of circumstances whereby this could happen. Try not to make it sound like a fairy tale.
Noah follows this with a brutal hacking apart of every fairy tale imaginable, which, if only some of the dispensers of hot air would read, might mean that we could get onto the real business of electing a president.
3 comments:
She. Can't. Win. All she can do is destroy the Democrats' chances in what should have been the easiest election ever.
If the GOP wins the election, won't it be time for Dems to stop the "we blew it" routine and just face the fact that America has become a right wing, conservative, Christian country? That's certainly how it's going to look to the rest of the world (and how it already looks to many, who can't tell the difference between the two parties...).
Sorry for the depressing comment...
I think you're right about the world's perception of such a result. I'd also say that there is no doubt that a significant fraction of the American populace (especially considering only those who vote) are wingnuts.
However, if you look at party registration data, voter self-identification data, and polling data on issues, it's clear that a solid majority of the country favors a position that's generically Democratic. This has been true for years, and it's become even more lopsided lately, for obvious reasons.
The real problem is that the Democrats can't seem to overcome their perpetual urge to form a circular firing squad when it comes to the contest for the presidency. They'll come close to winning super-majorities in the Congress this year, even under pessimistic scenarios, but they are masters at losing the big prize.
There's a lot more to this, of course. One big piece is the GOP's consistent ability to sell their candidate as "tougher" on {crime | war | drugs | terror | erosion of "values"}, and the Dems' chronic inability to figure out a way to combat that. The GOP knows how to prey on voters' fears when it comes to head-to-head contests, simply put.
No need to apologize for your "depressing comment." The truth is, 90% of the time, I'm convinced that there's no way that either Democratic candidate loses this time around. The other 10% of the time, I'm convinced that there's no way the Democrats will ever again win the White House for the rest of my life. So, given the temperature extremes of my manic swings, one drop of cold water won't be noticed.
Forgot to address one point: that the rest of the world can't see a difference between our two parties.
To a first approximation, neither can many Americans. The parties have to appeal to so many different constituencies that they're often both mind-numbingly centrist, when all is said and done. There has been an underlying tectonic movement of the "center" towards the right, but I think that's changed lately, and has even reversed course.
There are, however, some clear differences. Generally speaking, the GOP is:
o more willing to place itself in thrall to fundamentalist Christians on social issues;
o more interested in helping the rich when it comes to tax policy;
o more likely to be against strong protection for the environment, labor, consumers, and all manner of "little guys;"
o more inclined to oppose large social programs, like a national health care plan.
Recently, some of these "mores" have become "much mores."
However, given the larger differences between parties in some other countries, I can imagine why the above don't really stand out when looked at from afar.
Post a Comment