Hillary

[Y2HH]

When did the media become Liberal?

 

Other than Fox, this is absolutely lol worthy.

 

Only down and out I'm so liberal I don't know wtf liberal is liberals think the media outside of Fox isn't liberal/democrat slanted.

 

Just f***ing stop with this bulls*** cherade already.

 

Fox is, for the most part, republican slanted, and every other mainstream American "news" organization is, again, for the most part, the exact opposite.

 

Please, for the love of whatever, stop pretending otherwise.

Edited November 1, 2013 by Y2HH

[StrangeSox]

nah

[Y2HH]

nah

 

Uh, yea.

[StrangeSox]

No, 'every other' American news organization is not a mirror image of Fox News.

[Y2HH]

No, 'every other' American news organization is not a mirror image of Fox News.

 

Yea they are, which is why I'm forced to read BBCWORLD and AJ for news. Because mainstream American media is ALL slanted, and the vast majority of it is slanted democrat/liberal.

 

Now, I'm not saying that there aren't journalists caught in between, but it's pretty overwhelming what's going on, which is why I don't even bother with news here.

 

...and you probably don't either.

 

So please, let's not defend them, and that includes Fox who will tell you they are "fair and balanced". The ratings alone will tell you Fox is the sole republican news slant, as it's the only undivided audience.

Edited November 1, 2013 by Y2HH

[Cknolls]

I edited out that line since it is drawing some wrath. My bad.

I am funning you.

[StrangeSox]

Yea they are

 

No, they aren't, that is an absolutely ridiculous claim. The claim that the media is, overall, biased one way or the other is separate from the claim that they are like Fox News. To whatever extent the rest of the mainstream media organizations skew liberal (they all pro-corporate, largely pro-status quo and pro-neoliberal economics, e.g. all the media debt/deficit/"entitlements just have to be cut" discussions for the last few years), they are not at all like Fox News.

 

For what it's worth, the Sunday Morning political talkshows are pretty heavily skewed towards Republican guests, and most of the media loves to play the "both sides" lazy journalism game.

 

 

[StrangeSox]

I am funning you.

yes, more importantly, I'm not sure why Y2HH took that comment from you literally.

[Y2HH]

No, they aren't, that is an absolutely ridiculous claim. The claim that the media is, overall, biased one way or the other is separate from the claim that they are like Fox News. To whatever extent the rest of the mainstream media organizations skew liberal (they all pro-corporate, largely pro-status quo and pro-neoliberal economics, e.g. all the media debt/deficit/"entitlements just have to be cut" discussions for the last few years), they are not at all like Fox News.

 

For what it's worth, the Sunday Morning political talkshows are pretty heavily skewed towards Republican guests, and most of the media loves to play the "both sides" lazy journalism game.

 

Whatever.

[Y2HH]

yes, more importantly, I'm not sure why Y2HH took that comment from you literally.

 

Don't think twice. It's understanding that makes it possible for people like us to tolerate a person like yourself.

[StrangeSox]

What? Cknolls is a pretty conservative guy, he's not going to be defending the idea that the media isn't liberal

[Y2HH]

What? Cknolls is a pretty conservative guy, he's not going to be defending the idea that the media isn't liberal

 

You're doing that now, so he doesn't have too.

 

And I was responding to a comment, not sarcasm, nor do I know his political affiliations or beliefs.

Edited November 1, 2013 by Y2HH

[StrangeSox]

Now I'm more confused, are you saying cknolls actually does reject the idea of the "liberal media"?

[Y2HH]

Now I'm more confused, are you saying cknolls actually does reject the idea of the "liberal media"?

 

I don't know cknolls, so I wouldn't know.

[StrangeSox]

ok well based on his years of posting history here I think he'd take being called a right-winger as a compliment

[Y2HH]

ok well based on his years of posting history here I think he'd take being called a right-winger as a compliment

 

I only pay attention to a handful if posters here, which you happen to be one of. So consider yourself awesome. Cknolls has never annoyed me, whereas you have...which is probably why!

[greg775]

What's really sad is that really isn't the only recycled slogan in the post, it pretty much all is.

 

Nobody answered my question so I rekindled my question in the post? If I wasted anybody's time, sorry. I truly despise Hillary and it's on my mind.

[caulfield12]

To answer your question, I'm sure the Las Vegas odds would put her at 75-80% to win in 2016. (To predict two terms would be crazy).

 

That said, there's a TON of time left for things to change, and change, and change again. If the ObamaCare program/s become more and more unpopular, that's going to be one of the most credible attacks used against her, as she and her husband made health care (unwisely it turned out) their number one priority in 1993/94, and it ended up with one of the most resounding mid-term defeats in recent memory.

 

She's also vulnerable on the age issue, and the fact that, like Obama, she's hated/despised by 20-25-30% of the US population already. She's polarizing. She won't bring as many young voters and minority voters into the field of play like Obama did. She has age going against her. (She does have the "first female president" on her side to mitigate all that).

 

It all depends on how the economy is faring in 2015-16.

 

It's just as likely that things are pretty stagnant or growing at only a 2-3% rate with unemployment still hovering around 7% or more....nevertheless, as the co-President (in a way) during the last period of economic success and well-being in our country's history, that could actually work to her advantage.

 

Greg's right in one sense, running Rubio against her would be another version of the 1960, 1992/96 and 2008/2012 elections, where the younger/more appealing/more energetic candidate carried the day.

 

It's not just about appearance. If Sarah Palin ran against Hillary (which won't happen), she would get crushed.

 

The problem to me is that the Republicans need to stand for something...and they need to move past immigration and find issues which will resonate with the middle class again. They lost a lot of the Reagan Democrats, and they've alienated most of the women, ethnic minorities, lesbian/gay/bi-sexual, etc., in this country with McCain and Romney and the Tea Party.

 

Frankly, I'm not so sure she's going to be capable of being a great leader at her age...and, from having observed her for 20+ years, she's not nearly as likeable as her husband, George W. Bush or Obama (to a lesser extent). She just doesn't have the ability to inspire and elevate...not even compared to past politicians like Mario Cuomo or Jesse Jackson. She's Bill Bradley or Al Gore or Bob Dole, but a woman.

Edited November 1, 2013 by caulfield12

[cabiness42]

Hillary is a lock to win in 2016 (unless some Democrat makes a strong primary challenge) because the Tea Party will ensure that an absolutely unelectable candidate wins the Republican primary.

[southsider2k5]

To answer your question, I'm sure the Las Vegas odds would put her at 75-80% to win in 2016. (To predict two terms would be crazy).

 

That said, there's a TON of time left for things to change, and change, and change again. If the ObamaCare program/s become more and more unpopular, that's going to be one of the most credible attacks used against her, as she and her husband made health care (unwisely it turned out) their number one priority in 1993/94, and it ended up with one of the most resounding mid-term defeats in recent memory.

 

She's also vulnerable on the age issue, and the fact that, like Obama, she's hated/despised by 20-25-30% of the US population already. She's polarizing. She won't bring as many young voters and minority voters into the field of play like Obama did. She has age going against her. (She does have the "first female president" on her side to mitigate all that).

 

It all depends on how the economy is faring in 2015-16.

 

It's just as likely that things are pretty stagnant or growing at only a 2-3% rate with unemployment still hovering around 7% or more....nevertheless, as the co-President (in a way) during the last period of economic success and well-being in our country's history, that could actually work to her advantage.

 

Greg's right in one sense, running Rubio against her would be another version of the 1960, 1992/96 and 2008/2012 elections, where the younger/more appealing/more energetic candidate carried the day.

 

It's not just about appearance. If Sarah Palin ran against Hillary (which won't happen), she would get crushed.

 

The problem to me is that the Republicans need to stand for something...and they need to move past immigration and find issues which will resonate with the middle class again. They lost a lot of the Reagan Democrats, and they've alienated most of the women, ethnic minorities, lesbian/gay/bi-sexual, etc., in this country with McCain and Romney and the Tea Party.

 

Frankly, I'm not so sure she's going to be capable of being a great leader at her age...and, from having observed her for 20+ years, she's not nearly as likeable as her husband, George W. Bush or Obama (to a lesser extent). She just doesn't have the ability to inspire and elevate...not even compared to past politicians like Mario Cuomo or Jesse Jackson. She's Bill Bradley or Al Gore or Bob Dole, but a woman.

 

80% is about 4:1, right? I'll take those odds.

 

[caulfield12]

Hillary is a lock to win in 2016 (unless some Democrat makes a strong primary challenge) because the Tea Party will ensure that an absolutely unelectable candidate wins the Republican primary.

 

Except Rubio is at least 1/2 a Tea Party guy right now.

 

I don't think he's unelectable at all....if he can continue to move to the middle without completely alienating his former sponsors.

 

After 8 years of Obama, surely they'd take him over another Clinton, notwithstanding the fact that the economy actually prospered while the Clintons were in office after recovering from the early 90's recession.

[bmags]

Except Rubio is at least 1/2 a Tea Party guy right now.

 

I don't think he's unelectable at all....if he can continue to move to the middle without completely alienating his former sponsors.

 

After 8 years of Obama, surely they'd take him over another Clinton, notwithstanding the fact that the economy actually prospered while the Clintons were in office after recovering from the early 90's recession.

 

Rubio has no constituency. If you are going to try and get a bipartisan bill passed you kinda, haveta deliver the votes from your party. Now both sides don't like him.

[cabiness42]

Except Rubio is at least 1/2 a Tea Party guy right now.

 

I don't think he's unelectable at all....if he can continue to move to the middle without completely alienating his former sponsors.

 

After 8 years of Obama, surely they'd take him over another Clinton, notwithstanding the fact that the economy actually prospered while the Clintons were in office after recovering from the early 90's recession.

 

Rubio may be the R's only chance, but the Tea Party very closely watches every single thing every candidate says or does. It's going to be hard for any candidate to win in the primaries without taking positions that will be fatal in the general election.

 

Hell, the Tea Party is trying to find a challenger to my Congressman, who is one of the most conservative there are, solely because of his vote in favor of the bill to reopen the government. None of the 99.999% of votes he made previously matter anymore.

 

[greg775]

Yea they are, which is why I'm forced to read BBCWORLD and AJ for news. Because mainstream American media is ALL slanted, and the vast majority of it is slanted democrat/liberal.

 

Now, I'm not saying that there aren't journalists caught in between, but it's pretty overwhelming what's going on, which is why I don't even bother with news here.

 

...and you probably don't either.

 

So please, let's not defend them, and that includes Fox who will tell you they are "fair and balanced". The ratings alone will tell you Fox is the sole republican news slant, as it's the only undivided audience.

I'm convinced at election time the Democrats get a huge boost from the media. Most don't even try to hold back their disgust of the Republican party. Just my take but it's like they fawn over any mention of Obama, Clintons, etc., and scoff at the clownish Romney types. Sure, during the middle of Obama's term, they might have a negative story or two or three about a Clinton or Obama, but come election time, forget it. They reverse that back to how saintly the Democratic candidate is vs. the unqualified (in their eyes) Republican.

 

They are going to be treating Hillary like a Queen of England type candidate, so much respect to her will be shown. That's why I hope she loses her attention span during the campaign and says something so 'b****y' and utterly ridiculous it costs her the crown. The 'first female president' thing will be pretty much the only thing the media focuses upon IMO and she'll roll with it and be Queen Hillary for 8 years.

 

As far as the media, I wish we had a true third party (not an offshoot of the Repubs) so the media would be lost trying to figure out what to do with their election bias. The third party would be a godsend if it actually was a reasonable party and not some collection of unruly radicals.

 

To answer your question, I'm sure the Las Vegas odds would put her at 75-80% to win in 2016. (To predict two terms would be crazy).

 

That said, there's a TON of time left for things to change, and change, and change again. If the ObamaCare program/s become more and more unpopular, that's going to be one of the most credible attacks used against her, as she and her husband made health care (unwisely it turned out) their number one priority in 1993/94, and it ended up with one of the most resounding mid-term defeats in recent memory.

 

She's also vulnerable on the age issue, and the fact that, like Obama, she's hated/despised by 20-25-30% of the US population already. She's polarizing. She won't bring as many young voters and minority voters into the field of play like Obama did. She has age going against her. (She does have the "first female president" on her side to mitigate all that).

 

It all depends on how the economy is faring in 2015-16.

 

It's just as likely that things are pretty stagnant or growing at only a 2-3% rate with unemployment still hovering around 7% or more....nevertheless, as the co-President (in a way) during the last period of economic success and well-being in our country's history, that could actually work to her advantage.

 

Greg's right in one sense, running Rubio against her would be another version of the 1960, 1992/96 and 2008/2012 elections, where the younger/more appealing/more energetic candidate carried the day.

 

It's not just about appearance. If Sarah Palin ran against Hillary (which won't happen), she would get crushed.

 

The problem to me is that the Republicans need to stand for something...and they need to move past immigration and find issues which will resonate with the middle class again. They lost a lot of the Reagan Democrats, and they've alienated most of the women, ethnic minorities, lesbian/gay/bi-sexual, etc., in this country with McCain and Romney and the Tea Party.

 

Frankly, I'm not so sure she's going to be capable of being a great leader at her age...and, from having observed her for 20+ years, she's not nearly as likeable as her husband, George W. Bush or Obama (to a lesser extent). She just doesn't have the ability to inspire and elevate...not even compared to past politicians like Mario Cuomo or Jesse Jackson. She's Bill Bradley or Al Gore or Bob Dole, but a woman.

 

Scary that a brilliant mind like caufield has her at 80 percent. Scary.

However Great great post. I especially like your last graph. She truly is the female Bob Dole. But ... I am firmly convinced person after person will go in the booth and vote for Hillary and it'll be a landslide because of the 'first female president' factor; Bill Clinton factor. Some people on this board are brilliant; the average voter isn't. My only hope is some people go against her Queen of America status and superficially don't want to 'grow old with Hillary' so to speak. Perhaps the only good thing of her winning is it might be good for older Americans who might get a boost with an older American as president.

 

Politicians are worse than ever in saying anything to get elected. Look at Obama. Horrible horrible horrible president, yet you know my opinion on his electability. He'd win again and again if the law was changed and he could be a permanent president. Scary but tells us about America today. We don't care about performance, just all the side issues like the sweet-talking ability and appearance of a candidate and the 'first woman' stuff.

Just say no to Hillary please.

Edited November 1, 2013 by greg775

[Texsox]

Hillary is a lock to win in 2016 (unless some Democrat makes a strong primary challenge) because the Tea Party will ensure that an absolutely unelectable candidate wins the Republican primary.

 

And believe it or don't but that makes me sad. I think we benefit the most when both sides have great cadidiates. Instead the GOP nominee, to get elected, will have to make a huge "U" turn after locking up the nomination. A moderate Republican looks conservative to a Dem and a RINO or worse to a Tea Party leaning Republican.