September 15, 2017
With all the noise about Hillary's book, and how she's blaming everyone but herself for her loss last November (I haven't seen the book but wouldn't be surprised to see MY name in it -- well, not really), there have been a number of good articles written about her loss.
This is one of the best, in my estimation. By David Harsanyi, writing on Townhall.
. . . When supporting Trump seemed advantageous, the media -- not only left-leaning outlets like CNN or the Washington Post but also rating chasers like NBC's Joe Scarborough -- did much to help lift the fortunes of the soon-to-be president. This was obvious to anyone observing coverage of the primaries. But for those who need confirmation, a study by the Harvard Kennedy School Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy found that during the year 2015, major news outlets covered Trump "in a way that was unusual given his low initial polling numbers -- a high volume of media coverage preceded Trump's rise in the polls."
Although Bush was a concern, most Democrats seemed to fear Sen. Marco Rubio. Not that their takes would have swayed many conservative voters, but it's worth remembering that left-wing pundits played the same cynical game, which makes their histrionics today unconvincing. "Why I'm More Worried About Marco Rubio Than Donald Trump," read a Vox headline. "Donald Trump Is Actually a Moderate Republican," wrote Slate. "Why Cruz Is Worse Than Trump" read one headline by The New York Times' Paul Krugman. "Why Liberals Should Support a Trump Republican Nomination" was New York Magazine's contribution to this genre.
The major media outlets, the Clinton campaign and the liberal punditry all got what they wanted: Trump. The problem was they also got Clinton. The media did cover the FBI investigation into Clinton's emails and server. "It was a dumb mistake," Clinton now says. "I think it was a dumber scandal, but it hurt." This kind of attitude speaks to the entitlement she carried around with her.Attempting to bolster the chances of an opposing candidate who is perceived to be the weakest isn't a unique strategy. The problem is -- and I understand that many people disagree with me -- Clinton probably would have lost to virtually any Republican candidate, and probably by even larger margins. But the bigger question now is: Why did Clinton's campaign prop up Trump, "the most dangerous White House candidate in modern history"? It seems irresponsible and selfish to put Americans in such a precarious position for personal gain. Maybe someone with access will take a break from sitting shiva and ask her.
35 queries taking 0.2277 seconds, 106 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.