Silver Lining in US Election from a Third-Party Supporter's Point of View

Status
Not open for further replies.

cornflake

practical experience, FTW
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 11, 2012
Messages
16,171
Reaction score
3,734
As to the coverage, Jeff Zucker was speaking at the Kennedy school the other day, admitting they gave a lot of coverage to Trump, letting rallies and speeches air, uninterrupted, for ages, which was maybe not the best idea.
 

ttwrite

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 11, 2016
Messages
86
Reaction score
4
It's always nice to have fresh voices here, especially when someone is so willing to put obvious time and effort into crafting their posts.

Thank you. That means a lot to me. It really does.

I appreciate you taking the time.

And I appreciate you taking the time. I'm sure you've got enough to do without hassling with some random thread about politics!

I still fundamentally disagree with you :)

HA! Well, I wouldn't have it any other way. :)

But I deeply appreciate the effort you've put into the conversation, and your good faith.

Thank you. And yes, it was in good faith. While it might not appear that way to many, I really tried to be selective in my wording without deprecating my own experience and opinion.

I think I mentioned this in my initial Welcome post, but in case you didn't see it, you really do have an amazing site here. And this community is amazing as well! The support for writers... I'm speechless. The number of people engaged in active, supportive dialog is awesome. You seem very supportive of those in the community. You've even left the Celine Dion forum in tact! I feel that you have certainly treated me fairly and without insult, so I am thankful for that.

So thank you once again for your graciousness in handling this... mess. :)

-tt
 

be frank

not a bloke, not named frank
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 16, 2015
Messages
10,310
Reaction score
5,282
Location
Melbourne
Website
www.lanifrank.com
As to the coverage, Jeff Zucker was speaking at the Kennedy school the other day, admitting they gave a lot of coverage to Trump, letting rallies and speeches air, uninterrupted, for ages, which was maybe not the best idea.

In the words of the wonderful John Oliver: "“It turns out hindsight, much like the year we're all now desperately looking forward to, is 2020.”
 

MaeZe

Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 6, 2016
Messages
12,832
Reaction score
6,590
Location
Ralph's side of the island.
I'm sorry, I thought those numbers included Super PAC contributions. Although, according to the Washington Post, Super PACs raised $188 million for Clinton and $60 million for Trump. Overall, according to their numbers, she raised $1.3 billion and he raised $795 million. That's still a $500 million deficit no matter how you slice it. And "free air time" would be impossible to qualify, especially when much of it was spent comparing Trump to Hitler.

The bottom line is the candidate who raised--by far--the most money lost. That's a very big deal in American politics. And to many of us, that's a positive development.

Even using those numbers, which again don't include the free airtime, only say that among big spenders, the most money wasn't the only or the key variable. Lots of money was still an important variable.
 

ttwrite

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 11, 2016
Messages
86
Reaction score
4
I'm sure I never saw any mainstream coverage implying he was anything close to Hitler.

Keep in mind we're talking about this in the context of "free media". Luckily I don't have to cite many articles because this one from the Daily Beast (‘The View’ Brings Donald Trump-as Adolf Hitler-Analogies Into the Mainstream) covers much of this "free media" in a single reading. From the article:

"Over the past week, Jimmy Kimmel recast Trump as Hitler in an elaborate parody of The Producers, Bill Maher put Trump’s words in Hitler’s mouth, Louis CK directly said the Republican frontrunner is Hitler (and America is 1930s Germany) and Saturday Night Live portrayed his supporters as Nazis."

Of course this is all constitutionally protected speech and I wholeheartedly believe that it should be allowed. But to think that it somehow "helps" Trump by giving him "free media" would be disingenuous.

And of course this spilled over from the comedians to the news commentators. When challenged with the statement, “You can't equate border security with the extermination of Jewish people,” Sunny Hostin of The View responded, "I just did."

And then finally we get to print media. The Daily Beast article itself ends with this:

"Whether Trump’s casual bigotry is real or merely 'bait to catch masses of followers' is yet to be seen. But history tells us that to dismiss it as readily as the world dismissed Hitler would be a mistake."

Let's keep those Trump-Hitler references coming! There are more print articles as well if you care to look them up.

From my perspective, much of their coverage was positive.

Sure. And much of it was negative. I don't think anyone could possibly conclude one way or the other that Trump benefited the equivalent of $X or suffered the equivalent of $Y. The process would be way too subjective and that's why, as far as I can tell, no nonpartisan group does it.

I'm going to group the rest of your response with that of another poster who addresses the same issue. If I don't start grouping these, I'll never get through them all, so thanks for your patience!
 

ttwrite

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 11, 2016
Messages
86
Reaction score
4
And the idea that the candidate who spends the most usually wins has never been true. . . . biggest spender has lost quite a few times

Great reference! Thank you for including! That gives us something concrete to talk about. OK, so I looked at the numbers. In general, most figures are in the same ballpark. Except for 1964, one of them is within 7% and the rest are within 2%-3%. So, can we call all the ones which are that close a draw? I don't see 2%-3% being any kind of advantage either way. Even 7% is marginal.

As for the 1964 case, you are absolutely right and I stand corrected. So, I'm going to update my statement:

This is the first time in over 50 years that a candidate who has considerably outraised their opponent has lost the election.

You agree with the sentiment? Wouldn't you agree that that's fairly uncommon? I've used your reference and I've shown my work. I'm not trying any funny stuff here.

Last election Obama raised a hair more, but Romney spent more -- and lost.

OK, and I'm going to include this as one of the marginally close examples as well. In which case, I'm sticking with my above revised statement regarding the past 50 years. You've seen the math; you good with that?
 

ttwrite

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 11, 2016
Messages
86
Reaction score
4
My convictions tell me to work together with people who have similar goals to mine, even if we do not agree on every little thing.

Sure, that's the case for everyone, otherwise we'd have millions of different political parties. I suppose the devil is in the "every little thing" detail. I would argue that increased government surveillance, decreased government transparency, diminishing government accountability, expanded executive power, and bombing of foreign peoples are not little things. Many Democrats I know are not for these things. Maybe you're for them; I don't know. But whether you are or not, I'd argue that they are not little things.
 

ttwrite

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 11, 2016
Messages
86
Reaction score
4
Among them you'll find about about RYFW—respect your fellow writer. It's the opposite of what you're doing here.

Yeah, I came to realize after I posted the article that my little "activism clause" at the end that I wrote in an attempt to tie back into the mission of this forum inadvertently assumed that no one voted for Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump because they were on board with their politics. Looking back, that was a gross oversight on my part. I have since apologized and I apologize again in case it offended anyone.

I do respect my fellow writer and that last paragraph was a terrible way of showing it. While I'm certainly fallible and prone to error, hopefully it won't happen again.
 

ttwrite

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 11, 2016
Messages
86
Reaction score
4
Even using those numbers, which again don't include the free airtime, only say that among big spenders, the most money wasn't the only or the key variable. Lots of money was still an important variable.

I believe the Washington Post figure represents ALL the money, i.e. big donors, little donors, direct and indirect contributions, etc. So $1.3 billion for Clinton and $800 million for Trump... that's about $2.1 billion total. Is there more money? I haven't seen any figures indicating that. If you have a source that suggests otherwise, I'm all eyes.

As for the "free airtime", as I've indicated in the post about the Hitler comparisons, some is positive and some is negative. It would be impossible to impartially declare a net dollar gain advertising equivalent either way. The process would be inherently subjective, and thus, as far as I know, no nonpartisan source has done so.

So really, using any current figures available and going from nearly all political pundits, it's generally agreed that Hillary Clinton raised considerably more money than Donald Trump. I really don't think you can legitimately call this into question. At this point, with the data that's available, I feel the onus is on you to show otherwise if that is indeed your stance.
 

Roxxsmom

Beastly Fido
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 24, 2011
Messages
23,128
Reaction score
10,899
Location
Where faults collide
Website
doggedlywriting.blogspot.com
I think there are some parallels between Trump and Hitler, and I don't think it's wrong to point this out if it's done in an analytical (and non hyperbolic) way. He's the center of a cult of personality and appeals to white nationalists and to the xenophobic fears of people who don't consciously think of themselves as racist but are still uncomfortable at the prospect of becoming one of many minority groups. He scapegoats some groups, which is something Hitler did, and decries the so-called "culture of political correctness" for the problems plaguing working class white people and Rural America.

However, the Hitler comparisons ignore the fact that US history has its own share of cults of personality, not to mention many prominent demagogues, white nationalists, xenophobes, and leaders who appealed to "law and order" while opposing immigrant groups and the emancipation of PoC, women and others.

Whether or not this turns out to be yet another temporary step backwards against a long-term backdrop of forward momentum (with regards to human rights in the US), or a step down a much darker path that leads to the dissolution of our democracy remains to be seen.

Assuming it's the former, though, it's no reason to be sanguine. The US may have survived and overcome the legacies of Andrew Jackson (and other populist demagogues), the Civil War, Woodrow Wilson's sympathy for the KKK, Internment camps for Japanese Americans, the imprisonment and abuse of suffragists, slavery and segregation, McCarthyism, and other horrible things, but that doesn't mean everyone who lived during those times survived or recovered.

The fact that history may some day look back on this as a temporary, if unpleasant, phase we went through en route to becoming a better and more inclusive, compassionate place isn't very helpful to those who will be suffering (and maybe even dying) over the next few years. Does knowing things will be okay in a decade or two help people who are suffering now?
 
Last edited:

shakeysix

blue eyed floozy
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 1, 2007
Messages
10,839
Reaction score
2,426
Location
St. John, Kansas
Website
shakey6wordsmith.webs.com
Hitler didn't win. Tom Buchanan won. He's not nearly as sharp as Hitler. Having been pampered all of his life, Tom has never had to think deeply, act responsibly. He is arrogant and easily led.

This is what frightens me and all of the unctuous reassurances that there is nothing to be frightened of only make me more anxious. I am out of here with out even a wish for good luck. The next 4 years are going to be ugly for Tom and his buddies. And when their mess is over they will simply pack up their polo ponies and move to a new place, leaving us with an angry, broken country. Their supporters are going to need every glib apology they can invent. The challenge is yours. --s6
 
Last edited:

ttwrite

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 11, 2016
Messages
86
Reaction score
4
Oops! I somehow missed this post earlier.

You also suggested that Bernie was somehow more popular and that people did not want to vote for her.

No, Bernie had the enthusiasm. He had great big rallies. He inspired and motivated people. Many believe that he, unlike Clinton, would have gotten his voters to the polls on election day. Of course, this is all speculation. But I think it's pretty well settled that Clinton did not carry the Obama voters. They simply didn't show up for her. A lot of people said this would happen if she was nominated, and it did.

As for the 'six million votes will make someone sit up and take notice?' No.

Since you're an independent, maybe it doesn't matter to you. But since a portion of those six million votes could have helped Clinton to win, perhaps the Democratic Party will take notice.

It didn't do anything when Ross Perot got close to 20 million votes

I beg to differ. It caused one thing, maybe two. First of all, it may have caused Bush to lose the election. Second of all, it caused the debate rules to be changed to make it even more difficult for a third-party candidate to run. Somebody upset the status quo and the DNC and RNC weren't too happy about it!

they're a tossed vote that might give the world this.

OK, sure, we'll take the blame for that. But we won't take the blame for the two-party charade. When people don't see any real difference between a Clinton or a Trump, they just don't bother to vote. That's exactly what happened, and that isn't on us third-party folks. That's on the people who nominated Clinton and Trump and who wanted to make sure that there were no other viable options come election day.
 

ttwrite

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 11, 2016
Messages
86
Reaction score
4
I think there are some parallels between Trump and Hitler, and I don't think it's wrong to point this out if it's done in an analytical (and non hyperbolic) way.

Sure, some parallels exist between Trump and Hitler. Some parallels also exist between Clinton and Hitler. So we've got these two sets of parallels that we can talk about in analytical, non hyperbolic ways. Now, do you believe that the media choosing to talk about one of these sets of parallels and not the other doesn't influence in a negative way one of the candidate's prospects of being elected? If one candidate is "more like" Hitler than the other, is that all the justification we need to push the conversation in that direction? What if Clinton is "more like" Joseph Stalin than Trump? Or Che Guevara? The minute we start throwing those comparisons around, and writing about them, and giving them airtime, then we're directing the national discussion. Warranted or not.

Now, this is all fine and dandy. Entertainment outlets can certainly decide what they want to show and print. The point is, I don't think Clinton or her supporters would find a comparison between her and Pol Pot to be "beneficial free airtime" in any way. Even if everyone was being analytical as they did it.

And not everyone is being analytical. Forget the comics, their job is to make people laugh, and one way to do that is by insulting other people. But the commentators. As I said in another post, when challenged with the statement, “You can't equate border security with the extermination of Jewish people,” Sunny Hostin of The View responded, "I just did." What's analytical about that? That is hyperoblic and it is not "free air time" that anyone wants.

As to the other things, I appreciate your opinion. I'm holding my breath as well. The fact that Trump wants to ban Muslim immigrants is absolutely appalling to me. There's no excuse for it and there's no reason for it. None at all. I hope to God (and I'm not religious) that it doesn't happen. The fact that he wants to deport people who are here illegally, on the other hand, I have no problem with. Obama at one point was forcibly deporting over 400,000 illegal immigrants per year. There's no reason that Trump can't do the same.

And just so you know, I'm not directing any of these arguments specifically at you. You bring up some valid points and I'm just trying to add to the running conversation that we've all got going on here.
 

Celia Cyanide

Joker Groupie
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
15,479
Reaction score
2,295
Location
probably watching DARK KNIGHT
Sure, that's the case for everyone, otherwise we'd have millions of different political parties. I suppose the devil is in the "every little thing" detail. I would argue that increased government surveillance, decreased government transparency, diminishing government accountability, expanded executive power, and bombing of foreign peoples are not little things. Many Democrats I know are not for these things. Maybe you're for them; I don't know. But whether you are or not, I'd argue that they are not little things.

No, they're not little things. But honestly, if you're going to argue not to vote for the lesser of two evils, "because the lesser of two evils is still evil," please be aware that the party you support is an evil to others. If you voted third party in this election, you voted for the lesser of three evils in my eyes. I've been told in this election cycle that it's so important to vote for someone you like everything about that I should not vote at all. And that pissed me off. Because after the election, everyone was complaining about low voter turn out.
 

Maxinquaye

That cheeky buggerer
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 10, 2009
Messages
10,361
Reaction score
1,032
Location
In your mind
Website
maxoneverything.wordpress.com
I think there are some parallels between Trump and Hitler, and I don't think it's wrong to point this out if it's done in an analytical (and non hyperbolic) way. He's the center of a cult of personality and appeals to white nationalists and to the xenophobic fears of people who don't consciously think of themselves as racist but are still uncomfortable at the prospect of becoming one of many minority groups. He scapegoats some groups, which is something Hitler did, and decries the so-called "culture of political correctness" for the problems plaguing working class white people and Rural America.

I generally do not like comparisons between Trump and Hitler. I don’t think those comparisons elevate Trump to be equal to the evil of Hitler; I think those comparisons normalise Hitler and bring Hitler down to the level of mere humanity.

There are far better comparisons that can be made to Mussolini, a vainglorious man animated by feelings of inferiority and with ambitions beyond his talents. Or Silvio Berlusconi, driven as that man was by his low desires. Actually, if you think back to when the protests in Kiev happened, some of you may remember the “liberation” of the deposed Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovich’s mansion.

I thought about the vulgar crassness of that mansion when I saw Nigel Farage and Donald Trump standing in front of a gold door. I could smile wrily, and contemplate that Putinesque cleptocracy and Yakunovichian vulgar tastes was the new model for global capitalism over the next four years.
 

Tazlima

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 26, 2013
Messages
3,044
Reaction score
1,500
I generally do not like comparisons between Trump and Hitler. I don’t think those comparisons elevate Trump to be equal to the evil of Hitler; I think those comparisons normalise Hitler and bring Hitler down to the level of mere humanity.

While I agree that there are other, more apt, comparisons (Hitler was much more well-read), I don't think "bringing Hitler down to the level of mere humanity," is a bad thing. He WAS a mere human, put into power by other mere humans. Making him out to be the devil incarnate (or whatever) means that we don't have to worry that anybody else will ever be as bad, and that's the very definition of a false sense of security.

When we hear Hitler's name, we think of all the atrocities he committed. What we sometimes ignore are the regular Joes who benefited from those atrocities. Who wore the shoes taken from people sent to their deaths? Who purchased those lampshades and washed with that soap? Who lived in the emptied homes? He made the trains run on time, and for a lot of people, that was enough to turn a blind eye to literal Hitler-level faults.

I'm sure, when Hitler was on the rise, people who found him terrifying were told, "You're overreacting. He's a politician, like any other. He has advisors to keep him from doing the more insane things he spouts, and some of his ideas sound pretty good. Just give him a chance." And maybe the frightened people even let themselves be soothed.
 
Last edited:

Simpson17866

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 26, 2016
Messages
503
Reaction score
59
I'm sure, when Hitler was on the rise, people who found him terrifying were told, "You're overreacting. He's a politician, like any other. He has advisors to keep him from doing the more insane things he spouts, and some of his ideas sound pretty good. Just give him a chance." And maybe the frightened people even let themselves be soothed.
I've actually been seeing photographs of an old New York Times article saying exactly that.
 
Last edited:

Shadow Dragon

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
4,773
Reaction score
261
Location
In the land of dragons
If there is a silver lining in this election, I'd say it'd be if this becomes a wake up call to the DNC. The Dems have been awful at campaigning, at picking candidates, and have had the problem of seemingly assuming they're going to win. Obama was a great campaigner, but without him is seems like the party just collapsed. They'll either figure out what changes have to be made, or they'll just blame third parties, rally behind someone "electable" like Tim Kaine, and get crushed again.
 

ElaineA

All about that action, boss.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 17, 2013
Messages
8,582
Reaction score
8,525
Location
The Seattle suburbs
Website
www.reneedominick.com
OK, sure, we'll take the blame for that. But we won't take the blame for the two-party charade. When people don't see any real difference between a Clinton or a Trump, they just don't bother to vote. That's exactly what happened, and that isn't on us third-party folks. That's on the people who nominated Clinton and Trump and who wanted to make sure that there were no other viable options come election day.

I'm going to opine that anyone who didn't see the differences between Clinton and Trump in the final run-up to the election was either willfully blind or clinging to a narrative whose fresh-date expired when Bernie lost at the convention. These were not to comparable candidates, no matter how hard the news media tried to make them equivalent. Not even close. If people want to say lesser of two evils, fine. But the degree of lesser is yuge! Bigly yuge. I'm afraid the people who clung to that "no difference" narrative are about to find out just how wrong they were. Along with the rest of us.

I won't ever defend the Democratic Party, here or anywhere else. They blew it. But I suspect it's going to be cold comfort to people who hoped for something that simply wasn't going to happen this election. We're in the manure pile now.
 

Maxinquaye

That cheeky buggerer
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 10, 2009
Messages
10,361
Reaction score
1,032
Location
In your mind
Website
maxoneverything.wordpress.com
I'm sure, when Hitler was on the rise, people who found him terrifying were told, "You're overreacting. He's a politician, like any other. He has advisors to keep him from doing the more insane things he spouts, and some of his ideas sound pretty good. Just give him a chance." And maybe the frightened people even let themselves be soothed.

If Donald Trump has a published manifesto detailing turning the entire machine of the United States into a machine of conquest war to create breathing space for pure-bred Americans, and where he has a manifesto commitment to physically exterminate disagreeable minorities from existance, then I think the comparison wouldn't be hyperbolic. Trump hasn't.

Mussolini was a terrible leader. So was Franco and Pinochet and Somoza. All of them killed tens of thousands of people. All of them oppressed minorities, and threw people in jail for political crimes. All of them were authoritarians. They were actual fascists, so the comparison is apt. The equivalence between them and Trump would stick. The problem with Hitler wasn't that people weren't told what he'd do. It was that people thought he'd not do what he said he'd do, and that they could control him.
 
Last edited:

MaeZe

Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 6, 2016
Messages
12,832
Reaction score
6,590
Location
Ralph's side of the island.
I believe the Washington Post figure represents ALL the money, i.e. big donors, little donors, direct and indirect contributions, etc. So $1.3 billion for Clinton and $800 million for Trump... that's about $2.1 billion total. Is there more money? I haven't seen any figures indicating that. If you have a source that suggests otherwise, I'm all eyes.
Again, the difference between $800 million and $1.3 billion does not say money didn't matter, it says money plus other things mattered.

As for the "free airtime", as I've indicated in the post about the Hitler comparisons, some is positive and some is negative. It would be impossible to impartially declare a net dollar gain advertising equivalent either way. The process would be inherently subjective, and thus, as far as I know, no nonpartisan source has done so.

So really, using any current figures available and going from nearly all political pundits, it's generally agreed that Hillary Clinton raised considerably more money than Donald Trump. I really don't think you can legitimately call this into question. At this point, with the data that's available, I feel the onus is on you to show otherwise if that is indeed your stance.
The free airtime I speak of is not reporting on and discussion about the candidates. Debating the effect of positive and negative coverage of both candidates would take a year of study to draw an intelligent conclusion about it.

The free airtime I am talking about is something different, it's the broadcasting of Trump speeches in their entirety again and again.

Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC all broadcast Trump's empty podium instead of Clinton's big speech

Amy Goodman Blasts CNN for Airing Trump’s Empty Stage Instead of Sanders’ Speech
As Andrew Tyndall of the Tyndall Report observed, the networks have devoted a disproportionate amount of coverage to Donald Trump while virtually ignoring the other 2016 candidates on both sides of the aisle. Trump has been covered for a total of 175 minutes on cable news networks since the start of the campaign cycle in 2015. Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton has only had 60 minutes of coverage, while Bernie Sanders has had just 44 minutes of total cable coverage.

Additional analysis from the GDELT project shows that Donald Trump has had a combined 354,517 media mentions since June 2015, when combining coverage from nine different networks. That’s way more TV time than Hillary Clinton, who was mentioned 195,384 times between January 1, 2015 and March 16, 2016. Bernie Sanders only has 87,245 total mentions.

Amy Goodman told Stelter that the disparity of coverage between Trump and other candidates only grew larger over time.

“For the year 2015, as the snowball rolled and it got larger and larger, he got 23 times the coverage of Bernie Sanders,” Goodman said.


So far this year, the real estate mogul has attracted more airtime than all other presidential candidates combined.
“Earned” is the media-business nickname for publicity and promotion given to a political candidate that is not paid for. It mostly refers to journalism: the dissemination of campaign messages through news outlets rather than through paid advertising.

Needless to say, Donald Trump is the King of All Earned Media.

To take just one example, look at coverage of the Trump campaign on the old-school nightly newscasts of the three broadcast television networks (ABC, CBS and NBC combined), whose average audiences each evening total some 25 million viewers. So far this year, Trump has attracted more airtime (175 minutes) than all other candidates combined (Hillary Clinton, 60; Bernie Sanders, 44; Ted Cruz, 32; Marco Rubio, 14 and so on — data through the end of last week, March 11, weekdays only).

Because “earned” media is not bought and sold like advertising, such coverage is sometimes dubbed “free.” This is misleading since it implies that news outlets just give their airtime away. Of course they don’t. Trump gets coverage because he provides the raw ingredients for compelling television. As CBS president and CEO Leslie Moonves joked: Donald Trump is “damn good for CBS.” Trump has worked for his earned media. He's earned it fair and square. Let’s count the ways.

The fact the news media cared more about ratings than delivering investigative reporting is one the the serious issues that must be addressed, be it teaching people media literacy or addressing the issue in other ways such as labeling news programs infotainment and stop calling them news.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.