Jump to content

2020 Presidential Election -- Biden v Trump: Sleepy Joe vs Dopey Don [Results begin on page 409]

Patrick Bateman

By Patrick Bateman
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 39k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Bama Chick
Bama Chick

I am so thrilled tonight! I spoke with my mom and asked her how my dad was taking the election. She said after every network declared Biden the winner, he turned off Fox News and said “Well, glad t

HenryJames
HenryJames
Thatguy
Thatguy

This was my experience in Galveston County, except for one thing. I came in and presented my ID to the geriatric at the front who printed out my pin number. I took my pin number to a table where two B

Posted Images

Pato del Muerto

Pato del Muerto 52542

Posted
Posted

These 8x and 9x matched donations, is that for the official trump for president campaign?  Wouldn’t they quickly run into the donation cap for that?  Or do they have unlimited unnamed entities ready to overmatch until they hit their $2400 or whatever limit?

ive got this sneaky suspicion that the rubes seeing this and putting money in are unknowingly matching each others’ donations in some sort of madoff shell game. The trumps appear to be running every type of confidence game there is simultaneously, which is a fucking amazing  feat if you think about it. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bookman

Bookman 4639

Posted
Posted
22 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

These 8x and 9x matched donations, is that for the official trump for president campaign?  Wouldn’t they quickly run into the donation cap for that?  Or do they have unlimited unnamed entities ready to overmatch until they hit their $2400 or whatever limit?

ive got this sneaky suspicion that the rubes seeing this and putting money in are unknowingly matching each others’ donations in some sort of madoff shell game. The trumps appear to be running every type of confidence game there is simultaneously, which is a fucking amazing  feat if you think about it. 

I have my doubts they actually match anything.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Francisco 2.0

Francisco 2.0 32395

Posted
Posted

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/25/business/media/hunter-biden-wall-street-journal-trump.html?action=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage

 

Quote

By early October, even people inside the White House believed President Trump’s re-election campaign needed a desperate rescue mission. So three men allied with the president gathered at a house in McLean, Va., to launch one.

The host was Arthur Schwartz, a New York public relations man close to President Trump’s eldest son, Donald Jr. The guests were a White House lawyer, Eric Herschmann, and a former deputy White House counsel, Stefan Passantino, according to two people familiar with the meeting.

 

Quote

Mr. Herschmann knew the subject matter they were there to discuss. He had represented Mr. Trump during the impeachment trial early this year, and he tried to deflect allegations against the president in part by pointing to Hunter Biden’s work in Ukraine. More recently, he has been working on the White House payroll with a hazy portfolio, listed as “a senior adviser to the president,” and remains close to Jared Kushner.

 

Quote

The three had pinned their hopes for re-electing the president on a fourth guest, a straight-shooting Wall Street Journal White House reporter named Michael Bender. They delivered the goods to him there: a cache of emails detailing Hunter Biden’s business activities, and, on speaker phone, a former business partner of Hunter Biden’s named Tony Bobulinski. Mr. Bobulinski was willing to go on the record in The Journal with an explosive claim: that Joe Biden, the former vice president, had been aware of, and profited from, his son’s activities. The Trump team left believing that The Journal would blow the thing open and their excitement was conveyed to the president.

 

Spoiler

The Journal had seemed to be the perfect outlet for a story the Trump advisers believed could sink Mr. Biden’s candidacy. Its small-c conservatism in reporting means the work of its news pages carries credibility across the industry. And its readership leans further right than other big news outlets. Its Washington bureau chief, Paul Beckett, recently remarked at a virtual gathering of Journal reporters and editors that while he knows that the paper often delivers unwelcome news to the many Trump supporters who read it, The Journal should protect its unique position of being trusted across the political spectrum, two people familiar with the remarks said.

As the Trump team waited with excited anticipation for a Journal exposé, the newspaper did its due diligence: Mr. Bender and Mr. Beckett handed the story off to a well-regarded China correspondent, James Areddy, and a Capitol Hill reporter who had followed the Hunter Biden story, Andrew Duehren. Mr. Areddy interviewed Mr. Bobulinski. They began drafting an article.

Then things got messy. Without warning his notional allies, Rudy Giuliani, the former New York mayor and now a lawyer for President Trump, burst onto the scene with the tabloid version of the McLean crew’s carefully laid plot. Mr. Giuliani delivered a cache of documents of questionable provenance — but containing some of the same emails — to The New York Post, a sister publication to The Journal in Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp. Mr. Giuliani had been working with the former Trump aide Steve Bannon, who also began leaking some of the emails to favored right-wing outlets. Mr. Giuliani’s complicated claim that the emails came from a laptop Hunter Biden had abandoned, and his refusal to let some reporters examine the laptop, cast a pall over the story — as did The Post’s reporting, which alleged but could not prove that Joe Biden had been involved in his son’s activities.

While the Trump team was clearly jumpy, editors in The Journal’s Washington bureau were wrestling with a central question: Could the documents, or Mr. Bobulinski, prove that Joe Biden was involved in his son’s lobbying? Or was this yet another story of the younger Mr. Biden trading on his family’s name — a perfectly good theme, but not a new one or one that needed urgently to be revealed before the election.

Mr. Trump and his allies expected the Journal story to appear Monday, Oct. 19, according to Mr. Bannon. That would be late in the campaign, but not too late — and could shape that week’s news cycle heading into the crucial final debate last Thursday. An “important piece” in The Journal would be coming soon, Mr. Trump told aides on a conference call that day.

His comment was not appreciated inside The Journal.

“The editors didn’t like Trump’s insinuation that we were being teed up to do this hit job,” a Journal reporter who wasn’t directly involved in the story told me. But the reporters continued to work on the draft as the Thursday debate approached, indifferent to the White House’s frantic timeline.

Finally, Mr. Bobulinski got tired of waiting.

“He got spooked about whether they were going to do it or not,” Mr. Bannon said.

At 7:35 Wednesday evening, Mr. Bobulinski emailed an on-the-record, 684-word statement making his case to a range of news outlets. Breitbart News published it in full. He appeared the next day in Nashville to attend the debate as Mr. Trump’s surprise guest, and less than two hours before the debate was to begin, he read a six-minute statement to the press, detailing his allegations that the former vice president had involvement in his son’s business dealings.

When Mr. Trump stepped on stage, the president acted as though the details of the emails and the allegations were common knowledge. “You’re the big man, I think. I don’t know, maybe you’re not,” he told Mr. Biden at some point, a reference to an ambiguous sentence from the documents.

As the debate ended, The Wall Street Journal published a brief item, just the stub of Mr. Areddy and Mr. Duehren’s reporting. The core of it was that Mr. Bobulinski had failed to prove the central claim. “Corporate records reviewed by The Wall Street Journal show no role for Joe Biden,” The Journal reported.

Asked about The Journal’s handling of the story, the editor in chief, Matt Murray, said the paper did not discuss its newsgathering. “Our rigorous and trusted journalism speaks for itself,” Mr. Murray said in an emailed statement.

And if you’d been watching the debate, but hadn’t been obsessively watching Fox News or reading Breitbart, you would have had no idea what Mr. Trump was talking about. The story the Trump team hoped would upend the campaign was fading fast.

The gatekeepers return

The McLean group's failed attempt to sway the election is partly just another story revealing the chaotic, threadbare quality of the Trump operation — a far cry from the coordinated “disinformation” machinery feared by liberals.

But it’s also about a larger shift in the American media, one in which the gatekeepers appear to have returned after a long absence.

It has been a disorienting couple of decades, after all. It all began when The Drudge Report, Gawker and the blogs started telling you what stodgy old newspapers and television networks wouldn’t. Then social media brought floods of content pouring over the old barricades.

By 2015, the old gatekeepers had entered a kind of crisis of confidence, believing they couldn’t control the online news cycle any better than King Canute could control the tides. Television networks all but let Donald Trump take over as executive producer that summer and fall. In October 2016, Julian Assange and James Comey seemed to drive the news cycle more than the major news organizations. Many figures in old media and new bought into the idea that in the new world, readers would find the information they wanted to read — and therefore, decisions by editors and producers, about whether to cover something and how much attention to give it, didn’t mean much.

But the last two weeks have proved the opposite: that the old gatekeepers, like The Journal, can still control the agenda. It turns out there is a big difference between WikiLeaks and establishment media coverage of WikiLeaks, a difference between a Trump tweet and an article about it, even between an opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal suggesting Joe Biden had done bad things, and a news article that didn’t reach that conclusion.

Perhaps the most influential media document of the last four years is a chart by a co-director of the Berkman Klein Center for Internet and Society at Harvard, Yochai Benkler. The study showed that a dense new right-wing media sphere had emerged — and that the mainstream news “revolved around the agenda that the right-wing media sphere set.”

Mr. Bannon had known this, too. He described his strategy as “anchor left, pivot right,” and even as he ran Breitbart News, he worked to place attacks on Hillary Clinton in mainstream outlets. The validating power of those outlets was clear when The New York Times and Washington Post were given early access in the spring of 2015 to the book “Clinton Cash,” an investigation of the Clinton family’s blurring of business, philanthropic and political interests by the writer Peter Schweizer.

Mr. Schweizer is still around this cycle. But you won’t find his work in mainstream outlets. He’s over on Breitbart, with a couple of Hunter Biden stories this month.

And the fact that Mr. Bobulinski emerged not in the pages of the widely respected Journal but in a statement to Breitbart was essentially Mr. Bannon’s nightmare, and Mr. Benkler’s fondest wish. And a broad array of mainstream outlets, unpersuaded that Hunter Biden’s doings tie directly to the former vice president, have largely kept the story off their front pages, and confined to skeptical explanations of what Mr. Trump and his allies are claiming about his opponent.

“SO USA TODAY DIDN’T WANT TO RUN MY HUNTER BIDEN COLUMN THIS WEEK,” the conservative writer Glenn Reynolds complained Oct. 20, posting the article instead to his blog. President Trump himself hit a wall when he tried to push the Hunter Biden narrative onto CBS News.

“This is ‘60 Minutes,’ and we can’t put on things we can’t verify,” Lesley Stahl told him. Mr. Trump then did more or less the same thing as Mr. Reynolds, posting a video of his side of the interview to his own blog, Facebook.

The media’s control over information, of course, is not as total as it used to be. The people who own printing presses and broadcast towers can’t actually stop you from reading leaked emails or unproven theories about Joe Biden’s knowledge of his son’s business. But what Mr. Benkler’s research showed was that the elite outlets’ ability to set the agenda endured in spite of social media.

We should have known it, of course. Many of our readers, screaming about headlines on Twitter, did. And Mr. Trump knew it all along — one way to read his endless attacks on the establishment media is as an expression of obsession, a form of love. This week, you can hear howls of betrayal from people who have for years said the legacy media was both utterly biased and totally irrelevant.

“For years, we’ve respected and even revered the sanctified position of the free press,” wrote Dana Loesch, a right-wing commentator not particularly known for her reverence of legacy media, expressing frustration that the Biden story was not getting attention. “Now that free press points its digital pen at your throat when you question their preferences.”

On the other side of the gate

There’s something amusing — even a bit flattering — in such earnest protestations from a right-wing movement rooted in efforts to discredit the independent media. And this reassertion of control over information is what you’ve seen many journalists call for in recent years. At its best, it can also close the political landscape to a trendy new form of dirty tricks, as in France in 2017, where the media largely ignored a last-minute dump of hacked emails from President Emmanuel Macron’s campaign just before a legally mandated blackout period.

But I admit that I feel deep ambivalence about this revenge of the gatekeepers. I spent my career, before arriving at The Times in March, on the other side of the gate, lobbing information past it to a very online audience who I presumed had already seen the leak or the rumor, and seeing my job as helping to guide that audience through the thicket, not to close their eyes to it. “The media’s new and unfamiliar job is to provide a framework for understanding the wild, unvetted, and incredibly intoxicating information that its audience will inevitably see — not to ignore it,” my colleague John Herrman (also now at The Times) and I wrote in 2013. In 2017, I made the decision to publish the unverified “Steele dossier,” in part on the grounds that gatekeepers were looking at it and influenced by it, but keeping it from their audience.

This fall, top media and tech executives were bracing to refight the last war — a foreign-backed hack-and-leak operation like WikiLeaks seeking to influence the election’s outcome. It was that hyper-vigilance that led Twitter to block links to The New York Post’s article about Hunter Biden — a frighteningly disproportionate response to a story that other news organizations were handling with care. The schemes of Mr. Herschmann, Mr. Passantino and Mr. Schwartz weren’t exactly WikiLeaks. But the special nervousness that many outlets, including this one, feel about the provenance of the Hunter Biden emails is, in many ways, the legacy of the WikiLeaks experience.

I’d prefer to put my faith in Mr. Murray and careful, professional journalists like him than in the social platforms’ product managers and executives. And I hope Americans relieved that the gatekeepers are reasserting themselves will also pay attention to who gets that power, and how centralized it is, and root for new voices to correct and challenge them.

 

  • Hook 'Em 8
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chooky

Chooky 13317

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, SizzleChest said:

It's like that hardened crust of shit at the bottom of an old public trash barrel.  Save for a tactical nuke, you can't get that shit out of there.

If you scrape the bottom of that trash barrel into fragments and shards of hardened shit crust you will likely find Hunter Biden's Fitbit.  You know what that data would reveal?  I'm not sure about all of it, but definitely more dirty ol' hardened shit crust shards. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SizzleChest

SizzleChest 8284

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, Chooky said:

If you scrape the bottom of that trash barrel into fragments and shards of hardened shit crust you will likely find Hunter Biden's Fitbit.  You know what that data would reveal?  I'm not sure about all of it, but definitely more dirty ol' hardened shit crust shards. 

1202464912120975363-png__700.jpg

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chooky

Chooky 13317

Posted
Posted
23 minutes ago, Pancho said:

 

Cubans are conservative, and Republican on our curved terms, because it's easy to conjure understandably dark memories when you whisper "left wing revolutionary" in their ear.  A YouTube dick with wacky glasses is apparently influential in that regard but there are already well-watered roots there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pancho

Pancho 44892

Posted
Posted
15 minutes ago, Chooky said:

Cubans are conservative, and Republican on our curved terms, because it's easy to conjure unde rstandably dark memories when you whisper "left wing revolutionary" in their ear.  A YouTube dick with wacky glasses is apparently influential in that regard but there are already well-watered roots there.

Oh I get that.  What fascinated me is the gay bro was a Clinton voter at first...then turned to Trump.  As per the article as well, he’s turning people who just come to America and know nothing about politics towards Trump/trumpism.  Some of them come to America as Dems but turn R solely because  of his show.  That’s pretty dangerous to me.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Planet Houston

Planet Houston 4930

Posted
Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, Jhawkmvp said:

Not surprising. Trump loves the uneducated and they (whites) love him. About 1/3 of Americans have college degrees.

Is that 1/3 of Americans that are 22 or older? This stat tells us nothing if not. 

Edit, obviously it tells us that the country is a bunch of dumbasses either way. 

Edited by Planet Houston
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Voldemort86

Voldemort86 2259

Posted
Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, TexEx15 said:

Seems as though he is feeling pretty confident 2020 will not be a 2016 shocker.  No matter.  VOTE!

5 days of early voting left in Texas. I know it’s a huge ask, but would love to see RGV turnout surge this last week to really scare repubs.

Edited by Voldemort86
Link to comment
Share on other sites
henrygandorf

henrygandorf 29194

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/25/business/media/hunter-biden-wall-street-journal-trump.html?action=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage

 

 

 

 

  Reveal hidden contents

The Journal had seemed to be the perfect outlet for a story the Trump advisers believed could sink Mr. Biden’s candidacy. Its small-c conservatism in reporting means the work of its news pages carries credibility across the industry. And its readership leans further right than other big news outlets. Its Washington bureau chief, Paul Beckett, recently remarked at a virtual gathering of Journal reporters and editors that while he knows that the paper often delivers unwelcome news to the many Trump supporters who read it, The Journal should protect its unique position of being trusted across the political spectrum, two people familiar with the remarks said.

As the Trump team waited with excited anticipation for a Journal exposé, the newspaper did its due diligence: Mr. Bender and Mr. Beckett handed the story off to a well-regarded China correspondent, James Areddy, and a Capitol Hill reporter who had followed the Hunter Biden story, Andrew Duehren. Mr. Areddy interviewed Mr. Bobulinski. They began drafting an article.

Then things got messy. Without warning his notional allies, Rudy Giuliani, the former New York mayor and now a lawyer for President Trump, burst onto the scene with the tabloid version of the McLean crew’s carefully laid plot. Mr. Giuliani delivered a cache of documents of questionable provenance — but containing some of the same emails — to The New York Post, a sister publication to The Journal in Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp. Mr. Giuliani had been working with the former Trump aide Steve Bannon, who also began leaking some of the emails to favored right-wing outlets. Mr. Giuliani’s complicated claim that the emails came from a laptop Hunter Biden had abandoned, and his refusal to let some reporters examine the laptop, cast a pall over the story — as did The Post’s reporting, which alleged but could not prove that Joe Biden had been involved in his son’s activities.

While the Trump team was clearly jumpy, editors in The Journal’s Washington bureau were wrestling with a central question: Could the documents, or Mr. Bobulinski, prove that Joe Biden was involved in his son’s lobbying? Or was this yet another story of the younger Mr. Biden trading on his family’s name — a perfectly good theme, but not a new one or one that needed urgently to be revealed before the election.

Mr. Trump and his allies expected the Journal story to appear Monday, Oct. 19, according to Mr. Bannon. That would be late in the campaign, but not too late — and could shape that week’s news cycle heading into the crucial final debate last Thursday. An “important piece” in The Journal would be coming soon, Mr. Trump told aides on a conference call that day.

His comment was not appreciated inside The Journal.

“The editors didn’t like Trump’s insinuation that we were being teed up to do this hit job,” a Journal reporter who wasn’t directly involved in the story told me. But the reporters continued to work on the draft as the Thursday debate approached, indifferent to the White House’s frantic timeline.

Finally, Mr. Bobulinski got tired of waiting.

“He got spooked about whether they were going to do it or not,” Mr. Bannon said.

At 7:35 Wednesday evening, Mr. Bobulinski emailed an on-the-record, 684-word statement making his case to a range of news outlets. Breitbart News published it in full. He appeared the next day in Nashville to attend the debate as Mr. Trump’s surprise guest, and less than two hours before the debate was to begin, he read a six-minute statement to the press, detailing his allegations that the former vice president had involvement in his son’s business dealings.

When Mr. Trump stepped on stage, the president acted as though the details of the emails and the allegations were common knowledge. “You’re the big man, I think. I don’t know, maybe you’re not,” he told Mr. Biden at some point, a reference to an ambiguous sentence from the documents.

As the debate ended, The Wall Street Journal published a brief item, just the stub of Mr. Areddy and Mr. Duehren’s reporting. The core of it was that Mr. Bobulinski had failed to prove the central claim. “Corporate records reviewed by The Wall Street Journal show no role for Joe Biden,” The Journal reported.

Asked about The Journal’s handling of the story, the editor in chief, Matt Murray, said the paper did not discuss its newsgathering. “Our rigorous and trusted journalism speaks for itself,” Mr. Murray said in an emailed statement.

And if you’d been watching the debate, but hadn’t been obsessively watching Fox News or reading Breitbart, you would have had no idea what Mr. Trump was talking about. The story the Trump team hoped would upend the campaign was fading fast.

The gatekeepers return

The McLean group's failed attempt to sway the election is partly just another story revealing the chaotic, threadbare quality of the Trump operation — a far cry from the coordinated “disinformation” machinery feared by liberals.

But it’s also about a larger shift in the American media, one in which the gatekeepers appear to have returned after a long absence.

It has been a disorienting couple of decades, after all. It all began when The Drudge Report, Gawker and the blogs started telling you what stodgy old newspapers and television networks wouldn’t. Then social media brought floods of content pouring over the old barricades.

By 2015, the old gatekeepers had entered a kind of crisis of confidence, believing they couldn’t control the online news cycle any better than King Canute could control the tides. Television networks all but let Donald Trump take over as executive producer that summer and fall. In October 2016, Julian Assange and James Comey seemed to drive the news cycle more than the major news organizations. Many figures in old media and new bought into the idea that in the new world, readers would find the information they wanted to read — and therefore, decisions by editors and producers, about whether to cover something and how much attention to give it, didn’t mean much.

But the last two weeks have proved the opposite: that the old gatekeepers, like The Journal, can still control the agenda. It turns out there is a big difference between WikiLeaks and establishment media coverage of WikiLeaks, a difference between a Trump tweet and an article about it, even between an opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal suggesting Joe Biden had done bad things, and a news article that didn’t reach that conclusion.

Perhaps the most influential media document of the last four years is a chart by a co-director of the Berkman Klein Center for Internet and Society at Harvard, Yochai Benkler. The study showed that a dense new right-wing media sphere had emerged — and that the mainstream news “revolved around the agenda that the right-wing media sphere set.”

Mr. Bannon had known this, too. He described his strategy as “anchor left, pivot right,” and even as he ran Breitbart News, he worked to place attacks on Hillary Clinton in mainstream outlets. The validating power of those outlets was clear when The New York Times and Washington Post were given early access in the spring of 2015 to the book “Clinton Cash,” an investigation of the Clinton family’s blurring of business, philanthropic and political interests by the writer Peter Schweizer.

Mr. Schweizer is still around this cycle. But you won’t find his work in mainstream outlets. He’s over on Breitbart, with a couple of Hunter Biden stories this month.

And the fact that Mr. Bobulinski emerged not in the pages of the widely respected Journal but in a statement to Breitbart was essentially Mr. Bannon’s nightmare, and Mr. Benkler’s fondest wish. And a broad array of mainstream outlets, unpersuaded that Hunter Biden’s doings tie directly to the former vice president, have largely kept the story off their front pages, and confined to skeptical explanations of what Mr. Trump and his allies are claiming about his opponent.

“SO USA TODAY DIDN’T WANT TO RUN MY HUNTER BIDEN COLUMN THIS WEEK,” the conservative writer Glenn Reynolds complained Oct. 20, posting the article instead to his blog. President Trump himself hit a wall when he tried to push the Hunter Biden narrative onto CBS News.

“This is ‘60 Minutes,’ and we can’t put on things we can’t verify,” Lesley Stahl told him. Mr. Trump then did more or less the same thing as Mr. Reynolds, posting a video of his side of the interview to his own blog, Facebook.

The media’s control over information, of course, is not as total as it used to be. The people who own printing presses and broadcast towers can’t actually stop you from reading leaked emails or unproven theories about Joe Biden’s knowledge of his son’s business. But what Mr. Benkler’s research showed was that the elite outlets’ ability to set the agenda endured in spite of social media.

We should have known it, of course. Many of our readers, screaming about headlines on Twitter, did. And Mr. Trump knew it all along — one way to read his endless attacks on the establishment media is as an expression of obsession, a form of love. This week, you can hear howls of betrayal from people who have for years said the legacy media was both utterly biased and totally irrelevant.

“For years, we’ve respected and even revered the sanctified position of the free press,” wrote Dana Loesch, a right-wing commentator not particularly known for her reverence of legacy media, expressing frustration that the Biden story was not getting attention. “Now that free press points its digital pen at your throat when you question their preferences.”

On the other side of the gate

There’s something amusing — even a bit flattering — in such earnest protestations from a right-wing movement rooted in efforts to discredit the independent media. And this reassertion of control over information is what you’ve seen many journalists call for in recent years. At its best, it can also close the political landscape to a trendy new form of dirty tricks, as in France in 2017, where the media largely ignored a last-minute dump of hacked emails from President Emmanuel Macron’s campaign just before a legally mandated blackout period.

But I admit that I feel deep ambivalence about this revenge of the gatekeepers. I spent my career, before arriving at The Times in March, on the other side of the gate, lobbing information past it to a very online audience who I presumed had already seen the leak or the rumor, and seeing my job as helping to guide that audience through the thicket, not to close their eyes to it. “The media’s new and unfamiliar job is to provide a framework for understanding the wild, unvetted, and incredibly intoxicating information that its audience will inevitably see — not to ignore it,” my colleague John Herrman (also now at The Times) and I wrote in 2013. In 2017, I made the decision to publish the unverified “Steele dossier,” in part on the grounds that gatekeepers were looking at it and influenced by it, but keeping it from their audience.

This fall, top media and tech executives were bracing to refight the last war — a foreign-backed hack-and-leak operation like WikiLeaks seeking to influence the election’s outcome. It was that hyper-vigilance that led Twitter to block links to The New York Post’s article about Hunter Biden — a frighteningly disproportionate response to a story that other news organizations were handling with care. The schemes of Mr. Herschmann, Mr. Passantino and Mr. Schwartz weren’t exactly WikiLeaks. But the special nervousness that many outlets, including this one, feel about the provenance of the Hunter Biden emails is, in many ways, the legacy of the WikiLeaks experience.

I’d prefer to put my faith in Mr. Murray and careful, professional journalists like him than in the social platforms’ product managers and executives. And I hope Americans relieved that the gatekeepers are reasserting themselves will also pay attention to who gets that power, and how centralized it is, and root for new voices to correct and challenge them.

 

great article, but this one line reminded me of something:

The McLean group's failed attempt to sway the election is partly just another story revealing the chaotic, threadbare quality of the Trump operation — a far cry from the coordinated “disinformation” machinery feared by liberals.

from one of my favorites, "forget all the myths the media has created about the white house.  the truth is, these are not very bright guys, and things got out of hand."

all the president's men | Tumblr

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
NWBuck

NWBuck 8576

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, Hiphopopotamos said:
Biden is up to 95% on the Economist forecast. 

Have any of these forecasts outlined how they're factoring in for election fuckery- Mail-in vote rejections, Election databases purged, Electronic voting machines tampered with, SCOTUS shenanigans, etc.?

'Cause that's the reality I'm prepared for.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mdhorn

Mdhorn 5975

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, Chooky said:

Cubans are conservative, and Republican on our curved terms, because it's easy to conjure understandably dark memories when you whisper "left wing revolutionary" in their ear.  A YouTube dick with wacky glasses is apparently influential in that regard but there are already well-watered roots there.

He's gay and he's an immigrant.  Those two things don't add up to being Republican.  When he started talking about Soros, I knew he found his fundamentalist calling--money.  

  • Hook 'Em 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mdhorn

Mdhorn 5975

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Pancho said:

Oh I get that.  What fascinated me is the gay bro was a Clinton voter at first...then turned to Trump.  As per the article as well, he’s turning people who just come to America and know nothing about politics towards Trump/trumpism.  Some of them come to America as Dems but turn R solely because  of his show.  That’s pretty dangerous to me.

He is dangerous.  He talks about politics and disparages Dems and Socialism without knowing what Socialism is here in America.  Socialism isn't some new threatening thing, it's here.  It's social security, schools, roads, hospitals, the space shuttle blasting off from Cape Canaveral, the military and their benefits, unemployment funds, police and firemen--and every government office holder's healthcare and pension.  Instead, armed with a ginormous ignorance of government, he's educating Cuban immigrants about American politics.  Democrats are offering healthcare to taxpayers and they're saying screw off Communists.   

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SydneyCarton

SydneyCarton 48142

Posted
Posted
10 hours ago, Pato del Muerto said:

These 8x and 9x matched donations, is that for the official trump for president campaign?  Wouldn’t they quickly run into the donation cap for that?  Or do they have unlimited unnamed entities ready to overmatch until they hit their $2400 or whatever limit?

ive got this sneaky suspicion that the rubes seeing this and putting money in are unknowingly matching each others’ donations in some sort of madoff shell game. The trumps appear to be running every type of confidence game there is simultaneously, which is a fucking amazing  feat if you think about it. 

Democrats use this shit too. I see it on Fb all the time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mrs Whiggins

Mrs Whiggins 13050

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, Mdhorn said:

He is dangerous. 

I agree. It's not unlike Diamond and Silk, Charlie Kirk, et al who find a specific demographic and hone their method of making money, and targeting new immigrants for 'indoctrination' into a particular mindset is not new in politics, but in the bubbles we create and maintain it's a poor welcome to America.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Dog

The Dog 44073

Posted
Posted
17 minutes ago, horncyclist said:

Quality NYTimes/Sienna poll of Texas coming out at 1 PM ET. Had Trump up 3, 46-43 back in September. Will be interesting if it's tied with other recent polls. That Kamala's making a trip probably means their internals show it within reach too.

Just came here to post this. Follow Cohn's twitter for the release. 

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
G650

G650 14272

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, The Dog said:

Just came here to post this. Follow Cohn's twitter for the release. 

 

I'm highly anticipating this drop.

Nate is one of my favorite, if not the favorite, Twitter follow for this stuff. He and Wasserman are neck and neck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Wulaw Horn

Wulaw Horn 19144

Posted
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, The Dog said:

Just came here to post this. Follow Cohn's twitter for the release. 

 

I’m not sure about the NYT poll. They seemed like really good news for the GOP in some swing states (I think had them up in Senate in IA which is outside norm, and had them down less in many states than average) but then they have places like Kansas and Montana in single digits. I wonder if they are doing something to compress results to the middle one way or another.  I’d think if Trumps up 6 or 7 in Kansas and Montana he’s getting buttfucked in IA and losing OH but that wasn’t what I remember them saying. Or maybe the rural vote isn’t as strong for him?  
don’t know. About a week we will. 
saw the IA analysis and I’m wrong there. I guess I can’t get my head around Trump wining there by 9 after IA has been reliably blue going back ton84 minus dabbling with W briefly and barely in 04. 

Edited by Wulaw Horn
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bozo_Casanova

Bozo_Casanova 26512

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, G650 said:

I'm highly anticipating this drop.

Nate is one of my favorite, if not the favorite, Twitter follow for this stuff. He and Wasserman are neck and neck.

We should temper our expectations on the Texas poll. Any poll with Biden inside the margin of error Would be fantastic, and even if he’s dropped a little that’s OK too, as long as its close enough to channel resources (cough, Barack Obama) to Texas to fight for what’s left of the undecideds.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
gmr548

gmr548 16590

Posted
Posted
I’m not sure about the NYT poll. They seemed like really good news for the GOP in some swing states (I think had them up in Senate in IA which is outside norm, and had them down less in many states than average) but then they have places like Kansas and Montana in single digits. I wonder if they are doing something to compress results to the middle one way or another.  I’d think if Trumps up 6 or 7 in Kansas and Montana he’s getting buttfucked in IA and losing OH but that wasn’t what I remember them saying. Or maybe the rural vote isn’t as strong for him?  

don’t know. About a week we will. 

saw the IA analysis and I’m wrong there. I guess I can’t get my head around Trump wining there by 9 after IA has been reliably blue going back ton84 minus dabbling with W briefly and barely in 04. 

They’re not as liberal in assigning leans to a specific candidate. It’s why you still get polls from then that add up to

Probably a good method further out but inside a week or two it gets hard to imagine people’s minds changing.

 

Regarding IA, I remember you saying something similar about OH. It sounds like you’re not quite understanding just how much the GOP has consolidated support amongst uneducated whites, particularly men, at the expense of support among literally every other group.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...