|
Phone posted:My main takeaways were that CNBC is a lieberal news org and that Rick Santelli is a communist. hilarious because Rick Santelli had a large hand in 'founding' the Tea Party
|
# ? Oct 29, 2015 16:47 |
|
|
# ? May 26, 2024 03:07 |
|
Trabisnikof posted:lol if CNBC had cut off mics the audience would have started throwing things at the moderators. Moderator: Sorry, your time is up and we need to move to the next question Candidate: Let me just say one more thing Moderator: Uhhh...uhhh ok, I guess. Much better.
|
# ? Oct 29, 2015 16:49 |
|
Zeroisanumber posted:That is the dumbest poo poo that I've ever heard in my life. We'd laugh him out of the building before he even got more than one foot in the door. The piece's thesis is loving stupid but boy did I enjoy reading this part: quote:Bush’s fundamental problem is that the logic behind his candidacy—the reasonably conservative, but plausibly electable former governor of an important swing state should be a nationally viable presidential candidate—doesn’t appeal to Republican primary voters who’d rather hear Holocaust revisionism from non-politicians who genuinely believe the popular folk myths of the tribal conservative movement. Unable to make any case for himself on the merits, Bush has been stuck in a holding pattern, waiting for his more fervent opponents to flame out. But they haven’t yet flamed out, and each time Bush faces a conservative audience, their hate for him just intensifies.
|
# ? Oct 29, 2015 16:49 |
|
Phone posted:My main takeaways were that CNBC is a lieberal news org and that Rick Santelli is a communist. American journalism is locked in a cage match right now with circulation being the prize. So if a candidate is like "If you don't stop hurting my feelings I won't let you ride on my campaign bus anymore" instead of all the press corps going "Oh word, well you do that we will as a unit retaliate by not covering your campaign and then you are dead in the water" they go "good, good, more ratings/papers sold/website hits for me". Also Fox News is always going to defect in this particular Prisoner's Dilemma which means everyone is going to follow their lead.
|
# ? Oct 29, 2015 16:50 |
|
happyhippy posted:All future debates should be hosted by 3 clones of Sean Hannity. I can't believe they were literally being asked questions about things their respective platforms, and they started crying about 'gotcha journalism.' What a bunch of crybaby shitheads. I can't lie without repercussions up here and it's your faults.
|
# ? Oct 29, 2015 16:52 |
|
CNBC had literally nothing to lose and they still chose the most pathetic path. Option 1: Tell these clowns to take a knee and shut the gently caress up when grown folks is talking. Outcome 1: CNBC was so mean to me and I'll never ever go back!!! Option 2: Let the candidates seize the reins and poo poo all over the entire premise of a debate. Outcome 2: CNBC was so mean to me and I'll never ever go back!!! (Despite the fact that none of them adhered to any rules outside of "don't get caught sleeping")
|
# ? Oct 29, 2015 16:56 |
|
HappyHippo posted:The piece's thesis is loving stupid but boy did I enjoy reading this part: Yes let me drink those sweet Bush tears
|
# ? Oct 29, 2015 16:56 |
|
NoEyedSquareGuy posted:Weird to refer to O'Malley as a real candidate. O'Malley is inarguably way more of a real candidate then Jeb Bush.
|
# ? Oct 29, 2015 16:57 |
|
HappyHippo posted:The piece's thesis is loving stupid but boy did I enjoy reading this part: Yeah, loving JEB is the reason no one takes the Bushes seriously anymore. Was this written by Rip Van Winkle?
|
# ? Oct 29, 2015 16:57 |
|
Phone posted:My main takeaways were that CNBC is a lieberal news org and that Rick Santelli is a communist. American journalism has been extremely subservient to power for decades and decades, as zoux said- it's about access, not truth. Access means you can report on what they say, which improves your ratings.
|
# ? Oct 29, 2015 17:00 |
|
Paul Ryan is the 62nd speaker of the House.
|
# ? Oct 29, 2015 17:01 |
|
Like, why the gently caress are they letting people polling at 5 percent into debates? Or one percent? Because they don't want to be accused of picking winners and losers so we all have to play this game like Bobby Jindal can be the next president of the US instead of saying "well, poll better if you want to be a real presidential candidate". It is a massive disservice to the process to have 10 candidates. Oh and since these massive clusterfuck debates are drawing so many viewers, that's gonna be how we do things from now on.
|
# ? Oct 29, 2015 17:03 |
|
zoux posted:American journalism is locked in a cage match right now with circulation being the prize. So if a candidate is like "If you don't stop hurting my feelings I won't let you ride on my campaign bus anymore" instead of all the press corps going "Oh word, well you do that we will as a unit retaliate by not covering your campaign and then you are dead in the water" they go "good, good, more ratings/papers sold/website hits for me". And then they wondered why so many people tuned into John Stewart and Stephen Colbert.
|
# ? Oct 29, 2015 17:04 |
|
zoux posted:Like, why the gently caress are they letting people polling at 5 percent into debates? Or one percent? Because they don't want to be accused of picking winners and losers so we all have to play this game like Bobby Jindal can be the next president of the US instead of saying "well, poll better if you want to be a real presidential candidate". It is a massive disservice to the process to have 10 candidates. Why are candidates being let in at 5%? Because the top performer still is only like 25%.
|
# ? Oct 29, 2015 17:06 |
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Why are candidates being let in at 5%? Because the top performer still is only like 25%. So why were three candidates polling at one percent let into the Democratic debate?
|
# ? Oct 29, 2015 17:07 |
|
zoux posted:Like, why the gently caress are they letting people polling at 5 percent into debates? Or one percent? Because they don't want to be accused of picking winners and losers so we all have to play this game like Bobby Jindal can be the next president of the US instead of saying "well, poll better if you want to be a real presidential candidate". It is a massive disservice to the process to have 10 candidates. Bobby jindal isn't serious enough to force even news organizations willing to let ten people on stage pretend he has a shot.
|
# ? Oct 29, 2015 17:07 |
|
zoux posted:So why were three candidates polling at one percent let into the Democratic debate? look, do you wanna be the guy who made Lincoln Chafee cry?
|
# ? Oct 29, 2015 17:08 |
|
zoux posted:So why were three candidates polling at one percent let into the Democratic debate? It would look improper to not give them a shot for at least one debate, especially considering all the whines about "We need more debates". The next one's already down to 3.
|
# ? Oct 29, 2015 17:08 |
|
One a few of these randos run out of money, the polls will shift pretty dramatically. I mean aren't a lot of big donors/endorsers sort of sitting on their hands right now, waiting to see which non-Trump or Carson candidate starts to seem convincingly presidential?
|
# ? Oct 29, 2015 17:09 |
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Why are candidates being let in at 5%? Because the top performer still is only like 25%. Still ridiculous to let folks below 4% into the debate (Christie, Huckabee, Kaisch, and Paul, seriously?), but that's just my opinion and the clusterfuck of people seems to make for good TV anyway.
|
# ? Oct 29, 2015 17:09 |
|
Combed Thunderclap posted:Still ridiculous to let folks below 4% into the debate (Christie, Huckabee, Kaisch, and Paul, seriously?), but that's just my opinion and the clusterfuck of people seems to make for good TV anyway. Politics is supposed to be boring goddamn it!!!!
|
# ? Oct 29, 2015 17:10 |
|
Combed Thunderclap posted:Still ridiculous to let folks below 4% into the debate (Christie, Huckabee, Kaisch, and Paul, seriously?), but that's just my opinion and the clusterfuck of people seems to make for good TV anyway. The most important part of the republican clowncar debates is that they cripple the early primary process for them, which is good for America.
|
# ? Oct 29, 2015 17:11 |
|
Combed Thunderclap posted:Still ridiculous to let folks below 4% into the debate (Christie, Huckabee, Kaisch, and Paul, seriously?), but that's just my opinion and the clusterfuck of people seems to make for good TV anyway. Do you really want cable TV networks making arbitrary decisions on who should be allowed on that stage?
|
# ? Oct 29, 2015 17:11 |
|
mcmagic posted:Do you really want cable TV networks making arbitrary decisions on who should be allowed on that stage? No, having a set threshold or other set requirements is the opposite of arbitrary. The absurd thing you just said is the reason they have to pretend like everyone has an equal chance at being president.
|
# ? Oct 29, 2015 17:13 |
|
It's a combination of Trump and the last time in 2012. Back in 2012 everyone had a turn being top runner for a month or two, gently caress Gingrich was top runner for like 3 months if I recall correctly. And as Trump is not a 'true' Republican in their eyes, they don't want a situation where kicking a potential front runner who is only 3% atm from dropping out and giving Trump that 3%. That's how I see it anyway.
|
# ? Oct 29, 2015 17:14 |
|
Joementum posted:I did not know that Ryan was once a waiter at the Tortilla Coast. That's hilarious. No way NoEyedSquareGuy posted:Ayn Rand-loving, cool-youth-Republican, serious-numbers-guy Paul Ryan is now Speaker of the House. What is this stupid loving country? Is Ryab the youngest and/or least senior Speaker ever HappyHippo posted:The piece's thesis is loving stupid but boy did I enjoy reading this part: Good Bushes delanda eat
|
# ? Oct 29, 2015 17:15 |
|
happyhippy posted:It's a combination of Trump and the last time in 2012. I firmly believe the only bias in the media is profit margin, so they don't give a gently caress if Donald Trump is ideologically correct or not. CNN has run more than 2500 stories on Trump since he announced, more than anyone else, because CNN chases ratings the hardest out of all the 24 hour networks. The media loves Trump, his stories write themselves and he draws eyeballs.
|
# ? Oct 29, 2015 17:17 |
|
zoux posted:No, having a set threshold or other set requirements is the opposite of arbitrary. The absurd thing you just said is the reason they have to pretend like everyone has an equal chance at being president. Of course it's arbitrary. It's a random number that someone pulled out of their rear end based on an arbitrary group of polls.
|
# ? Oct 29, 2015 17:17 |
|
DOOP posted:Is Ryab the youngest and/or least senior Speaker ever He's not the youngest, but he's the youngest in 150 years according to google. James G. Blaine was 39 when he took office in 1869. Paul Ryan is 45. A certain Robert T. Hunter is the youngest speaker, elected in December 16, 1839. He was 30 years old. Chelb fucked around with this message at 17:23 on Oct 29, 2015 |
# ? Oct 29, 2015 17:18 |
|
I have to think more will drop out by the next debate. I thought Jindal had essentially quit anyway?
|
# ? Oct 29, 2015 17:18 |
|
If they really want to keep everyone above 1% in, they should at least split it up, make the debates 7 and 7 or something instead of 4 and 10
|
# ? Oct 29, 2015 17:20 |
|
Gyges posted:There was a story just this week about how Rubio's team was sure that physical presence was over rated and was running an almost entirely electronic campaign. Iowa and New Hampshire are going to be interesting as gently caress if a lot of these campaigns attempt to use a cheaper alternative to a traditional ground game. Rubio has a bigger problem in the states coming up and his affinity for them. Does anyone think he will win Iowa, NH, or SC? Of those only NH strikes me as possible but that depends on Trump, Bush, Kaisch, and Paul getting out. Nevada I can see him doing well in but after that is the "SEC primary" where my money is on Cruz dominating. I see him maybe getting 3 states out of those and none of them high delegate or strong GOP. Same for Super Tuesday, maybe 4-5 out of that bloc. As it stands by the end of march I see Cruz, Trump having the most and Rubio at #3
|
# ? Oct 29, 2015 17:20 |
|
mcmagic posted:Of course it's arbitrary. It's a random number that someone pulled out of their rear end based on an arbitrary group of polls. Yes, and if you set that number far ahead of time so you know in advance that your debate is only going to star the key players, you can at least have a claim to neutrality, so it's only arbitrary based on your own arbitrariness rather than the polls themselves. But that's not what happened, and I'll get my more focused debates once the primaries start actually happening and people start dropping out and/or we finally reach the general debates.
|
# ? Oct 29, 2015 17:21 |
|
zoux posted:I firmly believe the only bias in the media is profit margin, so they don't give a gently caress if Donald Trump is ideologically correct or not. CNN has run more than 2500 stories on Trump since he announced, more than anyone else, because CNN chases ratings the hardest out of all the 24 hour networks. The media loves Trump, his stories write themselves and he draws eyeballs. gently caress yeah, that too. But you are not hearing the top few atm complaining about the lower half of the candidates, not at least as loud as they complain about the debate moderators. Only Tump is saying 'why bother debate you, you only have 1%', the others are strangely quiet about it.
|
# ? Oct 29, 2015 17:24 |
|
Mr Jaunts posted:If they really want to keep everyone above 1% in, they should at least split it up, make the debates 7 and 7 or something instead of 4 and 10 The time for that would have been before the first debate, but now that Fox has set the format it's never going to change until all the "undercard" candidates drop out.
|
# ? Oct 29, 2015 17:25 |
|
happyhippy posted:gently caress yeah, that too. Yeah, I think it's because he's the only one (and Carson now I guess, but Carson doesn't really do stuff) polling high enough. What, is Rand Paul or Chris Christie gonna bust on someone's polling numbers? Mulva posted:The time for that would have been before the first debate, but now that Fox has set the format it's never going to change until all the "undercard" candidates drop out. We're probably going to have undercard debates from now on too.
|
# ? Oct 29, 2015 17:26 |
|
zoux posted:Like, why the gently caress are they letting people polling at 5 percent into debates? Or one percent? Because they don't want to be accused of picking winners and losers so we all have to play this game like Bobby Jindal can be the next president of the US instead of saying "well, poll better if you want to be a real presidential candidate". It is a massive disservice to the process to have 10 candidates. I'll remember this the next time people bitch about the media not letting third parties have a fair shot.
|
# ? Oct 29, 2015 17:31 |
|
Trabisnikof posted:Yeah and CNBC was really caught off guard by the candidates getting that truthiness matters more than facts. They just couldn't really handle candidates just lying or completely ignoring the rules collaboratively. I really want to know why they aren't to the point of cutting off mics when time is up. It's really hard to whine about the media when your voice isn't being broadcast. Make them raise their hands like the schoolchildren they are if they want to speak.
|
# ? Oct 29, 2015 17:35 |
|
|
# ? Oct 29, 2015 17:35 |
|
|
# ? May 26, 2024 03:07 |
|
as above, so below
|
# ? Oct 29, 2015 17:36 |