That is the finding of a Quinnipiac University poll which shows a dramatic split between Republicans and other Americans when it comes to matters of trust.Quinnipiac's survey found that 52% of voters trust the media more than they trust Trump, while only 37% said they trusted Trump more. Among Democrats, 86% said they trusted the media more than the president. But among Republican voters, the balance is flipped: 78% said they trusted Trump more than the media, while just 13% said they trusted the media more.
Hidden #3. Stop acting like the sky is falling with every single report, otherwise when it really is falling, you've made the public so damn numb to your sensationalist titles and claims that they don't respond how they should.
This is a big one. After Romney lost in 2012 yet the GOP still kept Congress (and gained in congress in 2014) the media kept saying the Republican party is over and that we'll become a one party party state with just Democrats after the 2016 election.
Uh, what?
You don't remember the "Republican Party Autopsy"? It was literally everywhere. Quote from: Alternative Facts on February 23, 2017, 01:41:32 PMUh, what?
"Republican Part Autopsy" =/= The party is dead.
Well considering an autopsy is literally examining a dead body....Quote from: Alternative Facts on February 23, 2017, 01:44:24 PM"Republican Part Autopsy" =/= The party is dead.
What is being exampled under a "political party autopsy" is why the candidate/message that the party is running during said election failed to resonate with voters that you needed to win. In 2008, the big question is how McCain lost states like Indiana, Virginia, and North Carolina. In 2012's case, it revolved around Romney's inability to resonate with the middle class workers in Wisconsin, Ohio, etc. Clinton's political autopsy also revolves around the same questions as Romney, also including the divide between moderates and progressives. Autopsy is a poor choice of language, though I imagine it's used to describe the death of the campaign? It is not about the death of the party as a governing institution.
But did the campaigns really die in such a way? It's not like our elections for the past two decades were run off landslides for the victor
Frankly, the past 30+ years have produced relatively large margins of victory for the winning party. Hence these party autopsies.
Eeeeeeeeeehhhhhhhhh, I wouldn't call a non-arguable margin of victory a landslide....Quote from: Alternative Facts on February 23, 2017, 01:58:33 PMFrankly, the past 30+ years have produced relatively large margins of victory for the winning party. Hence these party autopsies.
an overwhelming majority of votes for one party in an election.
I wasn't aware we went by your definition of a landslide.
Quotean overwhelming majority of votes for one party in an election. I mean it's not "overwhelming". Quote from: Alternative Facts on February 23, 2017, 02:01:38 PMI wasn't aware we went by your definition of a landslide.
Depending on your view in the end. Arguably, earning over double what your competitor earned (As was done in every election since 1980 besides 2000,04,12,16) is "overwhelming."
So....the last two decades then? 1996 no longer counts bruh. Quote from: Alternative Facts on February 23, 2017, 02:09:32 PMDepending on your view in the end. Arguably, earning over double what your competitor earned (As was done in every election since 1980 besides 2000,04,12,16) is "overwhelming."
What? Dole earned 159 electoral votes in 1996, Clinton earned 379. Now I haven't taken a math class during my college tenure, but I'm pretty sure 159x2 is only 318.
It's not in the last two decades though. Quote from: Alternative Facts on February 23, 2017, 02:14:06 PMWhat? Dole earned 159 electoral votes in 1996, Clinton earned 379. Now I haven't taken a math class during my college tenure, but I'm pretty sure 159x2 is only 318.
Pardon by confusion, but again - what?
I said that there were no landslides for the victor in the last two decades. The last landslide was outside two decades. Quote from: Alternative Facts on February 23, 2017, 02:16:02 PMPardon by confusion, but again - what?
Let's also not forget that Project Veritas just dropped a tactical nuke on CNN with over 119 hours of leaked footage.
Good points. Illustrates the problem we're looking at with echo chambers and confirmation bias very well. People tend to trust only what they want to hear and it's really fucking depressing. Wherever we're heading with all this, it really isn't anywhere good. The current state of news and social media is giving way too many idiots way too much leeway and power.
Quote from: Iberian Husky on February 23, 2017, 05:27:53 PMLet's also not forget that Project Veritas just dropped a tactical nuke on CNN with over 119 hours of leaked footage.You're gonna have to elaborate on that. I just googled it and am not really seeing many implicating things.
Quote from: Alternative Facts on February 23, 2017, 05:38:36 PMQuote from: Iberian Husky on February 23, 2017, 05:27:53 PM Let's also not forget that Project Veritas just dropped a tactical nuke on CNN with over 119 hours of leaked footage.That audio that had nothing of interest?There's 119 hours of footage, there's guaranteed to be something in there.
Quote from: Iberian Husky on February 23, 2017, 05:27:53 PM Let's also not forget that Project Veritas just dropped a tactical nuke on CNN with over 119 hours of leaked footage.That audio that had nothing of interest?
What does that even mean, "trust trump more than the media"? Trust him with what?
Media trust falls along party lines
