Trump, Clinton campaign will be nasty—and that's good news

[bemildred]

As the presidential election looks to be featuring two of the most polarizing candidates in modern American politics, we can expect a hard sell of potential stories and ads to try and make Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton more appealing. But the real deciding factor will once again be an avalanche of negative advertising, designed to tear down the policies and besmirch the personal behavior of the other side. Already, commentators are expecting an historical use of negative campaigning. And voters should be thankful for this.

Appropriately, negative ads and campaigns get a very bad rap. They turn off voters, demonize opponents for perfectly acceptable policy disputes and coarsen the political culture — all of these are legitimate complaints. But negative campaigns are still a breath of fresh air compared to the toxic potential of positive ads.

Positive campaigns may be loved in theory, but in reality they are not idealized "Lincoln vs Douglas" debates, with each side courteously presenting their argument. They are instead frequently issue-free, focused on the perceived personal benefits of the candidate's previous career and sunny pictures of family.

By now, with a stream of embarrassing sex scandals hitting the papers—and with a grandfatherly former Speaker of the House now serving time due to his action related to sexual assaults—we should hope that voters won't buy into the tightly controlled stories about happy political families. But those stories, and the other inspirational pieces about rising from nothing to seek high office, are all part of the same problem of positive campaigns: They are really designed to tell as little as possible about a candidate's actual policy.

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/05/17/trump-clinton-campaign-will-be-nasty-and-thats-good-news-commentary.html

[Volaris]

2. Bill Clinton said at the 2008 convention in his keynote speech to endorse Obama...

'Every politician wants you to believe that they were born in a log cabin that they built themselves, and it just ain't true.'

I'm going to remember the fuck out of that this General Election Season....for BOTH candidates.

[Baobab]

3. The Orange One and Mrs Clinton are friends

They wont get THAT nasty- at least not in public.

[KoKo]

4. K&R...food for thought..

[bemildred]

5. I don't think ti is really all that good.

Last edited Fri May 20, 2016, 03:52 AM - Edit history (1)

But it is true that the political classes tend to serve only themselves unless threatened with defenestration from time to time.

[KoKo]

6. Yes it was short...

and not so well put together. But, these days...it's good to see a kernal of possible discussion come out of the MSM. They do so little of it... a'feared and intimidated as they are.

[bemildred]

7. It's pitiful. nt

[KoKo]

8. ....!

I might go so far as to say: "Lock Down" until the Election." But, then...that might be going a bit too far...

[bemildred]

9. Well, the MSM, I mean, is pitiful.

In every respect I can think of, they are pitiful. But I don't think anything needs to be done about it, they will fall, are falling, on their own.

As far as the OP, it makes a good point. A tidy campaign will mean business as usual, the last time we got reforms was the 60s & 70s, when there was a civil/political insurrection going on here. Ever since our "thought leaders" have been busy doing their best to ignore or undo those reforms, because their power depends on deceit.

[KoKo]

10. ?...

I don't forsee a "Tidy Campaign "at all, though. And, I repeat in a harsher way: [n] Our MSM Sucks and is barely watchable.[/n] And, mostly becoming irrelevant. Some have watched the whole demise since the 60's and 70's. But it has reached the Tipping Point with this Election, imho. The 60's & 70's--about ready for the Revisit. All the signs are there. Rise Up...Again.

's

A tidy campaign will mean business as usual, the last time we got reforms was the 60s & 70s, when there was a civil/political insurrection going on here. Ever since our "thought leaders" have been busy doing their best to ignore or undo those reforms, because their power depends on deceit

.

The Sounds of Silence:

New Version for Sanders. Remembering my radicalization of the Simon & Garfunkle version is called to emotion from this version...which builds as one listens.

[Disturbed] - The Sound of Silence - Lyrics in Description
Published on Apr 16, 2016

A tribute to Bernie Sanders and the song.

[bemildred]

11. Why Hating the Media Could Make the Difference in November

By Neal Gabler / Moyers & Company

As the political pundits keep reminding us, this might be called the “hate” election. Both major parties’ presumptive nominees, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, have historically high net unfavorable ratings – so high that voters are said to be casting their ballots against a candidate rather than in favor of one. The question seems to be: Whom do you hate less?

But this narrative, which threatens to be the dominant one of this political season, has two flaws. In the first place, none of the candidates has had particularly high favorability ratings this campaign – not Cruz or Sanders or Jeb Bush or even the anointed one, Marco Rubio. Only John Kasich would qualify as “popular,” if a paltry net favorability of 12 percent makes you so.

So Trump’s and Clinton’s ratings are the equivalent of, say, the batting averages during a baseball season in which no one is hitting very well. Americans are just in a very surly, unreceptive mood. They hate everybody.

The second flaw is that the candidates’ unfavorability ratings set up yet another false equivalency: that Trump and Clinton have somehow earned their enmity in equal measure – Trump for his racist, sexist, bullying remarks, his endless prevarications and his general depreciation of the entire political process, and Clinton for… well, Clinton, apparently, for having used a private email server for communications that only later were classified. See? They’re two peas in a pod.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/why_hating_the_media_could_make_the_difference_in_november_20160522

Also appended here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1016157578#post6

[KoKo]

12. K&R....

Did you listen to "Sounds of Silence?"

[bemildred]

13. I have to turn on Javascript and the plugin to do that, and I have only one good ear.

But OK, wait a minute.

[bemildred]

14. Oooops, no I can't this is just a PC monitor, no sound.

The one for movies is hooked up to the PS3.

But I'm watching it.

[bemildred]

15. Nice graphics.

[KoKo]

17. ...

You don't have sound with Adobe Flash? I have Adobe Flash set to only activate it with My Permission...but when I do...I can get both the Sound and the Video.

Without the Sound...the visuals are great..but the power of the voice in comparison to S&G's much quieter protest just isn't the same as watching the new version. It's the Voice of the new version with the Angst of this Time we Live In that makes it powerful with the Graphics.

Anyway...just passing it along...however you viewed it. 's

[bemildred]

18. Not on this machine.

I rarely do videos, too slow, all I do is read.

[KoKo]

21. You must live in an internet unfriendly part of vast America...

I live in a large city and my Internet Speed sucks..but, not quite as bad as what you are describing. They just tore up our streets....supposedly to give us high speed fiber...from ATT, which is what we have now (and, have used for Land Line for years). I'm not positive on what the outcome will be, given their past history with DSL that we now have and have had so many problems with.

I'm reading the book "Game Change" on the 2008 Election by Halperin/Heilemann. Talk about corruption and Insider Greed/Grifters/Campaign Managers and the writers themselves. Still its entertaining, although I feel its much is a glossed over fictionalized account in some ways. But, what isn't these days.

[bemildred]

22. No, it's by choice. I live in Los Angeles, more or less.

My speed is pretty good since I got cable. I've just always preferred the light show in my head, a lot. Now I'm getting older and more into short form writing, which I was never that hot about before, I like books, so the internet has been entertaining and informative, if a lot noisier, and fits my attention span.

[bemildred]

16. Harpers Mag. has an excellent piece by Andrew Cockburn "Down the Tubes", April I think,

which makes a good case that all the ad money has little influence on election outcomes, which I pretty much agree with. But most politicians are cowards and conformists so a few wins like the "Willie Horton" ad is claimed to be and they are bought and sold like cattle. You'd think it was genius to notice that there is still a lot of racism out there, or that they all were helpless before it. Maybe they are.

[KoKo]

19. Is this it? If so...Looks interesting...will get to it.

ARCHIVE / 2016 / April
< Previous Article | Next Article >

Letter from Washington — From the April 2016 issue
Down the Tube
Television, turnout, and the election-industrial complex

By Andrew Cockburn

I never met a politician who started out to be a fund-raiser,” remarked Mike McKenna, a Republican energy lobbyist and recipient of constant pleas for cash from lawmakers. For years, he has watched them dial for dollars and endure nightly gatherings convened for the extraction of donations — “grim affairs,” in his phrase — because they have been convinced such efforts are vital for survival at the polls. “Most of them run for office because they want to achieve something,” he told me. “But once they get there, they spend their time raising money. I don’t know a single one who enjoys it.” Ironically, he explained over a beer on K Street, most of the money they raise is wasted, especially on expensive TV campaigns that do nothing to move voters. The principal effect of these labors, he insisted, is to “feed the consultant class.”

My companion was referring to the strategists, pollsters, TV-ad makers, media buyers, direct-mail specialists, broadcasters, and other subcategories of what we should properly call the election-industrial complex. Amid an economy that has bumped along since the 2008 crash, this industry has enjoyed a staggering growth curve, barely matched in percentage terms even by its military counterpart, as candidates and campaigns rattle their begging bowls ever more furiously with each cycle.

https://harpers.org/archive/2016/04/down-the-tube/

[bemildred]

20. Yeah. I subscribe, so I can read it for free online.

But I don't post from their paywalled stuff. Sometimes I really wish I could.

[KoKo]

23. Little by Litte all is going to "Paywall."

I know they need the money to survive. Why give content away for Free? I've often thought they ought to offer Combined Magazine/News Paid Subscriptions Online for a one time Fee. IOWD's: Subscription for a group of Online Reads.. like they used to do when they had Print Mags and you could subscribe to what you wanted to read, and, kids used to sell the subscriptions, door to door to get money for their schools.

The one I posted was my "One Time Free" Harper's read (although I've not had a problem getting older Harper's articles in the past). I've read that Firefox users can use "Privacy Window" feature to read some sites like the Wall Street Journal for free. Privacy window somehow masks your ISP so they don't know you are reading over your "free read limit." I've not tried it but might in the future, as sites get more restrictive, though.

[bemildred]

24. Maybe. I just try to respect the boundaries as I understand them.

No more than four paras, I don't use sites that paywall, or I just use what they put up as a teaser. Like Haaretz, same situation. I used to post them a lot, but when they went paywall, I stopped, just to avoid the issue, but I still like them.

The problem is they rely so much on advertising. Harper's is unusual in having a loyal enough subscriber base to hold out against the borg. But they paywall it because they need to pay the writers etc. so I just stay out of it. But I subscribe. I'm paid up through 2018 I think.

There are a bunch of sites of lesser repute that I just started ignoring after that started getting annoying about getting your email and watching their ads. If they want to proselytize me, they can pay for it.

Yeah, there are tricks, I use news aggregators a lot, like google, and they get you a better look sometimes. But I don't try to outsmart the paywalls to post things.

[KoKo]

25. Site like Harpers is worth it...

But to pay for WSJ when I might only want to read a few articles seems steep...as I feel with WaPo NYT and some others. I'd be happy to pay a one time fee for access to a certain amount of articles per month or year that would be less than a whole subscription. It would give more choice and still help support the writers...which I do believe in supporting.

Then there are sites like Politico and The Hill that I think are happy to see snips of their articles posted all over the web for exposure. If they have ads I don't see many of them because of AdBlock and I'm not an ad clicker anyway. Nor do I read the Celebrity Porn on the side bars pushed as Click Bait at sites like Huff Po. But, if I post an article from one of them and someone goes to the site to read the rest then that person might be happy to give them Click Rewards by doing what I won't. So that seems fair.

I donate regularly to Democracy Now, Common Dreams and The Real News Network because they desperately need the money and they allow long form posts for some articles because of "Creative Commons" license. DN and TRNN have Transcripts of their shows that can be posted, and they need the exposure. I'm so glad they are still around.

I'm not as careful as you, though, and often post more than a snip if it's a long article I feel its needed to make some sense of the rest.

Always enjoy your article selections wherever they come from, though!

[bemildred]

26. +1. nt