History Repeats Itself
HT to The History Channel and @RealJamesWoods for those...
It's nice that Paul Ryan, Charles Krauthammer and similar folk who didn't really have much support for the Anti-Hillary until he won, are now saying nice things about his being an "idealogical revolution not seen since Reagan" or how "he heard a voice out in this country that no one else heard." Better late than never.
The American people are now "woke:"
If the most stunning night in political history taught us anything about traditional media's coverage of this election, which spanned nearly 600 days, it's this:Or in other words (HT to Powerlineblog.com for this one):
It doesn’t remotely have the influence it thinks it does.
In piously dismissing public sentiment when it comes to the entire premise of Donald Trump's fed-up outsider campaign, the vaunted media proved it just ain't what it used to be in the eyes in the public.
Media approval rating: 19 percent (NBC News/Wall Street Journal)
Americans with high confidence in the media: 6 percent (Associated Press)
Suffolk University/USA Today poll question: “Who do you think the media, including major newspapers and TV stations, would like to see elected president: Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?” A full 75.9 percent answered Clinton, while just 7.9 percent picked Trump. That's about a 10-to-1 ratio of Americans who feel the media was actually for one candidate against another. And, finally, there's the major newspaper endorsement count, per The Hill's Reid Wilson: Clinton 57, Trump 2 — a ratio of more than 28-to-1.
The election results are still coming in, but from all appearances Trump could still break 300 electoral votes, which would be the most of any Republican candidate in nearly 30 years (George H.W. Bush, 1988).
Trump repeatedly said throughout this general election that the media was rigged against him. The elites, the ones so out of touch living in their safe Manhattan bubble, where the national media calls home, declared he was engaging in conspiracy theory, just blowing more hot air.
But WikiLeaks revelations proved otherwise.
From just one single email account — that of Clinton campaign chief John Podesta — we saw that quote approval by Clinton campaign sources did happen. Sharing stories in advance with Clinton campaign officials did happen. Collusion via sharing debate questions in advance with Clinton senior aides did happen. Reporters advising and/or cheering on campaigns with guys like Podesta did happen.
And these weren't small-time bloggers or pundits or anchors committing these journalistic no-nos, either. These were major names at major organizations. And none of them will even extend the professional courtesy of an apology. Instead, it's the usual condescending defiance.
Even Clinton supporters agree in a recent AP-GfK poll that the media was biased against Trump, by a 4-to-1 margin. Yup, even Clinton supporters even saw the media pile-on from a mile away.
Suffice to say, the polling and numbers gurus should not be so breathlessly relied upon in 2020 and beyond. A special shout-out goes to the Huffington Post, whose polling outfit gave Hillary Clinton a 98.2 percent of winning going into last night.
We can also retire the "guru" label as it pertains to fivethirtyeight.com's Nate Silver, whose final formula had Clinton with a 71.4 percent chance of winning the presidency. [my emphasis]