• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

US Election: 2016

Lester Holt was a shill for the DNC who asked the hard questions of the Donald but not Hillary.On top of it he interrupted Trump 41 times hoping to make lose his composure.On the flip side it looked like Trump didnt bother to practice for the debate.I bet you will see a better performance next time.
 
Those polls probably represent the average everyday lay person who sees HRC as a crooked establishment hack vs The Donald as a passionate businessman who doesn't always say the right thing but honestly wants to do good for America.  There are no FBI investigations or congressional hearings about Trumps activities.  There is an IRS audit, but hell there was a congressional hearing into the IRS under Obama targeting conservatives, and nobody down there likes the IRS anyway.  HRC is tainted to say the least.

I don't think Trump did very well in the debate and I thought he missed many opportunities, but for a first timer he didn't completely self destruct.  In fact I believe he will get a small bump on this.  But that greasy smirk HRC couldn't hide will probably do her damage.  No matter what she says or does nobody will believe her, she won't overcome that.  Trump can improve.  HRC has nowhere to go but down. 
 
Hell, Trump can't even stay on his own message. Last night after the debate he was asked if he thought the debate was fair and he said yes, it was fair, and Lester Holt did a great job.

12 hours later, he's bitching about his mic being faulty, Holt was very unfair to him.

So what happened in the intervening 12 hours? I suspect that his team sat him down and showed him just what a crap job he did, and in true Trump fashion decided to blame everyone but himself.

Trump Starts Well, Fades

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/440455/trump-starts-well-fades

In the first half-hour of the debate, after a sleepy start, it seemed that Donald Trump was taking it to Hillary Clinton in a way that has never happened to her before in a public setting. While I will never be an avid Trump fan, my NeverHillary heart confesses to a momentary frisson.  But he really flagged as the night went on, and she seemed to get stronger simply by staying on an even keel – and by exhibiting stamina and sharpness that may allay fears about her health.

It is fair enough to say that she got a lot of help from Lester Holt – more in the selection of topics than in intrusiveness during the proceedings (lots of tax returns and birtherism; no Clinton scandals (which Trump had to bring up), irredeemable basket of deplorables, Benghazi, immigration, Obamacare, etc.). But the post-debate “bash Lester Holt” gambit is not going to fly: Speaking for the Trump campaign, Kellyanne Conway weirdly said Holt did a great job. More importantly, media bias on behalf of the Democrats is baked in the cake, so it is Trump’s task to be ready for it and to raise the matters Hillary and her media friends would prefer to bury. Trump was not prepared to do that last night. And when he tried to do it, he rambled in half-sentences and self-interruptions that made what he was saying hard to follow.

What I found most frustrating was that Trump, even when he was on the offensive, allowed Clinton to get away with nonsense that, having gone uncorrected, becomes conventional wisdom. For example, aided by Holt’s kicking the evening off with a delusional portrayal of a booming American economy, Hillary claimed that the Great Recession was caused by “trickle down economics.” It was all well and good for Trump to champion job-creation by lower corporate taxes, streamlined regulation, and the repatriation of trillions in wealth stashed overseas due to Washington’s confiscatory policies. In fact, it was the high point of the night for him. But he let pass the hazardous government policies (on mortgages, on too-big-to-fail) that were so central to the collapse and that can easily be traced back to the Clinton years – a matter of no small importance since Hillary keeps talking about how her husband’s policies led to prosperity.

The Iran deal was another topic on which Trump should easily have been able to refute Hillary’s have-it-both-ways claims: The deal is both a great one that “put a lid” on the mullahs’ nuclear ambitions, and a not great one that was necessary because war was the only alternative. All Trump needed here was to remember and recite about five or six simple facts; but while Trump raised the volume and went into attack mode, he flailed his way through the $1.7 billion cash payoff in a way that was hard to follow, neglected to point out how even the Obama administration concedes that Iran’s windfall will fuel anti-American terrorism, and failed to tell us what he will do about the deal if elected.

Trump seemed to reserve his most robust rebuttals for the matters of least consequence. I don’t think anyone much cares, for example, that he is disingenuous in claiming to have opposed the invasion of Iraq from the start – certainly no one gave a hoot when we pointed it out during the GOP primaries. More significantly, with Clinton having shamefully first supported the war and then joined the Democrats’ campaign to undermine it, neither candidate is going to get mileage attacking the other’s Iraq wavering. Nevertheless, Trump appears to have been goaded by the Clinton campaign’s “fact-checking” focus on this topic into a lengthy counter-case that was unconvincing and hinges on Sean Hannity’s recollection of conversations that happened 12 or 13 years ago. This is not going to move anyone – to the limited extent positions on Iraq circa 2003-04 matter to voters at this point.

On the whole, it was a night that probably won’t shift the race appreciably. Hillary benefits from the projection of thoughtful competence and the lack of an opponent who could harpoon that image by tying her ideas to real world disasters. At times, Trump showed indications that he could be such an opponent … but not if he doesn’t do his homework.
 
Even the conservative National Review thinks Trump is not fit for office.

Last Night, Trump Showed Why He's Dangerous

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/440458/donald-trump-debate-foreign-policy-nato-allies-treaties-vladimir-putin

Last night, it became crystal clear. The GOP nominated a dangerous, unfit man to be president of the United States. When it came to foreign affairs, where the president’s power is at its peak, Trump is showing himself to be ignorant, unprepared, and impulsive. Indeed, it’s hard to think of three worse qualities in a potential commander-in-chief.

In presidential elections, Americans understandably tend to focus on domestic policy. It has a more immediate effect on their lives, and the issues are far more familiar. Yet domestic policy is precisely the arena where the president faces his or her most profound limits. For all his undeniable expansion of presidential power, not even Barack Obama at his “pen and phone” worst has been able to implement vast segments of his domestic agenda. He’s ending two terms without cap and trade, without comprehensive immigration reform, and without new gun-control measures. His worst bureaucratic initiatives can be undone by any subsequent president.

But in foreign policy, the modern American president has become a virtual monarch. He or she can launch military actions without congressional approval (just ask Presidents Clinton and Obama), reach agreements with foreign nations, and establish or rescind diplomatic relations. The Constitution is supposed to check the power of the president to declare war or to enter treaties, but presidents have been shedding those restraints for generations. The president holds the power of war and peace in his or her hands, and the entire world — including our enemies — pays attention to the president’s every word and deed.

If you’re a geopolitical rival of the United States, Trump is a delight. He’s America’s leading Putin apologist, wasting several agonizing turns in the debate defending Russia from the charge of meddling in U.S. elections and bizarrely wondering if a “400-pound” man “sitting on their bed” hacked Democratic National Committee e-mails. He said he hasn’t “given lots of thought to NATO” and then went ahead and proved the truth of that statement by fundamentally misunderstanding the alliance. He treats it as a glorified protection racket whereby NATO countries allegedly pay us to defend Europe and they’re not paying what they owe. He even doubled down on his claim — an incredibly bizarre claim given Russia’s military resurgence — that NATO “could be obsolete.”

This is of course music to Vladimir Putin’s ears, but it’s deeply threatening to American national security. America isn’t in the NATO alliance out of altruism. Since the founding of this nation, each and every time there has been a general European conflict, America has been pulled into the fray. The Napoleonic wars were key in triggering the War of 1812, a stalemate of a conflict fought largely on American soil. The two world wars collectively cost more than half a million American lives, and our toll was light compared with that of our European allies. During the Cold War, NATO helped preserve the very existence of the free world, and now it is the primary check on Russian aggression. Obsolete? Hardly. It has saved countless American lives.

But Trump was hardly finished. Not content with defending Russia and trashing NATO, he went on a rant about Japan, South Korea, and, bizarrely, Saudi Arabia:
Nuclear is the single greatest threat. Just to go down the list, we defend Japan, we defend Germany, we defend South Korea, we defend Saudi Arabia, we defend countries. They do not pay us. But they should be paying us, because we are providing tremendous service and we’re losing a fortune. That’s why we’re losing — we’re losing — we lose on everything. I say, who makes these — we lose on everything.

Once again: We don’t enter into treaties merely out of the goodness of our hearts. We have established defense relationships with Germany, South Korea, Japan, and other nations (we don’t have a collective defense treaty with Saudi Arabia) in large part because American national security and the American way of life depend on global peace and security. In a connected world, we simply can’t retreat behind our borders and expect to remain safe or prosperous.

Last night an unprepared Trump proved that he’s not ready to be commander-in-chief. And while many of our allies can and should provide more resources for their own defense, they will always allocate a lower percentage of their gross domestic product for their militaries than the U.S. does, because they don’t have the same international reach. Given history, do we really want Japan and Germany to become global military superpowers? But that doesn’t mean our allies don’t have skin in the game. In the event of a second Korean conflict, the South Korean military would bear the brunt of the fighting — and take the vast majority of the allied casualties. Europeans make up the great majority of actual NATO boots on the ground in Europe, and our own deployment is a fraction of its former strength.

Treaties aren’t business deals, nor are they protection rackets. They have been the hallmark of bipartisan American foreign policy since 1945, because liberals and conservatives alike have understood the profound risks of true American disengagement. Even the Obama administration, for all its fecklessness, hasn’t raised the specter of American retreat to the same extent as Trump has.

Trump has been running for president for 15 months. Businessman or not, that’s more than enough time to understand our treaty obligations — including the reasons for the relationships that have helped keep America out of a catastrophic war. If Trump truly believed that “nuclear is the single greatest threat,” he’d be wary both of nuclear proliferation and of discarding key allies. Geopolitics, like nature, abhors a vacuum, and American retreat almost always triggers a rival’s advance.

A loud ignorant man is still ignorant. A blustering impulsive man is still impulsive. Last night an unprepared Trump proved that he’s not ready to be commander-in-chief. He’s most dangerous where he has the most power, and that should send a chill down every American spine.
 
The MSM is in large part against a Trump presidency.  Instead of being the unbiased check and balance on the government they have shown who's pocket they are in.  It reminds me of the CBC during our last federal election.  I suppose when one guy slashes your budget and another guy promised to restore almost 3/4 of a billion in funding, well I guess it was tempting to put ethics aside for the moment and shrill for Mr Money.  I'm sure that would be considered great politics for team red.  The media however remains tainted.  Youtube has many examples of where average everyday people have outed inaccurate or inappropriately edited media reports with footage of their own. 

People are more distrustful than ever of the MSM and the articles that cupper posts won't resonate much.  This election is about the political elite vs everyone else.  So long as Trump doesn't do or be caught up in anything completely crazy between now and Election Day, I believe he will win by a large margin. 
 
QV said:
People are more distrustful than ever of the MSM and the articles that cupper posts won't resonate much.  This election is about the political elite vs everyone else.  So long as Trump doesn't do or be caught up in anything completely crazy between now and Election Day, I believe he will win by a large margin.

Wouldn't exactly call The National Review mainstream. In fact they are most assuredly pro rebulican, conservative, and staunchly anti Trump.

This election is more a backlash against the lack of effectiveness in both the legislative and executive branch. And unfortunately the two choices will not make it better, and realisticly will make things far worse than it has been the last 8 years.

Even the polls say this will be a tight race, not a blow out for either side. Clinton has 216 electoral college votes locked up in strongly democratic states. She only needs to pick up 54 more votes to win. Trump only has 160 electoral votes in heavily republican states. He needs to pick up 110 more votes. And he has very few options to get them. Clinton has many more. And Trumps numbers among various voting demographics are significantly lower than where both McCain and Romney were at this point in their races. And they lost.
 
For those that have every thing.

I give you Chia Hillary, Chia Trump, Chia Bernie and Chia Obama.

http://youtu.be/e8h1Bvv_Qac
 
QV said:
The MSM is in large part against a Trump presidency.  Instead of being the unbiased check and balance on the government they have shown who's pocket they are in.  It reminds me of the CBC during our last federal election.  I suppose when one guy slashes your budget and another guy promised to restore almost 3/4 of a billion in funding, well I guess it was tempting to put ethics aside for the moment and shrill for Mr Money.  I'm sure that would be considered great politics for team red.  The media however remains tainted.  Youtube has many examples of where average everyday people have outed inaccurate or inappropriately edited media reports with footage of their own. 

People are more distrustful than ever of the MSM and the articles that cupper posts won't resonate much.  This election is about the political elite vs everyone else.  So long as Trump doesn't do or be caught up in anything completely crazy between now and Election Day, I believe he will win by a large margin.

this line of thinking puzzles me a bit.  while I agree that some MSM outlets are anti trump, I find it odd that Fox News which is as MSM as it comes given that it is the most watched news in the US, is suddenly not MSM?  Would you say that Fox News has given him a raw deal in their coverage?
 
Thucydides said:
This should puncture the triumphalist narrative the media is singing about who won the debate:

https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/244948/

Except that...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/grenier-uselection-debate-polls-1.3782098
 
Remius said:
this line of thinking puzzles me a bit.  while I agree that some MSM outlets are anti trump, I find it odd that Fox News which is as MSM as it comes given that it is the most watched news in the US, is suddenly not MSM?  Would you say that Fox News has given him a raw deal in their coverage?

This used to give me some concern until I found out that Fox's viewership only runs around an average of two million and that the median age of it's viewers is 65+ (I've seen some stats that say the low 70s). That raises a worrying concern that if only 2 mil old codgers watch Fox and it's the most watched then where does the average American get his/her information from?

:cheers:
 
FJAG said:
That raises a worrying concern that if only 2 mil old codgers watch Fox and it's the most watched then where does the average American get his/her information from?

Facebook, and cellphone News apps.
 
FJAG said:
This used to give me some concern until I found out that Fox's viewership only runs around an average of two million and that the median age of it's viewers is 65+ (I've seen some stats that say the low 70s).

More on that,

Fox News Is Literally Dying Of Old Age
https://www.google.ca/search?q=fox+news+average+age&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-CA:IE-Address&ie=&oe=&rlz=1I7GGHP_en-GBCA592&gfe_rd=cr&ei=gQjsV_nWMcqC8Qeu2ofABA&gws_rd=ssl
 

Attachments

  • fox.jpg
    fox.jpg
    73.9 KB · Views: 99
Remius said:
Except that...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/grenier-uselection-debate-polls-1.3782098

I'm with you and the CBC article on that. The online polls are not statistically significant because of the data collection techniques.

That said, I watched the debate and read the CBC article and one wonders why Clinton's lead is so low?

While I know there are Clinton detractors on this site and I'm not a fan of her either, the delta between her abilities and performance to those of Trump are truly self evident. The man is a clear and present danger.

I think the best explanation that I saw about this continuing support from millions of voters came from an interview on the Daily Show last night of a women from Columbus Ohio who said: "I'm voting for the conservative party and if this jackass just happens to be leading the mule train; so be it."

My hope is that at the last moment conservative Americans will come to realize that they are cutting off their collective noses to spite their collective faces.

:pop:

:cheers:
 
FJAG said:
... Fox's viewership only runs around an average of two million and that the median age of it's viewers is 65+ (I've seen some stats that say the low 70s). That raises a worrying concern that if only 2 mil old codgers watch Fox and it's the most watched then where does the average American get his/her information from?

:cheers:

I know I could have edited my own post but thought this should have it's own.

Just checked the average viewership for Keeping up with the Kardashians and last season it was 3.3 million with 2.2 million of those in the lucrative 18-49 demographic. Voters all.  :brickwall:

:cheers:
 
FJAG said:
This used to give me some concern until I found out that Fox's viewership only runs around an average of two million and that the median age of it's viewers is 65+ (I've seen some stats that say the low 70s). That raises a worrying concern that if only 2 mil old codgers watch Fox and it's the most watched then where does the average American get his/her information from?

:cheers:


I think the confusion rests with terminology.  A quick look at a few reports about viewership shows that Fox News Channel is the most viewed "cable" news channel.  That would put it in the same category as CNN, MSNBC et al (the all news, all the time guys - or at least an endless repeat of the same drivel).  The traditional "networks" (ABC, CBS, NBC), while their signals may make it to most homes via a cable are not in the same category.  Their news programmes may have a larger viewership.

Evening News Ratings: Week of Sept. 19

 
More on the reporting which no longer follows the narrative. At this point, what is really going on is anyone's guess:

http://americanlookout.com/yuge-new-tracking-poll-puts-trump-over-the-top-with-electoral-college-votes/

YUGE! New Tracking Poll Puts Trump Over The Top With Electoral College Votes

In order for Trump to win, he needs a minimum of 270 votes in the electoral college. According to a new tracking poll from UPI, Trump is now at 292 electoral votes.

The Washington Examiner reported:

Trump reaches 292 electoral votes in new tracking poll

A new tracking poll released hours before the first presidential debate shows Donald Trump edging Hillary Clinton in six of 12 battleground states, earning him enough votes in the Electoral College to win the presidency.

Trump currently leads his Democratic opponent by 4 percentage points or less in Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Iowa, North Carolina and Virginia, according to the UPI-CVoter poll released Monday.

With victories in those six swing states and 23 other reliably red states, the latest poll suggests Trump would secure 292 electoral votes if the election were held today. Clinton, meanwhile, would pick up Colorado, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire and Wisconsin, giving her 246 of the 270 votes needed to make it to the Oval Office.

Here’s more from the UPI poll:

UPI/CVoter state polls: Donald Trump ahead of Hillary Clinton in Electoral College

Donald Trump would earn enough votes to win the presidency in the Electoral College based on UPI/CVoter’s state tracking poll released Monday.

Trump would amass 292 votes and Clinton would get 246 with 270 needed to secure the oval office.

But the candidates’ leads are narrow enough — 5 percent or less — in 12 states to classify them as swing states, meaning 156 electoral votes could be up for grabs.

If the battleground states are not counted, the race would be tied 191-191.

Just one swing state — Florida with 29 votes — could shift to give Clinton easily enough Electoral College votes to win, 275-263. Or switching Pennsylvania with 20 votes and Virginia with 13 would having her prevailing even more, 279-259.

If Trump carries the states he expected to win and adds a traditionally blue state like Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin or Minnesota he would win by a huge margin.

And:

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/hillary-clinton-florida-black-voters-228822

Clinton campaign in ‘panic mode’ over Florida black voters
Democrats are sweating over turnout in one of the most important states on the electoral map.
By MARC CAPUTO and DANIEL DUCASSI 09/28/16 05:05 AM EDT

Democrats are beginning to worry that too many African-American voters are uninspired by Hillary Clinton’s candidacy. | Getty

MIAMI — To kill Donald Trump's chances of capturing the White House, Hillary Clinton needs to win Florida. And to do that, she needs a big minority turnout.

But Democrats are beginning to worry that too many African-American voters are uninspired by Clinton’s candidacy, leading her campaign to hit the panic button this week and launch an all-out blitz to juice-up voter enthusiasm.

Bill Clinton, once nicknamed the “first black president,” embarks on a North Florida bus tour Friday in an attempt to draw African-American crowds. At the same time, Clinton herself will host events in Broward and St. Lucie counties, which have black populations higher than the statewide average.

That follows the events of this past weekend, when black mothers who have lost children to gun violence hosted a Clinton organizing event in Jacksonville and a voter-registration drive in Opa-Locka, a majority black city near Miami. The group, Mothers of the Movement, includes Sybrina Fulton, mother of Trayvon Martin, whose 2012 shooting death near Orlando became a flashpoint for racial division and gun violence.

Coming soon: President Barack Obama, who’s expected to campaign here at least twice before Election Day. First Lady Michelle Obama — more popular than her husband — will likely visit Florida as well, in addition to the ad she cut for Clinton that’s currently airing on Florida radio.

"Hillary Clinton's campaign is in panic mode. Full panic mode," said Leslie Wimes, a South Florida-based president of the Democratic African-American Women Caucus.

"They have a big problem because they thought Obama and Michelle saying, 'Hey, go vote for Hillary' would do it. But it's not enough," Wimes said, explaining that too much of the black vote in Florida is anti-Trump, rather than pro-Clinton. "In the end, we don't vote against somebody. We vote for somebody."

Part of the problem Clinton faces is that Obama, the actual black president, is the toughest of acts to follow. Obama enjoyed support from 95 percent of Florida’s black voters in both 2012 and 2008, according to exit polls.

Clinton isn’t polling quite that well in a state that has nearly 1.7 million black voters. An average of the last three Florida polls that provided racial breakdowns shows she’s polling less than 85 percent among African-American voters in Florida, while Trump polls around 5 percent.

It’s not just Clinton’s margins with black voters that concerns Democrats. It’s whether African-American voters turn out in force for her in a pivotal state whose 29 electoral votes are essential to the GOP nominee's path to an Electoral College victory. A loss in Florida all but guarantees a Trump defeat on Election Day.

Clinton faces a similar potential problem with Hispanic voters. Though Florida Hispanics back her by double-digit margins similar to the level of support Obama enjoyed, activists fear their turnout rate will be lower. Hispanics account for more than 15 percent of the Florida voter rolls and African-Americans are more than 13 percent. About 65 percent of registered voters are non-Hispanic white, and they heavily favor Trump.

In the heavily African-American city of Miami Gardens, where Trayvon Martin hailed from, Mayor Oliver Gilbert said he’s hopeful that Clinton’s strong debate performance will generate more excitement for the candidate. He also said Trump’s position on police stop-and-frisk policies, and his suggestion that all blacks live in ghettos, could motivate minority voters.

“There’s this presumption that we’re all under-educated and uneducated and living with all of this crime — it’s insulting,” Gilbert said. “And when Trump says ‘what do you have to lose if you vote for me,’ we see how he and his crowd cheered once when a black man got punched in the face at one of his rallies. That’s what we have to lose.”

Both Trump and Clinton are making moves to reach out to Florida’s black community, which is more diverse than in many other states because some of Florida’s black population originates from Caribbean countries like Haiti and Jamaica. Clinton’s ad strategy reflects that, launching an ad this month narrated in Creole and running on Haitian radio stations in South Florida. And Trump met with a group of Haitian-American leaders in Miami two weeks ago.

Tallahassee Mayor Andrew Gillum, one of Clinton’s highest-profile black leaders in the state, acknowledged that he saw “varying levels of enthusiasm” for Clinton at a recent event. Though he said “it’s hard to recapture that level of enthusiasm” Obama enjoyed in 2008, he’s confident young black voters will show up to the polls for Clinton.

“While I’d love for them to be excited when they show up to the polls,” citing his own excitement about what Clinton’s policy agenda can offer the black community, “my first job is to make sure they get there,” Gillum said.

Clinton’s campaign says it also has been holding events in Orlando and South Florida, partnering with African-American owned small businesses and churches to recruit leaders for its volunteer efforts. Clinton volunteers, they say, have also been organizing on the campuses of Florida's historically black colleges and universities, like Florida A&M University, Edward Waters College and Bethune-Cookman.

Among those efforts were a rally late last month at FAMU headlined by Clinton’s running mate, Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine, in which he praised the value of HBCUs and hammered Trump for pushing the “bigoted notion that President Obama wasn’t even born in this country” and tying the Republican to “Ku Klux Klan values.”

Kaine’s rhetoric wasn’t enough to inspire Tyresha McClenney and Bryan Anderson, two first-time voters and FAMU students who attended the Democrat’s rally. McLenney noted that she doesn’t believe Clinton has spoken enough about racial inequality and police brutality.

“It’s not something that she continuously says, it’s only like when the media gets a video of a black person getting shot,” she said. “When the media dies down on that, and she’s still saying it … that would help have more trust in her and believe in what she says.”

Added Anderson: “A lot of her attempts to reach out come across as pandering.”

That lack of excitement worries Henry Crespo, president of the Miami-based Florida Democratic Black Caucus.

“No one is writing songs for Hillary. Obama had will.i.am. Hillary has nobody like that,” said Crespo. “Right now, the vote is against Trump. It’s not for Hillary. I still think she’s going to win. But you want your people to be for your candidate, not just against the other guy.”
 
Thucydides said:
More on the reporting which no longer follows the narrative. At this point, what is really going on is anyone's guess:
http://americanlookout.com/yuge-new-tracking-poll-puts-trump-over-the-top-with-electoral-college-votes/
And:
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/hillary-clinton-florida-black-voters-228822

Gotta say that the poll quoted has got to have some seriously bad data. Most of the polls are actually calling most of those states toss-up because results are still within the margin of error, with Pennsylvania and Virginia showing Clinton has enough of a lead to fall outside the margin of error. I will allow that Clinton's overall lead has shrunk, but Trump is not making the equivalent gains, most of Clinton's support is shifting to Gary Johnson or undecided. Trump seems to have a problem of breaking through the 40% to 45% ceiling and getting new supporters outside his base.

It will be interesting to see how much of an effect the first debate has on the polls.
 
Blackadder1916 said:
I think the confusion rests with terminology.  A quick look at a few reports about viewership shows that Fox News Channel is the most viewed "cable" news channel.  That would put it in the same category as CNN, MSNBC et al (the all news, all the time guys - or at least an endless repeat of the same drivel).  The traditional "networks" (ABC, CBS, NBC), while their signals may make it to most homes via a cable are not in the same category.  Their news programmes may have a larger viewership.

Evening News Ratings: Week of Sept. 19

Thanks for that. Couldn't find a smiley with a light bulb going on over its head so this one will have to do.  :salute:

Just for info sake, here's an article on the demographic distribution of how adults get their news:

http://www.journalism.org/2016/07/07/pathways-to-news/

:cheers:
 
So, since I transitioned into a new age demographic yesterday, does that mean I now have to change my preferred means of news delivery.

Please don't tell me I have to start taking in news from more conservative sources as I get older.  ;D
 
cupper said:
So, since I transitioned into a new age demographic yesterday, does that mean I now have to change my preferred means of news delivery.

Please don't tell me I have to start taking in news from more conservative sources as I get older.  ;D

;D

I think this is one of those things were the distribution will be changed by technological advances as all the years go by. Those that grew up with computers will stay with them rather than turning to TV.

When I was younger I watched about an hour of network news every night while now that I'm in the generation that should be watching Fox, I find I watch very little news on television at all. Instead I now review about 12 to 15 newspaper/television internet sites from around the world daily (and yes, Fox is one of them although it's more for entertainment value).

I guess I'm regressing age wise.

:cheers:
 
Back
Top