HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Mayberry Machiavelli » Journal
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next »

Mayberry Machiavelli

Profile Information

Member since: Sat Jan 17, 2004, 12:32 PM
Number of posts: 20,843

Journal Archives

Bottom line, I think the conventions have gotten a lot of Dems out of the "both sides suck" doldrums

And underscored the gigantic differences between the parties and candidates.

I know they have for me.

That's why I think at least some portion of the DNC "bounce" will not be transient.
Posted by Mayberry Machiavelli | Mon Sep 10, 2012, 06:34 PM (3 replies)

Your right wing friends who watch Fox all the time: Who did they think would win in 2008?

I'm curious about this.

Were they SURE, or very confident, that McCain/Palin were going to win and completely shocked by the result? Or were they pessimistic about their candidates' chances but hoping for a long shot? And therefore not surprised by the result?

Despite spinning the candidates and issues, did Fox present the polling data in such a way to allow their viewers to draw the conclusion that their favored candidate was probably not going to win?

I felt that the aggregate polling data in 2008 showed pretty clearly that Obama/Biden was likely going to win even though I did sweat it right up until election night.

If this year's data was showing Obama consistently down, even if only by a couple points nationally and slightly behind in most key swing states like OH/FL/VA, especially as an incumbent, then I'd be expecting a loss though hoping for a win from a "long shot" position. That's a change from 2004 where I think I felt more optimistic about the outcome than I think the polling data warranted (all discussion about Ohio nonwithstanding).

I'm interested because now I'm seeing the freepiest folks around me clinging to articles about Carter leading Reagan right up until really late in the race, or stuff like 1992 Tory victory over Labor confounding polling and not just being cautiously optimistic but ridiculously confident of not only a Romney win but some kind of Reagan/Mondale blowout. And ignoring that while such outcomes are theoretically possible, aggregate polling has been pretty accurate in the most recent elections.
Posted by Mayberry Machiavelli | Sun Sep 9, 2012, 01:27 PM (20 replies)

Mini-rant on Alex Bennett Show (drive-time program on Sirius "Left" satellite radio)

Sirius Left, for those who listen to satellite radio, is a pretty mixed bag in terms of programming.

It has some more solid offerings in the afternoon, like the Ed Schultz show, and it has Stephanie Miller in the late morning who is hilarious but whose show is kind of lighthearted snark and less substantive (although I think you can learn a little more about issues from it these days than in the past).

My beef is that the time that I'm most likely to listen, the AM drive slot, has the worst programming. It used to be the Lynn Samuels (RIP) show which was by far the worst thing the Left channel has had for reasons that have been discussed in other threads. Now it's Alex Bennett, who is definitely not as bad but in his own category of bad.

The problem with Bennett's show is it's just plain lazy. For a show on a politics talk channel, he just flat out doesn't keep up with politics. He's the anti-Maddow, he simply doesn't do his homework.

Even when things like the DNC are going on, he and half his staff haven't even watched half the speeches including most of the important ones. When important issues come up, it's pretty clear they haven't read up, done any simple web searches, and often wind up mumbling about stuff where they don't know the names of the important players and are not tight on the key facts, and half ass it through a half hearted discussion. Even when it's clear they are not on the mark on a subject they began discussing, they could easily look up the relevant fact in a flash on the web and bring up the correct fact, but they don't care and don't even bother (and I'm not even talking about when they are on the spot dealing with a hostile interview or caller).

Example, staffer mentioned that Bill Clinton's DNC speech only tied with the "Honey Boo Boo" reality show in ratings, Alex said that was probably only in reference to cable ratings and not all the various outlets showing Clinton, the staffer had obviously only glanced at some article or got some email or Facebook posting and was going off that, but despite the fact that he wasn't sure, still stuck to his guns. A 15 second websearch shows it was only CNN coverage of Clinton that tied with Honey Boo Boo, including all outlets obviously would beat it cold.

The end result is, Bennett mostly promotes a false equivalency "both sides suck equally" viewpoint on his show, but without much substance to prove it. It's an easy viewpoint to push callers into, and he pushes it with respect to the media outlets too, often promoting a false equivalence between Fox and MSNBC (he actually trashes MSNBC more than Fox).

It's annoying, and I don't know why they have him on. From listening to his show, apparently he used to write for porn magazines like Hustler and Screw, I have no idea what his politics chops are if any because I never heard of the guy prior to this gig. I really feel that they should put this kind of programming into a "Grumbling Malcontents who Don't Want You to Vote for Anyone" channel and put something better like The Young Turks, or anything, in its spot.

I did complain to Sirius about Lynn Samuels, as I'm sure many others did eventually leading to her show getting moved off Left after way too long, but I haven't felt quite as strongly about Bennett, I should probably register a complaint about his show too.
Posted by Mayberry Machiavelli | Sat Sep 8, 2012, 02:04 PM (15 replies)

Looks like President Obama is getting a Terrorist Fistbump from the DNC, per Gallup and Ras.

Hope it lasts!
Posted by Mayberry Machiavelli | Sat Sep 8, 2012, 01:14 PM (0 replies)

Heh heh. (Credit to some other anonymous internet hero)

Posted by Mayberry Machiavelli | Fri Aug 17, 2012, 09:16 PM (2 replies)

The only plus I see for Romney in this Swiftboat attempt is this:

It attempts to stir up a food fight that doesn't involve Romney in any way.

Romney is a bad candidate, he makes a worse impression with increasing exposure.

He can't handle attacks on him or his record, he's been floundering and off balance.

The OBL killing doesn't involve him at all, there are no questions he has to answer, no tax records to hide, no Medicare or Ryan plan questions to dodge.

Of course there is the downside that pursuing this angle could lead to highlighting Obama's one accomplishment that even most right wingers have to concede is a good thing.
Posted by Mayberry Machiavelli | Thu Aug 16, 2012, 08:10 AM (3 replies)

Is anyone even complaining about the "chains" thing aside from obvious Team Romney partisans?

And CNN media sycophants?

Serious question.
Posted by Mayberry Machiavelli | Thu Aug 16, 2012, 08:01 AM (23 replies)

I thought I'd figured out what Mitt was doing prior to this Ryan pick. Basketball analogy within!

Here I thought I had Romney read like a book. Crappy candidate but persistently on Obama's heels due to the economy. As things developed, the basic gist of Romney's strategy seemed to be: do not deviate, ever, from right wing orthodoxy, do nothing to rock the base's boat.

It's like if you were 10 points behind in a basketball game. Not great, but within reach. Don't take any big chances to close the gap that could cause turnovers and widen the gap. Just make sure you stay within that 10 points. This would be picking Portman, which I assumed he was going to do.

Then, when you're in the last two or three minutes, you do the GOP equivalent of fouling Obama every time he touches the ball and hoping he bricks his free throw attempts: a billion dollars of SuperPAC negative ad blitz in swing states, making it difficult in every possible way for poor black people to vote in Cuyahoga County, OH, etc.

You're still probably going to lose, but depending on how poorly Obama shoots free throws and how well your team can score quick baskets, you might have a 25 percent chance of winning.

It actually seemed like a reasonable plan for victory for a longshot challenger, possibly the best odds Romney could get. Not winning odds, but possible/doable.

This Ryan pick feels like Romney saw the lead creep from 10 to 13, got panicky and instead of sticking with coach's plan, just started hoisting three pointer attempts from half court in the middle of the third quarter.
Posted by Mayberry Machiavelli | Sat Aug 11, 2012, 12:29 PM (0 replies)

I just started watching "Fishing with John" on streaming. Um, what exactly is the story here?

It's actor John Lurie going fishing in various locations with different hipster favorites (I think Jim Jarmusch and Tom Waits are the first two episodes).

I've jumped in to Willem Dafoe ice fishing in Maine.

Does anyone know the history of this show, how it came to be made? What channel it was on?
Posted by Mayberry Machiavelli | Sat Jul 28, 2012, 04:23 PM (0 replies)

Sincere question for those who were around re: Carter being primaried by Kennedy

Was Carter primaried because he was felt by the part of the party to his left to not be liberal enough?

Or was it more a sense that, due to reasons having nothing to do with whether he had the proper ideological alignment, he was a politically failed president (weak economy, country feeling impotent over Iran hostages and OPEC etc.) who was going to lose big, and you had a major figure who always had presidential ambitions in Teddy Kennedy who saw Carter's vulnerability to a big defeat as justification enough to make a try at realizing his own ambitions?

I honestly thought it was more the latter than the former, but I was pretty young then and not too informed. Any enlightenment appreciated.
Posted by Mayberry Machiavelli | Sun Jul 15, 2012, 09:19 PM (22 replies)
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next »