HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Rachel Maddow assumes Rus...

Wed May 4, 2016, 12:31 PM

 

Rachel Maddow assumes Rush's role for the Dem Party: King Maker

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by Omaha Steve (a host of the General Discussion forum).

There is so much good that will come of Bernie staying in, arguably the most important reason of all being exposing and educating Americans on how we select a candidate. Every state is different and many elections have had disputed results on the our side; we were thought of the pure party and above election shananagins. I can't wait until the California primary and hundreds of thousands discover they are left out of the process for mistakenly registering with the Independence Party. People didn't know so this is a learning experience. But they won't learn a damn thing if Bernie drops out.

Then you have myopic Rachel slamming Bernie for not bowing out. Rachel is of the elitist, well educated 10% class Thomas Frank is calling out in "Listen Liberal."



Please note: King Maker is sexist but Queen maker is more sexiest. I know the latter is true because I read it on DU.


http://bluenationreview.com/maddow-launches-epic-rant-against-bernies-radical-convention-strategy/

42 replies, 2081 views

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 42 replies Author Time Post
Reply Rachel Maddow assumes Rush's role for the Dem Party: King Maker (Original post)
WhaTHellsgoingonhere May 2016 OP
Jackie Wilson Said May 2016 #1
Wilms May 2016 #5
SunSeeker May 2016 #8
Wilms May 2016 #10
SunSeeker May 2016 #16
Wilms May 2016 #24
SunSeeker May 2016 #26
Wilms May 2016 #27
SunSeeker May 2016 #30
pangaia May 2016 #33
Wilms May 2016 #39
WhaTHellsgoingonhere May 2016 #23
La Lioness Priyanka May 2016 #2
WhaTHellsgoingonhere May 2016 #25
Agnosticsherbet May 2016 #3
WhaTHellsgoingonhere May 2016 #11
Agnosticsherbet May 2016 #14
WhaTHellsgoingonhere May 2016 #18
NuclearDem May 2016 #4
themaguffin May 2016 #17
NCTraveler May 2016 #6
2naSalit May 2016 #12
NCTraveler May 2016 #15
WhaTHellsgoingonhere May 2016 #20
YOHABLO May 2016 #34
NCTraveler May 2016 #41
onecaliberal May 2016 #7
SunSeeker May 2016 #9
moonbabygo May 2016 #13
SunSeeker May 2016 #22
Egnever May 2016 #36
SunSeeker May 2016 #19
WhaTHellsgoingonhere May 2016 #29
WhaTHellsgoingonhere May 2016 #35
Egnever May 2016 #37
spanone May 2016 #21
Firebrand Gary May 2016 #28
La Lioness Priyanka May 2016 #31
WhaTHellsgoingonhere May 2016 #32
LanternWaste May 2016 #38
WhaTHellsgoingonhere May 2016 #40
Omaha Steve May 2016 #42

Response to WhaTHellsgoingonhere (Original post)

Wed May 4, 2016, 12:33 PM

1. What a horrible thing to say about Rachel, sometimes I get so sick here on this board.

Some folks dont deserve Rachel or Obama.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackie Wilson Said (Reply #1)

Wed May 4, 2016, 12:39 PM

5. What are you even talking about?

 

OK. She's not part of the "10% class". More like the 2 or 3%.

And she waves her hands a lot.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wilms (Reply #5)

Wed May 4, 2016, 12:41 PM

8. So she's exactly like Sanders?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #8)

Wed May 4, 2016, 12:44 PM

10. Do you haveanything to back that up??

 

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wilms (Reply #10)

Wed May 4, 2016, 12:55 PM

16. Google "Bernie Sanders assets."

He is certainly a millionaire. He owns multiple valuable properties, as indicated by his real estate tax deductions (the reason he did not want to release his full 2014 tax return listing his deductions). Sanders is a hypocrite who is railing against "millionaires and billionaires" while trying to hide that he himself is a millionaire, going so far as to move all of his assets to his wife's name. http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/bernie-sanders-wife-accounts-for-reported-assets-120261

And as far as arm waiving:

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #16)

Wed May 4, 2016, 01:05 PM

24. Why don't you square that with some facts.

 

His income and his assets don't put him anywhere near that class.

You don't have to like him. But why you wanna make stuff up? Seems dumb.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wilms (Reply #24)

Wed May 4, 2016, 01:10 PM

26. What am I making up?

Please explain how this article is wrong:

http://time.com/money/4235986/bernie-sanders-millionaire-finances/

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #26)

Wed May 4, 2016, 01:12 PM

27. Who said it's wrong? WHO said that puts him in the top 2 or 3%?

 

I mean, other than you.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wilms (Reply #27)

Wed May 4, 2016, 01:26 PM

30. I thought you were disputing he is a millionaire.

So you now concede his is a millionaire (and you don't dispute he's a big hand-waiver) so that puts him in the same league you put Maddow in.

It appears you have now moved the goal posts. But regardless, now that you agree he is a millionaire, that almost certainly puts him in the top 2 or 3% in terms of Vermont residents. The top 5% of incomes in Vermont are those who make over $174K, which Sanders certainly does. http://www.leg.state.vt.us/jfo/issue_briefs_and_memos/Intro_to_ITEP_and_Pew_reports.pdf The OP mocked Rachel for being in the top 10%. Sanders is certainly in the top 10%, and in fact the top 5% in Vermont.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #30)

Wed May 4, 2016, 01:35 PM

33. SO WHAT if he is a millionaire?

For anyone to have been in Congress for as long as he has and NOT be a millionaire would be pretty difficult.

And a millionaire ain't what it used to be..

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #30)

Wed May 4, 2016, 01:52 PM

39. Oh! Vermont residents.

 

So who moved the goal post? A Hillary supporter. Can you blame them? What else have they got. Spin. Weather-vaning. Goal post moving. Etc.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackie Wilson Said (Reply #1)

Wed May 4, 2016, 01:05 PM

23. Lmao!!

 

Wow!

She has no integrity. She's in Hillary's camp.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WhaTHellsgoingonhere (Original post)

Wed May 4, 2016, 12:36 PM

2. we are now against the well educated?

 

Lol.

desperate times.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to La Lioness Priyanka (Reply #2)

Wed May 4, 2016, 01:08 PM

25. You need to at least try to understand Thomas Frank's critique of the Democratic Party

 

my comment makes a shit ton of sense in that context. That's why I referenced him.

Gottit?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WhaTHellsgoingonhere (Original post)

Wed May 4, 2016, 12:36 PM

3. This blog post belongs in GD-P

With other false opinion stories.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Agnosticsherbet (Reply #3)

Wed May 4, 2016, 12:50 PM

11. Lol you just lock everything you disagree with. Rachel is playing role of King Maker, primary...

 

process is a disgrace, and the longer Bernie stays in, the more problems with the process get exposed.

(Obligatory sexism)

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WhaTHellsgoingonhere (Reply #11)

Wed May 4, 2016, 12:52 PM

14. Bullshit. Take the post where it belongs.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Agnosticsherbet (Reply #14)

Wed May 4, 2016, 12:58 PM

18. Lmao!!!

 



You made my day!

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WhaTHellsgoingonhere (Original post)

Wed May 4, 2016, 12:37 PM

4. You're confusing "kingmaker" with "rational adult in the room."

 

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NuclearDem (Reply #4)

Wed May 4, 2016, 12:57 PM

17. exactly

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WhaTHellsgoingonhere (Original post)

Wed May 4, 2016, 12:40 PM

6. I support democrats on TV.

 

We need more of them. I have no interest in trashing Maddow for supporting democrats. The media tilts strong to the right. Any help we can get I will take. I'm not big on the format of her show, but I support her and cheer her on. She is an extremely intelligent and well thought out woman. My kind of person.

"but Queen maker is more sexiest."

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NCTraveler (Reply #6)

Wed May 4, 2016, 12:51 PM

12. I see her as more of an

educator for those who have little info on how our government was set up to function and when she calls someone out, she usually gives a brief primer about why something is right or wrong before she tells us what the "t hing" is. With so many uniformed people in our country, it's quite appropriate they way she delivers her points.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 2naSalit (Reply #12)

Wed May 4, 2016, 12:55 PM

15. Many seem to not have patience for that aspect but she covers a bit of depth quickly. nt.

 

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 2naSalit (Reply #12)

Wed May 4, 2016, 01:02 PM

20. She taught me all about Purple Drank. I just taught you more in my OP than any myopic Hillary backer

 

talking head.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NCTraveler (Reply #6)

Wed May 4, 2016, 01:38 PM

34. I think we could do a hell of a lot worse than Maddow. Her inflections give her away though

 

as a HRC supporter. In a sense she seems impartial, but somehow I think the MSNBC group has rallied around Hillary way too much. I don't know what Maddow's salary is but it damn well beats her gig at Air America or a college professor job.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to YOHABLO (Reply #34)

Wed May 4, 2016, 02:30 PM

41. From what I have seen,...

 

I'm more than willing to agree with your first two sentences. It's better than who most of the corporate media fawn over. I do get why it would be frustrating being a Sanders supporter full well knowing Maddows ideology is to the left of Clinton. But mine is as well and I support Clinton.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WhaTHellsgoingonhere (Original post)

Wed May 4, 2016, 12:40 PM

7. Why do so many people think that California with 40 million people

Should not have a say in this process. We are the BEST representation of this country with every demographic and age group. We have the population of several states, give up your own vote before you talk about ours being irrelevant. I know Hillary doesn't want to wait for California because she will lose the land of the true liberals.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onecaliberal (Reply #7)

Wed May 4, 2016, 12:44 PM

9. Why force Hillary to waste her money in the primary when she needs it for the general election?

But thanks to Bernie Sanders... Democrats are going to spend another two months bickering, twiddling their bloody thumbs and showing Trump exactly how and where to strike in the general election. Thatís bad for the party, bad for America and bad for the planet.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/bernie-sanders-over-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-us-elections-needs-to-stop-attacking-a7012796.html#

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #9)

Wed May 4, 2016, 12:51 PM

13. He wants an contested convention

 

at least he said it yesterday after his win in Indiana. This whole time I thought it would be the repugs, but they seem to be kissing and making up.

Looks like both parties will be morphing into something different. Which may not be a bad thing

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to moonbabygo (Reply #13)

Wed May 4, 2016, 01:04 PM

22. It is a bad thing.

Sanders won Indiana by just 5 percentage points, in a open primary tailor made for him, after spending $1.8+ million in ads and Hillary did not spend a penny. He needed to win by a lot more.

Even after Sanders got +5 delegates vs. Hillary last night, in order to go into the convention with more pledged delegates (ignoring that Clinton will already have more total delegates to lock the nomination on the first ballot), Sanders would need to win the following contests by the vote margins indicated:

Guam: Sanders +43
West Virginia: Sanders +52
Kentucky: Sanders +35
Oregon: Sanders +57
Virgin Islands: Sanders +43
Puerto Rico: Sanders +17
California: Sanders +31
Montana: Sanders +62
New Jersey: Sanders +13
New Mexico: Sanders +18
South Dakota: Sanders +40
North Dakota: Sanders +67
District of Columbia: Tie

Sanders' IN win still puts him further behind pace than he was yesterday.

As Rachel Maddow explained, in 2008 Obama only had a 4% lead in pledged delegates, and needed SDs to get a majority, yet before the convention Hillary conceded even though she had the majority of popular votes. She did not contest the convention -- she conceded well before the convention and stood firmly in support of Obama at the convention, uniting Democrats.

Rachel went on to point out that Hillary is 11% ahead of Sanders in pledged delegates.

And of course, Hillary has millions more in popular votes than Sanders.

Yet Sanders insists on a divisive "contested convention" unless Hillary attains the majority of unpledged -- even though 15% of total delegates are SDs. The only way a Dem candidate could get a majority of pledged delegates is by having an utter blowout in the primary. Obama didn't have that. He needed SDs to get a majority of total delegates. Yet Hillary conceded. As she should have. As anyone in Hillary's position should have. Sanders is nowhere near in as strong a position as Hillary was in 2008, yet he won't concede before the convention.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #22)

Wed May 4, 2016, 01:42 PM

36. Hillary didn't drop out till june

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2008#April_and_beyond

On the morning of June 5, Clinton posted on her website an open letter to her supporters, which she also sent by e-mail that day. It announced that on Saturday (June 7) Clinton would endorse Obama's candidacy.


Long after it became clear the math didn't work for her. By Hillary's standards he still has a month to go. Not to mention Hillary had no problem with all kinds of shenanigans trying to make Obama's nomination seem illegitimate.

She will live if Sanders stays in at least till June.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WhaTHellsgoingonhere (Original post)

Wed May 4, 2016, 01:00 PM

19. Rachel is not making anyone King or Queen. She is simply stating facts.

She said in 2008, Obama only had a 4% lead in pledged delegates, and needed SDs to get a majority, yet before the convenction Hillary conceded even though she had the majority of popular votes. She did not contest the convention -- she conceded well before the convention and stood firmly in support of Obama at the convention, uniting Democrats.

Rachel went on to point out that Hillary is 11% ahead of Sanders in pledged delegates.

And of course, Hillary has millions more in popular votes than Sanders.

Yet Sanders insists on a divisive contested convention unless Hillary attains the majority of unpledged -- even though 15% of total delegates are SDs. The only way a Dem candidate could get a majority of pledged delegates is by having an utter blowout in the primary. Obama didn't have that. He needed SDs to get a majority of total delegates. Yet Hillary conceded. As she should have. As anyone in Hillary's position should have. Sanders is nowhere near in as strong a position as Hillary was in 2008, yet he won't concede before the convention.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #19)

Wed May 4, 2016, 01:21 PM

29. I told you what he's doing. Rachel is merely and incessantly regurgitating cud she and only...

 

everyone in media has been ruminating on for months. She and the others are myopically focused on numbers.

Man, it's bigger than percentages, and if you didn't know that before, you just learned something new. That's more than you can say by watching Rachel. You can watch any talking head on any network spew out the exact same piece verbatim. She's even reading from the New York Times. How stupid is her audience that she believes they need to be told the math every day. The math hasn't changed for months. Months ago she was reading Nate Silver to you, and he told you Bernie's route was impossible. She treats you all like you have ADD.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #19)

Wed May 4, 2016, 01:40 PM

35. Maybe I gave you guys too much credit. I'm not privy to her inbox. Maybe

 

it's clear to her that her viewers don't understand probabilities and need reassurance daily.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #19)

Wed May 4, 2016, 01:50 PM

37. Fuzy math

 

Hillary did not concede untill Obama passed the Delegate count needed to secure the nomination. She is still 180 delegates short.

She will likely get them but why should Sanders drop out any sooner than she did? Why shouldn't the rest of the country get a chance to weigh in?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WhaTHellsgoingonhere (Original post)

Wed May 4, 2016, 01:03 PM

21. love bernie but agree with rachel

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WhaTHellsgoingonhere (Original post)

Wed May 4, 2016, 01:13 PM

28. Oh for fucks sake, how many people can you fit under the bus?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Firebrand Gary (Reply #28)

Wed May 4, 2016, 01:30 PM

31. anyone who can do math. nt

 

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Firebrand Gary (Reply #28)

Wed May 4, 2016, 01:31 PM

32. I don't throw people under the bus. I call them out. Big difference. MSNBC is to the Democratic

 

Party as Fox is to the Republican Party. Rachel is arguably top dog at MSNBC and has been in Hillary's camp, like Matthews, like Capehart. Biased ramblings not objective journalism.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WhaTHellsgoingonhere (Reply #32)

Wed May 4, 2016, 01:50 PM

38. Editorials do not equate to king-makers and power-brokers.

 

Editorials do not equate to king-makers and power-brokers. Two wholly separate concepts conflated for convenience. A logical fallacy not objective observations.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LanternWaste (Reply #38)

Wed May 4, 2016, 02:00 PM

40. She's protects Hillary and only attacks Bernie. Do you even watch her? Rachel Maddow. She's on MSNBC

 

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WhaTHellsgoingonhere (Original post)

Wed May 4, 2016, 03:23 PM

42. Locking after a review by forum hosts


Statement of Purpose

Discuss politics, issues, and current events. Posts about Israel/Palestine, religion, guns, showbiz, or sports are restricted in this forum. Posts about the Democratic primaries, conspiracy theories and disruptive meta-discussion are forbidden.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink