The liberal hysteria over Trump is nearly unprecedented

[Arbitrage1980]

Looking back in American history, I can only think of 2 presidential elections where one of the major party nominees was this reviled and feared.

1. 1860:  obvious choice. Lincoln was not even on the ballot in the Southern states because not enough electors would publicly pledge themselves to Lincoln. His election was the catalyst for secession.

2. 1896: less obvious but a highly underrated election. The 36 year old William Jennings Bryan seized the Democratic Party nomination with his electric oratory and populist stance on free silver, trade, agragrian policies, anti-wall street. The incumbent Democratic President, Grover Cleveland, was a strong free-market proponent who supported the gold standard. He was so repulsed by Bryan that he refused to even endorse him. The east coast business establishment was so terrified of Bryan that adjusted for inflation, more money was spent to defeat him than any other nominee in history. Banks and other employers openly told their workers that if Bryan wins the election, there will be no job to come to. The northeast was so terrified of Bryan that McKinley even won NYC (one of only 3 republicans to do so). If Bryan had won, the United States would be a very different country now.

[Brittain33]

Is it so different from 1964? Goldwater wasn't considered vulgar or a con man, but people thought he'd start World War III.

[Arbitrage1980]

I will say this, as a left leaning voter, that the media's coverage has become absurdly biased this cycle.  I can't open my iPhone news feed without seeing a new hit piece from the Washington Post attacking Trump.

This chills me to some degree.  As the best country on earth, we should have free and open and at least somewhat reasonably fair journalism and reporting.  I get that there are right leaning papers and news outlets like Fox News to counter balance this.  But the overwhelming majority of papers and news media is left leaning and when they all almost collude to attack one candidate to this degree... it irks me.  It doesn't irk me enough to vote Republican, but it depresses me that in this country we can't get reasonable journalism.

If Trump wins, the media deserves a lot of blame. First, they enabled Trump's rise through free coverage for him, drowning out actual serious Republican candidates with real policy ideas. Second, for too long, the media has demonized every GOP nominee. You cry wolf too many times, and the American people will drown you out. Now a real wolf has appeared, and lot of people aren't buying what the media is telling them.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

woah people still believe the media is biased in favour of trump

[Arbitrage1980]

Is it so different from 1964? Goldwater wasn't considered vulgar or a con man, but people thought he'd start World War III.

I left out 1964 for a reason. Goldwater was seen as ideologically extreme, but he still received an endorsement from the prior Republican President, Dwight Eisenhower, and Richard Nixon campaigned vigorously for him. You did not see dozens of GOP establishment policy figures openly denounce Goldwater. Also, there was never any doubt that LBJ would beat Goldwater, so I suppose that tempered the hysteria significantly.

[Mr. Smith]

I think you're forgetting that it works the other way too with Hillary, hence why trump got this far.

Only Obama in '08 and McGovern really pulled off the same amount of fear from the hysterical far-right.

[Arbitrage1980]

I will say this, as a left leaning voter, that the media's coverage has become absurdly biased this cycle.  I can't open my iPhone news feed without seeing a new hit piece from the Washington Post attacking Trump.

This chills me to some degree.  As the best country on earth, we should have free and open and at least somewhat reasonably fair journalism and reporting.  I get that there are right leaning papers and news outlets like Fox News to counter balance this.  But the overwhelming majority of papers and news media is left leaning and when they all almost collude to attack one candidate to this degree... it irks me.  It doesn't irk me enough to vote Republican, but it depresses me that in this country we can't get reasonable journalism.

If Trump wins, the media deserves a lot of blame. First, they enabled Trump's rise through free coverage for him, drowning out actual serious Republican candidates with real policy ideas. Second, for too long, the media has demonized every GOP nominee. You cry wolf too many times, and the American people will drown you out. Now a real wolf has appeared, and lot of people aren't buying what the media is telling them.

I actually wonder if the media promoting Trump's rise was calculated to give Hillary the best chance of winning... rather than just trying to promote someone who promotes news ratings with outrageous statements.  They did create this though, you're right.

Of course. The purpose was twofold: boost its own ratings by covering Trump and give Hillary the best chance to win the presidency since Trump is basically the only Republican she can beat. My liberal friends were mortified of a Rubio or Kasich nomination.

[Lief 🗽]

I will say this, as a left leaning voter, that the media's coverage has become absurdly biased this cycle.  I can't open my iPhone news feed without seeing a new hit piece from the Washington Post attacking Trump.

This chills me to some degree.  As the best country on earth, we should have free and open and at least somewhat reasonably fair journalism and reporting.  I get that there are right leaning papers and news outlets like Fox News to counter balance this.  But the overwhelming majority of papers and news media is left leaning and when they all almost collude to attack one candidate to this degree... it irks me.  It doesn't irk me enough to vote Republican, but it depresses me that in this country we can't get reasonable journalism.

lol is this post a joke? The media has treated Trump with kid gloves.

[Arbitrage1980]

I think you're forgetting that it works the other way too with Hillary, hence why trump got this far.

Only Obama in '08 and McGovern really pulled off the same amount of fear from the hysterical far-right.

The hysteria over Obama 08 was from a fringe element in the right. Obama got around 20% of conservative voters, and it was the nutjobs who thought he was a secret Muslim manchurian candidate. We also were not excited about McCain and weren't weeping when Obama won. Now, Romney's loss on the other hand, was super hard for me. I genuinely like the guy and think he would have been the best POTUS since Reagan.

[Arbitrage1980]

I will say this, as a left leaning voter, that the media's coverage has become absurdly biased this cycle.  I can't open my iPhone news feed without seeing a new hit piece from the Washington Post attacking Trump.

This chills me to some degree.  As the best country on earth, we should have free and open and at least somewhat reasonably fair journalism and reporting.  I get that there are right leaning papers and news outlets like Fox News to counter balance this.  But the overwhelming majority of papers and news media is left leaning and when they all almost collude to attack one candidate to this degree... it irks me.  It doesn't irk me enough to vote Republican, but it depresses me that in this country we can't get reasonable journalism.

If Trump wins, the media deserves a lot of blame. First, they enabled Trump's rise through free coverage for him, drowning out actual serious Republican candidates with real policy ideas. Second, for too long, the media has demonized every GOP nominee. You cry wolf too many times, and the American people will drown you out. Now a real wolf has appeared, and lot of people aren't buying what the media is telling them.

I actually wonder if the media promoting Trump's rise was calculated to give Hillary the best chance of winning... rather than just trying to promote someone who promotes news ratings with outrageous statements.  They did create this though, you're right.

Of course. The purpose was twofold: boost its own ratings by covering Trump and give Hillary the best chance to win the presidency since Trump is basically the only Republican she can beat. My liberal friends were mortified of a Rubio or Kasich nomination.

As a person who is moderate to liberal, I believe you are probably right.  And even though it will probably help get my preferred (somewhat) candidate elected, it sickens me to a degree.  Our journalists should be better than this.

We need more sensible liberals such as yourself.

[Figueira]

The liberal hysteria over Trump is nearly unprecedented.

[Xing]

How about the conservative hatred of Hillary? It's hard to match that. And yes, there is quite a bit of hysteria surrounding Trump. Maybe, just maybe that has something to do with how... unorthodox he is.

[Deblano]

Reminds me of a podcast of "Common Sense with Dan Carlin" I was listening to.

This election is basically a phenomenon called something like "Unlikable, Experienced Bureaucrat vs. Dangerous Crazy Person"

Examples of these types of elections were 1964, 1972, and to a certain extent 1980 (Which was Dangerous Crazy Person vs. Failed President).

[Yank2133]

How about the conservative hatred of Hillary? It's hard to match that. And yes, there is quite a bit of hysteria surrounding Trump. Maybe, just maybe that has something to do with how... unorthodox he is.

Or Obama.

The right has no room to talk about hysteria. These people are literally talking about impeaching HRC the minute she is elected, as bad as DT is you don't hear that from the left.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I think it's fair to say that the media gets OUTRAGED by Trump's irrelevant, headline-gaffes and ignore the million other serious things that are actually, err, important and would wreck any other candidate.

[PresidentSamTilden]

So is his campaign, though. It's not like this is Romney 2012 pt. 2 and liberals are just more upset this time. He's launched an all out attack on many liberal ideals (gun control, immigration, climate change, nuclear proliferation, common sense, to name a few).

[Arbitrage1980]

So is his campaign, though. It's not like this is Romney 2012 pt. 2 and liberals are just more upset this time. He's launched an all out attack on many liberal ideals (gun control, immigration, climate change, nuclear proliferation, common sense, to name a few).

To be fair, in 2012, liberals accused Romney of being a heartless plutocrat who wanted to kill old people, take away people's jobs, and hated women. Liberals have cried wolf too many times.

[PresidentSamTilden]

I agree with you. Many republicans leveled similar attacks at Obama though (authoritarian, elite, death panels) with the exception of the woman hating tag. You can throw secret muslim/non-citizen in there as well. So it's not like this has been limited to one side.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Is it so different from 1964? Goldwater wasn't considered vulgar or a con man, but people thought he'd start World War III.

I left out 1964 for a reason. Goldwater was seen as ideologically extreme, but he still received an endorsement from the prior Republican President, Dwight Eisenhower, and Richard Nixon campaigned vigorously for him. You did not see dozens of GOP establishment policy figures openly denounce Goldwater. Also, there was never any doubt that LBJ would beat Goldwater, so I suppose that tempered the hysteria significantly.

Sen. Jacob Javits (R-NY)
Gov. Nelson Rockefeler (R-NY)
Rep. John V. Lindsay (R-NY)
Gov. William Scranton (R-PA)
Gov. George Romney (R-MI)
Sen. Clifford Case (R-NJ)
Sen. Thomas Kuchel (R-CA)

Just to name a few who did not endorse Goldwater.

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

The hysteria in the media is nowhere near what it should be. Why has every single interviewer been a complete doormat for Trump? Why will they not expose him? Because they are afraid of being considered biased. It of course gets them nowhere, as people that consider polling rigged are going to see bias whenever they come into contact with reality.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

While we've had semi-fictional characters run for President before, we've never had one who was so completely fake. That he's a bona-fide evil dictator wanna-be who is obviously insane and grossly incompetent only makes it all worse.

[Hilldog]

It's entertaining to watch them squirm.  Worst comes to worst he blows up the earth and we all die right?

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

The hysteria in the media is nowhere near what it should be. Why has every single interviewer been a complete doormat for Trump? Why will they not expose him? Because they are afraid of being considered biased. It of course gets them nowhere, as people that consider polling rigged are going to see bias whenever they come into contact with reality.

Nope. The media are doormats for TrumpMiller because they care much more about money (and the rating that create it) than they do about the public good or their own responsibilities as "journalists".

"Hillary Clinton is running against a delusional TV character who no one should vote for, ever," is a only story for a week before everyone comes to terms with her winning in November and gets on with their lives. If mainstream American media today were covering an election between FDR and (1943)Hitler, they'd throw Hitler softballs (and give equal 5-minute spots to Holocaust victims and deniers) while spending thousands of man-hours focusing on FDR's polio (and how he concealed it from the public).


If there's one lesson I've really had driven home by this cycle, it's that the media are worse than TrumpMiller.

[muon2]

Is it so different from 1964? Goldwater wasn't considered vulgar or a con man, but people thought he'd start World War III.

So did many, including some in the media, in 1980 with Reagan. He even picked up the nickname "the mad bomber" by some of his detractors.

[Roemerista]

The media has been too kind to Trump. They treat him as if he is some sort of serious candidate - not the dangerous buffoon that he is. But what can you expect from such a vapid and supercilious group. "Journalists," especially the cable tv variety, really are to blame for this catastrophe. The whole lot of them are either too dumb - or at the least too self important - to do any real informing.