The liberal hysteria over Trump is nearly unprecedented

[Fuzzy Says: "Abolish NPR!"]

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.

But he WAS and IS a serious candidate.  In what measure is he not?  Money?  A following?  Name recognition?  Experience in management at the highest levels? 

How ethical would it be if the media had just ignored Trump?  There has long been a call for an outsider and a businessman to run for President and Trump filled the bill.  Is it the MEDIA'S job to "weed out" candidates?  Is it the media that determines that a candidate is "serious"? 

[Arbitrage1980]

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.

But he WAS and IS a serious candidate.  In what measure is he not?  Money?  A following?  Name recognition?  Experience in management at the highest levels? 

How ethical would it be if the media had just ignored Trump?  There has long been a call for an outsider and a businessman to run for President and Trump filled the bill.  Is it the MEDIA'S job to "weed out" candidates?  Is it the media that determines that a candidate is "serious"? 

He is a major party nominee, so we should take him seriously, but that is different from saying he is a serious candidate in a meaningful sense. Trump has never held elected office, a cabinet secretary position, or served in the military. Nor does he possess a strong knowledge of policy and key issues or even the desire to learn them. His sole credential is that he ran a large real estate business and was a reality TV star. But his business acumen is mediocre to say the least. Trump is NOT self-made like Bloomberg for instance; he inherited a major empire from his dad and got lucky when he bought Manhattan property when the city was at its nadir and then later recovered. Whenever Trump ventured outside of real estate, such as his foray into the US Football League, Eastern Airlines, casinos, Trump University, Trump Mortgages, and a host of other businesses, he has failed miserably. Trump's only real talent is self-promotion and entertainment. Call me old fashioned but that is not a qualification for the most important job in the entire world.

[‼realJohnEwards‼]

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.

Wow, nice precedent

[Southern Delegate matthew27]

He insults hispanics, blacks and the disabled
He says he wants to get rid of food regulations and safety standards
He wants to abolish the epa and pollute

What's not to be opposed too if you're a decent human being?

[Roemerista]

The only way that Trump is a serious candidate is that he is a serious threat to basic decency.

His lack of understanding of basic policy, foreign and domestic - is concerning. His flippant answers on foreign policy themselves are reason enough for heart palpitations.

But its his utter lack of personal character that is so troubling. The rampant lying. The possible stealing from his charity. The personal attacks. The failed marriages. And more damming his predatory business model on those who are supporting him. His self help books are a joke. Trump University truly destroyed people.

And lets not forget him playing to the worst in people.  Playing up conspiracy theories. Supporting the idea the president wasn't born in this country - pure racism. Suggesting Ted Cruz's dad helped kill JFK.

When the devil is in your midst, it damn well better be the media's job to scream fire. If not, who else? The point of the media is to call out rampant lies - its not to present two "opinions."

[ag]

Well, it is unprecedented for a major US party to nominate an outright fascist for presidency. Of course, this causes an appropriate reaction of all those opposing fascism.

[Fuzzy Says: "Abolish NPR!"]

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.

Wow, nice precedent

Nixon, who endorsed Goldwater and campaigned for him, assured the media that Goldwater was "reasonable" and "not some kind of a jerk or a wild man".  Sounds like some of the Trump endorsements from Establishment types.

The guys I mentioned had careers afterward, but never ran for President.  Case, Kuchel and Javits lost primaries to conservatives.  Rockefeller was forced out of the Vice Presidency, which he was APPOINTED to, and not elected to.  Lindsay was run out of the GOP in 1969 after losing the GOP Mayoral primary in NYC to conservative John Marchi; he was re-elected as a candidate of the Liberal Party.  Scranton and Romney became obscure Cabinet members. 

[Virginiá]

The only way that Trump is a serious candidate is that he is a serious threat to basic decency.

His lack of understanding of basic policy, foreign and domestic - is concerning. His flippant answers on foreign policy themselves are reason enough for heart palpitations.

But its his utter lack of personal character that is so troubling. The rampant lying. The possible stealing from his charity. The personal attacks. The failed marriages. And more damming his predatory business model on those who are supporting him. His self help books are a joke. Trump University truly destroyed people.

And lets not forget him playing to the worst in people.  Playing up conspiracy theories. Supporting the idea the president wasn't born in this country - pure racism. Suggesting Ted Cruz's dad helped kill JFK.

When the devil is in your midst, it damn well better be the media's job to scream fire. If not, who else? The point of the media is to call out rampant lies - its not to present two "opinions."

That's a decent summary indeed.

Maybe the media spends too much time on Trump's daily hijinks, but something they don't spend enough time is his actual scandals and shady behavior. Here we are, on a weekly/daily basis talking about Clinton's emails while Trump defrauding hundreds of people, many out of tens of thousands of dollars, gets comparatively little scrutiny beyond a surge of attention some time ago. Or what about what looks like rather blatant bribes to Attorney Generals to shut down investigations into this fraudulent scheme? How about him using charity funds to pay for personal expenses? These got attention, but again, for comparatively far less time.

And that's not even all of it! Imagine if Hillary did those things. Oh my god, it would be hell on Earth. She would probably have to go into hiding between the rabid reporters and conservative mobs foaming at the mouth hunting her down. But Trump? Meh, run stories for a week or two, then move on.

Media being too hard on Trump? LOL.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

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.

But he WAS and IS a serious candidate.  In what measure is he not?  Money?  A following?  Name recognition?  Experience in management at the highest levels? 

He's a fictional television character. He's no more rich than Tony Stark is, and has less following than Katy Perry (who would make a far better President). His experience is as an actor and salesman. His ventures into management have been disastrous. Jimmy Carter was a better business executive than than Donald Trump's actor can ever dream of being.

How ethical would it be if the media had just ignored Trump?  There has long been a call for an outsider and a businessman to run for President and Trump filled the bill.  Is it the MEDIA'S job to "weed out" candidates?  Is it the media that determines that a candidate is "serious"? 

Yes. That is precisely their job. When a lying bigoted lunatic runs for President, it is their job to point out that he is a despicable insane con-artist.

[Hilldog]

He insults hispanics, blacks and the disabled
He says he wants to get rid of food regulations and safety standards
He wants to abolish the epa and pollute

What's not to be opposed too if you're a decent human being?

The DNC e-mails called PA and OH voters white trash.  Clinton called his supporters deplorables. I'd say with the hysteria among Democrats, they've seen polling tighten up.

[Roemerista]

Have you been to Brietbart? His supporters are deplorable.

[Hilldog]

Have you been to Brietbart? His supporters are deplorable.

If you mean me, then no.

[Devout Centrist]

Not a liberal, but Trump stands in direct opposition to me on almost every issue, way more so than Joe Average Republican or Paul the Progressive.

[‼realJohnEwards‼]

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.

Wow, nice precedent

Nixon, who endorsed Goldwater and campaigned for him, assured the media that Goldwater was "reasonable" and "not some kind of a jerk or a wild man".  Sounds like some of the Trump endorsements from Establishment types.

The guys I mentioned had careers afterward, but never ran for President.  Case, Kuchel and Javits lost primaries to conservatives.  Rockefeller was forced out of the Vice Presidency, which he was APPOINTED to, and not elected to.  Lindsay was run out of the GOP in 1969 after losing the GOP Mayoral primary in NYC to conservative John Marchi; he was re-elected as a candidate of the Liberal Party.  Scranton and Romney became obscure Cabinet members. 

OK; you miss my point. If the last time a nominee had these levels of support was Goldwater, what does that say about Trump...?

[Torie]

I don't think the media has much to do with this election. Voters hear what the candidates are saying and doing themselves. The "hysteria" should be about the troubling fact that close to half the voters are willing to consider a candidate as unfit for office as Trump. And that "trumps" ideology as far as I am concerned. Ideology is given too much emphasis when it comes to POTUS. Many decisions really are not about ideology, but competence, and judgement and discipline.

[Ebowed]

No, what is unprecedented is a Republican party that thinks it's okay to obstruct every move a President makes just because of his skin pigmentation.

Donald Trump is the personification of that ignorance and obstruction.  He should be fed to a polar bear, but instead he is being treated like a serious presidential candidate.  The fact that people would vote for him just shows how many Americans hate their country and hate each other.

[Mr. Smith]

No, what is unprecedented is a Republican party that thinks it's okay to obstruct every move a President makes just because of his skin pigmentation.

Donald Trump is the personification of that ignorance and obstruction.  He should be fed to a polar bear, but instead he is being treated like a serious presidential candidate.  The fact that people would vote for him just shows how many Americans hate their country and hate each other.

Easy there, the Republicans would've obstructed if we had elected Barry O'Brien, or John Edwards had been the guy. They'll literally obstruct anyone without an "R" on them.

[Fuzzy Says: "Abolish NPR!"]

No, what is unprecedented is a Republican party that thinks it's okay to obstruct every move a President makes just because of his skin pigmentation.

Donald Trump is the personification of that ignorance and obstruction.  He should be fed to a polar bear, but instead he is being treated like a serious presidential candidate.  The fact that people would vote for him just shows how many Americans hate their country and hate each other.

Yes, I agree with the first paragraph.  I am a 2012 Obama voter and I agree with this.

But the personification of ignorance and obstruction is not Donald Trump.  It is Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, Jason Chaffetz, and others like them.  It is also folks like Paul Ryan, Lindsay Graham, John McCain, and even Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski; folks that seek to appear to be reasonable, but are not  Trump is the kind of person that would work with Democrats once the dust of 2016 settled and folks came to their senses.  Whether Democrats would work with him is another issue.  

[Ogre Mage]

The Republican Party has nominated a candidate who is abysmally unqualified to serve as president.  He is a complete ignoramus on policy and shown no inclination to learn, he cozies up to foreign dictators and invites them to interfere in our election, he has the temperament of a petty tyrant, his business practices are a garbage trail of people who feel they got cheated and ruined, the blatancy and frequency of his lies are unprecedented for a major party nominee, he plays to bigotry and continually demonizes nonwhites, women and religious minorities, even those who are Gold Star parents.  This should be pointed out as loudly as possible but instead the $h*t media has been intent on making Hillary look as bad as Trump so they can have the horserace and ratings they desire.  The fact she has done the hard work of coming up with numerous policy plans and gaining the necessary knowledge and preparation for the presidency is ignored so they can write the 1,000,000th story about her emails.  Her opponent offers nothing other than some nonsense about how "I alone can fix it." 

If Republicans/Trump supporters don't like the negative coverage of him, perhaps you should have thought twice before you nominated an unqualified, bigoted ignoramus that gave us such an easy target.  And now you whine like babies when this is pointed out.  Pathetic.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

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.

You totally forgot the obvious: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_zTN4BXvYI

[136or142]

Logic 101: the OP referring to this is 'liberal hysteria' does not make it so.

[Mr. Smith]

No, what is unprecedented is a Republican party that thinks it's okay to obstruct every move a President makes just because of his skin pigmentation.

Donald Trump is the personification of that ignorance and obstruction.  He should be fed to a polar bear, but instead he is being treated like a serious presidential candidate.  The fact that people would vote for him just shows how many Americans hate their country and hate each other.

Yes, I agree with the first paragraph.  I am a 2012 Obama voter and I agree with this.

But the personification of ignorance and obstruction is not Donald Trump.  It is Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, Jason Chaffetz, and others like them.  It is also folks like Paul Ryan, Lindsay Graham, John McCain, and even Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski; folks that seek to appear to be reasonable, but are not  Trump is the kind of person that would work with Democrats once the dust of 2016 settled and folks came to their senses.  Whether Democrats would work with him is another issue.  

He may want to, but his hands will be tied by Congress as he seeks to keep power to himself and pet issues...no different from Nixon in that regard. And he's thin-skinned enough to be embittered by being called out for that, and thus he will eventually stop wanting to.

Therefore, the only way if you actually agreed with the first paragraph is to ditch trump, go for Clinton with nose held and stop the Joe Heck's from entering and kick out the Pat Tumors, Ron Johnsons, and so on. Split-ticket voting just ain't a thing anymore.

[muon2]

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.

You totally forgot the obvious: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_zTN4BXvYI

Thank you. The 1800's were full of campaigns where negativity, fear, and distrust were the order of the day. How about 1824 where the "corrupt bargain" kept Jackson from the WH. Then there's the incivility of the opponents of "Rutherfraud" Hayes after the "stolen" election of 1876. My thesis is that today's fragmented niche media has fostered a return to what was once commonplace in the US when information was fragmented before the broadcast networks dominated news.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

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.

You totally forgot the obvious: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_zTN4BXvYI

Thank you. The 1800's were full of campaigns where negativity, fear, and distrust were the order of the day. How about 1824 where the "corrupt bargain" kept Jackson from the WH. Then there's the incivility of the opponents of "Rutherfraud" Hayes after the "stolen" election of 1876. My thesis is that today's fragmented niche media has fostered a return to what was once commonplace in the US when information was fragmented before the broadcast networks dominated news.

1828 was really dirty one too. Jackson never forgave Adams for Rachel's death he believed was caused by really nasty attacks.

1840 is an interesting example, though, when the Whigs portrayed Van Buren as a foppish dandy (well, not that far from the truth) and their candidate was born in a log cabin (an utter lie). So yes, if you add 24-hours news cycle, facebook, twitter to this we wouldn't really be surprised.

[Wells]

And Trump deserves every bit of it. In the good old days, candidates like Trump would lose in 50 state landslides. He'd be down double digits after the conventions, and lose another two percent for every gaffe he made after that (rebounding a little when Clinton had a bad news week), but then he'd lose by 20 on Election Day. No living former (or current) presidents who support Donald Trump. Various Republican politicians and newspapers who have consistently endorsed Republicans have gone with Hillary. Donald Trump has made gaffe after gaffe, he won't release his tax returns,what little policy he has is awful, and his campaign is built like a pyramid scheme. Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton has faults, but she also has serious experience in politics and with reaching across the aisle, and good, detailed policy.

This election is like a Democrat's wet dream, but somehow it turned into a Democrat's nightmare. Hillary Clinton is barely, if at all ahead of Trump, and there are a few reasons for this. For one, she isn't that good at campaigning. But another reason is her flaws. I don't personally think that she has any worse dirty laundry or any more skeletons in her closet than Obama, Sanders, or Trump; it's just that after all that time in the spotlight (and yes, I know Trump has been in the spotlight, but reality TV stars aren't under as much scrutiny as Senators or First Ladies) we know about all of her skeletons. We have picked apart every single scandal and lie, while we may never know everything Bernie Sanders might have done. And since Trump has faced less challenges we don't know everything he's done or lied about, and the fact that he is that much worse while we don't know everything, or that people think that they're equally bad while assuming we know everything about the two candidates is very troubling.

And then there's his base of support. The 35% who view him favorably. There may be many reasons for this, but the idea that he cares about them, or that he's a hero for sticking it to the establishment and being un-PC needs to stop. Yeah, there is too much outrage over the dumb things he says (and not enough about the terrible things he's done), but there's a fine line between being un-PC and a terrible person, and Trump and some of his supporters (the deplorable racists and Alt-Right) have crossed that line. This is a guy who compliments dictators and insults war heroes and their families. This is a guy who has run many different scams in his lifetime. He's just a petty miser who cares almost as much about anyone else as he does about societal and political norms. It may be unprecedented from a historical viewpoint, but when you actually look closely at Trump, you'll realize he deserves every bit of it.