VA-BRD: Northam +6

[IceSpear]

You know this constant accusation that liberals "own" or "dominate" the media would be easier for me to work with if it was more nuanced in its description from people who insist on parroting that line. Fox News and the constellation of conservative blogs and smaller outlets are certainly not owned by liberals, and they cater to a wide conservative audience. But even aside from that, I watched THE LIBERAL MEDIA a lot in 2016 and boy, for a totally liberal-dominated industry, they sure talked about Clinton a whole lot. They were obsessed with the email story and they frequently prioritized it over almost any of Trump's individual scandals, even at times when Clinton desperately needed the focus elsewhere. If liberals really had the kind of kung-fu grip on them as conservatives frequently say, I would expect it to get the "Fox News treatment," like Russia/Mueller is getting now, where instead of talking about Trump's campaign manager literally getting indicted, you just redirect to hamburger emojis, how Millennials hate Halloween, and why Hillary Clinton Mittens Romney is the real problem. The biggest cable news outlet is basically pretending all is fine in Trump land and that he and former admin./campaign officials aren't under investigation by a special counsel.

Perhaps just try "a decent bit of the news is influenced by liberal thinking."

It's hilarious that multiple studies have statistically proven that Hillary got the most negative coverage of any candidate in the 2016 race, yet they still believe this. Not that you even needed studies. It was blatantly obvious even if you just casually tuned in.

[krazen1211]

Uh huh. If that was the case, they would've kept talking about the government shutdown for an entire year. Instead they went ballistic over a website crashing and focused on Ebola hysteria. They also wouldn't have given Hillary's emails more coverage than all of Trump's scandals combined.

Mhm. You confuse competence with motivation.

Motivation can be discerned by, say, the political affiliation of DC political reporters (about 7% Republican) or alternatively the distribution of newspaper endorsements for the loser party of the 2016 election. The most straightforward indicator of what one believes is the binary choice of how they vote.

At best you make a case that the leftist media is merely bad at their job of shilling for the loser party of the 2016 election. Which is expected, right? The loser candidate of the 2016 election did a rather bad job at shilling for the loser party of the 2016 election.

[IceSpear]

Mhm. You confuse competence with motivation.

Motivation can be discerned by, say, the political affiliation of DC political reporters (about 7% Republican) or alternatively the distribution of newspaper endorsements for the loser party of the 2016 election.

At best you make a case that the leftist media is merely bad at their job of shilling for the loser party of the 2016 election. Which is expected, right? The loser candidate of the 2016 election did a rather bad job at shilling for the loser party of the 2016 election.

If you spend all your time tearing down a candidate only to do an about face and endorse them later, it just shows you're far more concerned with your ratings and ad revenue than you are with any partisan or ideological affiliation you have. As opposed to FOX, which carries the GOP's water more reliably than North Korean state media does for Kim Jong Un.