On 11/9/2016 5:18 PM, Poquito Loco wrote:
On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 17:09:50 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 11/9/2016 4:48 PM, Ryan P. wrote:
On 11/9/2016 3:29 PM, Poquito Loco wrote:
On Wed, 09 Nov 2016 15:00:42 -0600, Califbill
wrote:



http://www.columbiatribune.com/opini...08144b2c5.html


The news made a big issue of how shocked this, and other countries,
were with the results of the
election. To me it says a lot about the mainstream media. The
Washington Post has gotten to be a
joke because of all the anti-Trump crap it spews as 'news'. The poll
results that made the news were
those favorable to Clinton. This country, and Europe especially, were
'shocked' because they'd been
led to believe that Trump was so bad that he didn't stand a chance.

I have a hard time empathizing with the mainstream media. Like you
said, many of them were so in the tank for Hillary that as part of their
"keep Trump out" operation, they probably ignored several warning signs
because they would have meant negative coverage of Hillary.

That being said, I think CNN by far had the best coverage of the
elections last night... While many of the reporters and anchors looked
like they just had their favorite dog kidnapped, they did the best job
of digging into the breakdowns of why each state fell the way it did.

FOX spent too much time on talking heads, and not enough on the
breakdowns.


I mostly watched MSNBC because it was entertaining to see Rachael Maddow
wither and groan whenever a projection was made for Trump.
I thought she was going to completely lose it when Florida went to him.
Then, she started blaming it all on racism.

To his credit, Chris Matthews thoughtfully realized what was happening
and why.



I watched none of it, but what was Matthews take?

He realized that Trump had tuned in on what Nixon called the "silent
majority" and the forgotten "Reagan Democrats". These are the voters
who people like Harry doesn't know exist because they live in "fly-over"
states or in areas that are remote
from the larger, usually liberal cities.

On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 17:30:22 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 11/9/2016 5:18 PM, Poquito Loco wrote:
On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 17:09:50 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 11/9/2016 4:48 PM, Ryan P. wrote:
On 11/9/2016 3:29 PM, Poquito Loco wrote:
On Wed, 09 Nov 2016 15:00:42 -0600, Califbill
wrote:



http://www.columbiatribune.com/opini...08144b2c5.html


The news made a big issue of how shocked this, and other countries,
were with the results of the
election. To me it says a lot about the mainstream media. The
Washington Post has gotten to be a
joke because of all the anti-Trump crap it spews as 'news'. The poll
results that made the news were
those favorable to Clinton. This country, and Europe especially, were
'shocked' because they'd been
led to believe that Trump was so bad that he didn't stand a chance.

I have a hard time empathizing with the mainstream media. Like you
said, many of them were so in the tank for Hillary that as part of their
"keep Trump out" operation, they probably ignored several warning signs
because they would have meant negative coverage of Hillary.

That being said, I think CNN by far had the best coverage of the
elections last night... While many of the reporters and anchors looked
like they just had their favorite dog kidnapped, they did the best job
of digging into the breakdowns of why each state fell the way it did.

FOX spent too much time on talking heads, and not enough on the
breakdowns.


I mostly watched MSNBC because it was entertaining to see Rachael Maddow
wither and groan whenever a projection was made for Trump.
I thought she was going to completely lose it when Florida went to him.
Then, she started blaming it all on racism.

To his credit, Chris Matthews thoughtfully realized what was happening
and why.



I watched none of it, but what was Matthews take?

He realized that Trump had tuned in on what Nixon called the "silent
majority" and the forgotten "Reagan Democrats". These are the voters
who people like Harry doesn't know exist because they live in "fly-over"
states or in areas that are remote
from the larger, usually liberal cities.


Look at #6 in the attached article sent to me by my daughter. Good read. Guy makes a lot of sense.
Supports what you just said:

http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reason...e-talks-about/

Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/9/2016 4:48 PM, Ryan P. wrote:
On 11/9/2016 3:29 PM, Poquito Loco wrote:
On Wed, 09 Nov 2016 15:00:42 -0600, Califbill
wrote:



http://www.columbiatribune.com/opini...08144b2c5.html



The news made a big issue of how shocked this, and other countries,
were with the results of the
election. To me it says a lot about the mainstream media. The
Washington Post has gotten to be a
joke because of all the anti-Trump crap it spews as 'news'. The poll
results that made the news were
those favorable to Clinton. This country, and Europe especially, were
'shocked' because they'd been
led to believe that Trump was so bad that he didn't stand a chance.

I have a hard time empathizing with the mainstream media. Like you
said, many of them were so in the tank for Hillary that as part of their
"keep Trump out" operation, they probably ignored several warning signs
because they would have meant negative coverage of Hillary.

That being said, I think CNN by far had the best coverage of the
elections last night... While many of the reporters and anchors looked
like they just had their favorite dog kidnapped, they did the best job
of digging into the breakdowns of why each state fell the way it did.

FOX spent too much time on talking heads, and not enough on the
breakdowns.


I mostly watched MSNBC because it was entertaining to see Rachael
Maddow wither and groan whenever a projection was made for Trump.
I thought she was going to completely lose it when Florida went to him.
Then, she started blaming it all on racism.

To his credit, Chris Matthews thoughtfully realized what was happening
and why.

Maddow is out of a job. What is she going to **** and moan about for
the next four years?

4:19 PMCalifbill
- show quoted text -
I voted for Gary, absentee voter, as you knew California would go Hillary.
And we replaced Sen. Boxer with another dud. Our former AG, who would only
defend a state case if it met her personal feelings. Otherwise, toss in
the towel.
.......

You mean Barb got evicted ?

Tim wrote:
4:19 PMCalifbill
- show quoted text -
I voted for Gary, absentee voter, as you knew California would go Hillary.
And we replaced Sen. Boxer with another dud. Our former AG, who would only
defend a state case if it met her personal feelings. Otherwise, toss in
the towel.
......

You mean Barb got evicted ?


She finally retired. Now the Senate has to find another to be the front
for stupidity.

On Wed, 09 Nov 2016 18:41:12 -0500, Poquito Loco
wrote:

On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 17:30:22 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 11/9/2016 5:18 PM, Poquito Loco wrote:
On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 17:09:50 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 11/9/2016 4:48 PM, Ryan P. wrote:
On 11/9/2016 3:29 PM, Poquito Loco wrote:
On Wed, 09 Nov 2016 15:00:42 -0600, Califbill
wrote:



http://www.columbiatribune.com/opini...08144b2c5.html


The news made a big issue of how shocked this, and other countries,
were with the results of the
election. To me it says a lot about the mainstream media. The
Washington Post has gotten to be a
joke because of all the anti-Trump crap it spews as 'news'. The poll
results that made the news were
those favorable to Clinton. This country, and Europe especially, were
'shocked' because they'd been
led to believe that Trump was so bad that he didn't stand a chance.

I have a hard time empathizing with the mainstream media. Like you
said, many of them were so in the tank for Hillary that as part of their
"keep Trump out" operation, they probably ignored several warning signs
because they would have meant negative coverage of Hillary.

That being said, I think CNN by far had the best coverage of the
elections last night... While many of the reporters and anchors looked
like they just had their favorite dog kidnapped, they did the best job
of digging into the breakdowns of why each state fell the way it did.

FOX spent too much time on talking heads, and not enough on the
breakdowns.


I mostly watched MSNBC because it was entertaining to see Rachael Maddow
wither and groan whenever a projection was made for Trump.
I thought she was going to completely lose it when Florida went to him.
Then, she started blaming it all on racism.

To his credit, Chris Matthews thoughtfully realized what was happening
and why.



I watched none of it, but what was Matthews take?

He realized that Trump had tuned in on what Nixon called the "silent
majority" and the forgotten "Reagan Democrats". These are the voters
who people like Harry doesn't know exist because they live in "fly-over"
states or in areas that are remote
from the larger, usually liberal cities.


Look at #6 in the attached article sent to me by my daughter. Good read. Guy makes a lot of sense.
Supports what you just said:

http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reason...e-talks-about/

===

Great article, thanks for posting. I grew up in a small town and can
relate to a lot of that even after escaping many years ago.

On Wednesday, November 9, 2016 at 6:36:21 PM UTC-6, Califbill wrote:
Tim wrote:
4:19 PMCalifbill
- show quoted text -
I voted for Gary, absentee voter, as you knew California would go Hillary.
And we replaced Sen. Boxer with another dud. Our former AG, who would only
defend a state case if it met her personal feelings. Otherwise, toss in
the towel.
......

You mean Barb got evicted ?


She finally retired. Now the Senate has to find another to be the front
for stupidity.

So now no generals will be forced to call her 'senator' anymore?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0CprVYsG0k

On Wed, 09 Nov 2016 20:03:22 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 09 Nov 2016 18:41:12 -0500, Poquito Loco
wrote:

On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 17:30:22 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 11/9/2016 5:18 PM, Poquito Loco wrote:
On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 17:09:50 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 11/9/2016 4:48 PM, Ryan P. wrote:
On 11/9/2016 3:29 PM, Poquito Loco wrote:
On Wed, 09 Nov 2016 15:00:42 -0600, Califbill
wrote:



http://www.columbiatribune.com/opini...08144b2c5.html


The news made a big issue of how shocked this, and other countries,
were with the results of the
election. To me it says a lot about the mainstream media. The
Washington Post has gotten to be a
joke because of all the anti-Trump crap it spews as 'news'. The poll
results that made the news were
those favorable to Clinton. This country, and Europe especially, were
'shocked' because they'd been
led to believe that Trump was so bad that he didn't stand a chance.

I have a hard time empathizing with the mainstream media. Like you
said, many of them were so in the tank for Hillary that as part of their
"keep Trump out" operation, they probably ignored several warning signs
because they would have meant negative coverage of Hillary.

That being said, I think CNN by far had the best coverage of the
elections last night... While many of the reporters and anchors looked
like they just had their favorite dog kidnapped, they did the best job
of digging into the breakdowns of why each state fell the way it did.

FOX spent too much time on talking heads, and not enough on the
breakdowns.


I mostly watched MSNBC because it was entertaining to see Rachael Maddow
wither and groan whenever a projection was made for Trump.
I thought she was going to completely lose it when Florida went to him.
Then, she started blaming it all on racism.

To his credit, Chris Matthews thoughtfully realized what was happening
and why.



I watched none of it, but what was Matthews take?

He realized that Trump had tuned in on what Nixon called the "silent
majority" and the forgotten "Reagan Democrats". These are the voters
who people like Harry doesn't know exist because they live in "fly-over"
states or in areas that are remote
from the larger, usually liberal cities.


Look at #6 in the attached article sent to me by my daughter. Good read. Guy makes a lot of sense.
Supports what you just said:

http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reason...e-talks-about/

===

Great article, thanks for posting. I grew up in a small town and can
relate to a lot of that even after escaping many years ago.

Mine was Faribault, MN. Pretty small, especially back in the 50's.