On 11/9/2016 3:56 PM, Poquito Loco wrote:
On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 15:48:28 -0600, "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.

As I said earlier, I did not watch any of it. I waited for a friend to come over so I would have
someone to commiserate with. But, he gave me the good news. Like the rest of America and the world,
I was a bit stunned.

I was stunned, as well. I cast my vote for him at 7:00am... But I
honestly expected Hillary to win. Looking back, during the last two
weeks he spent so much time in states that "everybody knew he wouldn't
win" should have been a canary in the coal mine for Hillary's people.

Why didn't Hillary's staff see whatever internal polling trends
Trump's staff was seeing in Wisconsin and Michigan, for example?
Seriously... if you saw it was a tight race, why would you send Chelsea
and instead of Hillary to shore up support? Granted, the public polls
were wrong, too, but usually the internal polls spot these things.

On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 16:08:33 -0600, "Ryan P." wrote:

On 11/9/2016 3:56 PM, Poquito Loco wrote:
On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 15:48:28 -0600, "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.

As I said earlier, I did not watch any of it. I waited for a friend to come over so I would have
someone to commiserate with. But, he gave me the good news. Like the rest of America and the world,
I was a bit stunned.

I was stunned, as well. I cast my vote for him at 7:00am... But I
honestly expected Hillary to win. Looking back, during the last two
weeks he spent so much time in states that "everybody knew he wouldn't
win" should have been a canary in the coal mine for Hillary's people.

Why didn't Hillary's staff see whatever internal polling trends
Trump's staff was seeing in Wisconsin and Michigan, for example?
Seriously... if you saw it was a tight race, why would you send Chelsea
and instead of Hillary to shore up support? Granted, the public polls
were wrong, too, but usually the internal polls spot these things.

They probably depended too much on the major media and thought they were in great shape.