JFLNYC wrote:

Youseff wrote:in this case I would agree with DiM. you appear spineless, Jamie. I know you're not, but in this instance that's the optics & that's going to hurt your poll #s with moderate board lurkers.

And I'll never live it down.

drsmooth wrote:I just need someone to profile for me the R voter undecided about casting a drumpf vote who is somehow so provoked into solidarity with racists by HRCs remarks that s/he determines to vote for drumpf after all.

Having trouble picturing that.

I'm still not voting for drumpf btw, however much HRC may misoverestimate the frankly racist share of the R base

Doll Is Mine wrote:

One way of reporting on Clinton’s statement is to weigh its political cost, ask what it means for her campaign, or attempt to predict how it might affect her performance among certain groups. This path is in line with the current imperatives of political reporting and, at least for the moment, seems to be the direction of coverage. But there is another line of reporting that could be pursued—Was Hillary Clinton being truthful or not?

Much like Trump’s alleged opposition to the Iraq War, this not an impossible claim to investigate. We know, for instance, some nearly 60 percent of Trump’s supporters hold “unfavorable views” of Islam, and 76 percent support a ban on Muslims entering the United States. We know that some 40 percent of Trump’s supporters believe blacks are more violent, more criminal, lazier, and ruder than whites. Two-thirds of Trump’s supporters believe the first black president in this country’s history is not American. These claim are not ancillary to Donald Trump’s candidacy, they are a driving force behind it.

When Hillary Clinton claims that half of Trump’s supporters qualify as “racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic,” data is on her side. One could certainly argue that determining the truth of a candidate’s claims is not a political reporter’s role. But this is not a standard that political reporters actually adhere to.

Arsenio Hall @ArsenioHall
On the first shoot day for Celebrity Apprentice, I had to show my birth certificate.

Youseff wrote:http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/09/basket-of-deplorables/499493/

One way of reporting on Clinton’s statement is to weigh its political cost, ask what it means for her campaign, or attempt to predict how it might affect her performance among certain groups. This path is in line with the current imperatives of political reporting and, at least for the moment, seems to be the direction of coverage. But there is another line of reporting that could be pursued—Was Hillary Clinton being truthful or not?

Much like Trump’s alleged opposition to the Iraq War, this not an impossible claim to investigate. We know, for instance, some nearly 60 percent of Trump’s supporters hold “unfavorable views” of Islam, and 76 percent support a ban on Muslims entering the United States. We know that some 40 percent of Trump’s supporters believe blacks are more violent, more criminal, lazier, and ruder than whites. Two-thirds of Trump’s supporters believe the first black president in this country’s history is not American. These claim are not ancillary to Donald Trump’s candidacy, they are a driving force behind it.

When Hillary Clinton claims that half of Trump’s supporters qualify as “racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic,” data is on her side. One could certainly argue that determining the truth of a candidate’s claims is not a political reporter’s role. But this is not a standard that political reporters actually adhere to.

td11 wrote:@thisweekABC
Giuliani: "Of course" taking Iraq's oil would have been legal: "Until the war is over, anything is legal." #ThisWeek https://t.co/VR7lvCJAws