Hillary Clinton won the Nevada Caucus by more than 5%. But Fox News host Jeanine Pirro and contributor Tony Sayegh did their best to make viewers think the win was really a loss.
“Hillary Clinton edges out Bernie Sanders for a win in Nevada,” Pirro said, as the screen revealed that Clinton won 52.7% of the caucus vote to Sanders’ 47.3%. By my count, that’s 5.4%. Not a landslide but not exactly eking out, either.
To drive the point home, Pirro asked, “A month ago… Hillary Clinton is 25 points ahead. What happened in a month?”
Guest Mary Anne Marsh, a Democrat, said, “You have to claim that as a big win” for Clinton considering that Sanders had beaten her by more than 20 points in New Hampshire less than two weeks ago.
“Well, what happened in the last month?” Pirro pushed.
Republican Boris Epstein said, “She lost a lot of trust” but he also said the Nevada win will “give her strength” and that Clinton will “win big” in South Carolina and on Super Tuesday.
The third panelist, Tony Sayegh, was also a Republican, thereby making a “fair and balanced” group of three Republicans, including Pirro, to the one Democrat. Sayegh, also a Fox News contributor, said that because of the super delegate system, “Tonight, this big win still gave them both the same amount, virtually, of delegates out of Nevada, if you take out the rigged super-delegate system, right? So how big a win is it? It’s a big win in the respect that should she have lost, it would have been completely catastrophic for her.”
Sayegh continued, “Now that being said, Bernie Sanders is still winning the argument. He has dragged Hillary Clinton to this progressive, socialist left where that’s what she has to do in order to even eke out these small, little victories.”
Pirro piled on. “You’ve got a socialist who’s beating out one of the icons, who has had 30 years to figure out how to win, who’s got the experience of a husband who went through it and they’re still eking it out.”
Epstein joined the club: “Bernie Sanders isn’t winning. Hillary Clinton is losing, that’s the key.”
“You know how she won Nevada? She got Harry Reid to go in and get the culinary union guys to caucus,” Pirro added. “Bernie Sanders is bringing in people who never voted before. The energy and the wind, I agree, is behind him and not behind Hillary.”
Even Epstein had to disagree given that Sanders will probably lose a lot of upcoming primary contests. “Tough to say you have a lot of energy and wind behind you and the initiative when you’re losing state after state after state,” he said.
It all seemed to rub off on “Democratic strategist” Marsh. She noted that turnout on the Republican side “has gone up substantially. It’s down 30% on the Democratic side. …That’s something to look at going forward.”
I’m not arguing that Clinton doesn’t have problems nor that Bernie Sanders couldn't win the nomination but Clnton's win in Nevada was a real win.
Watch Pirro suggest otherwise below, on the February 20 Justice with Judge Jeanine.
Do you like this post?
Ellen commented
2016-02-23 01:16:32 -0500
· Flag
We’ll try to fill in the voids of your new, Fox-less life.
Eyes On Fox commented
2016-02-22 16:54:35 -0500
· Flag
Oops, that was 5 calls to Comcast, I think. Hard to keep up since the total is at least 6 to get my account straight and my online bill still is ~$80 higher than it should be. I’m assured it will adjust within 48 hours.
I think Comcast exists just to remind right-wingers government ain’t so bad after all. All of the Fox News talking heads should try Comcast out for some attitude adjustment and training in efficient private markets. 😏
I think Comcast exists just to remind right-wingers government ain’t so bad after all. All of the Fox News talking heads should try Comcast out for some attitude adjustment and training in efficient private markets. 😏
Eyes On Fox commented
2016-02-22 16:44:25 -0500
· Flag
Ellen,
Either my reply to you earlier didn’t take or I’m embarrassing myself and left it in another thread. Hopefully, I’m not being redundant.
Future participation. The short story is I’ll be hanging around and as active as ever but I’m depending on you to live up to your motto and to watch Fox for me because I can’t.
Long take, after 4 calls to Comcast customer service they offered me everything I had before they ballooned my bill by ~$50/month back to the same old price. Typical. The cable game is to stonewall and try to force customers into bigger bundles until the time they call up to discontinue services. Unfortunately, I need to recoup ~$200 I’ve invested in a cheaper (and mostly better except I lose Fox) streaming alternative. Bottom line: One day I might pick up cable and Fox again.
Supplements. It’s not that I don’t think herbals and vitamins can have health benefits. Vitamin D supplements greatly helped a friend. It’s just they should be regulated because there are just too many resources proving widespread fraud in the industry where the label doesn’t match the ingredients or potency.
Additionally, I’m diabetic and I’m bombarded with ‘medicine show’ herbal solutions where the pitch is there’s a big pharma/doctor conspiracy to keep the truth from us that stuff like cinnamon is a miracle cure. They’ll even openly discourage me taking proven drugs like Metformin. Again, such claims are dangerous and should be regulated.
Either my reply to you earlier didn’t take or I’m embarrassing myself and left it in another thread. Hopefully, I’m not being redundant.
Future participation. The short story is I’ll be hanging around and as active as ever but I’m depending on you to live up to your motto and to watch Fox for me because I can’t.
Long take, after 4 calls to Comcast customer service they offered me everything I had before they ballooned my bill by ~$50/month back to the same old price. Typical. The cable game is to stonewall and try to force customers into bigger bundles until the time they call up to discontinue services. Unfortunately, I need to recoup ~$200 I’ve invested in a cheaper (and mostly better except I lose Fox) streaming alternative. Bottom line: One day I might pick up cable and Fox again.
Supplements. It’s not that I don’t think herbals and vitamins can have health benefits. Vitamin D supplements greatly helped a friend. It’s just they should be regulated because there are just too many resources proving widespread fraud in the industry where the label doesn’t match the ingredients or potency.
Additionally, I’m diabetic and I’m bombarded with ‘medicine show’ herbal solutions where the pitch is there’s a big pharma/doctor conspiracy to keep the truth from us that stuff like cinnamon is a miracle cure. They’ll even openly discourage me taking proven drugs like Metformin. Again, such claims are dangerous and should be regulated.
Ellen commented
2016-02-22 01:56:34 -0500
· Flag
Eyes on Fox, I hope you’ll remain a member of our community despite your liberation. I’m sure I speak for many others when I say I very much enjoy your comments.
However, I will quibble with you about supplements. I’m a long-time alternative medical person and still take a load of supplements. In fact, I’ve been suffering from some kind of bronchial infection for weeks and I finally made real improvement when I got some tea from my local herb store.
It’s not quite like deregulation of cable, IMO, because despite deregulation the choices are pretty darned limited. As far as I know, most places still have only one cable system available and it’s either them or satellite.
I’m actually gearing up for a round of negotiation with DirecTV, myself as I feel ripped off but that’s another story for another time.
However, I will quibble with you about supplements. I’m a long-time alternative medical person and still take a load of supplements. In fact, I’ve been suffering from some kind of bronchial infection for weeks and I finally made real improvement when I got some tea from my local herb store.
It’s not quite like deregulation of cable, IMO, because despite deregulation the choices are pretty darned limited. As far as I know, most places still have only one cable system available and it’s either them or satellite.
I’m actually gearing up for a round of negotiation with DirecTV, myself as I feel ripped off but that’s another story for another time.
Ellen commented
2016-02-22 01:49:22 -0500
· Flag
Kevin Koster, One possible hope for non-gridlock is a Democratic take-back of the Senate which is a real possibility.
David Lindsay commented
2016-02-21 23:41:47 -0500
· Flag
I sure would like to see the cable bill in other countries. I think, realistically that cable should be $10-15 per month. I bet outside our borders nobody pays cable bills like us.
Most folks in other countries like the postman to deliver bills to the mailbox. Americans want their bills shoved up their ass.
Most folks in other countries like the postman to deliver bills to the mailbox. Americans want their bills shoved up their ass.
Eyes On Fox commented
2016-02-21 18:07:09 -0500
· Flag
David Lindsay,
The next time some right-winger stands before you masturbating with the magic fingers of deregulation I’ve got the cure to get his pecker back into his drawers. ;^)
Just mention the poster child of heavy regulation: the pharmaceutical industry. The right-winger will immediately start stroking harder but before he opens his pie hole then ask him to compare it to the Wild West of the largely deregulated herbal supplement market. He’ll immediately go gape-mouth and completely flaccid. ;^)
There is no clearer example of how heavy regulations protects Americans wallets and, more importantly, their health. Sure, drug regs and the lengths big pharma goes to corrupt the regulatory system will start a heated debate – both left and right. What’s not arguable, however, is the Tea Party wet dream of laissez-faire Libertarianism is a provable epic fail.
It’s well documented even expensive name brand herbal supplements often don’t meet the potency on the label, contain fake ingredients, and even harmful contaminants. Not to mention the Wild West of the herbal supplement ‘medicine show’ often make spurious claims and steer the naive and unsuspecting away from scientifically proven medical treatments.
Note you’ll never see any of the above mentioned on fair and balanced Fox News.
The next time some right-winger stands before you masturbating with the magic fingers of deregulation I’ve got the cure to get his pecker back into his drawers. ;^)
Just mention the poster child of heavy regulation: the pharmaceutical industry. The right-winger will immediately start stroking harder but before he opens his pie hole then ask him to compare it to the Wild West of the largely deregulated herbal supplement market. He’ll immediately go gape-mouth and completely flaccid. ;^)
There is no clearer example of how heavy regulations protects Americans wallets and, more importantly, their health. Sure, drug regs and the lengths big pharma goes to corrupt the regulatory system will start a heated debate – both left and right. What’s not arguable, however, is the Tea Party wet dream of laissez-faire Libertarianism is a provable epic fail.
It’s well documented even expensive name brand herbal supplements often don’t meet the potency on the label, contain fake ingredients, and even harmful contaminants. Not to mention the Wild West of the herbal supplement ‘medicine show’ often make spurious claims and steer the naive and unsuspecting away from scientifically proven medical treatments.
Note you’ll never see any of the above mentioned on fair and balanced Fox News.
David Lindsay commented
2016-02-21 17:19:01 -0500
· Flag
My gut instinct is that Rubio is in prime position to be the VP pick. But if there is the prospect of a brokered convention, then Trump will be fighting Rubio tooth and nail. And frankly, if I were Trump, I would feel cheated about a brokered convention.
Kevin Koster commented
2016-02-21 16:04:17 -0500
· Flag
MJ – that’s a great piece on O’Reilly. The right wing still hasn’t gotten over that one.
I’d say that that Fox News would actually be okay with either Democrat as the nominee. With Hillary, as they’ve known it’s pretty much going to be, they can trot out all the talking points you mention, and they have a viewer base that’s hated her for over 20 years. (More on that below) And they could continue as the opposition network for the next 8 years, always on the hunt for some new scandal to talk up to smear the President. (Note that they continue to play the card of “She’s going to be INDICTED SOON!!!!” even though no credible person has said word one about that.)
If somehow they wind up with Sanders as the nominee, then they can spin the situation to “We can WIN!” and go into full-on rah-rah mode for the next 8 years. It’s not as lucrative as the Clinton scenario but it provides them comfort food in the form of the kind of angry gloating that happened while W. was in the White House.
I discussed the situation with a right wing friend late last night. His feeling is that the GOP is down to a 3 man race and Trump is going to be the nominee without any trouble. (My instincts are that Carson will stay in through Super Tuesday, just to deny Cruz his voters. Rubio will benefit from Trump’s departure, and Kasich will hold out for another couple of weeks to see if he can get any more support. Carson then has to drop out but has damaged Cruz so much that Cruz has no way to win. Kasich drops out, allowing Rubio to get his supporters, and at that point Rubio starts to win primaries – but it’s too late for him to be able to get the majority – thus, brokered convention and we see how it goes…) My friend’s notion is that Trump easily gets the nomination, picks Kasich as his VP, picks up Ohio and somehow sails into the White House. I’m quite skeptical of that idea.
My friend also made fairly unfortunate comments about what he thought of the left wing and of Hillary Clinton. The lightest part of this that I would care to repeat is that I noted that a Hillary Clinton presidency would likely be marked by the same total gridlock of obstruction we’ve seen since 2009, going for a new round of 8 years. His response was “God willing!”
When we get to the end of this contest in November, the most predictable part of it is the total gridlock. Meaning that nothing will change in politics for the next 9 years. The unspoken problem at Fox News now is whether the upcoming generational issue will fully hit within that time. Point being that most of Fox News’ viewership is older, male and white. As more of those viewers pass, they aren’t being replaced by younger viewers. Meaning that Fox News’ viewership is likely to face a significant decline by 2025 – it will be interesting to see what they do to try to counter it. Or maybe they don’t, and simply embrace their position as a niche market.
I’d say that that Fox News would actually be okay with either Democrat as the nominee. With Hillary, as they’ve known it’s pretty much going to be, they can trot out all the talking points you mention, and they have a viewer base that’s hated her for over 20 years. (More on that below) And they could continue as the opposition network for the next 8 years, always on the hunt for some new scandal to talk up to smear the President. (Note that they continue to play the card of “She’s going to be INDICTED SOON!!!!” even though no credible person has said word one about that.)
If somehow they wind up with Sanders as the nominee, then they can spin the situation to “We can WIN!” and go into full-on rah-rah mode for the next 8 years. It’s not as lucrative as the Clinton scenario but it provides them comfort food in the form of the kind of angry gloating that happened while W. was in the White House.
I discussed the situation with a right wing friend late last night. His feeling is that the GOP is down to a 3 man race and Trump is going to be the nominee without any trouble. (My instincts are that Carson will stay in through Super Tuesday, just to deny Cruz his voters. Rubio will benefit from Trump’s departure, and Kasich will hold out for another couple of weeks to see if he can get any more support. Carson then has to drop out but has damaged Cruz so much that Cruz has no way to win. Kasich drops out, allowing Rubio to get his supporters, and at that point Rubio starts to win primaries – but it’s too late for him to be able to get the majority – thus, brokered convention and we see how it goes…) My friend’s notion is that Trump easily gets the nomination, picks Kasich as his VP, picks up Ohio and somehow sails into the White House. I’m quite skeptical of that idea.
My friend also made fairly unfortunate comments about what he thought of the left wing and of Hillary Clinton. The lightest part of this that I would care to repeat is that I noted that a Hillary Clinton presidency would likely be marked by the same total gridlock of obstruction we’ve seen since 2009, going for a new round of 8 years. His response was “God willing!”
When we get to the end of this contest in November, the most predictable part of it is the total gridlock. Meaning that nothing will change in politics for the next 9 years. The unspoken problem at Fox News now is whether the upcoming generational issue will fully hit within that time. Point being that most of Fox News’ viewership is older, male and white. As more of those viewers pass, they aren’t being replaced by younger viewers. Meaning that Fox News’ viewership is likely to face a significant decline by 2025 – it will be interesting to see what they do to try to counter it. Or maybe they don’t, and simply embrace their position as a niche market.
mj - the same one commented
2016-02-21 15:45:14 -0500
· Flag
And, on topic, of course Fauxites are going to try to spin Clinton’s win into a loss; as much as they openly hate her, they’d like nothing better than a repeat of 2008, when her seeming “inevitable” nomination was thwarted by the young upstart junior Senator from Illinois.
This is the case even though, as Kevin Koster points out, they’re actually heavily invested in seeing her as the nominee: all the usual talking points they have prepared for use against her (Whitewater, Monica Lewinsky, Vince Foster, Benghazi) will be unusable against Sanders; with Fox unable to provide the red meat to feed their rabid anti-Hillary viewers, ratings will decline . . .
.
This is the case even though, as Kevin Koster points out, they’re actually heavily invested in seeing her as the nominee: all the usual talking points they have prepared for use against her (Whitewater, Monica Lewinsky, Vince Foster, Benghazi) will be unusable against Sanders; with Fox unable to provide the red meat to feed their rabid anti-Hillary viewers, ratings will decline . . .
.
mj - the same one commented
2016-02-21 15:26:28 -0500
· Flag
@ Donald Eric: Flashback: Bill O’Reilly Disgraces War Reporting
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/bill-oreilly-disgraces-war-reporting/
.
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/bill-oreilly-disgraces-war-reporting/
.
Lakeview Greg commented
2016-02-21 15:06:16 -0500
· Flag
Pirro lives in a bubble, filled with carbon dioxide. Gads, she’s nuts.
David Lindsay commented
2016-02-21 12:05:12 -0500
· Flag
Eyes on Fox, Consumer Reports had a good report on deregulation to American industry many moons ago. The general trend was that after deregulation many industries lowered their prices. But here’s what Consumer Reports real message was; those industries were dropping prices anyway and what happened after deregulation was that services in those industries really sucked. Good luck on that lifetime warranty.
Most industries dropped their prices, except for cable. The instant the cable TeeVee industry was deregulated, they jacked up their prices and haven’t stopped since.
I cut the cable about a year and a half ago. Broadcast TeeVee generally sucks, but hey I just started gardening. Trade one bad habit for a good one.
Most industries dropped their prices, except for cable. The instant the cable TeeVee industry was deregulated, they jacked up their prices and haven’t stopped since.
I cut the cable about a year and a half ago. Broadcast TeeVee generally sucks, but hey I just started gardening. Trade one bad habit for a good one.
Kevin Koster commented
2016-02-21 10:00:13 -0500
· Flag
And here’s Donald Eric to show us another GOP talking point. Hillary Clinton makes a mistaken statement about a 1996 visit to Bosnia and frankly embellishes on what happened, conflating it with her prep for it. She also corrects that statement and admits she was tired when she made it. (And her book turns out to be accurate on this point).
Where this gets fun is that Donald cites a Media Research Center video featuring Sharyl Attkisson as his big “ta-da!” He forgets (or hopes that we will forget) that Attkisson has long been known for her right wing bias, for her open dislike of Hillary Clinton and the Obama Administration, for her willingness to push incorrect stories about the above if it fit with her feelings about them, and for her bizarre paranoia about Eric Holder and supposed surveillance of her computer. In short, Attkisson is an unreliable and discredited source.
But that’s nothing compared with this link to an MRC video. Donald forgets (or wants us to forget) that Brent Bozell’s group is known for being a far right wing advocacy group, that it regularly purveys false narratives to Fox News, and that Brent Bozell has been sued for this stuff in the past and lost. At one point, after the MRC side group Parents Television Council made comments about WWE broadcasts being linked to violence, Bozell was sued for millions by the WWE, forced to pay up and to issue a humiliating retraction. Bozell has also been nailed for taking inappropriate credit for materials written by his staff, and for obvious bias.
I note that both Bozell and Attkisson have distinguished themselves with their bias toward the GOP, their dislike of Democrats and liberals, and with their obvious anger, which has clearly affected their judgment. It’s a shame that Donald couldn’t find a non-biased source for his post. But something tells me he was hoping we simply wouldn’t remember the truth. He’s forgetting where he’s posting this stuff. The whole point of this site is to remember the truth, even if it’s inconvenient for the right wing rewrite that Fox News regularly tries to sneak into history.
Where this gets fun is that Donald cites a Media Research Center video featuring Sharyl Attkisson as his big “ta-da!” He forgets (or hopes that we will forget) that Attkisson has long been known for her right wing bias, for her open dislike of Hillary Clinton and the Obama Administration, for her willingness to push incorrect stories about the above if it fit with her feelings about them, and for her bizarre paranoia about Eric Holder and supposed surveillance of her computer. In short, Attkisson is an unreliable and discredited source.
But that’s nothing compared with this link to an MRC video. Donald forgets (or wants us to forget) that Brent Bozell’s group is known for being a far right wing advocacy group, that it regularly purveys false narratives to Fox News, and that Brent Bozell has been sued for this stuff in the past and lost. At one point, after the MRC side group Parents Television Council made comments about WWE broadcasts being linked to violence, Bozell was sued for millions by the WWE, forced to pay up and to issue a humiliating retraction. Bozell has also been nailed for taking inappropriate credit for materials written by his staff, and for obvious bias.
I note that both Bozell and Attkisson have distinguished themselves with their bias toward the GOP, their dislike of Democrats and liberals, and with their obvious anger, which has clearly affected their judgment. It’s a shame that Donald couldn’t find a non-biased source for his post. But something tells me he was hoping we simply wouldn’t remember the truth. He’s forgetting where he’s posting this stuff. The whole point of this site is to remember the truth, even if it’s inconvenient for the right wing rewrite that Fox News regularly tries to sneak into history.
Donald Eric commented
2016-02-21 08:15:49 -0500
· Flag
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZHO1vo762c
Flashback: Hillary Clinton Under ‘Sniper Fire’ In Bosnia
Flashback: Hillary Clinton Under ‘Sniper Fire’ In Bosnia
Eyes On Fox commented
2016-02-21 08:03:33 -0500
· Flag
I’m going to miss Fox News. Sadly (or not), I’ll be calling Comcrap up later this morning to dump my cable TV package completely. I’m lucky (or not) and there’s Verizon FIOS allegedly competing here (or not so much) but, coincidentally, my girlfriend is absolutely desperate to dump their crappy, grossly overpriced cable TV service too. Next time the foaming right-wingers on Fox News crow about how great ‘efficient’ private industry is and how much government sucks mention cable TV whose reputation is marginally better than ISIS and watch them run for cover. ;^)
Without a cable subscription, the only thing I can’t get elsewhere I care about is a live Fox properties stream: Fox News, FBN, FX, FXX. Obviously, I’ll miss Fox News but I’ve grown so bored with their content about the only things I watch regularly is “Fox & Friends” and “Special Report.” I can get full versions of “Special Report” on demand so that leaves me basically paying ~$80-$100 per month to watch “Fox & Friends” in the morning. Given that, do you think giving up those curvy couch clowns is a hard decision? ;^)
I’d write out of touch old fart Roger Ailes to get with the times and offer live streaming outside of cable but he’d argue nursing homes, his primary audience, tend to have have poor internet which confuses the elderly anyway so he’ll keep mugging providers for massive fee increases like he just did to Dish:
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-fox-news-dish-network-deal-20150116-story.html
Memo Roger Ailes: The trends are clear including declines in overall cable subscription news consumption. You won’t be able to reach young people to brainwash them with your Republican brand unless you update your milk the cable providers strategy in favor of 21st century technology trends:
http://www.ibtimes.com/cable-ratings-crisis-2014-viewership-tumbles-business-model-riskier-tv-habits-shift-1842410
Bye!
Without a cable subscription, the only thing I can’t get elsewhere I care about is a live Fox properties stream: Fox News, FBN, FX, FXX. Obviously, I’ll miss Fox News but I’ve grown so bored with their content about the only things I watch regularly is “Fox & Friends” and “Special Report.” I can get full versions of “Special Report” on demand so that leaves me basically paying ~$80-$100 per month to watch “Fox & Friends” in the morning. Given that, do you think giving up those curvy couch clowns is a hard decision? ;^)
I’d write out of touch old fart Roger Ailes to get with the times and offer live streaming outside of cable but he’d argue nursing homes, his primary audience, tend to have have poor internet which confuses the elderly anyway so he’ll keep mugging providers for massive fee increases like he just did to Dish:
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-fox-news-dish-network-deal-20150116-story.html
Memo Roger Ailes: The trends are clear including declines in overall cable subscription news consumption. You won’t be able to reach young people to brainwash them with your Republican brand unless you update your milk the cable providers strategy in favor of 21st century technology trends:
http://www.ibtimes.com/cable-ratings-crisis-2014-viewership-tumbles-business-model-riskier-tv-habits-shift-1842410
Bye!
Kevin Koster commented
2016-02-21 05:33:49 -0500
· Flag
I’ll be happy to say right now that Bernie Sanders will not win the nomination from the Democrats for President. His loss tonight will be followed by a convincing loss in South Carolina within a week, and then a huge loss on Super Tuesday, after which he will be unable to catch up to her. The math simply does not work for him, and frankly, it never has. He will give a wonderful speech at the Democratic National Convention, where he will discuss the ways that the Democrats need to stand up for everyone, and he will help the Democrats add a few planks to their platform. But he will not be the nominee.
The GOP and Fox News have been heavily invested in talking the candidacy of Hillary Clinton down, from the moment that they realized she was a serious candidate. Given the amount of abject hatred for the Clintons among the right wing, it was predictable that they would use any opportunity to attack her and to diminish any successes she had along the way. I can guarantee that there was an RNC strategy meeting about her at some point in 2015 – essentially saying that whatever she did would be painted by Reince Priebus as a disaster for her. If she lost, she’d be in serious trouble. If she won, then she “just squeaked through” or she “barely made it”. And that doesn’t get into all the nonsense about Benghazi or about her emails. And I say this as someone who’s not a fan of hers. But I can see a smear campaign as obvious as this one a mile out.
The new GOP talking point is to say that Sanders is forcing Clinton to spend her campaign donations now rather than during the general campaign, while he can endlessly resupply. Riiiiight. That would assume that Clinton needs to do much to deal with Sanders after Super Tuesday, at which point, she’ll have already passed the crucial barrier and can pick and choose her spending.
The reality is that the GOP is in an accelerated panic mode. They were already at a point of desperation before Iowa, when Trump’s numbers wouldn’t nudge down. Now they’ve just seen their most reliably mainstream candidate bow out of the race. They’re looking at having to defend Donald Trump’s nonsense against a broadside of Democrat attack ads in the fall. Think Todd Akin times 100. If this situation continues, all the RNC can do is try to defend the down-ticket candidates and hope that the fallout from Trump doesn’t infect everything.
The GOP and Fox News have been heavily invested in talking the candidacy of Hillary Clinton down, from the moment that they realized she was a serious candidate. Given the amount of abject hatred for the Clintons among the right wing, it was predictable that they would use any opportunity to attack her and to diminish any successes she had along the way. I can guarantee that there was an RNC strategy meeting about her at some point in 2015 – essentially saying that whatever she did would be painted by Reince Priebus as a disaster for her. If she lost, she’d be in serious trouble. If she won, then she “just squeaked through” or she “barely made it”. And that doesn’t get into all the nonsense about Benghazi or about her emails. And I say this as someone who’s not a fan of hers. But I can see a smear campaign as obvious as this one a mile out.
The new GOP talking point is to say that Sanders is forcing Clinton to spend her campaign donations now rather than during the general campaign, while he can endlessly resupply. Riiiiight. That would assume that Clinton needs to do much to deal with Sanders after Super Tuesday, at which point, she’ll have already passed the crucial barrier and can pick and choose her spending.
The reality is that the GOP is in an accelerated panic mode. They were already at a point of desperation before Iowa, when Trump’s numbers wouldn’t nudge down. Now they’ve just seen their most reliably mainstream candidate bow out of the race. They’re looking at having to defend Donald Trump’s nonsense against a broadside of Democrat attack ads in the fall. Think Todd Akin times 100. If this situation continues, all the RNC can do is try to defend the down-ticket candidates and hope that the fallout from Trump doesn’t infect everything.
