I haven't found that to be the case when the majority as you call it gets in the habit of labeling their opponents as racists, misogynists, etc.

Same shit both sides. Let's not pretend anyone is better than anyone else.

I'm just noting the reaction I saw.

The reason that seemed relevant to note at all -- since I didn't see it myself nor did I particularly give a damn about anything involving that two-bit bimbo -- is that I'm pretty sure my social media friends & acquaintances are closer to being FXNCs core audience than many (if not most) FOFC'ers.

It was more about the possible impact on the network than anything to do with the presidential race itself.

Fox News is kinda effed though from a Megyn Kelly standpoint, because frankly firing or demoting her at this point looks like retaliation for the Roger Ailes thing... and a lawsuit waiting to happen. Not sure what they do with her at this point.

Megyn Kelly is also considered to be one of, if not the, the biggest stars of the network. So it would REALLY look back if they canned her.

Newt definitely handled that horribly.

However I do know several people who think that Trump's accusers are given much much more attention than Clinton's hacked emails and wish it was more balanced. Honestly I can't say I disagree. However in this regard Fox News has been much more balanced than CNN or MSNBC.

You mean Podesta's hacked emails?

If they don't, there may not be much audience left to be a "star" for. She's already damaged the brand irrevocably with her disgraceful performance at the debate, the question now is whether they're willing to let her take it all the way down.

Among the bigger impacts of this election cycle, IMO, is that the audience's trust with FXNC has been broken & will never be the same.

edit to add: They benefit, obviously, from being the current best of some bad options but this cycle has opened the door for a future competitor.

Which has probably been the whole point of Trump's candidacy from the beginning.

Yeah that one

Most of the Podesta e-mails have been much ado about nothing, and even the bad ones implicate people in Clinton's campaign, not Clinton herself. The reason the sex assault allegations are talked about so much is because Trump keeps bringing them up himself. In his "closing argument" speech, he threatened to sue his accusers. There's no reason that should've been brought up at all during that speech.

What in the emails is as damaging as Trump's bragging about sexually assaulting women?

It amazes me how many people don't even understand what the Wikileaks emails are. So many are mixing them up with the Clinton State Department e-mails and think those are the e-mails being released. But no, these are e-mails from the private gmail account of John Podesta, her campaign chairman. At worst, they show how "the sausage is made", which doesn't look good when made public (for example, the public/private positions, which EVERY politician has). There are some embarassing things in there for sure, as there would be in any political professional's e-mail account.

I think the biggest emails by far so far were the initial ones that forced DWS ro resign (& to a lesser extent the ones showing Brazile helping too.) Won't matter this campaign due to the opponent being so poor & reprehensible, & there really being no way to back a different Dem candidate by then, but I think that will come back hard in 2020 & onwards. People already don't trust candidates and "the system", the far/progressive left will be agitating the system is rigged, and unless the R's nominate another candidate to unite them (quite possible), I think a much higher percentage will agree with them.

They've been trying to make it seem like these e-mails were the State Department ones for awhile now. Basically cause confusion with people who read them. As you said, there isn't any terrible stuff in these e-mails. Some backroom dealings and stuff people would probably rather not be made public, but I think if you went through anyone's e-mails you'd find things people said that they wish weren't public.

I don't mind having things like Wikileaks but it's too bad Assange turned into such a nutter and they became so politically slanted.

I don't know why this surprises me.

Rand Paul: Polls Showing Trump Lagging Are Meant To 'Suppress Turnout'

Classy. As always.

How dare that "two-bit bimbo" not toss softball questions at the unqualified candidate that the racists love!

"She's a RINO" - people who support a candidate who's economic policies are to the left of Bernie Sanders.

Ours are already closed on election day. Growing up, my schools were also closed on election day.

Isn't her contract up pretty soon? I get the feeling that Kelly might follow Greta out-the-door and leave on her own once her deal is up. However, she apparently is seeking $20 million a year:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/megyn-ke...ews-1477527922

Honestly, my gut keeps telling me that Trump will pull off the upset on election day, but this election is so unpredictable on a day-to-day cycle, I don't want to make any hard predictions. It is an uphill battle, certainly. :lol:

Do they really care at this point? They fervently defend Trump and their top exec was a pervert who sexually harassed women for decades. At some point just be who you are which is some right-wing propaganda station that dabbles in conspiracy theories and runs the back offices like a 1960's advertising agency.

Her contract isn't up until July. Considering what has happened as regards to this election, that's an eternity. They'll have to do something with her by then, and I imagine "paying her $20 million a year" is not an option on the table right now.

I've lived on both sides of the Ohio/Kentucky border and have went to schools on both sides of the river. My kids have all grown up in Northern Kentucky. Public schools here have always been closed on Election Day.

Pretty sure all public schools are closed in SC.

However, I did find out my dad had to vote absentee in Orangeburg because he has jury duty that week. Evidently, the courts are still open on election day. I found that really odd.

How long until Cruz's position is the official position of the GOP?

One of the reasons public schools get closed on Election Day is because they frequently get used as voting locations, no? At least that's how it was where I grew up in central NJ. I always voted in NYC public schools as well.

11 days

There's also a precedent for being at this size for nearly 150 years. Which I think would be longer than any other precedent.

All the more reason to make sure Dems take back the Senate.

Yeah... these Senate Republican idiots are just giving Democrats more GOTV fodder. "Even if you think the Presidential election is going to be a walk, look at what these bozos are saying about Hillary's SCOTUS nominees"

Yes. It's the same here in Missouri. There are pretty large crowds for presidential elections and legitimate safety concerns with hundreds of strangers waiting in line mixed with school children. Not anything like the nonsense of a bomb going off like the dumb Fox News spin in the article but still not the best situation for children.

Interesting, when I was a lad in New Jersey public schools, we always had school on Election Day. It was actually kind of fun seeing people lined up to vote while we were going from one class to another.

Yeah for better and for worse I think schools are a lot different nowadays. My high school had a smoking lounge for the students and about 30 different ways to enter the building. Nowadays I think most schools have a central entrance that itself is even locked with armed security and camera systems.

I vote at an in-session elementary school in the primaries. There are arrows pointing you towards the gymnasium where you vote, but otherwise, there's no separation of students from random adult strangers walking around. It's kind of strange, but also a throwback to a simpler time.

It's crazy what the cable news channel--particularly when they're ratings are trending downwards--talking heads get paid. I believe Anderson Cooper is around $10 million/year. More power to them.

Well the $20 mil a year is basically the equal of Bill O'Reilly, and he's been getting paid that for a while now.

Have you ever considered that you might be a wacko? ;)

That's odd. I consider Johnson and Castle to hold somewhat similar views. Wonder why they differed by 44% points? Castle is more into the religion side but otherwise I considered him an alternate to Johnson at one point.

Never heard of Zoltan Istvan.

Well, the campaign itself seems to realize it's got a tough road to win the election:

Inside the Trump Bunker, With 12 Days to Go - Bloomberg

Despite Trump’s claim that he doesn’t believe the polls, his San Antonio research team spends $100,000 a week on surveys (apart from polls commissioned out of Trump Tower) and has sophisticated models that run daily simulations of the election. The results mirror those of the more reliable public forecasters—in other words, Trump’s staff knows he’s losing. Badly. “Nate Silver’s results have been similar to ours,” says Parscale, referring to the polling analyst and his predictions at FiveThirtyEight, “except they lag by a week or two because he’s relying on public polls.

And, I hope that whoever said this line realizes how it could be spun:

“We have three major voter suppression operations under way,” says a senior official.

(they're referring to advertising campaigns trying to sway certain demographics from voting Clinton, negative campaigning, sure, but not illegal.. but calling it voter supression.. bad optics)

There have been some rumblings amongst McConnell, McCain as well about this. I think this would be suicide for the Republican Party to try to block them after/if Clinton is elected. You have gone on and on this election season about how the new President should get preference over Supreme Court nominees, that this would be a mandate for what the people want here, and hoping somehow that Trump is going to win. Doesn't look like that is going to happen now, so its time to "put up or shut up" if Clinton wins. It'll never happen, but people like Cruz who refuse to give in here should be recalled.

Republicans at war over Supreme Court - POLITICO

Cut to 20 years from now when acting Chief Justice Elena Kagan gets to decide everything on her own.

Keep on trying Donald:

Texas Vote Switching : snopes.com

And Cruz will be like "We don't need a Supreme Court anyway"

I hate the Republicans reasons, but considering how powerful the court has gotten and how partisan the nomination process is, how bad a thing is an even split? I mean, I usually agree with Anthony Kennedy, but I'm not sure he should be the most powerful person in the country long term.

The problem is less the absolute number than the precedent of refusing to even hold hearings on a nominee. If they want to propose a bill to set the number at eight, go ahead. They don't want that, though, they want to pick who is the fifth vote, or fourth vote if they can knock it down to seven.

dola

How tough is the map for Trump? He could win NV, AZ,UT, IA, OH, GA, NC, and FL and still lose.

Chief Justice needs to be appointed to so we'd only have Associate Justice Kagan.

Yeah that's why I put acting. She'd take over the duties as senior most associate justice until a new appointment.

I didn't think it would come to this, but...I did it. I rigged the election. I did the thing, with the machines...whatever it was, it was me.

Had to be.

They talk about Randall County in the article, which is where I live and vote, and there's seriously only like, me and three women in the county that are registered Democrats. The Panhandle is the reddest part of the state, and I assume that if someone is rigging the election to elect a Democrat (not a slate of Democrats, because I think there are only about three contested races on the ballot) in this county, I'd almost have to be involved in the planning, right? I guess I'm doing it in my sleep. Sleeprigging.

The Constitution is set up specifically in such a way as to ensure the independence of the judiciary. Making the Supreme Court bow its head to the partisan split between Congress and the White House undermines that.


More or less. Nothing in the Constitution says it HAS to be nine, or seven, or 141. Congress can statutorily set the Court's membership wherever it likes, assuming the President doesn't veto the shit out of the bill.

But if, by law, the Court has nine seats - and it does - then the Constitution's "advice and consent" clause means that the Senate has to engage in the process.

And this is where shit breaks down when one party operates the way Mitch McConnell and the Chickenfuckers have been for the last eight months.

SCOTUS, even if it were inclined to involve itself in partisan battles - and it tends not to get involved if it thinks the issues involved are partisan rather than Constitutional - lacks any kind of enforcement mechanism for its rulings. Remember the apocryphal reply, "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it"? Same drill.

Enforcement is the job of the Executive Branch (for a great example of how that works, look at Kennedy ordering the Alabama National Guard to enforce Brown after Wallace tried to prevent the integration of the University of Alabama). Buuuuuuut...the Constitution also immunizes members of Congress from arrest while Congress is in session, except in cases of "Treason, Felony, and Breach of the Peace."

Treason is pretty narrowly defined in the Constitution, and besides requiring two witnesses to the act, it would be a stretch to argue that preventing the President from even having his or her nominees to SCOTUS considered represents "aid and comfort to the enemy." So that's out.

Felony requires a statutory definition of the act in question. That's not present here.

Breach of the Peace would be things like riot, public drunkenness, murder rampage in the local post office, whatever. Obstruction of nominees isn't covered there, either.

So the Executive Branch cannot wield its enforcement authority over a putative SCOTUS mandate that the Senate get off its ass and unfuck its shit.

So, like, that's the problem. McConnell has already violated not just precedent, but any reasonable reading of the Constitution by declaring that the President's right to appoint nominees and have the Senate consider them doesn't apply in the last year of a black Democrat's term of office; if that gets further stretched to "we're just not ever going to consider Democratic nominees as long as we control the Senate," that is a deliberate deconstruction of small-d democratic institutions for partisan political advantage.

And once you cross that Rubicon, there's no going back. It ensures tit-for-tat if there's ever again a scenario where Republicans control the White House and Democrats control the Senate, and that isn't good for anybody. It ensures that the next time the same party controls the White House and the Senate, the filibuster gets nuclear-option'ed into oblivion for Supreme Court justices. It ensures that the Court gets as poisoned by partisan politics as Congress is currently, because instead of the process ensuring that the nominee is broadly acceptable to the Senate, a President could then appoint the most liberal or conservative jurist acceptable to the slimmest majority of the Senate.