Supplemental: Matthews tells Maddow about Donald Trump!


But first, some peculiar news:
On Tuesday morning, Donald Trump announced he was running for president. He made the kind of repellent speech he has been making for years.

On that evening’s Maddow show, Trump’s remarks were completely ignored. After clowning about Candidate Walker, Maddow clowned about Candidate Trump.

Alas! Maddow pretended that Candidate Trump had announced that he wants Oprah Winfrey as his running mate. She further said she’d be up all night hoping that Oprah could call her.

Maddow cavorted and played the fool Tuesday night—the approach she has taken to “campaign coverage” over at least the past month. At last, she seemed to do some reporting.

After noting that Neil Young doesn’t want the Trump campaign to play his songs at rallies, she offered some peculiar news about Trump’s polling numbers:
MADDOW (6/16/15): So endorsement for Bernie Sanders and “you can’t use my song.” That wasn’t great for Mr. Trump’s launch.

Also, the number crunchers at took a look at not just the current crop of people who are running for president in 2016. They actually looked at all major president candidates dating back to 1980. It turns out there are roughly 106 people who have run for president dating back to 1980, at least people who are major enough candidates that there`s publicly available data on their approval ratings and their disapproval ratings.

In that universe of data, out of all the more than 100 people who have run for president in this modern era, Donald Trump beats them all. Donald Trump has the highest disapproval rating of anybody on that list by quite some distance. And there have been some really unpopular people who have run for president.

I mean, no offense to my Uncle Pat, but Pat Buchanan was really unpopular when he ran in 2000. Forty-three percent of people had a negative view of Pat Buchanan when he ran for president in 2000 election. That was the worst ever. Donald Trump is worse than that by 14 points. Fifty-seven percent of Republicans have an unfavorable view of Donald Trump and he is running for the Republican nomination for president. So that’s a challenge.
According to Maddow, Trump has the highest disapproval rating of anyone who has run for president in the past thirty-five years!

In fact, she said he has the highest disapproval rating “by quite some distance.” At 57 percent, his unfavorable rating is higher than the nearest guy, her Uncle Pat, by a walloping fourteen points!

As you’ve noted, Maddow’s presentation wasn’t especially clear on this point. On the face of things, she seemed to be comparing Buchanan’s disapproval rating among all voters to Trump’s disapproval rating among Republican voters.

That suggests that Trump’s position in the GOP race is even worse than those raw numbers seem to suggest. But Maddow never clarified that basic statistical point. As usual, she was too busy hurrying off to the next showcase for her skills as a clown.

How unpopular is Candidate Trump? We can’t tell you that. If you want to examine the piece from which Maddow’s staff composed the text she read, you can just click here.

That said, we claimed that Maddow’s report included some “peculiar news” about those polling statistics. Here’s why we said that:

On Monday night—just one night before!—Maddow had wasted her viewers’ time with an utterly silly report about how well Trump was doing in the Republican polls.

In our own Tuesday report,
we noted the absurdity of Maddow’s presentation. Here’s what she said on Monday night about the repellent candidate’s “pretty great” polling numbers:
MADDOW (6/15/15): I can’t see that kind of public persona, as being something that lays the foundation for a viable presidential run. But I also recognize that Mr. Trump does very well in the polling among Republican voters. There’s one new poll out today which he does lousy, comes in at 2 percent. But usually, in most of the national polls this year, he does pretty great. I mean, he is certainly on track to be included in the national debates, even as like the guy who came in second to Mitt Romney last time around and the governor of Ohio and the former governor of Texas, people who would seem to have a much more straightforward shot at the nomination, are coming in fairly consistently after him in the polling.
This is the way it goes on the floundering Maddow program:

On Monday night, we were told that Trump “does very well in the polling among Republican voters.” By Tuesday night, he was more unpopular, by a wide margin, than any other candidate in the past thirty-five years!

Maddow made no attempt to explain the apparent conflict between her reports. As she hurried off to the next showcase for her clowning, she seemed to assume that her viewers were too dumb or too tribal to notice.

To state the obvious, Maddow’s report on Monday night seemed to make little sense. As she described Trump’s “pretty great” numbers, results from three different polls appeared on the screen behind her.

In those polls, Trump had drawn support from 5 percent, 4 percent, and 3.6 percent of Republican voters. According to Maddow, therefore, support from two percent of Republican voters is “lousy.” By way of contrast, support from four percent of such voters is said to be “pretty great!”

Over the past month, this is the way it has gone on the Maddow show when its multimillionaire host isn’t overtly working from her seat in the cable news clown car. On Monday night, Candidate Trump was doing pretty great. By Tuesday night, he was the most unpopular candidate ever!

On Tuesday night, Maddow made no attempt to explain the apparent change in her analysis. Nor did she have a word to say about the repellent speech Trump had made that day.

By Wednesday night, Maddow finally offered a few remarks about Trump’s repellent speech. That said, she built the bulk of that night’s “campaign coverage” around another peculiar fact:

Trump had apparently paid an undetermined number of actors to come to his announcement speech and pose as Trump supporters!

So it went on the Maddow show as the nation headed toward the carnage in Charleston. On Monday night, Trump’s polling numbers were pretty great. By Wednesday night, he was reduced to paying actors to pretend to support him!

At no point did Maddow explain this puzzling change in the weather. But then, her “campaign coverage” has been an undisguised joke throughout at least the past month.

All week, we’ve tried to get back to the part of Maddow’s Monday night show where she asked for some analytical help concerning Candidate Trump. Because she doesn’t understand Trump’s appeal, which she said was “pretty great,” she called in “my friend, Chris Matthews” to help her puzzle it out.

Until events in Charleston hit, Maddow clowned about Trump all week. Despite all the ridiculous clowning, the most repugnant part of her performance was her abject refusal to tell the truth about who and what Donald Trump is.

Liberals are being badly served by this multimillionaire cable star’s defiantly faux “campaign coverage.” We can’t tell you why Maddow has been behaving this way. But at the start of next week, we’ll show you what Chris Matthews said about the noxious figure Our Own Rhodes Scholar “doesn’t dislike at all.”

Right from the start, Maddow was sold to the liberal world as being very smart. If we might borrow again from Bob Dylan:

But oh, what kind of “smart” is this, which goes from bad to worse?


  1. "Until events in Charleston hit, Maddow clowned about Trump all week."

    Until events in Charleston hit, Somerby clowned about Maddow all week.

    Then when Charleston hit, he clowned about Maddow some more. Except he used Charlston as an excuse to embellish (a la Gore) his own past work on Trump, then attacked Maddow again.

    1. Best of all, based on Bob's annoying practice ( a la Maddow) of teasing future segments, we can look for Bob's current flare-up of Maddow Derangement Syndrome to flavor his culture saving work next week.

    2. Maddow is horrible.

    3. The events in Charleston have little to do with Trump or Maddow. The events in Charleston are tough gruel for the apologist for southern racism, which Bob generally is.

    4. Bob is not an apologist for southern racism.

      Bob is the little boy who says the Empress has no clothes save for her big orange clown shoes, dunks people like a Salem witch hunter, and would rather jump off any famous bridge for whicxh she has traffic statistics rather than tell you about black children and their marvelous test scores

      Those test scores, by the way, are like Donald Trump poll results in that they can be reported in ways that sound good and ways that sound bad. In our view, Bob has done NAEP results just like Rachel has done the Donald's poll results.
      But since his fans are squinting to see the culture melting that nobody else sees, they never notice.

  2. Bob, you've been blogging about politics for how many years, and you don't know the difference between favorable/unfavorable and approval/disapproval?

    1. You are asking this question of the guy who once fudged numbers to show US kids doing better than Polish kids on recent PISA tests?

    2. TDH has clearly demonstrated over and over that American white kids outperform Polish kids. Can't you read?

  3. "Trump had apparently paid an undetermined number of actors to come to his announcement speech and pose as Trump supporters!"

    Maddow recoils in horror at Trump using HRC tactic. Trump's plants were given pictures of Ulysses S. Grant. HRC plants got hosed.

    HRC campaign depicted at least three people in her campaign launch video as 'everyday' Americans who were actually partisans with political connections.

    One was a former campaign manager for Wendy Davis, Texas Democrat who last year mounted a failed bid for Texas governor
    One worked for Planned Parenthood.

    One headed a young Democratic Party group.

  4. I didn't even finish the article, and my appreciation for Bob's ability to parse words was reaffirmed.

    "On the face of things, she seemed to be comparing Buchanan’s disapproval rating among all voters to Trump’s disapproval rating among Republican voters."

    No, that's _exactly_ what she did. Good catch, man. It might be evident when reading the transcript, but do you think it would have been caught by _any_ TV viewer?

    Keep it going, Bob. This catch was piffle to what you usually unravel, but demonstrative of your importance - to me, at least.


    1. This catch was piffle compared to his revelation that the M.I.T. rape survey read like it was translated from the Norwegian by native speakers of Urdu and that he didn't know which semester in which it was conducted.

    2. This catch by Bob, of course, failed to catch that the different comparisons originated with 538, not Maddow and her writers. Or if he caught it he disappeared it. Why attribute shoddy work to anyone but Maddow?

      And 538 fails to source any polls to determine what questions were asked to determine approval/disapproval.

  5. Maddow is merely providing a humorous take on daily events.

    1. Then why isn't she funny?

    2. Only people who see the invisible things revealed by Bob fail to find her funny. This rare gift causes them to lose the sense of humor most mortals are forced to live with. But it is worth the sacrifice.

  6. The principal role of Pat Buchanan in the 2000 election has been ignored. He secured the Reform Party nomination and then bailed out of sight, rarely to be even seen, must lest compete.

    I did see him challenged on why he did that and he snapped, "I got sick" and changed the subject. In truth, Buchann would have taken votes from GWB if he competed.

    1. I doubt Buchanan was that much of a team player when it came to the Bush family. He did do damage to the senior Bush, challenging the sitting President and running exceptionally strong against him in NH, and giving that turd in the punchbowl Cultural Warfare speech at the GOP convention that hurt Bush badly. I was involved as a part time volunteer for Clinton working out of a small office in Artesia CA, we had a flurry of interest in the following days, including several outraged self-indentified Republicans calling and showing up to volunteer or send money to the Clinton campaign. For a lot of moderates and independents the religious right was pretty played out in the state by then.

  7. Dylann Root was inspired to research black-on-white crime stats after seeing progressives hyping Trayvon Martin case. These facts and others caused an obsessive focus on racial statistics and conditions and their effect on his own racial group, and 9 innocents were slaughtered. Millions will be likewise "inspired" to think in us-vs-them racial terms by his manifesto. Wise people recognized that this was the peril of the race hustling at the highest levels of government and media. Many didn't care, as they got something out of it emotionally or financially. Nice going, lefties.

    1. Zimmerman stalked TM and lied about everything that occurred including that he provoked TM to hit him by going for his gun.

      So you, Anon @5:05 can take credit as one of those hyping falsehoods about the case and provoking those of your number like Roof to kill innocents.

    2. SIP. Sharpton Induced Psychosis

  8. Replies
    1. Türk Piddle Maddow, Izle Said, Türk Select Sandwiches, Sikiş Salon, Gore Gorilla Dust, Gored Ox, Kizhk My Dowd, Otter Collins Strap-On, Kristof Palace Porno, Maddow Porno, Clinton Jizzle Jihad, Clinton Gore, Our View Pimp Pap, Spreading Young Scribes, Gorenosu, Gorenuso, Goresmeared


  9. A horse is a horse, of course of course, and it is vital we know who's ahead by a nose before the tails have cleared the starting gate.
    God bless the U.S. media.

  10. Isn't Maddow trying to build Trump up because of the damage he'll do in the GOP primaries? Doesn't Trump help the Dems?

    1. I think she is building Trump up because he represents the only entertainment value in the large Republican field and the Democratic field is, to put it mildly, lacking in interesting characters as well.

      She is hosting a nightly show that has to attract some eyeballs. It is not like she is uploading a vanity blog where she can cover an election from 2000 in an endless loop.

  11. I had a dream that a forbidden discussion took place. Rachel Maddow was doing her Air America radio program and she had a guest from Baltimore. He told her all about the War on Gore. She revealed
    that she had been offered a slot on MSNBC but was turning it down because she would be joining a roster that included the noted misogynist Keith Olbermann and a guy who almost got somebody killed, Chris Matthews. She also admitted that she never could read the newspapers until after she improved her scores on the 4th grade NAEP reading test. But she noted she had skills throwing tomahawks and her guest, with a family history of show biz promotion, decided to take her on as a client. Together they stormed the nation, entertaining everyday Americans and advancing progressive causes.

  12. Oh yeah, and now Bill O cones out for "a straight talking guy like Donald Trump" over Hillary. Though he isn't even straight talking himself enough to actually endorse Trump, O"Reilly does it a mealy mouthed way.

    But here at the Daily Howler we can only assume that

    "O"Reilly Still Gets a Pass."

    So the only major pundit who actually endorses Trump is the one The Daily Howler insists we must go easy on.

    How much of this crap are we liberals supposed to take from 'The Daily Howler?" Why isn't Kevin Drum pointing this out?

    1. O'Reilly is not a liberal. It doesn't matter what he says because he will not be influencing progressive voters. Howler doesn't talk about Limbaugh either, or Mark Levin. There is no point in covering the same territory as Media Matters.

    2. You are right. Millions of everyday Americans get their news from Fox because they recognize liberals look down on them

      Until we join Bob in convincing liberals that they themselves, in all their dumb laziness are the real problem, nothing else matters. Especially when they buy things sold to them as smart which are then mistakenly taken for smart. Much like professors. Who ought to be public leaders but are not and even if they wanted to be are not smart enough.

    3. It's described well in Nixonland. Nixon recognized how egotistical, lazy and dumb the liberals were and how their behavior turned off a majority of the people. He became president by leveraging the liberal's stupidity. Fox has done the same thing for 20 years. People don't look in the mirror and say yes, I am dumb and lazy. They rationalize it. But Bob is right that liberals are massively dumb and lazy. They think they are great. They think they are cool and they constantly get stomped.

    4. Which is why liberals had to resort to impeaching Nixon over lying about a private detective matter most of us didn't care about and failing to win coverts to secular humanism they had
      to wage war on Xmas.

    5. Annomy at 2:17, Actually, there is no point in ignoring the ground covered by Media Matters, and Bob didn't used to do it. His whole STRAINED case in claiming Maddow is soft on Trump is absurd in the context of O"Reilly (who he USED to hold to some account) is to be forgiven all sins, including the supposed one (soft of Trump) he is making a federal case about. Weak, weak, very weak defense of the Howler. Same goes for the less coherent Anom at 2:55. Anon at 3:30, Bob said all of this about the last Presidential Election, that it was lazy and dumb of us to be SO mean to Mitt to nail him on the 47 percent thing. Oh we dumb meany liberals. We kicked Mitt's butt. Bob has never explained how he got it wrong.

    6. Ok. If liberals are so smart and bob is wrong fine. You have nothing to worry about. You should be proud of all the progressive and liberal accomplishments we have enjoyed over the past 2 generations and will continue to enjoy.

    7. @3:54

      If Maddow is not soft on Trump why did she say the things she did and ignore the terrible stuff he said about immigrants?

    8. @ 2:17

      O'Reilly has many liberal traits:

      1) Bobby Kennedy is his idol
      2) Despises oil companies
      3) Champions federal government control over all firearms
      4) Loves Barbara Walters
      5) Supports Obama's Global Warming sky is falling hysteria
      6) Opposes death penalty
      7) Gay rights champion

      Judging by O'Reilly's email readings, liberals do indeed watch "The Factor."

    9. @ 6:31 Your comment is incorrect. It is ignorant. But take heart. Your ignorant comment is not your fault. It is as a result, it seems, of relying on a known Maddow hater, Bob Somerby, as your source. That is lazy, on you part, but you may be a liberal, and according to Bob Somerby, liberals are lazy. Just like Mexicans are rapists.

      Here is something to read from the transcript of Maddow's show. You do know what "disappear" means? What I am going to paste below is something Bob Somerby briefly alluded to but largely disappeared:

      "Maddow: I mean, there`s Jeb Bush making the presidential announcement on Monday. This incredibly carefully choreographed thing to highlight minorities in particular, right? Jeb Bush, not just using a big section of Spanish language in his speech but the whole event, and then going out of their way to pick diverse introductory speakers, carefully picking really kind words and positive imagery about immigrants, generally, and about Latinos, generally, and about Latino immigrants in particular.

      And that happens very carefully from the Jeb Bush campaign on Monday, basically trying to rebrand the Republican Party as friendly to Latino immigrants. That`s Monday.

      But then on Tuesday, there is Donald Trump, with the actors and all the media attention in the world saying that Mexican immigrants -- well some of them are nice but most of them are rapists.

      TRUMP: When Mexico sends its people, they`re not sending their best. They`re sending people that have lots of problems and they`re bringing those problems with us.
      They`re bringing drugs. They`re bringing crime. They`re rapists and some, I assume, are good people.

      MADDOW: Some are good people. But basically, anybody immigrating from Mexico is a rapist.

      After Donald Trump said that in his announcement, theoretically, Jeb Bush could have rebutted that assertion. He could have criticized Donald Trump for having said. He could have said publicly that he was wrong about
      that and Republicans shouldn`t talk like that about immigrants and Latinos and Mexicans even, right?
      But Jeb Bush did not do anything of the kind, nor did the Republican National Committee when the spokesperson was asked about the comments. None of the other Republican candidates have criticized Donald Trump for
      saying that in any way."

      So you see @ 6:31, Maddow not only brought up the issue, she used it against a much more likely Republican nominee, Jeb Bush.

      But Bob didn't tell you that. He played you like the lazy liberal rube he accuses others of misleading.

      He is a treasure. Or so say his readers who love the way he plays them.

  13. Happy father's day Bob.

    1. Thanks to Bob's work, when I visited my late Dad's grave today I was able to tell him Nixon never said he had a secret plan to end the war.

    2. I dreamed one day liberals spent a couple of nights on their TV shows and in their columns telling people what they did to Nixon was wrong and how the New York Times waged War on Gore. President Walker then announced out national nightmare was over and appointed Al Gore's running mate as Ambassador to the UN.

    3. Cicero, while your at it, you may as well come on out , and acknowledge that you too are a liberal. The evidence includes: believes US entry based on false pretenses into Vietnam War and 2001 Iraq war were disasters for US; disikes GOP member Adam Sandler; in virtually every single post, excoriates either Obama or H. Clinton, apparently because they aren't liberal enough and never describes any virtue in any GOP figure; and is a devoted follower of TDH

    4. Being a devoted follower of TDH means he is more than just a liberal. it means he is part of the "liberal" problem. You know.

      Dumb. Lazy. Exuding moral squalor.

    5. @AC/MA

      Devoted follower of Howlers? This may be the only liberal blog that allows for the conservative pov. Media Matters (HRC's tax exempt propaganda firm) dailykos, Crooks&Liars, etc warn prospective posters that only liberal doctrine will be tolerated.

      But why do you scoff at O'Reilly's personal beliefs that invalidate liberals determination to characterize O'Reilly as far right?

  14. There They Go Again: The New York press corps is again trivializing discourse about the Presidency by making a big deal out of a minor civil infraction.

    I sure hope TDH covers this like they did the silly work about Rubio's speeding tickets. Next thing you know there will be a write up about this guys wealth, homes and even boats.