Trump hack explains what a landslide is!

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 29, 2016

This shit is allowed on the air:
To what extent has our journalistic and intellectual culture hit rock bottom? Check that:

To what extent has our culture been allowed to hit rock bottom? To what extent has our journalistic culture ceased to exist?

For a thought-provoking example, consider the "discussion" which aired last night on CNN. Don Lemon was asking one of his network's stable of Trump hacks to answer a basic question.

Why in the world is Donald J. Trump saying he won a "landslide?" He actually lost the popular vote, and the electoral vote was fairly close. Why, then, would Donald J. Trump keep saying he won a "landslide?"

Lemon discussed this question with Paris Dennard, one of CNN's stable of robotic Trump hacks. Before we show you the transcript, let's understand where the craziness of the transcript comes from:

In 2015, CNN signed a gaggle of Trump hacks. They became the channel's "minders."

No program would be allowed on the air without one of two of these minders present. And no matter what these people said, they would be back on the air the next night.

Nothing they said would be so dumb that CNN would let them go. In this way, CNN sought bigger profits. We're sorry, but that's the full explanation.

CNN threw every last standard away. Last night, we got a taste of what these greedsters purchased:
LEMON (11/28/16): I have to ask this. Paris, it's also false for Trump to say that the electoral college vote was a landslide. It was certainly an upset, but it was far from a landslide.

If you go back to 1980, his 306 electoral votes gives him a smaller margin than both the Reagan elections, the George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton's two elections, Barack Obama's two elections. He tops only George W. Bush's two narrow wins.

So can he call this a landslide? Why is he calling this a landslide? It's not a landslide.

He did very well. He did win. He got way more than most people thought. But you can't really call this a landslide.

DENNARD: Well, I think you can call it a landslide if you look at how much he—how better he did than Secretary Clinton.

LEMON: So you're changing the definition of landslide?

DENNARD: Well, I think it—

LEMON: You can say he did better because he won, but can you call something a landslide when it's not actually a landslide? Is that what you're doing?

DENNARD: I'm saying that if you look at how well he did against Secretary Clinton in the electoral vote, electoral college, it was a landslide. So you can go back and say—

LEMON: It wasn't a landslide, Paris. A landslide is only a landslide when it's the definition of a landslide. That's not the definition of a landslide.

DENNARD: Well, I think that—

LEMON: That's you changing the definition of a landslide because it's Hillary Clinton.

DENNARD: No, that— It's you not liking my explanation that I think it's a landslide.

LEMON: No, I'm telling you the truth. If you look at the definition of a landslide, this is not one. I just gave you evidence. Let me read this again.

DENNARD: OK.

LEMON: It is also false to say that the electoral college vote was a landslide. If you go back to 1980, his 306 electoral votes give him a smaller margin than both Reagan elections, George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton's two elections, Barack Obama's two elections

He only tops George W. Bush's two narrow wins. It's not a landslide.

I'm just asking you the definition of a landslide. The truth about a landslide it's not. Yes, he won. He won by a big margin, but it wasn't a landslide. Why is he saying that?

DENNARD: Because it was a landslide.

LEMON: OK.

DENNARD: I believe it was a landslide.

LEMON: Thank you, Paris.

[LAUGHTER]

DENNARD: The American people believes it was a landslide.

LEMON: We'll be right back.

DENNARD: It was a landslide.

[COMMERCIAL BREAK]
Lemon wasn't great in that exchange. Paris Dennard wasn't human.

That said, Dennard will be back on the air tonight. In the face of CNN's greed, journalistic culture has essentially ceased to exist.

Maddow's show isn't hugely better. As liberals, we're unable to see this.

15 comments:

  1. Bob. I understadn your use of "we." It offends me when you apply it to me. Do not use it when you are discussing liberals as a group. When you say "we don't understand this" or "we mnaaged to lose" or "we're unable to see" you are engaged in a fantasy as ridiculous and useless as the one ehere you describe "analysts on your spawling campus." I understand the latter's use as a poor literary device or bad comedy monologue. The former makes you sound like Trump.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies

    1. I'm Olivia Megan from United State,I'm happy that my husband is back into my life after 2 years of divorce, Dr.AKHERE brought my husband back today and i am so excited. I got DR AKHERE email online when a lady was testifying about the strong spell caster who restored her marriage then I said to myself since he helped her, he can also help me,so i emailed him and told him the pain that I was going through,and he told me what to do and i did it,Then he did an urgent Love spell for me. 48 hours later, my husband came back home and with lots of love and joy,and he apologized for his mistake,and for the pain he caused me. Then from that day,our marriage was now stronger than how it were before, All thanks to DR AKHERE. Our family is complete again. If you are going through Divorce/Broke-up since DR AKHERE helped me, he can also help you..email him at: AKHERETEMPLE@gmail.com ,Thank you DR AKHERE for saving my broken Marriage and brought my husband back to me.
      Email him: AKHERETEMPLE@gmail.com
      or
      call/whatsapp:+2349057261346

      Delete
  2. Can someone suggest an EFFECTIVE way to respond to/deal with a person like this Paris Dennard(and all the Trump surrogates have been like this) who simply repeats the lie over and over in the face of repeated "corrective" statements to the contrary. This exact scenario plays out over and over (Kellyanne is especially good at it) and I have yet to see ANYONE handle it well.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Effective ways require a bit of aggressiveness that may feel uncivil. You can say things like "Repeating a lie doesn't make it true." or "Stop saying that. It is a lie."

      I have seen a couple of cable news people fight back against the talking over behavior but it means setting aside the discussion to focus on the tactic. I have seen them say stop talking -- no one can understand what is being said when multiple people are speaking at the same time.

      Short of this, they need to turn off the mics on these guys. Perhaps there are technical difficulties involved when guests are at remote locations, I don't know. I have seen this done on conservative shows but never on a liberal show. It needs to happen in order to deal effectively with this garbage but liberals are apparently not willing to do it.

      Any of these approaches will alienate guests who may not appear on the shows again. Perhaps that is what is stopping them from doing anything effective.

      Delete
  3. If they were disagreeing about facts, one could turn to actual sources. E.g., if Dennard claimed that Trump had won the popular vote, Lemon could point to official vote totals.

    In this case, the debate is purely semantics. The only source to consult would be dictionary.

    This semantical debate is unimportant and boring. Whether Trump won a "landslide" or a "squeaker", he will be the President and will exercise all the Presidential powers, for better or for worse.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This isn't only semantics. There are facts and Nate Silver has explained them. It is accurate to say that Trump's results meet no definition of "landslide" currently in use.

      Delete
    2. 6:12 - I agree with you that Trump's victory ought not be called a "landslide". But, this is indeed semantics "the study of meanings". We're discussing the meaning of a word, not what actually happened.

      Note that my disagreement with you is also only semantics. It's a semantics discussion of the word "semantics".

      BTW the word "landslide" in this sense is a kind of metaphor. It means the overwhelming electoral victory is like an actual landslide that powerfully overwhelms the land. Discussing the truth or falsity of a metaphor isn't generally productive.

      Delete
    3. No, this is not semantics. It is the fact of how many votes Trump got and how many states he won. Those statistics are nowhere close to being a landslide or even an impressive victory. He is way down on the list of margins of victory. This isn't about semantics. It is about the FACT that he didn't win decisively at all. It is not a metaphor because the size of his win doesn't justify such a metaphor. He didn't win bigly enough and that's a fact.

      Delete
    4. Come on. You know it felt like a landslide.

      Delete
    5. Dave the Guitar PlayerNovember 30, 2016 at 12:26 PM

      Semantics or not, allowing Trump supporters to describe his election as a "landslide" ultimately will be used to justify his "mandate" to make changes in how we are governed. Since he did *not* win the popular vote (a fact) and he did not win the Electoral College by a "landslide", there is no mandate (real or imagined) and Trump and/or his supporters have no right to claim one. Trump certainly has the authority and means to make the changes he wants, but he cannot claim a "landslide" or "mandate" and should not be allowed to make that claim without push back.

      Delete
  4. It's all over the Western world: Brexit means Brexit.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Non sequitur" means "doesn't follow." That ain't semantics, it's a fact, Jack.

      Delete
  5. I feel so blessed again in my marriage after Doctor Oku brought back my husband that separated with me for good 3 mounths. Am Jessica Butler by name from USA. Even though i have mouths all over my body, it won't be enough to thank Doctor Oku for his help upon my life. My husband separated with me for the 3 months and have been in pains and agony without him. So, i searched for help everywhere but nothing worked out not until i meant Doctor Oku who i contacted online. I explained my situation to him and he promised that my husband will get back to me within 24 to 48 hours as far that my heart still beats for him. I believed in him and he prepared a spell for me and my husband called me exactly when Doctor Oku said. He pleaded and said he needs me back and now we are living happily again for the past 9 months. Everyone out there reading my article that needs help should contact him... Email: okutemple@gmail.com or call +2347053113465

    ReplyDelete

  6. I'm Olivia Megan from United State,I'm happy that my husband is back into my life after 2 years of divorce, Dr.AKHERE brought my husband back today and i am so excited. I got DR AKHERE email online when a lady was testifying about the strong spell caster who restored her marriage then I said to myself since he helped her, he can also help me,so i emailed him and told him the pain that I was going through,and he told me what to do and i did it,Then he did an urgent Love spell for me. 48 hours later, my husband came back home and with lots of love and joy,and he apologized for his mistake,and for the pain he caused me. Then from that day,our marriage was now stronger than how it were before, All thanks to DR AKHERE. Our family is complete again. If you are going through Divorce/Broke-up since DR AKHERE helped me, he can also help you..email him at: AKHERETEMPLE@gmail.com ,Thank you DR AKHERE for saving my broken Marriage and brought my husband back to me.
    Email him: AKHERETEMPLE@gmail.com
    or
    call/whatsapp:+2349057261346

    ReplyDelete