Yzermandius19

Tucker Carlson used to work for CNN, before they went insane. Tucker Carlson is one most reasonable major news anchors in America, he is certainly in the bag for the Republicans, but not to the same degree as those who are in the bag for Democrats on CNN or MSNBC. Pretending like Tucker Carlson should be compared to Sean Hannity, is an obvious indicator that you are in the bag for the Democrats as well, apparently you think anyone to right of you is Sean Hannity apparently, or you wouldn't be lumping Tucker in with him.

No. Fox News is much more balanced, but only because their competition has literally gone insane. CNN and MSNBC have gone off the deep end, and so has network news. Fox News just didn't take the leap with them. Most FOX News reporters actually come from deep blue New York, that also has something to do with being more balanced. Fox News is biased as all get out, don't get me wrong, but the others are much worse now. Tucker Carlson isn't a crazy right winger, he's a centrist who used to work for CNN, before they went completely insane.

It's called trolling dude, the media's reaction isn't hurting Trump, it's helping him. Trump does trigger them into negative coverage, this is true, but he doesn't even have to try and they'd still be triggered. Blaming the 90% negative coverage on Trump doing a bad job, is clearly being biased against Republicans. The media use the same attacks on Trump that they did on Reagan, Nixon and both Bush's, every time a Republican is in, it's mostly negative coverage and usually the same old talking points, and every time a Democrat is in, it's mostly positive coverage and usually the same old talking points. The media are in the bag for the Democrats dude, and considering they are over 80% Democrats, that is hardly a surprise. Open your eyes. If you consider any group that is over 80% Democrat or Republican, as an example of unbiased reporters who are simply reporting the facts, you are delusional. FOX News is clearly biased in favor of Republicans, and you don't assume they are just being honest, so why would assume that news outlets that are clearly biased in favor of Democrats are just being honest?

90% negative coverage of Trump, isn't justified based on job performance. The media who are over 80% Democrats, being in the bag for the Democrats, does explain that phenomenon a whole lot better. Trolling the media into a counter-productive reaction, is one of the biggest reasons Trump won in 2016, and it's one the big reasons that Trump will win in 2020 as well. They can't help but play right into Trump's hands, even when it is obvious that they are doing so. With enemies like that, allies are merely icing on the cake.

The existence of FOX News, doesn't disprove that over 80% of the media are Democrats, and over 90% of their Trump coverage is negative. Living in that bubble, is a helluva drug, it doesn't result in an informed electorate, just the opposite. If you realize that mid terms tend to go against the party in power, then you would realize that this happening to Trump, has little to do with whether or not he'll be re-elected in 2020. It didn't spell doom for Obama in 2012, and it doesn't spell doom for Trump in 2020 either. Yet it's the number one reason you think Trump is done, obvious historical examples from the not too distant past be damned.

Clearly you haven't followed politics for a long time, or you wouldn't put much stock in Trump losing 40 House seats in a mid-term election as an obvious indication of his doom, nor would you think him not winning the popular vote is a sign of his doom. George W Bush lost the popular vote in 2000, yet easily won re-election in 2004 and even just going back to Obama, would disprove that idiotic theory. Obama lost 63 House seats, and lost the Senate, yet also easily won re-election in 2012. Following the mainstream media isn't going to result in you being informed, the media are over 80% Democrats, and they, like you, are engaging in wishful thinking, "Trump is done naow!". How many thousands of times do they have to say that, before you finally realize that they don't know what they are talking about?

Those actions won't happen in 2020. The young folks always talk a big game, but when it's time to show up and vote, they don't vote in nearly the numbers they think they are going to. You are assuming this time they aren't crying wolf, because you are blinded by an Anti-Trump bias that won't let you see their claim for what is, big talk that is never backed up by action. You want Trump to lose, and your confirmation bias keeps you grasping for straws on reasons why he will lose. You don't go looking for reasons why he might win, so that leads you to believe that all roads lead to him losing, when you simply aren't looking hard enough.

Actions speak louder than words. There you go focusing on words over actions, yet again, because it fits your preconceived notions. Why would you trust a group who often claims they are going to be a huge difference maker in elections, but never ever deliver on that despite all their lofty promises and inflated sense of importance? Because Orange Man Bad? So they'll make an exception this time, for once they aren't crying wolf? Wishful thinking.

That won't happen. The older voters, who are a larger voting block, and who reliably show up to vote, will be turned off by the naive extremism of younger voters and their autistic screeching, yet that vocal minority are completely unreliable, they just want to sit on their ass and complain instead. Obvious mismatch is obvious, unless you are blinded by obvious wishful thinking. Millenials will be the doom of Trump? I think not. If Trump somehow loses in 2020, it will be because he didn't win enough support of suburban women in key rust belt states, Millenials will have little to do with it. Suburban women in the rust belt, will likely side with Trump over some Democrat doing their best AOC impression. Far-left nonsense doesn't fly with them.

Most Democrat voters, don't like the Democrats for the same reasons that Owly does, if Owly thinks otherwise, that is an obvious example of projecting on the electorate.

Obviously. Trump will win the EC twice as well, and he'll win the popular vote in 2020 too. Trump did better than Obama in his first mid-terms, yet to you, that's an indication of Trump's doom, when it was nowhere close to doom for Obama. Wishful Thinking is a helluva drug.

Are you aware that Obama got smacked a lot harder in the house in 2010 than Trump did in 2018? Obama lost senate seats too, while Trump gained Senate seats, and yet Obama easily coasted to re-election anyway, despite doing much worse in the mid-terms than Trump. You clearly put way too much stake in the outcome of mid-terms , because it fits your wishful thinking narrative.

Trump lost the popular vote, because he didn't care about running up the victory margin in New York and California, and decided to focus on winning more votes in states that actually helped win him the election. He lost a game he wasn't even playing. Whoop dee do.

They fantasized about a Blue Wave in 2018 too, and then lost seats in the Senate, sad. It's all wishful thinking, and every time that is shown to be the case, they simply go even deeper into denial, cognitive dissonance is a helluva drug.

My assumptions are based on political experience, your assumptions are based on wishful thinking. It's pretty clear which one of us is on more solid ground here.

If they are so well informed, then how come they never saw it coming? Wishful thinking is a helluva drug, the lies that the self appointed "well informed" tell themselves to make excuses for their loss, have nothing to do with reality.

Higher popularity in New York and California has nothing to do with a well informed populace. Winning the popular vote isn't an indication that you are the choice of the politically well informed, neither is winning the EC. Appealing to the well informed is not the way to win a popularity contest, whether that contest is determined by EC, or national popular vote, that doesn't matter. That's all an election is, a popularity contest, it has very little to do with winning over people in the know.

No they don't. Plenty of highly educated people are politically ignorant, most are in fact. Most uneducated voters are also politically ignorant, there is no major group in the world, who isn't filled with a strong majority of the politically ignorant.

How did playing the high brow finger wagger card work for Hillary Clinton? Not very well, so go ahead and double down on that obviously failed strategy, silly Democrats. Chastising voters for not being informed enough to vote for you, basket of deplorables style, isn't a winning hand.

Even if they have a higher percentage of informed voters, that isn't most of the voters, not even close, most voters on both sides of aisle are ill informed, just because a higher percentage of highly educated folks voted against Trump, does not mean that most of them are politically well informed. Them not voting for Trump is not proof of being informed.

Winning the popular vote isn't proof that rubes didn't elect him. Neither is winning two-terms. Most voters are rubes, on both sides of the aisle, be real. Trump lost less ground in the house in 2018 than Obama did in 2010, and Obama got easily re-elected, assuming the republicans will lose because of the mid-term results is wishful thinking, it didn't spell doom for Obama at all, and he did far worse.

The Republicans didn't lose the house because the electorate was informed. They lost because the opposition party who doesn't have a sitting POTUS, gets more fired up about mid-terms than the opposition, in almost every instance, no matter how well the sitting POTUS does. Assuming that people voting Democrat means most voters are informed, is both ridiculously partisan, and utterly laughable.

Obama won because he blew more sunshine up the voters butts than McCain or Romney, not because he rallied the well informed to drown out the rubes. The only folks who think differently are wishful thinking Republican haters.

Sometimes Trump's lies serve a political purpose that is beneficial to him, you may want to consider that, from time to time. Even if he's only fooling the rubes, the rubes constitute most of electorate, so that's smart politics. Going high brow just for the sake of going high brow, is not how you win elections, you got to tell the rubes what they want to hear, in the language they want to hear it in. That's how you win elections, being the smartest guy in the room certainly isn't. Obama didn't win because he was super smart, he won because he blew more sunshine up the voters butts than the Republicans he faced did.

He wants to be seen as willing to talk, to appeal to his isolationist supporters, while not actually caving to NK in negotiations, to not piss off the Neocons too much. When negotiations eventually fall through, he has an excuse to get tough with North Korea that didn't previously exist in the mind of isolationists, Trump can claim, he tried, and then pivot to a more classically neocon stance with NK, while getting the boost in 2020 in the meantime. It's all political theater, and that would be pretty apparent to you, if you didn't always assume the worst about Trump, by only assuming Trump is telling the truth when it makes him look dumb to you.