Rayvin

Did they want this? Certainly doesn't look like it given the graph HF posted.

Agreed. But it won't happen since it would hurt the Neolibs.

With respect, what you want at all times is a media without an agenda that reports on facts. Impossible, but that'd be the goal. I'd settle for a media that is powerless to control the wills of voters though - which appears to be the direction we're taking. Keep in mind that the right wing media very much played its part in creating this storm through decades of yammering on about immigrants and the like.

I don't think anyone is saying that this specific point isn't true... just that Hannity clearly doesn't speak for Fox in entirety. And that the graph HF put forward shows that only 30%ish of their coverage was positive towards him. Maybe that 30% was Hannity? In general though, they've been opposed by a margin of two stories to one.

Those stats do appear to suggest you're wrong on the MSM coverage mate... Looks pretty clear cut that they were against Trump. I mean, that doesn't mean very much except that the media are losing control of the situation now as well. Which is actually a good thing - if they're less penetrating in terms of persuading people to vote one way or another, that is good news for democracy.

Ok, I thought they were in the 'conflicted Republican' camp. Where Trump has done well is with the Alt-Right; so their (less mainstream) media is picking up the slack for him a bit.

Fox News wasn't hugely pro-trump either, was it? Didn't he have some manner of spat with one of their anchors?

Agree with this - it's not about the candidates this time, really. It's about the message.

Well yes, me too. I struggle to think where it can lead us unless one group wins a decisive victory over the other. I kind of wonder if we're seeing the twilight years of Western civilisation here, to be quite honest... certainly if there is a swing to the right, and it holds, that's a total disaster. The lunatics taking over the asylum, and so on.

Fully agree.

It's ridiculous isn't it? You know, the blame for this has to be with identity politics. Divide everyone up by making them fit into random groupings based on shared physical traits and pit them against each other. I mean, Trump made this inevitable as well, since he's played identity politics from day one (white, male) but all this bullshit serves to do is to prevent the far more numerous people at the bottom of the social order from voting in their own interests. Not that there is an option for their own interests at this election, but there could have been.

I've set it out multiple times now and you disagree with it - which is totally fair enough. But I don't see the benefit in rehashing it. Besides, it doesn't really matter. Hillary will win and ultimately, that will be good for those of us who are doing ok. More people will slide out of our group over time, as is happening already, and so the number of disaffected will rise, but as long as there's more of us than there are of them, we should be ok. On the historical context bit - yeah fair enough. I can see the sense in that. Can the millions of people being left behind? Doesn't look like it. My points here aren't some kind of strategy for improving the world man, it's purely observation based. I think things will happen in the way I put across, I'm not saying that I would like these things to happen.

I posted the article yesterday but it was just a Guardian article with a reporter who followed a Trump supporting Democrat around his neighbourhood canvassing opinion, so not something to read anything into beyond my point. I was basically just wanting to demonstrate that I'm not alone in my liberal position but dislike of the 'liberal' option. Also, it could quite conceivably mean zero on both sides

I've made my position clear on this. I'd prefer he was elected for a day for the two fingers moment, and that he was then removed from office somehow Given that this scenario would never happen, I'd prefer Clinton. But that doesn't change the fact that Clinton cannot address this problem by nature of what she represents. She's tainted by the establishment and the powers that be, and unless she's able to oversee an incredible shift in wealth between those who have and those who have not, she's going to address fuck all. My concern is that the longer this wealth gap continues, and the longer the centre believes it is the one true way and that nothing will ever cause it to reflect or change, the harder the eventual successful backlash will be.

Exactly. The fact that there are as many Trump supporting Democrats as Hillary supporting Republicans suggests that a decent number of liberals can now see the problems in this system. It's all relative though, and most of us are going to be sufficiently insulated in our middle class bubbles that we just assume everyone else can see and is happy with how things are. But the reality is that the working class aren't looking back through time and comparing their situation to those who have gone before ffs. They're looking at us and comparing themselves to us. As they fucking should be. There is no simply solution though, you're right. Clinton is no solution at all, and Trump's only purpose would be to shake the career politicians to their core - beyond that he'd be useless too.

Sort of get the point here but if there was ever a demonstration of the rich protecting the establishment that made them rich, it's celebrity endorsements of Clinton. Nauseating that people need to be told how to vote by people whose IQs are probably in the Sub-80 range.

He is elitist though. Shocking commentator. He was pleading with people on the left to forego their principles and vote for his in the name of compromise not long ago. Hugely partisan guy.

Fuck the idea of Trump winning, the overthrow of the Neoliberalist establishment, the impending re-run of Nazi Germany... just let him win Florida

How well hidden...

I can't wait to see if Parky is actually right about any of this stuff.

It's not a strategy, although I see what you're saying... it's just my interpretation of what's actually happening. The establishment isn't going to back down, and the disaffected working class aren't going to either. So it's really all down to chance in my book, whether we get the tame right wing lurches now, or the serious ones later. Neoliberalism is a word to describe a philosophy - one that is fairly hidden considering that in our educational landscape we're very familiar with feminism, communism, fascism, socialism, etc. Curious that the one we live by is the least well known. It's an idea, more importantly, and it probably does need to be re-made. The elites and the establishment I kind of agree, although I use those terms to mix it up a bit so that my posts read better But yes, the solution isn't to rip anything apart - which I've said previously, a few times. I'd prefer a staged withdrawal (or progressive change, as you call it). But the trust isn't there for that to be led from the centre - as can be seen by the fact that Hillary is getting such a kicking - so it needs to come from outside of the 'establishment'. I would have infinitely preferred someone on the left...

Ok maybe I've not explained myself well. I'm not sure I see fascism as an endpoint as such, but I can completely see an eventual and continuing lurch to the right if the centre continues to ignore people's legitimate concerns. I don't see this as good, I see it as inevitable. Things like Trump and Brexit seem like huge losses to us now, but if they weren't allowed to happen, I fear we'd end up with worse outcomes in the longer term. Basically, as I've said, the centreground neoliberal elite need to be seen to lose. Then at least they can go away, learn from their mistakes, and hopefully come back with a fairer model for social structure (while at the same time allowing the right wing nut jobs to demonstrate to the world that they're no more interested in people than the neoliberals are, but less competent). If they don't, and the status quo perpetuates, we'll end up with violence in the long run. The only thing that ever staves that off, is that people believe they have the power to change things through the system that already exists. The longer the status quo persists, the more the anger, pressure, and belief that the structures will never allow for meaningful change, will build up - and the bigger, I would argue, the eventual backlash.

Well yes, absolutely. That's what appears to happen when the centreground fails. Which is why, IMO, it's so important that the pressure building up is released...

Palin is also a fairly terrible human being (although I've had my terrible person radar realigned in the Trump era). But she'd be a far superior candidate to Trump. The Republicans didn't want him man, the GOP hate the guy. This (Trump's movement) is about anti-establishmentarianism and a backlash against fake leftwing politics (identity politics/neoliberalism/humanitarian intervention).

If that's really what this is about then that's a deplorable state of affairs. And it would mean I've entirely misread this. But I can see reasons to vote for an anti-establishment candidate ahead of Clinton, and I've spent this entire election wishing that Palin had run instead of Trump. If she had, we'd be able to dispense with this identity politics sideshow and the useless wing of the left would have to contend with the fact that actually, Clinton just isn't offering people anything that they either believe in or want.