Flacks Like Rachel Maddow Are Killing Us...

[DemocratSinceBirth]

Yeah, there's going to be an Electoral College tie and Willard Romney is going to be president.


on edit- Flack was a poor choice of words. However I thought she was sympathetic to our cause, Don't forget none of us get paid for being a Democrat, or a liberal, or a progressive. It's a labor of love for us. It's a matter of principle. For some it's our raison d'etre. She doesn't have an obligation to be sympathetic to our cause. If she is in it for ratings and to make money that is her right. But I have a right to see her through that prism.

[lob1]

1. Sorry, she's the best journalist on TV.

[DemKittyNC]

3. Agreed or one of the best. I love her :) n/t

[GreenPartyVoter]

5. And me!

[scheming daemons]

6. not during election season, she isnt

Chicken little.

[OhZone]

14. Lately I'm sticking with Bashir, Stephanie Miller, and Randi Rhodes.

I'm tired of MsNBC selling out. Oh, and DU!

[yourout]

7. Hell she might be the only one.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

9. IMHO, she's the worst journalist on TV

We are in a battle for our lives and she is giving aide and comfort to our enemies.

[Change has come]

58. Worse than Hannity?

Wow! We need a jump the shark smiley.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

59. I Spoke In Anger

Nobody is as bad as Hannity. Perhaps O'Riley because his bias is more subtle and hence more insidious.


Look, we have an election to win. Winning this election is a moral imperative. Therefore anything that distracts us from this goal is, imho, immoral.

[Maeve]

87. We must disagree on the meaning of "journalist" then

She is a progressive, no question. She gets scared at election time, no question there, either (I remember her "talk me down" in 2008 and hated it).

But she reports stories in depth, she tries to be fair even to those she disagrees with, she works hard to get her facts straight--those are hallmarks of a journalist. Accuracy, accuracy, accuracy, to quote my J-school teachers. Most of the "media people" are "reporters" or talking heads or pundits and flaks--they deserve the low repute they get. Rachel is trying for something better and less partisan and for that I admire her, even when she goes a bit Chicken Little.

[TDale313]

21. I agree.

She's by far the best journalist on tv. And the rw is scared shitless of her, which should tell you all you need to know.

[jonpaulprime]

22. Totally

agree.... Rachel is the best of the best!!

[Tutonic]

26. Then we should turn on a radio.

Rachel has been dabbling in the dark side during this election cycle. Not cool.

[GeorgeGist]

49. Sorry she's NOT a journalist ...

her degree is in Political Science.

[madrchsod]

57. rhodes scholar and a doctoral degree...who else has that?

i guess no one had any instructor bring up the "what if" scenario

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

60. No one is beyond criticism - no one

No one is always right. Rachel Maddow is my favorite commentator, along with Amy Goodman and Thom Hartmann but I don't worship them and I occasionally disagree with them. I would never call her a "flack", however.

[ProudProgressiveNow]

65. +1

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

2. TURN HER OFF!!

[Tarheel_Dem]

43. I did, and I feel great! Thought it was safe after the convention, but she finally lost me....

completely, after the first debate, along with Tweety & Ed. I only watch Bashir, Sharpton, occasionally O'Donnell, and Melissa on the weekend.

[mr_hat]

4. I take "flack" to be slang for a public relations person.

Is there another meaning, or do you mean hack?

[DURHAM D]

8. Really?

You started two OPs right in a row with this drivel?

Hacks on DU are Killing It.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

18. What Is The Point

What is the point of advancing an unlikely theory that will undermine morale. If I want to have my morale undermined I can watch FOX or CNN...


A 269-269 tie that results in a Romney presidency. Really ???


And my loyalty to the Democratic party and my investment in an Obama reelection is infinitely more important than some tv host.

[woolldog]

55. I actually agree with you on this.

I ended up putting her on mute while cooking dinner

[Indpndnt]

68. Or even worse, a John Boehner presidency.

That was so ludicrous. I previously said I wouldn't watch her, tuned in way too early for O'Donnell, and got that nonsense from Maddow. Okay, back to not watching her, anymore. Fine. Then, O'Donnell's 3rd party nonsense made me turn to an incredibly bad CSI episode.

Bad TV night all around.

[likesmountains 52]

96. I agree that the entire segment was terrible last night.

[avebury]

105. I agree. I am turning her, Ed and Chris off until at least

past the election day. I choose to stay positive on President Obama's pending victory and am not interested in listening to anybody go into panic mode which all three have been known to do at times during an election.

[timber84]

20. yep n/t

[DemocratSinceBirth]

25. That's Why There Is An Alert Button/nt

[TomClash]

10. Is this sarcasm?

[elfin]

12. Lately only watching Bashir

Then Tweety until he starts to foam.

Rachel hasn't been my favorite for a while now and she used to be all the time.

Only watch Charlie Rose reruns unless he has Repug flacks on. PBS news when I remember.

Otherwise, old movies and NCIS reruns to keep what little composure I have left in this horrid election season.

[Ghost of Tom Joad]

79. I'm with you, Bashir does not get the credit he deserves

Too many times Rachel is the voice of doom and irritating to boot.

[skeewee08]

13. It's a slow News day...

Turn to Current if you have it....

[soleft]

15. Has Roberta said something bad too

I heard she sang a good song

[chollybocker]

36. The first time ever I read your post,

the closer I got to you.

[LiberalElite]

47. I heard she had a sound

[mac56]

94. The first time ever I saw her face

I thought the sun rose in her eyes.

[Jester Messiah]

16. Are you high?

Seriously, get help.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

33. I Would Respond To Your Puerile Ad Hominem Attack But I Have Been Insulted By Better Men Or Women/nt

[Iggo]

62. Are you high?

Seriously, get high.

[Jester Messiah]

99. So this is not your first instance of abject stupidity, then.

Far be it from me to interrupt a pro at work.

[hoboken123]

17. What an idiotic thread

Slow news day I guess...

[DemocratSinceBirth]

24. I'm Glad You Think There Will Be An Electoral College Tie That Results In A Romney Presidency,Too...

[hoboken123]

93. She thinks there will be a tie?

You are saying she made a declarative statement that there will be a tie.

I think you are making things up. Let's see it.

[alcibiades_mystery]

19. Swanky Upper West Side pads don't come cheap

Gnaw mean?

[Tutonic]

28. Tell it!

[Tarheel_Dem]

44. Speak to it!

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

23. Honestly, I find her patronizing on air poli-sci classes idiotic

I know Maine is a split state and so is Nebraska.

[Jennicut]

27. I love Rachel. Even worried Rachel.

I will now refer to Iowa and Ohio as Ohiowa, thank you very much.

Nate Silver and everyone else has talked about electoral college ties. It is interesting stuff but highly unlikely.

[fugop]

29. Unwatchable during election season, I agree.

I enjoyed her at the convention coverage, but starting with the first debate, she reverted to the horrible, "TALK ME DOWN, PEOPLE!!!" Rachel of 2008. I had absolutely adored her before that, but all that crap - first about the Obama-Hillary battle and how it would destroy the Dems, then about McCain/Palin - turned me off completely.

She was back in my good graces off and on in between the elections, but I got sick of all the doomsaying after that first debate. But, as I've said in several other threads, I remain pissed at all the left-leaning personalities who thought it made more sense to rip the shit out of Obama after that debate rather than allowing that yes, he had a less-than-stellar performance but ROMNEY LIED! Every time he opened his mouth during that debate, he LIED! And yet ... crickets. More fun to bash Obama, I guess.

Anyway, I turned 'em off, too. After the election, maybe I'll try again. But they've definitely lost a viewer for now.

[Third Doctor]

30. I turned it to Supernatural.

Then I'll turn back to watch LO. I think she is a good journalist but sometimes she is hard to watch.

[CitizenLeft]

34. oh, you're watching my boys!

Love the Winchesters!

[smorkingapple]

31. Jesus guys, it's just a scenario she's putting out there...Rachel is one of the good ones..

It's a slow news day, she's not predicting this is gonna happen, it's an extreme longshot.

[brooklynite]

32. Yeah! I want a commentator who only says things I agree with!

[GodlessBiker]

35. A lot of "recs" you got going there.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

38. "Appeal To Popularity" Is A Logical Fallacy

And I'm glad you want to play parlor games that result in a Romney victory.

[baldguy]

37. She's teaching you how our government actually works.

Who else on TV is doing that?

[justiceischeap]

39. Yes, how horrible that she's explaining what would happen

if this happened. Most people don't know this stuff.

[TDale313]

45. Exactly. n/t

[obamanut2012]

106. Yup

[Blue Idaho]

40. Rachel becomes a complete neurotic mess as elections gets closer.

Remember her "talk me down" meme for 2008.

Usually she is very smart - but election season makes her erratic as best.

[flamingdem]

41. Whew, that's over and we don't have to entertain that idea

ever again since it's probably a .006 % chance it would happen.

Boner as President!

[cliffordu]

42. OH, FFS.

it was a puff piece about the minutia of the constitution.

[ornotna]

51. Right

No time to panic about a little info.

[LiberalElite]

46. I liked her when she was on Countdown

for a 10 minute segment. I can't watch her for an hour. When she says "thank you for staying with us" at the beginning, I say to the TV "I'm not staying with you, I only want to know what you're going to talk about." It seems a tad presumptuous. Rachel just annoys me. She's too "perky" and takes FOREVER to get to the point.

[TheDonkey]

71. I thought I was only one annoyed by her rambling narrative

She tries to always stretch her segments and tease incessantly when she should just be sticking to the news and facts. She tries too hard to be entertaining, I suppose.

[DebJ]

103. At first we really enjoyed her show because she seemed to do

stories that Ed et al had not already covered.
But we stopped watching quite as often because of her habitual repeating of things three times, over and over and over.
We still tune in briefly, but if she is just covering what everyone else already did, and repeating herself, we switch the station.
In fact, all of the MSNBC shows have become in such lock-step with the meme of the night, it has become very redundant
to do a full night of MSNBC like we used to do. I usually end up falling asleep.

[krawhitham]

48. what is wrong with people

[MFM008]

50. its not going to happen

but I still like Rachel.

[AlinPA]

52. The acting coaches got hold of her and changed her. She tries to act "funny' and does a poor

job of it. Someone said "perky" to describe her actions on camera; I don't have the word for it but she keeps trying to act as if her expressions and attempts at humor are cute. I liked her a couple of years ago when she was more serious. She is very intelligent and does not need to do that acting for the stupid producers.

[Malikshah]

53. Someone needs to send her her tapes from the weeks leading up to the 2008 election. She did the

same thing then. Sad sack, glum, worried, downbeat, the ultimate fart in a spacesuit.

Some may call it "being real," but regrettably it is more like "believing one's own press."

Solution: Don't watch the news; go out and volunteer. Go out and GOTV.

[neverforget]

54. God help us if educating people about what happens in the event of a tie is frowned upon

here, then we are in bad shape. Just because she talked about it doesn't mean it's going to happen.

[defacto7]

64. and I thought I was jumping the gun today....

Education = Good!

Jump to erratic conclusions = BAD!


That's our lesson for today children.

[GranholmFan]

56. I Stopped Watching Her a Long Time Ago....

Got tired of her whining and thinking she is so wonderful, and in more recent years , hanging out with people like Chuck Todd. And this crap just kind of re-inforces why I stopped watching and I'm happy about it.

[forestpath]

61. Several months ago, Rachel devoted half of a show to her good pal Corey Booker

so he could try dig himself out of the hole he'd dug when he criticized the Obama campaign's attack on Romney's Bain Capital record. During that show she played the false equivalency card and actually claimed that liberal attacks on Republicans were no different than Republican attacks on President Obama.

I used to watch her show almost every night up until then, and had for years. But after that, I was so shocked and disgusted by what I considered a deep betrayed by her that I literally could not watch her show for weeks.

I began watching again occasionally later in the summer but I just didn't feel the same way about her that I used to. I feel sad about it, but there it is. It doesn't sound as if I'm missing much right now, anyway.

[obnoxiousdrunk]

63. It's not just Rachel talking

about this 269 tie situation. NPR had a whole segment on it today. It's just talk.

[defacto7]

66. There are a lot of sites

that have been discussing the outcome of such an event and it's been out there for 2 months. The mathematical probabilities are really low but it's educational to know what it means because it shows how screwed up our election system is. THAT is the real point.
The actual probability of a tie in the electoral college is about .5%, that's point five percent.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

67. Nate Silver Has It At .05 Percent Which Is 1/25 of 5.0%

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/

He has run thousands if not millions of simulations and it has happened once every two hundred times.

[defacto7]

75. ah... that's better... thanks for the correction.

[UCmeNdc]

69. Rachel Maddow talked about women's rights throughout this whole show

The what if 269 split Electoral Collage tie was a what if segment to say this is what happens according to the constitution. It is purely a informative speculation piece to show a weird side note of US elections.

The good information proceeding that segment made the show well worth watching. Rachel decimated Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan linking them to "Rape is OK and the woman must keep her rape baby by government mandate." It is a gift from god.

[TheDonkey]

70. That is the problem with liberal news

They are often more apt to eat their own. The right does one thing better than Democrats and that is typically showing a good amount of loyalty to their leadership. It comes with the territory but liberals do not mind constantly attacking their leaders in the face of much larger threats.

[ncav53]

72. I kind of agree.

Especially after the first debate, it wouldn't have been so bad if the liberal talking heads didn't ridiculously overreact and pan Obama's performance (which I honestly still don't think was that bad outside of him not challenging Romney more) instead of talk about Romney constant lies and flip-flops. IMO they did the most harm to Obama's chances after the first debate.

[cliffordu]

73. Oh, FFS.

She was illustrating an amusing anomaly in the Constitution.

Try to keep up.

And thanks for your concern.

[BluegrassDem]

74. Rachel is a classic Debbie Downer

She pounces on the slightest of bad news and really drums it up. I also remember vividly on election night in 2008, she was poo-pooing Obama cause the they didn't call Indiana and Virginia early. She was saying that they are showing to be a waste of time and it could cost him the election. She was really quick to jump on bad news. I honestly think that's just her personality to be a downer like that. I don't think she's doing it maliciously or anything.

[JNelson6563]

80. She's a fatalist.

We have many of them here at DU too. I find them highly annoying.

You don't find fatalists in the trenches, only in the comfortable world of the observers.

Julie

[eridani]

76. Nothing wrong with being a congenital pessimist

Pundits who cause us to be complacent are far more dangerous, IMO.

[treestar]

77. Not a fan either

These pundits are just entertainers - we could look elsewhere for real political commentary.

[NoPasaran]

78. It's Halloween season. Who doesn't appreciate a good scary story?

I think the fact that the 269 Strategy is being talked about seriously is a very good sign for our side. It shows that in the thinking of the pundits at least Romney's chances for outright victory have pretty much evaporated. There's no reason to whip up some unlikely ghost tale to keep the narrative entertaining otherwise.

[FlaGranny]

81. I really don't know why

people are getting upset about that tie business. It was interesting, funny, informative, and, yes, a bit scarey. Rachel is a liberal, but she's no lackey. If she doesn't like something, she's going to tell you, and vice versa. She IS sympathetic to the liberal cause, but why shouldn't she speak the truth as she knows it? Liberals shouldn't acknowledge all the facts?

[Major Hogwash]

82. Yeah, I agree.

She's an amateur.
I stopped watching her regularly quite awhile ago, maybe a little over 2 years ago, because she usually stammers and stutters her way through her pieces, and then she has this annoying habit of constantly repeating the end of her statements all of the time.
Like she, herself, can't believe what she just said.

And, then for whatever reason she has, she is constantly writing stuff down when she comes to the end of those pieces, circling crap all of the time on her paperwork.
Like she is keeping some permanent record of it for posterity sake or whatever.
It makes her look crazy, like Glen Beck.

Only because other people complained about her, did I start watching her again, just recently.
And she is far worse than she ever was before.
When she had Nate Silver on her program 2 weeks ago, the camera angle on Nate was from above him, and the background behind him was an orange slate!
It made Nate look like he was a little kid, reporting to her from a cardboard box, somewhere else in the studio.

Not only does Rachel ramp up the anxiety level on her program on purpose, unnecessarily, in my opinion.
But, she also ignores cold, hard facts.
Like the fact that we have tried to contact her through twitter, e-mails, and have even made phone calls to the studio heads, to get her to realize that Nate is including false numbers for the polls in his tabulations.
Nate is including Gravis Marketing polls, which the DU Work Group has decimated in their analysis.
Evidently Nate won't respond to any e-mails either, so the entire reporting of Nate Silver's "polling analysis" is flawed from the get-go!

[calico1]

83. I like her but Rachel tends to do too much hand wringing during the election.

I still rememember all the "talk me down!" freak outs from 2008.

It gets old after a while.

[Arkana]

84. Rachel Maddow doesn't need to be "sympathetic to our cause".

She needs to tell the truth and report news, and right now an electoral college tie is an interesting tidbit of trivia. If she had spent the whole show on it, then you'd have cause for concern.

We don't need a propaganda channel. No left-wing Foxes.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

85. Lighten up, Francis....

You're not going to find many people in mainstream broadcast journalism who are more sympathetic to our cause than Rachel Maddow.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

86. "Francis." Nice epithet from the anonymity of a computer. /nt

[DFW]

88. I don't think it was meant as an epithet. It's a quote from "Stripes"

It basically means, "calm down" in 70s jargon.

For my part, unless there is MASSIVE vote counting fraud (not impossible, I realize), I very much doubt that there will be a tie sending the election to the House. With Bonehead as Speaker, the outcome of that scenario is as foregone as it would be if left up to Antonin Scalia.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

90. For What It's Worth Nate Sliver Ran Thousands If Not Tens Of Thousands Of Simulations

The tied Electoral College scenario occurred once every two hundred simulations.

And I'm sure if other statisticians ran simulations they would come to roughly the same conclusion.

It wasn't the discussion that irked me as much as the breathless tease before the commercial and the subsequent discussion of it as a real possibility. If you didn't watch the segment I ask you to.

[DFW]

92. I'd be glad to if you have a link to the segment.

I don't get American TV, and so that is all I have to rely on.

[nolabels]

95. You probably wouldn't want American TV (the news part)

Mostly it's just pure B.S. propaganda. You will have to do a lot of filtering of many sources to get what is really going on. Even with that, it is proven that people that have gotten little information about current affairs many times have a better idea about what is really going on. Just be careful what you think you have learned, it just might lead you astray.

[DFW]

100. My news comes mostly from the ARD and ZDF

To a lesser degree from AFP and the BBC

I do get clips sent to me from MSNBC and Fox Noise, but seldom have the time to watch them. Day job and all that.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

89. God as my judge, I have not idea with you're babbling about

If there's someone more inclined toward progressive causes than Rachel, then watch that person's show. If not, then shut off the fucking television.

[yardwork]

91. Yeah, it's all Rachel Maddow's fault.

[hoboken123]

97. Apparently mentioning something could happens = stating it will happen

There could be a tie in the EV votes in this election.

There, I said it.

[PsychProfessor]

98. I love her but she is not a statistician

She got carried away, talking about these things being "feasible" when what she really meant was "possible in some bizarro alternate universe". There is definitely a large amount of real estate between feasible and possible. She lost that. I think it is a tendency that many eggheads have. So, I give her a pass. I also think that there is a conventional wisdom out there that Democrats need to be even more neurotic and scared than we already are. I don't know if I personally could survive any more anxiety about this election. On the other hand, if some people are not scared enough already to do everything they can then I guess it is Rachel's duty to scare them even more.

[NCLefty]

101. You guys are way over-thinking this.

Almost all of her viewers are lefties of course. If she can scare a few that would not have voted (due to a myriad of possible reasons) with a tie story, they may decide to vote after all.

Or she's out to get us, if you still like that theory :p

[whistler162]

102. Not a flack.... more like that

over protective mother who calls you up and tells you not to forget to wear snow boots and a parka. When you tell her "But, Ma its summer in Southern California!" she responds "Well you never know".
.
On the other hand if it gets one more voter to vote because it "might" be a close race then it is all for the good. Because...."Well you never know".

[JHB]

104. Lighten up, Francis. You're in "fret mode" just like she was.

Maddow is one of the best, but you do have to recognize when she's gone into "fret mode" and turn her off, or skip to the next segment, depending on how you're viewing the show.

She's great at putting things together and presenting them in a way that argues the larger implications. But sometimes, especially in political campaigns, that practice and instinct to delve into patterns backfires on her, and thanks to her daily format she gets worked up about a pattern she sees that within days is clearly just a blip.

That's why it's important to have more than a handful of people doing this: so the foibles of one person don't become the whole story.