Originally published at: https://boingboing.net/2024/07/10/impacts-of-the-presidential-debate-far-overestimated.html
…
15 Likes
Impacts of the Presidential debate far overestimated
And thus way, WAY overhyped.
Fuck off, corporate media hacks!
45 Likes
And that response was from people who answer phone calls from unknown numbers! Just imagine how the other 90% of voters reacted.
31 Likes
Of course.
Since the debates don’t exhibit at all how a candidate would fulfill the duties of being president, and if they actually get the job they’ll never have to do such a “debate” as part of the job, it seems the only purpose of these campaign debates is to generate a bunch of “news” fodder.
Mission accomplished!
17 Likes
Wait, what?
You’re saying that the media headlines that have dominated the news since the debate are overwrought horserace bullshit?
Well, imagine my surprise!
23 Likes
But how will I know what to think and what to buy if the media isn’t making it a spectacle?
6 Likes
Even the New York Times, which is usually better about this
Oh, come on, Raw Story, we all know the Times is absolutely not “usually better about this.” They’re Nazi-coddling bullshitters who’ve announced they’re going to fuck Biden’s campaign because he won’t give them the exclusive interview they think they’re owed.
I really do wish people would just remember that the Times is a giant bucket of shit and stop pretending they’re the Best of the Best…
30 Likes
… how else will I know my phone still works 
11 Likes
You mean you are shocked, SHOCKED that there is propaganda going on in this establishment?
7 Likes
Meanwhile, over at Vox, they’re still kvetching about Biden’s oldness, rebutting arguments against his candidacy that no one is actually making. It’s maddening.
4 Likes
Proof that political pundits have little in common with normal people.
7 Likes
We’re always told that the constant attempts to kneecap the Democratic candidates by billionaire-owned properties even on the supposedly ‘liberal’ end of the media spectrum are the result of a quixotic determination to appear “unbiased” or to “challenge their readers” (one of the explanations trotted out for the NYT’s selective coverage). But the slant is so obvious and so systematically irresponsible that it’s increasingly hard to really buy that explanation.
If this behavior is in fact tactical, then the logical conclusion is that the people who own most of our media would really prefer a dictatorship that favored the interests of the moneyed class over the continuation of democracy in the United States. And even if their efforts to throw the election to Trump by running free campaign adverts on his behalf aren’t successful, they will have had another effect. They will have further convinced Trump’s supporters that he should have won, thus further undermining faith in the electoral system, creating further instability and encouraging post-election political violence.
In short, they’re trying to engineer either a dictatorship or a bloodbath, apparently because they believe that’s what’s in their best interests.
The Venn diagram of the intersection between extreme (usually inherited) wealth and sociopathy would appear to be a single circle.
22 Likes
That’s already been well established for CEOs. Imagine what it’s like for people who see CEOs as peons.
10 Likes
As usual, the Democrats have failed to communicate why American should support centrist liberal policies over fascism wearing a nationalist populist mask.
10 Likes
Huh? I mean, I get that criticism of past campaigns, but this one? I mean, take your pick of one of any important to existential topics, and this administration hasn’t just talked the talk, they’ve walked the walk. They have the results and have now articulated them clearly, but they are being shouted down by centrist kingmakers in the media and pundit class.
2015 called and they want their talking point back.
17 Likes
Did you forget to include a ‘/s’?
4 Likes
I read it as sarcastic, and thus not needing one, but who knows these days. 
6 Likes
Those that respect the New York Times simply for being an old and established paper, should remember that the New York Post is around fifty years even older.
6 Likes
Oh I did too, but I think @DukeTrout perhaps did not.
5 Likes
5 Likes
