Lion of the Blogosphere

The post-election MSM narrative

with 56 comments

Here’s a post-election prediction that I was completely wrong about. I wrote this on November 9th:

The Wikileaks release of John Podesta’s emails have been almost entirely ignored by the mainstream media because they were acting as an extension of HRC’s campaign, so they suppressed any news stories that were unfavorable to her.

But now that it no longer affects the outcome of any election, and after the mainstream media gets bored covering the aftermath of Trumps victory (I give it just a few days before that happens), they will discover a huge treasure trove of news stories in the Wikileaks emails, and they won’t be able to resist covering a big scandal.

I guess I underestimated how much the mainstream media (MSM) hates Donald Trump and overestimated their journalistic integrity. I apologize for my wrong prediction.

The MSM has created three post-election narratives which they are following in order to weaken Trump and set him up for impeachment (or so they hope). Listed below in declining order of importance:

1. Trump has MASSIVE conflicts of interest with his business.

You would think that if this were such a big deal, the MSM would have reported on this before any votes were actually cast. You know, to warn voters about who they were voting for? The MSM had many months to write stories about this before the election, but it was almost completely ignored until after election day.

My explanation is that the MSM was out to make sure Trump lost the election, and they believed that the best way to do that was to keep the focus on Trump’s alleged “racism” and “misogyny.” Besides, if they brought up conflicts of interest, Trump could easily deflect that and put more attention on how the Clinton family made more than $100 million while HRC was a U.S. Senator and Secretary of State, and during that time WJC received speaking fees from foreign governments. And the Clinton Foundation raised $2 billion dollars of donations, including donations from foreign governments.

But now that HRC is out of the picture, the MSM is using this angle to attack Trump. I suspect they are trying to set up a legal justification to impeach Trump, because they think that having said mean things in the past and enforcing the immigration statutes previously lawfully passed by Congress and signed into law by previous presidents isn’t a valid justification for impeachment.

2. Trump is reneging on his campaign promises.

Given that the MSM hates all of Trump’s campaign promises, you’d think they’d be delighted if this were actually true and they’d cover it in a favorable light, praising it as “statesman-like flexibility” and “presidential leadership.”

However, the real purpose of this narrative is to drive a wedge between Trump and his supporters. If Trump loses his popular support, then it becomes more of a possibility that the Senate would impeach him.

3. Trump was elected because of “fake news” and Russian propaganda and he lost the popular vote

This is a continuing attack on Trump’s mandate (weakening his authority with Congress), and to keep the Trump-haters incensed and angry so that they keep fighting him and making his presidency as miserable as possible.

The same journalists touting the Russian propaganda angle probably delightfully laughed in agreement when Obama told Romney in the debate that “the 1980s are calling to ask for their foreign policy back.”

We have learned that someone programmed a fake website that looked like Google and tricked Podesta with a phishing email. This is something that private hackers with no connection to the Russian government do all the time. Julian Assange said that the leaks didn’t come from the Russian government. The MSM is pushing mere speculation as if it were the rock-solid truth. So it’s very ironic that they are incensed by “fake news” when blaming Russia for Trump losing the election is a borderline fake story.

And no, a few scammers in the former Soviet Union taking advantage of fake stories as clickbait to get ad revenue is not a Russian government plot and did not swing the election.

* * *

“destructure” writes:

Regarding your third point, I think you underestimate what they’re doing here. Facebook, Google and Twitter have come out with plans to crack down on “fake news”. Merkel has recently come out decrying the use of fake news and bots on social media ahead of elections she fears will go against her. I don’t think delegitimizing Trump’s mandate is their primary goal. Their primary goal is to purge social media of messages they don’t control. Their goal is to create a pretext for censorship.

I agree with this. The liberals can’t legally censor conservative media, but they can get their corporate allies (Google, Facebook, Twitter) to do it for them. Today, I see Twitter censoring my link to the Washington Times.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

November 26, 2016 at 10:56 am

Posted in Politics

56 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. When was the last time we elected a president who ran businesses? I find the idea that the media is pushing that Trump must essentially liquidate all his businesses to be absurd.

    j53588

    November 26, 2016 at 11:33 am

  2. The conflicts of interest thing is legit, but people new about it before they voted. Trump is a skeazy grifter, no news there.

    The popular vote thing is also legit. Hillary is going to win by 1.9%. That’s huge. I support the electoral college but it is pretty undemocratic.

    I don’t think the MSM is trying to impeach Trump, just weaken his popularity. There is no way to impeach Trump because he has a mob of supporters who will revolt if Congress tries to remove him from office. The NeoGaf and Dkos crew want to impeach but they are totally delusional.

    Otis the Sweaty

    November 26, 2016 at 11:34 am

    • “The popular vote thing is also legit. Hillary is going to win by 1.9%. That’s huge. I support the electoral college but it is pretty undemocratic.”

      Yes and no. There are millions of Republican voters in New York and California who don’t bother voting because they know it won’t affect the outcome. If the electoral votes were divided proportionally to the results Trump would have gotten a lot more votes.

      destructure

      November 26, 2016 at 12:04 pm

      • There is no way that there are 2.5 million missing Trump votes out there. No way.

        Otis the Sweaty

        November 26, 2016 at 12:28 pm

      • I did read where they estimate that 3 million illegals may have voted. Just how many voted for Trump do you think?

        This is the plaintive wailing of losers. It has no traction. It’s an “I lost, so I want to retroactively change the rules of the game” ploy.

        Illegal vote + non-voting Republicans + unknown number of additional votes if Trump had campaigned in every state + usual Dem fraud = in all probability way more than 1.9%. But who cares – the rules are the rules.

        Sorry losers – suck it up.

        gda

        November 26, 2016 at 1:04 pm

      • Otis,

        Millions of illegals and foreigners voted because the elections have no integrity. When anyone can vote, multiple times or even when dead, then popular vote totals don’t matter.

        Foreigners altering census data to affect the electoral college is also a problem.

        map

        November 26, 2016 at 1:25 pm

      • There are millions of people from both parties who didn’t vote because they lived somewhere that it wouldn’t have affected the outcome. Barely half the population of eligible voters even voted. Out of 235 million people of voting age there are absolutely “2.5 million missing Trump votes”.

        destructure

        November 26, 2016 at 1:29 pm

      • The 3 million illegal votes for Hillary is bullshit. According to the numbers provided by the very controversial study done by Jesse Richman and David Earnest, we would expect 1 million votes at most by non-citizens (thats illegals plus legal immigrants who aren’t actually citizens). I think the number was probably closer to half a million, but lets go with 1 mil for the sake of argument. Now Hillary ends up winning by 1.5 million instead of 2.5. Still huge.

        I strongly doubt there were more than 200 thousand missing Trump voters in CA and NY combined, and that isn’t even taking into account all the missing Hillary voters in non swing states. It is unfalsifiable and there is no data to back it up.

        More interesting is the question of fraud. If 1 million non citizens were able to vote, how much voter fraud could have happened?

        But mass voter fraud could only have happened in safely blue states, and why even bother there?

        Hillary won the popular vote by 1.9, voting fraud + illegals *may* have accounted for up to .8 points of that margin. So Hillary still ends up with a 1.1% popular vote victory, which is a decisive win. And really, I doubt that fraud and illegals combined made even that much of a difference.

        Otis the Sweaty

        November 26, 2016 at 2:26 pm

      • California and New York would stay blue no matter what. If it wasn’t for the Electoral College, California with it’s massive number of raw votes for Democrats would decide every election. This type of situation is what our founding fathers wisely were trying to prevent when they came up with the electoral college.

        Jay Fink

        November 26, 2016 at 3:10 pm

    • Otis,

      Lions point is not that the conflict of interest issue is legitimate, which it is, but that the press made very little of it during the election, because they thought he was more vulnerable on the identity politics issues that are so important to them.

      The popular vote margin is a legitimate issue, but it is also a simple fact that illegal or improper voting plays a part in our system. How much if a part…who knows? I really would love to know, but we never will know how much, because certain people have a lot to lose if we find out.

      gothamette

      November 26, 2016 at 2:11 pm

      • it is also a simple fact that illegal or improper voting plays a part in our system.

        As far as I can tell noone in the mainstream says that in person voter fraud plays any significant role. It’s just a republican excuse to suppress democratic turnout.

        Magnavox

        November 26, 2016 at 4:34 pm

      • I’m in favor of requiring photo ID to vote. HRC herself now says that there could have been fraud in Wisconsin and there should be a re-count.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        November 26, 2016 at 4:35 pm

      • These guys (Richman and Earnest, great names) do believe so, but others have challenged their findings. I think it’s a worthy subject of further investigation, don’t you?

        https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2014/10/24/could-non-citizens-decide-the-november-election/

        gothamette

        November 26, 2016 at 5:33 pm

      • There’s a difference between voter fraud and in person voter fraud. ID would only do anything about the latter.

        Magnavox

        November 26, 2016 at 4:41 pm

      • Yes it should be looked into. And maybe it should even be promoted as gsvy knowing it’s not true in order to help republicans win elections.

        Magnavox

        November 27, 2016 at 12:17 am

    • The popular vote is NOT legit.

      A lot of those Dem votes are dead people and illegals.

      Hell, if I had my way I’d also throw out the legal votes of the post 1965 immigrants because they were admitted without the will of the people, under false pretenses, and precisely for the purpose of running up lib votes and running down wages.

      fakeemail

      November 26, 2016 at 5:13 pm

    • >”The conflicts of interest thing is legit…”

      What, exactly, is the conflict? He has real estate interests. Someone is going to do business, or not, as some kind of leverage against him personally that will affect US policy. This seems far fetched. I don’t think you can even make the claim that there is an “appearance” of a conflict.

      Forbes

      November 30, 2016 at 12:34 pm

  3. That is a good post touching on similar thoughts to mine.

    Regarding your first point, there’s no law saying trump has to put his interests in a blind trust. Turning them over to his children to manage SHOULD be good enough. But it won’t be because the msm will manufacture stories to discredit him. So they’d better be very careful to avoid anything that could even be misconstrued as a conflict of interest. This actually has me worried.

    Regarding your second point, I’d thought of this in connection with the NeverTrump TrueCuck scum during the election. They railed against Trump’s immigration and trade policies while claiming he wasn’t going to do it. But it was obvious they hated Trump because they knew he would. In spite of all their caterwauling about “principles” they’re utter hypocrites.

    Regarding your third point, I think you underestimate what they’re doing here. Facebook, Google and Twitter have come out with plans to crack down on “fake news”. Merkel has recently come out decrying the use of fake news and bots on social media ahead of elections she fears will go against her. I don’t think delegitimizing Trump’s mandate is their primary goal. Their primary goal is to purge social media of messages they don’t control. Their goal is to create a pretext for censorship.

    destructure

    November 26, 2016 at 11:59 am

    • How is it good enough to hand it over to his kids when he is in constant contact with them and they are playing key roles in the administration. Even a blind trust wouldn’t be good enough because the whole point of a blind trust is that you don’t know what assets are in it, something which is impossible when Trump puts his name in giant letters on everything he owns.

      Magnavox

      November 26, 2016 at 4:36 pm

      • “How is it good enough to hand it over to his kids when he is in constant contact with them and they are playing key roles in the administration.”

        Since when are politicians’ children supposed to sell their business and be unemployed?

        And letting his children run the business is what he said he would do back in January or something like that, the media ignored the issue until after he got elected, the voters didn’t care enough about it to vote for someone else.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        November 26, 2016 at 4:59 pm

      • the voters didn’t care enough about it to vote for someone else.

        In terms of popular vote they did. And everything I write is from the perspective of wanting him to be the best president possible not just getting him to the point where he’s better than Clinton and no better.

        Since when are politicians’ children supposed to sell their business and be unemployed?

        They shouldn’t be unemployed but they should lose money over the next four years. Trump should convene some sort of council of ethicists who hate him and just say flat out say that he’d never thing of letting them restrict what he can do politically but he’ll gladly let them hamstring him financially.

        Magnavox

        November 27, 2016 at 5:26 am

      • Trump should convene some sort of council of ethicists who hate him and just say flat out say that he’d never thing of letting them restrict what he can do politically but he’ll gladly let them hamstring him financially.

        Those would be the same “ethicists” who said the Clinton Foundation was on the up-and-up?

        The Undiscovered Jew

        November 27, 2016 at 9:56 am

  4. I’ve been reading up on Kamala Harris and she might not be as toxic to suburban whites as I thought. She is half Indian, not 100 percent black, and is married to a beta, ugly Jewish guy. On policy matters she is no different than Hillary or Obama.

    I just don’t see the Democrats committing suicide for us by pursuing Bernenomics. And with Harris or Booker running, there is that 2.2 net points of the black vote that I had been talking about. The Dems are going to start with a natural advantage of 3.6% in the popular vote in 2020. Trump is going to need to flip 3 points worth Hillary’s white votes NOT INCLUDING the Romney voters who voted for Hillary.

    Doable? Yes. Probable? I don’t know.

    Otis the Sweaty

    November 26, 2016 at 12:10 pm

    • There are forty-seven million white people who are not registered to vote. Granted, some of them are hopeless: absolute idiots, opiate addicts, apathetic fools. But I really believe that 10% of them are people who could and should be registered.

      gothamette

      November 26, 2016 at 2:14 pm

    • > not 100% black

      well, then, the Dindu Nuffins will stay home, just like this time – even with Barack & Michelle shouting at them to get off their asses.

      The Thinking Classes sector of African Americans will vote for the thinking man’s candidate – just like they did this time.

      Karl

      November 30, 2016 at 6:14 am

  5. ” I suspect they are trying to set up a legal justification to impeach Trump, ”

    Bingo. That is the Occam’s Razor response to this.

    Actually the election hasn’t happened yet. There is talk of stopping Trump in the Electoral College.

    Ed

    November 26, 2016 at 12:13 pm

    • They aren’t trying to impeach Trump. They aren’t that retarded. They are just trying to create a scandal and Trump is giving them an awful lot to work with.

      Otis the Sweaty

      November 26, 2016 at 12:45 pm

      • “They aren’t trying to impeach Trump. ”

        Conservatives continuously make the mistake of underestimating the liberal enemy.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        November 26, 2016 at 12:47 pm

      • Not only would liberals try to impeach Trump but much of the GOP establishment would as well.

        destructure

        November 26, 2016 at 3:13 pm

      • The goal of GOPe is to get re-elected. How does impeaching Trump impact their chance of getting re-elected?

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        November 26, 2016 at 3:35 pm

      • If I’m wrong then I am actually OVERestimating liberals. Trump is impeached, there will be civil war. Impeaching Trump would not be political suicide for liberals, it would be *literal* suicide.

        Otis the Sweaty

        November 26, 2016 at 3:20 pm

      • “Impeached” has a specific Constitutional definition. It’s the BEGINNING of the process and not the conclusion of the process. Bill Clinton was “impeached” and nothing even happened to him.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        November 26, 2016 at 3:36 pm

      • No, the GOPe would never impeach Trump. Trump has 80+% approval amongst Republican voters. The GOPe is stuck with Trump and well knows it.

        And besides, Trump can give them what they really want: dereg, tax cuts, big contracts and judges. Those are all they really care about anyway.

        Otis the Sweaty

        November 26, 2016 at 4:00 pm

      • “The goal of GOPe is to get re-elected. How does impeaching Trump impact their chance of getting re-elected?”

        Yet many tried to sabotage Trump and some even voted for Hillary.

        destructure

        November 26, 2016 at 4:16 pm

      • They were cucked by the MSM into being afraid of being called out as “racist.”

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        November 26, 2016 at 4:31 pm

      • The goal of GOPe is to get re-elected. How does impeaching Trump impact their chance of getting re-elected?

        No, the GOPe would never impeach Trump. Trump has 80+% approval amongst Republican voters. The GOPe is stuck with Trump and well knows it.

        They’re not going to impeach him when he’s popular. But if the corruption or some other problems in his administration cause the people to turn against him they can impeach him and solidify in the minds of voters the fact that Trump was never one of them and that they shouldn’t hold whatever Trump did against them.

        Magnavox

        November 26, 2016 at 4:44 pm

    • Stranger things have happened.

      gothamette

      November 26, 2016 at 2:15 pm

  6. Why on earth would you apologise for an incorrect prediction? It’s not like we think you are Nostradamus and now our faith has been shattered.

    prolier than thou

    November 26, 2016 at 12:17 pm

  7. How is Trump’s conflict of interest legally different from any other politician? Don’t they all have stocks in overseas corporations or mutual funds based on foreign stocks? How about domestic companies that do business overseas?

    And Lion is right, this sort of conflict of interest pales in comparison to what the Clintons got away with. Isn’t paying Bill the same as paying Hillary in light of marital property law? If he gets a $300000 from Saudi Arabia, how is that different from paying her?

    The popular vote meme is just silly. Trump tweets: “If the election were based on total popular vote I would have campaigned in N.Y. Florida and California and won even bigger and more easily” thereby showing he’s smarter than the majority of left-wing pundits. How is our system fundamentally different from other parliamentary democracies anyway? If parliament elects the prime minister, how is that fundamentally different from our electoral college electing the president?

    steve@steve.com

    November 26, 2016 at 12:20 pm

    • Conflict of interest?

      Congressmen are allowed to engage in insider trading.

      map

      November 26, 2016 at 1:26 pm

    • The point is that politicians like Clinton are something we are familiar with (even if we shouldn’t tolerate it). Trump represents something unknown. The unique thing about the Clintons, their family foundation, was subject to extensive scrutiny and noone came up with any smoking guns.

      Magnavox

      November 26, 2016 at 4:40 pm

      • How f*cking stupid are you? Educate yourself by watching both of Molyneux’s interviews of Charles Ortel on the Foundation.

        Andrew E.

        November 26, 2016 at 7:12 pm

      • I agree that there’s no smoking gun, but there’s a whole lot of smoke.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        November 26, 2016 at 7:26 pm

      • There is also a hell of a lot of smoke around political donations which sometimes crosses over the line to actions that are provable illegal. We essentially have legal influence peddling in this country through campaign donations, and the Clintons pioneered a new form of that with their family foundation (though it’s also worth noting that Clinton would almost certainly have been better about reforming campaign finance than Trump will be). We haven’t had anything like Trump in the presidency before.

        Magnavox

        November 27, 2016 at 12:23 am

  8. The same journalists touting the Russian propaganda angle probably delightfully laughed in agreement when Obama told Romney in the debate that “the 1980s are calling to ask for their foreign policy back.”

    I think you mean “delightedly.”

    snorlax

    November 26, 2016 at 12:32 pm

  9. I think you also leave out the whole “normalize” meme.

    Some of it, in opinion pieces, is that nothing Trump does should ever be accepted and every move is horrifyingly beyond the pale.

    The straight news “non-normalize meme is that Trump is doing everything wrong and is hopelessly out of his depth- no picks are ready, he is considering people who are incompatible (Romney v Giuliani), he wants security clearance for his kids, naming Maddog Mathis is unprecedented, naming Bannon is unprecedented, having his business conflicts of interest is unprecedented.

    Lion of the Turambar

    November 26, 2016 at 1:40 pm

    • Right. This is the main thrust of the anti Trump movement.

      And I think that Lion is cooperating with it by repeating stupid rumors of Barros supposed autism, based upon nothing real. I think Lion is pretty naïve in a lot of ways.

      Another “don’t normalize him” is the recount efforts now in Wisconsin and perhaps in a few of the other swing States. it’s all of a piece to delegitimize his presidency.

      Meanwhile, what’s going on with John podesta and Anthony Weiner and Huma abedin?

      gothamette

      November 26, 2016 at 2:03 pm

      • “And I think that Lion is cooperating with it by repeating stupid rumors of Barros supposed autism, based upon nothing real. I think Lion is pretty naïve in a lot of ways.”

        That has nothing to do with the MSM narrative. Notice that the traditional MSM ignored it, only the Washington Times and Fox News reported it, because the angle was it makes Rosie O’Donnell look mean and petty.

        I believe that Barron has something. It doesn’t matter much, except as an explanation for why Melania is staying in NYC, and possibly why Trump said some stuff about autism.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        November 26, 2016 at 2:08 pm

  10. Great post and probably all three of your main points deserve their own post.

    I’m sure the media would have loved to have gone after Trump on possible conflicts of interest, but they had to cover for Hillary over her actual conflicts of interest, so it kind of disarmed the issue during the campaign. Now that the Clinton Foundation is having firesale prices, it’s safe to bring the issue up again because Hillary can’t be thrown on the fire.

    The Trump-is-betraying-his-supporters line is something I’ve been hearing from the left during the entire campaign. Since Trump has trolled them each time (remember the big walk back on immigration speech that turned into a doubling down?) it’s merely laughable at this point.

    If there is ever a great example of media coordination to alter the narrative, it’s the fake news line. This suddenly blew up on all stations as if it were some breaking story. I don’t think they believe it but they need to point to Trump supporters and call them stupid, but in a round about way. Actual effect on the election from fake news? Zero, unless you count the fake news that NBC/CBS/ABC/CNN/NYT ect have been generating.

    Mike Street Station

    November 26, 2016 at 1:52 pm

  11. destructure should be pleased that the liberal media is anti-Russian, and using Russia to attack Trump. George Wallace talked about being “out-ni55ered” by Paterson, but the “liberal media” is trying to out-Ruskie Trump.

    destructure should be happy that the “liberal media” only offers effusive praise for the sacred Maidan. Liberals truly are fascist if they support that.

    Black_Rose

    November 26, 2016 at 1:56 pm

    • You’re just butt hurt that I called you out on your marxist crap.

      destructure

      November 26, 2016 at 4:09 pm

      • Lol, no. You didn’t call me out.

        I am butthurt due to what I said. You like the Maidan (and refuse to say that the “peaceful protestors” in Kyiv are the equivalent of rioters from Black Lives Matter).

        Black_Rose

        November 27, 2016 at 3:11 pm

  12. Hillary did not win the popular vote. She got millions of votes from illegals. Millions. Those votes won’t be there for the Dems in 2020. Trump will win reelection easily.

    Andrew E.

    November 26, 2016 at 1:57 pm

  13. “But now that HRC is out of the picture,”

    Is she? What do you make of the recount efforts in Wisconsin? Hillary’s campaign is now cooperating with it.

    gothamette

    November 26, 2016 at 2:00 pm

  14. I’m glad Trump won, but in all honesty, without Comey’s announcement we probably would have had president-elect Hillary Clinton. Of course it was Clinton’s fault but the fact still remains…

    Shawn

    November 26, 2016 at 5:26 pm

  15. 1) is pure paranoia, Lion — don’t believe this fake news generated by the gaystream media. President Trump will consult legal counsel and structure things to avoid any conflicts. Piece a cake.

    2) is absolutely correct and will make weak-kneed Republicucks quiver and quake…. until January 21, 2017, when President Trump and a Republican-controlled Congress begin enacting his agenda.

    3) Popular vote is irrelevant. Trump won per current law by focusing all his money and energy on swing states — he didn’t waste millions on worthless ads in Cali, Oregon, and Washington the way illary did. The gaystream media’s Russiaphobia and ‘fake news’ is wonky inside-baseball garbage of which normal voters are utterly unaware.

    hard9bf

    November 27, 2016 at 12:23 am


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: