When Nikki Haley joined the Trump administration and then pretty quickly had to resign amid Trump’s foreign policy scandals, it was obvious her career was over. Yet the media (on the left and right) hilariously insisted she’d be a major force in upcoming presidential elections.
Why does the media always get these kinds of predictions wrong? Haley is an absurd person with an odd mish mash of political views, so if she ran for President, the resulting controversy would have been great for ratings.
When Haley torpedoed herself by joining the Trump regime, the media didn’t want to just give up on the hope that it could get ratings out of her in some future presidential election. So it falsely claimed she had a big future when it knew she had none.
To be clear, major media outlets on the left (MSNBC in particular) were every bit as guilty of this. They were so disappointed she was finished, they tried to will her back into relevance by insisting she was extremely relevant.
Predictably, Nikki Haley has now been reduced to a mere twitter troll. She’s become so irrelevant, and misses relevance so badly, she tweets intentionally dumb things, because she prefers negative attention to her usual situation, which is no attention at all.
The media no longer pretends Haley is going to be a viable presidential candidate, because even they know they can’t sell that one. But no one in the media paid a price for insisting on the day of her downfall that she was going to be a frontrunner.
Because the media always gets away with chasing ratings by hyping a potential presidential candidate that nobody on either side wants, it just keeps doing it. These days the media insists that duds like Chris Christie and Mike Pompeo are the next big thing.
When Christie and Pompeo are nowhere near the 2024 race (or get 1% of the vote in the Iowa caucus and drop out), those in the media who spent 2021 and 2022 falsely hyping them will pay no reputational price. Being wrong, even intentionally, somehow doesn’t matter in this industry
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The doomsday pundits love to insist that famous people never go to prison. But Trump pal Joe Exotic has lost his appeal and will serve a 21 year sentence. When famous people avoid prison it's by never getting indicted to begin with. Donald Trump is being indicted in two states.
How do wealthy and powerful people keep themselves from getting indicted?
1) They're so popular, no prosecutor wants to touch them
2) Unethical campaign donation to the district attorney – but this only works if the public does't know or care that the investigation even exists
But the Trump indictment process is out in the open and everyone is watching, so no opportunity to quietly pay off the DA and make it go away. And in places like New York and Atlanta where Trump is despised, prosecutors would be seen as heroes for indicting him.
One thing most liberal activists still haven't figured out: if you're whining, it means you're losing. If you're whining about unfairness, you're REALLY losing. The general public does not care about "unfairness" in politics. If you want to win, talk like a winner, not a whiner.
You can spend all day complaining that the republicans rammed through a last second Supreme Court pick after blocking Obama's attempt at a pick, and you have a point, but NO ONE OUT THERE WILL CARE. You're just complaining to hear the sound of your own voice.
If you want to win any given political fight, you have to win over the people out there who don't have a political side – and by default they'd rather not get involved. If you're just whining about the unfairness of some maneuver, they'll just tune you out, and you'll lose.
Andrew Yang set off my bullshit meter during the 2020 primary race when he started accusing the DNC and media of conspiring against his campaign (always a red flag). Now he says his imaginary new political party is “the party for positive masculinity.” Told you he was bad news.
If anything the media conspires against frontrunners, and props up less popular candidates, because it creates suspense and controversy and drives ratings.
When a low polling candidate blames the media for being unpopular, it’s never true, and means the candidate is dishonest.
And the DNC never conspires against anyone. The media just pushes that lie every election cycle in order to stir up controversy and ratings. And that lie actually benefits lower polling candidates – more proof that the media doesn’t conspiracy against unpopular candidates.
MSNBC is reportedly giving Stephanie Ruhle the 11pm time slot. She’s savvy, deserves it, will do well. But predictably they gave it to someone already under contract, after they got to dump Brian Williams’ huge salary. With ratings in freefall, it’s an industry cost cutting move.
Ruhle’s old 9am slot is being folded into an extra hour of Morning Joe. So MSNBC is filling the 11pm slot for the same salary it was paying for the 9am slot, and now it doesn’t have to pay anyone for the 9am slot. You’re going to see more of this if ratings don’t rebound in 2022.
MSNBC now gets four hours out of Morning Joe for the price of three, two hours out of Nicolle Wallace for probably the price of one, and since they were already paying Chuck Todd for his Sunday show they’re probably getting his weekday show for free or cheap.
To answer a question that the fretters and hand wringers are tossing around a lot right now: yes, it’ll be possible to seat an impartial jury for Trump’s criminal trials. You just need 12 people who don’t give a shit about politics. Millions of Americans fit that description.
And again, your brains are broken. You’ve gone from “Trump will never be indicted no matter what” to “Trump will never be convicted no matter what.” All this good news about Trump going to be indicted, and you just find a new way to baselessly spin it into something to fret over.
Yes, you can find twelve people in Fulton County or New York City who don’t watch political news, don’t vote, dont tweet, don’t care about Trump, and would strictly look at the evidence about whether he’s is guilty. Y’all fret just to fret. You enjoy thinking you’re gonna lose.
If you want proof of just how little most political enthusiasts understand about what’s really going on, look at the political betting sides. The odds are based on how people are betting to begin with – and the odds are usually hilariously off kilter.
If most people think Smith is going to win an election, then most bets will be placed in that direction, and the betting lines will show Smith as the favorite – if he’s clearly losing – simply because most people mistakenly THINK he’s winning.
Looking at political betting odds is the equivalent of a pollster asking “who do you THINK is going to win” – a largely useless question with a misleading result – instead of actually asking people who they’re voting for.