2
In the final weeks of the presidential campaign, major newspapers are giving former President Donald Trump’s federal criminal indictment for alleged crimes related to the January 6 insurrection a fraction of the coverage they gave former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server in 2016, according to a new Media Matters study. Media Matters reviewed print coverage in five newspapers — Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Post — for stories mentioning Trump’s indictment in the week following U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan’s October 2 unsealing of special counsel Jack Smith’s latest filing, which reveals damning new evidence of the former president’s alleged crimes. We found the papers ran 26 combined articles mentioning Trump’s indictment in the week after the unsealing of Smith’s filing. But those same papers published 100 combined articles — nearly 4 times as many — that mentioned Clinton’s server in the week after then-FBI Director James Comey’s notorious October 28, 2016, letter on new developments in that probe, as we documented in a 2016 study. The papers ran more than 6 times as many combined front-page stories that mentioned Clinton’s server (46) as they did front-page stories that mentioned Trump’s indictment (7) over those periods. Obsessive news media focus on Clinton’s server in the final weeks of the 2016 presidential campaign helped Trump to victory, even as Comey ultimately reconfirmed that no charges were appropriate in the case. But eight years later, with one presidential candidate facing active prosecution for federal charges related to his attempt to subvert an election, outlets are making different choices.
It’s not a trap, Jesus.
FPTP voting means 3rd parties can only be spoilers for the party they’re most aligned with. That’s a mathematical fact, whether we like it or not.
I hate that as much as you do, but edgy protest voting only gives the fascists more control.
If you really care about that, stop propping up fascists, and instead put that effort into an actual grassroots effort to make the US electoral system more fair:
Support FairVote Action.
So you telling me one of the two most unpopular candidates is gonna win on their merits? Cause sounds like nepotism with extra steps.
1: Who are you saying is one of the most unpopular candidates? You seem pretty misinformed.
2: Do you know what nepotism means? Which candidate inherited their position because of family ties?
Your comment makes no logical sense.
Kamala Harris is the candidate because? Oh she was grandfathered in. And who do you think is popular? Cause irl i hear basically the lemmycrat takes that they will hold their nose to vote Harris, meanwhile again IRL everyone says same about Trump. I find no organic support for either candidate only hate on the “other option.”
No. She’s the vice president, and it’s very common for a vice president to become the candidate in the next election.
Because I doubt you’ll care enough to click that link, here’s a partial list:
John Adams (under George Washington)
Thomas Jefferson (under John Adams)
Martin van Buren (under Andrew Jackson)
John Breckenridge (under James Buchanan)
Henry Wallace (under Franklin Roosevelt)
Richard Nixon (under Dwight Eisenhower)
Walter Mondale (under Jimmy Carter)
George H W Bush (under Ronald Reagan)
Al Gore (under Bill Clinton)
And I’ve left out many, many more who didn’t wind up with the nomination, partly because I’m on mobile and cross-referencing between Lemmy and web sites is a lot of work.
This is nothing remotely like nepotism. Pretty much every VP does this. It’s part of the point, ffs.
Any more arguments I can immediately debunk with facts?
So you ignored the substance of my statement to get a gotcha moment? You need self reflection because you still havent found any actual reason to like Harris. Like where is the student debt relief? Can we not fund genocide? Money printer go brrrrr, but what would Harris Change oh not a thing comes to mind, like why do you support your preferred candidate, can I get an elevator pitch please?
No, I didn’t ignore your comment at all. I countered it with the fact that a VP becoming the next presidential candidate is not only not remotely like nepotism, but is the standard for US politics, going back to the 18th century.
Your anger at me is misplaced. I do understand how the system works, and I don’t like it either. But I prefer to direct my outrage where it will actually make a difference, and I’ve pointed out where you can, too: we need to change the system so 3rd parties actually matter. In the meantime, I’ll oppose anyone who will usher in a fascist government where women and minorities will have their rights stripped away, and where Christian nationalism will be forced into our orifices.
How is that hard to understand?
Ok so I am debating the candidates, and you keep moving the discussion. This suggest to me you can not defend your actual position which appears to be pro-Harris. Eta you think a prosecutor who went after smoking weed who is supported by even Dick Cheney, is not an establishment player? Because why? Because shes not a white man? Like this strains credulity.
How am I moving the discussion? I’m directly addressing your comments, which so far have had nothing to do with the candidates’s policies, but about Harris’s ‘popularity’ and ‘nepotism’.
If you want to talk about real issues, I’m all ears. I gave you the elevator pitch you asked for. Now let’s hear yours.
it’s not a mathematical fact. if it were you could lay out a proof instead of linking a YouTube video.
It is though, that’s the biggest problem with FPTP voting
you still haven’t shown the proof.
It’s called Duverger’s law if you’re actually interested in expanding your understanding on the topic and not acting in bad faith.
This isn’t something to be debated, it’s really just how the math of FPTP works out. CGP Gray has a really good video on the topic as well- that’s what the previous commenter linked to. I’d recommend giving it a watch.
duvergers law is not a mathematical proof. it isn’t even a law. it’s a tautology.
I’m not going to waste my time by spelling out full academic mathematical proofs for a concept that is fucking obvious if you look at the info provided.
You obviously have no interest/capability of holding a good faith conversation
your accusation of bad faith is, itself, bad faith
duverger’s law is a tautology because, from a critical rationalist perspective, a tautological statement cannot be empirically tested or falsified. it’s true by definition. duverger’s law states that a plurality-rule election system tends to favor a two-party system. however, if this law is framed in such a way that any outcome can be rationalized within its parameters, then it becomes unfalsifiable. for example, if a country with a plurality-rule system has more than two parties, one might argue that the system still “tends to” favor two parties, and the current state is an exception or transition phase. this kind of reasoning makes the law immune to counterexamples, and thus, it operates more as a tautological statement than an empirical hypothesis. the critical rationalist critique of marginalist economics, which relies on ceteris paribus (all else being equal) conditions, suggests any similarly structured law should be viewed with skepticism. for duverger’s law to be more than a tautology, it would need to be stated in a way that allows for clear empirical testing and potential falsification, without the possibility of explaining away any contradictory evidence. this would make it a substantive theory that can contribute to our understanding of political systems rather than a mere tautology.