I just want to note that while I have no idea what this means, I still find it hilarious. And oh yeah: get ready for another Trump term.
“Although, they do say Abraham Lincoln was treated really badly. I must say, that’s the one. If you can believe it, Abraham Lincoln was treated supposedly very badly. But nobody’s been treated badly like me.” "Hey, Dip$hit, I got shot..."
vs people noticing that he has been running an opportunist socialist authoritarian ego-based government, that many on the right believe the left would do?
What the neck is that supposed to mean?W That the Trump campaign is gonna blow up up because of obvious sub par equipment?
https://www.alternet.org/2019/06/a-...major-media-heres-how-that-could-change-2020/ As much media attention as Donald Trump received when he was hosting the hit reality show “The Apprentice” during the 2000s, it was nothing compared to all the attention he received when he ran for president of the United States in 2016 and managed to defeat Democrat Hillary Clinton in the general election. Trump’s outrageous, over-the-top antics have been great for ratings, advertising and Internet traffic — or at least they were in the past. According to a report by Sara Fischer and Neal Rothschild for Axios, everyone from cable news to Internet websites is experiencing a “Trump slump.” And for journalists, that means rather than simply focusing on the latest Trump outrage of the day, they will have to offer a lot more serious policy analysis. Fischer and Rothschild report that according to the media executives Axios interviewed, “Trump fatigue is very real.” Citing data from the Internet analytics company Parse.ly, they report that “digital demand for Trump-related content” has “dropped 29%” between the first six months of his presidency in 2017 and the last six months. And they go on to say that according to New York Times’ COO Meredith Kopit Levien, the publication’s “Trump bump” ended in mid-2018. The Axios reporters conclude that for the media, the “Trump bump” of 2016, 2017 and 2018 “is not sustainable” and that cable television networks “began pulling back on Trump campaign rallies late last year because they weren’t driving ratings.” “Interest in political coverage overall is down, which is spurring investments in other beats, like technology and the global economy,” Fischer and Rothschild report. None of that is to say that journalists won’t be covering Trump as the 2020 presidential race moves along, but they will need to be more selective in their coverage. In other words, the fact that Trump posted an offensive tweet insulting a political rival isn’t going to be as newsworthy as it was in 2017 or 2018 — and journalists will need to offer more policy analysis, discussing how Trump compares to Democratic candidates on crucial issues like health care, infrastructure, climate change and tax policy. If Trump’s outrageous antics are no longer driving ratings and traffic to the degree that they did in the past and news organizations cut back on Trump-related coverage, their political coverage will need to focus more on serious analysis rather than the latest offensive thing Trump said during a speech. Less coverage of Trump in 2019 and 2020 won’t mean no coverage of Trump, but it could mean smarter coverage of the president and the important issues of the 2020 election.
Outside the Beltway piece: "Trump’s Electoral College Advantage Growing: He could lose the popular vote by an even larger margin in 2020---and still coast to re-election." https://www.outsidethebeltway.com/trumps-electoral-college-advantage-growing/
Trump popularity apparently slowly on the rise: If there has been one bit of conventional wisdom about 2020 that has most comforted left-of-center analysts like me, it’s that Donald Trump’s job approval ratings seem exceptionally stagnant and too low to support the evident optimism of his conservative media boosters. I made that argument just a few days ago in a piece looking at evidence that Trump’s actual voting appeal may not be much better than those shaky approval ratings. But now comes the formidable number cruncher Nate Cohn with a challenge to this assumption from a couple of different directions. It will be received by many Times readers as something of a terroristic threat, but it’s important to face it directly. First up, he calls attention to something most of us have ignored since Trump took office: the president’s personal favorability ratings. Yes, we all know that Trump won despite astonishingly low favorability numbers (an Election Eve ratio of 36/61 according to Gallup). But Cohn notes these numbers now look better for POTUS: Cohn acknowledges that the odds are pretty good Democrats will nominate a more popular opponent for Trump than Hillary Clinton was in 2016, though nobody knows how she or he will compare to the president in personal favorability. I think it’s pretty important to remember that Trump won among the 18 percent of the electorate who disliked both candidates by a robust 47/30 margin. . . . From a longer perspective, my guess is that the narrow band of favorability and job approval numbers for Trump is just another testament to the partisan polarization that made it possible for him to win in 2016, despite his unpopularity. more at the link: http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019...-trump-is-steadily-becoming-more-popular.html
