Fox News Hits Three Year Perception Low With Republicans

YouGov BrandIndex ^ | 2/24/16 | Ted Marzilli

[going hot]

No my friend, I do not direct to you. I only remind you of your constant posts that a whole bunch of people must be wrong for trump to be right.

I comment that there must be a whole lot more of them wrong ones lately.

Not an attack on you per se, but a comment on your own previous posts.

Perhaps I mistook you for another poster?

Nah, the distinguished southern gentleman as your moniker is the dead giveaway.

[nathanbedford]

In the context of this thread I was defending Megan Kelly in the debate in particular and Fox news in general. I am certainly not going to defend CNN or MSNBC which are indefensible.

Nor will I surrender to subjective reactions which run contrary to the transcript. That, by the way, is why we have certified Court reporter's in attendance in court rooms so they can read back the actual testimony rather than relying on the subjective impression of other witnesses, of the jurors or even of the judge.

There is no doubt that Fox is not perfect and the other networks are worse but it is also not fair to excoriate Kelly and Fox for that debate when they don't deserve it. Can you imagine the uproar if the Fox debate moderators had actually explored the dark and ugly corners of Donald Trump's career?

Hillary Clinton is certain to do so in the general. To ignore it now is to venture out onto the minefield hoping that nothing blows until after the election.

[Just mythoughts]

We will leave up to you to explore the darkness...

[nathanbedford]

Megan Kelly recited actual facts that any reasonable person would concede tend to show that Donald Trump is arguably a misogynist running for election against the party that accuses its opponents of being misogynists.

Donald Trump does not deny the words, he admits them, he does not defend himself by denying the implication of the words, he defends himself by attacking political correctness. In effect, he says that those who bring the subject up are wrong. Trump supporters in this forum have aped Trump's tactic of deflection by ignoring the substance of the charges and attacking the messenger.

By attacking the messenger rather than defending Donald Trump on the substance, one adds one more name to the list of people who must be wrong for Donald Trump to be right. This has become a very, very long list indeed. If I say that someone's subjective impression of the debate is wrong that is quite a different matter than assaulting the person's integrity for even bringing the issue up. That is a Trump tactic.

Shooting the messenger, attacking ad hominem, is something quite different than disagreeing about an opinion or impression on the merits.

[papertyger]

Nor will I surrender to subjective reactions which run contrary to the transcript. That, by the way, is why we have certified Court reporter's in attendance in court rooms so they can read back the actual testimony rather than relying on the subjective impression of other witnesses, of the jurors or even of the judge.

I find it illustrative that you defer to the transcript as "objective," while dismissing Kelly's thesis: that Trump's personal feud with particular women can be legitimately extended to include ALL women.

[nathanbedford]

Those dark corners have indeed been explored by conservatives of unimpeachable credentials like J Christian Adams.

[grey_whiskers]

Nor will I surrender to subjective reactions which run contrary to the transcript. That, by the way, is why we have certified Court reporter's in attendance in court rooms so they can read back the actual testimony rather than relying on the subjective impression of other witnesses, of the jurors or even of the judge.

Poor example: transcripts cannot capture tone of voice, facial expression, nor all of the timing. Video can and does.

Secondly -- it is indisputable that Trump's ratings and favorables unexpectedly (that word is usually reserved for economic failings under Obama, but it works here too) jumped after his dust-up with Megyn. To find out why, one must look at more than the transcripts, and talk to some of the observers.

Hillary Clinton is certain to do so in the general. To ignore it now is to venture out onto the minefield hoping that nothing blows until after the election.

Aye, 'tis true, 'tis true.

But from my (admittedly limited) trolling of the internet, it looks like those who will vote for Hillary are going to be (to quote Susan Sarandon) "voting with their vaginas" anyway: and as such will listen to the hysterics of their fellow Harpies, *regardless* of what Trump actually says or does.

Far better that we look out for those things which are likely to have traction with the "mushy middle": which in this election, I deem, is far more likely to revolve around immigration, the wall, jobs, and terrorism, than "binders full of women".

Hillary apparently has the Dem nomination locked up, barring indictment, due to SuperDelegates: and the Bernie Jugend may take their tweets and go home and sulk...but the internals, say of South Carolina, show that 5% of whites hold her trustworthy: and was it 95% or 100% of blacks.

Of such is not a winning nationwide coalition made.

Think you an "October surprise" will even work against Trump? Or will it look like desperation from a shrill, feeble, washed-up Harridan?

[nathanbedford]

The question is not whether I approve of applying the remarks to all women, the question is whether many people, including Hillary Clinton Democrats, will do so.

Their argument is that the remarks "objectify" women which is indicative of an irrational, illogical, and disreputable "extension " to all women, precisely what you're complaining of.

Whether this is feminist claptrap or not is really not the issue, as I said, the issue is the vulnerability of the candidate in the general election which is perfectly proper to explore providing it is done in a fair manner, which means to accurately quote the candidate's own words and provide him with ample opportunity to defend.

It is fair because Republicans or conservatives need to know the facts, the charges and the defenses to those charges, to determine whether the candidate is viable.

[going hot]

Just because it is sat night and straw men are cool to play with:

Megan Kelly recited actual facts that any reasonable person would concede tend to show that Donald Trump is arguably a misogynist running for election against the party that accuses its opponents of being misogynists.

What Kelly recited may have been actual quotes, but reasonable persons would not conclude what you concluded per se. You just assume 'reasonable persons" would do so. I know plenty of reasonable persons that would conclude nothing of the kind.

Donald Trump does not deny the words, he admits them, he does not defend himself by denying the implication of the words, he defends himself by attacking political correctness.

Which in fact any red blooded American would do. To to otherwise is not actually a sign of someone's appropriateness.

Political correctness is costing us this nation, and it can be damned.

In effect, he says that those who bring the subject up are wrong.

It is his opinion, he is entitled to it, and most agree with it.

Trump supporters in this forum have aped Trump's tactic of deflection by ignoring the substance of the charges and attacking the messenger.

The substance of the charges are either a straw man, or a straw man. Which one is it?

Rosie is a fat pig, and that is a fact, and the reason he called her that is due to what she started, and personally I would have knocked her out, but he is more controlled and merely retaliated with a verbal diatribe.

Is that a criminal offense, worthy of bringing up in a debate format, where top republican candidates are vying for the presidency, and millions are looking to see actual policy differences, so the smarmy moderator starts the gig off with a personal attack?

That is defensable? By you?

What the eff are you thinking big guy?

Shooting the messenger, attacking ad hominem, is something quite different than disagreeing about an opinion or impression on the merits.

You, my friend, have mastered that art well, but upon reading your offerings, and ruminating on them, I can see you need the general for a cover, because your real self has been measured, and is lacking.

You want an exercise in reality?

Use your god given talents to defend trump's side. Do it not on this forum, but in the privacy of your own home, your own mind, and see what kind of argument you can come up with in his defense.

It is a tried and true tactic, to defend the other side. They say it sharpens one's game. try it, you don't even have to go public with the results.

Oh, and Tuesday is going to be glorious!

[papertyger]

Whether this is feminist claptrap or not is really not the issue, as I said, the issue is the vulnerability of the candidate in the general election which is perfectly proper to explore providing it is done in a fair manner, which means to accurately quote the candidate's own words and provide him with ample opportunity to defend. It is fair because Republicans or conservatives need to know the facts, the charges and the defenses to those charges, to determine whether the candidate is viable.

I vehemently disagree.

It is not Kelly's function to make inferences that could far and away be better answered by a debating opponent, than as an ostensible moderator.

To the case in point: does anyone actually believe a charge of misogyny from Hillary Clinton, of all people, would carry the same weight as by an, again, ostensible moderator?

[nathanbedford]

Poor example: transcripts cannot capture tone of voice, facial expression, nor all of the timing. Video can and does.

But my interlocutors on this thread do not go to the video, they dismiss the transcript out of hand and stand resolutely on their impressions.

I suspect that Donald Trump's numbers improved markedly after the debate for the same reason that Newt Gingrich's numbers improved markedly after he attacked the press. That does not have much to do with the substance of the charges and almost nothing to do with whether or not Megan Kelly behaved properly which, after all, is the subject of this debate.

It is clear that Hillary will attempt to exploit feminism and attack Trump as a misogynist, in fact it was already attempted and effectively beaten back by Donald. Therefore, Kelly's questioning in this area was perfectly proper. It is not to be likened to the questioning a cycle ago of Santorum about birth control which was a planted question designed to create an issue, Kelly's question was designed to explore a known issue.

As to an October surprise, I don't think the votes which will be cast by the Democrat base have anything to do with the issues but are cast on race, ethnicity, self-interest, and prejudice (including allegations of misogynism). There are however some independents and some lunchpail Democrats who might be swayed by an October surprise one way or the other. If they are on the fence about Hillary Clinton, whom we all agree is a wretched harridan, there might be some impact.

But I think you are right, I think this will be a wave election and whoever has the momentum will prevail. That should be a Republican although Donald Trump is probably the most vulnerable choice as among the three leaders and not for his alleged misogyny alone but for his really unattractive character and career.

This is probably the last election in which Republicans have a chance if they do not shut down immigration which is why I said that I will support Trump in the general election. I put it this way:

I will pull the lever for Trump with one hand while holding my nose with the other hand and falling on both knees in supplication and repentance to God Almighty begging forgiveness and mercy for the Republic for generating this Hobbesian choice.

[nathanbedford]

Your reply demonstrates out of your own mouth to any reader of this thread the disreputable modus operandi of Trump supporters.

Attack the messenger, discredit the source, resort to Saul Alinsky tactics and justify everything with the ends justify the means.

[papertyger]

But my interlocutors on this thread do not go to the video, they dismiss the transcript out of hand and stand resolutely on their impressions.

Nonsense. You fail to adequately evaluate Kelly's performance, then rely on your interlocutors' lack of your own verbal adroitness to carry your argument.

I'd love to undertake an analysis of your argument, but the flow of the thread does not permit that kind of time.

[nathanbedford]

I rely on the transcript.

The flow of this thread to which I have been responding since about 4 AM my time here in Germany is not only keeping me awake but there are some interesting posts to which I can't give attention. I just saw a headline that says that Romney is likely to enter the race.

[WVNan]

I have literally had my TV on 24/7 and mostly on FOX for all the years it has been on the air. I have now turned it off. I try to switch between MSNBC & CNN, but they don’t feel right either. So I’m back on FR for news and movies for entertainment.

[grey_whiskers]

"If at first you don't succeed..."

Suck some more! <-- Romney, not you.

[unsycophant]

“Oh look, it’s Karl Rove. I wonder what he’s going to say today.”

“What’s Krauthammer going to talk about this time?”.

etc etc.

Not only do they have the same old regulars saying the same old tired things, but Fox also has people like Beck & Loesch from The Blaze (why, why why!), Kimberly G & Andrea T, etc etc. That idiot on The Five, Greg Guttfeld, wasn’t funny on the overnight show, and is LESS entertaining now.

Nothing new for years. Where are the young pundits? The thinkers of tomorrow? Instead we get people who’ve been around for 20 years, and aren’t “getting” it now.

[nathanbedford]

What you make of this Romney business?

Maybe we should go over to that thread.

[Enlightened1]

If Rubio loses in Florida on Tuesday.., then the Republican Establishment, via a brokered convention, will attempt to slip in Mitt Romney.

Romney is the Establishment Plan C.

Mitt Romney, who has been quiet after he lost to Obama in 2012, came out the other day on Cavuto’s show and attacked Trump about his taxes. You have to ask yourself how does Romney know about Trump’s taxes? Why would Romney bring this up?

Romney attacked Trump On Twitter all during the Republican debate on CNN last Thursdat. Keep in mind Romney largely has for the most part been silent since his loss to Obama in the 2012 election. Then out of the blue Romney is rolled out and he is on the war path against a Trump....

[relentlessly]

Now how is that a mirror for your life?

It’s you that cannot hear the tone or see the madness in Kelly’s eyes when this happened.

You do acknowledge that you are anti-Trump, right? Starting from that point leads to your assessment.