Sunday, July 31, 2016

In the Rush for False Equivalence Chris Cillizza Contradicts Himself

These two paragraphs from Cillizza are in total contradiction.

"Trump has a very narrow electoral path."

"If Trump loses this fall, many Republicans will heap blame on him and the campaign he is running. Some of that blame will be fair. Much of it won’t be, for this reason: No Republican presidential nominee starts off with a 50-50 shot of beating their Democratic opponent because of the GOP’s huge disadvantages in the electoral map."

"Consider this: Eighteen states, plus the District of Columbia, have voted for the Democratic presidential nominee in each of the six elections between 1992 and 2012. They yield 242 electoral votes. There are 13 states that have voted for the Republican nominee in every presidential election since 1992. They yield 102 electoral votes. So, if Clinton wins the 18 states in the “Blue Wall” and wins Florida (and its 29 electoral votes), the election is over. She is president."

This is totally correct. But, you know Cillizza, everything has to be equivalent. You can never criticize one party or its candidates without an equal and opposite criticism of the other party and its candidates no matter how big a reach.

So then he says this:

"Clinton and Trump may be the only people each other can beat."

How is this possible after you just described the Blue Wall in great detail? If Hillary were running against another GOP candidate that would still be in play.

Cillizza just said that a big part of why Trump is going to lose is about party and not the specifics of the him as a candidate. But then he switches to a view where it's all about the candidates.

First of all, how is it that Hillary can beat nobody but Trump? Has Cillizza heard of Bernie Sanders?

Let's get specific. He says she could not beat any other GOP candidate-even those candidates all got blown away by Donald Trump who she has led pretty much wire to the wire till now-with just a couple of weeks it was a tied race after Trump first wrapped it up in early May and after the RNC convention.

So you're telling me Jeb would beat her by double digits? Jeb who can't even get past the question of what is last name is? Who can't handle the issue of whether he agrees with W on anything or not?

Ok, maybe not Jeb. Ted Cruz could beat her in a rout? Ok, maybe not Ted Cruz.

The media's darling was Marco Rubio. Surely they believe he could have wasted her. But then if Rubio is so great why did he lose by nearly 20 points in his own state to Donald Trump?

Then there was his malfunctioning moment in NH.

True, Kasich led HRC during the primary. Then again, that's always how it is. When you're not likely to be the nominee you always do better.

"Meanwhile, Clinton labors under deep doubt about her honesty and trustworthiness — concerns that were only exacerbated by her mishandling of the email controversy regarding her electronic correspondence at the State Department. Clinton has rhetorically bowed to the idea that she has work to do to convince people — “I get it that some people just don’t know what to make of me,” she said in her acceptance speech at the convention — but it’s unclear whether anything she could say or do would change minds."

I'm sorry, this is just ignorant. What else can you call it? Does Cillizza honestly not know that poll numbers and favorability numbers are not static? Does he not realize that her approval rating was 64% as Secretary of State?

If her favorable numbers were stellar this recently why is it unlikely Americans change their minds again? 
And in the first two favorability polls since the DNC you see her numbers rising.
This is what false equivalence does to you. Then there's Joe Scarborough.

No comments:

Post a Comment