That’s the raw truth, before FiveThirtyEight applies their statistical correlation (i.e. “miracle”) factors. Hillary Clinton will win the election barring some swing-state demographic phenomenon beyond predictable limits.
Trump rallies have become an anti-media frenzy of rage. Physical attacks against media have become more commonplace (the fact that they were ever commonplace at Trump rallies is most troubling).
This Trump supporter tried to start a fight after loudly cursing out reporters. He wasn't too thrilled when I turned the camera on him pic.twitter.com/Qr2LWBCNpu
— Jeremy Diamond (@JDiamond1) October 21, 2016
— Jeremy Diamond (@JDiamond1) October 13, 2016
Media hatred is one of the central themes Trump has beat like a drum for over a year, but the drumbeat is now louder than ever since the petulant man-child has lost any reasonable chance of being president.
Trump railing against media seems to be part of prepared remarks today: "The media isn’t just against me, they're really against all of you"
— Jeremy Diamond (@JDiamond1) October 24, 2016
CNN’s Jim Acosta told Wolf Blitzer, “Just a few moments ago, a woman hit me with her sign.” This behavior is tolerated and incited by Trump. The so-called “alt-right” (let’s just call them Jew-haters and racist pigs, okay?) has begun using the Nazi term Lügenpresse–literally German for “lying media”–to describe what Trump has called them all along.
Except for Breitbart. Since the ethnic cleansing that followed former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski’s assault on Breitbart reporter Michelle Fields, Breitbart has moved further and further in the direction of Trump, specifically giving haven to the new Birchers, the “alt-right,” and its disgusting thug-worshipping neo-Nazis.
I’ve always given Breitbart the largest possible benefit of the doubt. I used to be a frequent reader, and followed their advocacy of 2nd Amendment, freedom of speech, religious liberty, and opposition to Obama’s abuse of power. They did some good reporting.
I recently took up for Breitbart on this site, when Boston talk radio host Curt Schilling joined their team with a podcast deal. I still like Schilling, but it seems Breitbart is determined to make me look silly for defending them. They don’t want to be rehabilitated (Erick said that, and I have to agree).
From the beginning, Breitbart News has championed Trump. Now they’re embroiled in what might be the biggest campaign scandal this cycle–if not since Watergate. Hillary Clinton’s campaign used Democratic activists to stir trouble and protest at Trump rallies, attempting to draw Trump supporters into violence while videoing it. The same activist also apparently coordinated with Breitbart when he disrupted Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz events.
At best, this was shameless cheerleading by Breitbart, but at worst (which seems more likely) it’s Breitbart taking the Democrats’ bait and running out the fishing line, hook and sinker in its mouth. From Patterico at RedState:
I want to conduct a little hypothetical thought experiment with you. Imagine that you watch these O’Keefe videos and see Black, Koval, Creamer et al. bragging about their contrived and scripted protests and their efforts to goad Trumpers into violence. Then you learn that CNN had actually worked with these folks, and been tipped off when Black & Co. went to do a phony protest. CNN filmed it, a CNN correspondent mocked the elderly guy who was defending himself, and then CNN had the dirty trickster on an interview show.
And then the President of CNN became the CEO of Hillary’s campaign.
You’d be calling for a boycott of CNN. You’d be calling for the heads of Hillary’s campaign CEO and Hillary herself. You know you would.
How is this any different?
It’s well known that Hillary wanted to run against Trump, because she had the greatest chance of beating him. She was most scared of Marco Rubio, whom she had no chance of beating (and would likely make an awesome president).
Now the evidence points to Breitbart, and Stephen Bannon, actively helping Trump, using a Democratic activist, to defeat the GOP’s best chance to beat Hillary. Then Bannon joined the Trump campaign, displacing Paul Manafort, who for all his liabilities, served as a voice of moderation for Trump’s distressing media bashing.
Bannon encouraged Trump to double down on his “rigged” conspiracies and “lying media” accusations. Objectively viewed (which is nearly impossible, but we can try), this might look like a conspiracy to destroy conservative media, devastate the GOP’s infrastructure and donor base, and hand Clinton the White House in a landslide which she can claim as a mandate–along with the Senate and a big chunk of the House.
Clinton is as corrupt as they come. But the real story should be the suborning of journalism, the arms of government power, and the electoral process to effect a stunning takeover in what should have been a year when conservative values swung back into the White House. The main stream media isn’t really reporting it because they are complicit in elevating Trump during the primaries, and holding stories against him until he was the nominee and they could be used to help Hillary.
Trump is now self-destructing, advocating rage and violence against the media, which will lead to the Democrats and the main stream media feeling completely justified in shutting down and shunning legitimate conservative outlets. When Hillary takes office, look for a revival of all that “fairness doctrine” talk. They want to shut down conservative talk radio, turn Fox News into a slightly less liberal CNN, and relegate real conservative news to the same cobwebby corners where 4chan and VDARE lurk.
The main stream media is absolutely biased, and complicit in helping Hillary. But they could not have done it without Stephen Bannon and Breitbart’s help.
The best thing Bannon could do right now is resign. It probably won’t help Trump win (almost nothing can help that right now), but at least it might help save conservative media after the election.