The Big Losers on Election Day by Cliff Kincaid

Article Type: 
Published Date: 
Thursday, November 10, 2016

The biggest losers on election night were in the liberal media, an adjunct of the national Democratic Party. But the far-left “progressives” who had backed Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and then rationalized voting for Hillary Clinton lost big. Many conservatives in the media also look like fools.

The left-wingers who were humiliated include:

Noam Chomsky, the Marxist academic, had come up with the idea of voting for Hillary as the lesser of two evils. He argued that, in competitive “swing” states, a “progressive” should vote for the “lesser evil” Democrat. This was necessary to stop Trump, he said.

Jeff Cohen, a professor of journalism at Ithaca College, co-authored an article with Norman Solomon that echoed Chomsky and said, “…if we lived in a swing state, we would vote for Clinton as the only way to prevent a Trump presidency.” Cohen and Solomon were Sanders supporters.Michael Moore

Michael Moore (photo, right), the left-wing filmmaker, endorsed Hillary and screened his film, “Michael Moore in TrumpLand,” at a pro-Hillary rally in Michigan, a state that Trump won. Moore said of Hillary, “I think and I hope that she is a different person. She says she is. She’s adopted two-thirds of Bernie’s platform.”

The Communist Party USA. On the eve of the election, in an article headlined, “Vote like life itself were hanging in the balance. It is!,” the CPUSA paper the People’s World told American communists: “You’re urgently needed to get out the vote for Hillary Clinton and the Democratic House, Senate and gubernatorial candidates in your state—especially because right wingers have been playing dirty tricks to suppress voting.”

Interestingly, the author of this CPUSA article was Larry Rubin, who declared, “In the mid-1990s I was a political appointee in the Clinton Administration, a speechwriter for the Department of Education. I saw up close how brilliant and knowledgeable Hillary Clinton is.”

On the Republican or conservative side of the media, the big losers include:

Bill Kristol and Stephen Hayes of The Weekly Standard. Kristol had encouraged a third party challenge to Trump, while Hayes had written the article, “Why I’m Not Voting for Trump or Hillary.”

George Will of The Washington Post had written a column, “If Trump is nominated, the GOP must keep him out of the White House,” which argued that “In losing disastrously, Trump probably would create down-ballot carnage sufficient to end even Republican control of the House.” In fact, the Republicans maintained control of the House and Senate.

Charlie Sykes, considered the most influential political talk show host in Wisconsin, was a “Never Trump” activist who is now eating crow. Wisconsin went for Trump.

Glenn Beck, who claimed that Trump was “unhinged” and a “sociopath,” said that “the odds are stacked against the Republican nominee” on Election Day. Beck said of Trump, “[A] sociopath is somebody who doesn’t really see the human experience in anyone else, and I haven’t seen that in him. I haven’t seen him deeply affected by the human condition in an individual.” In fact, as we noted in several columns, Trump tapped into the desperation of the forgotten white working class voters.

National Review, which ran an editorial “Against Trump,” argued that Trump was “a menace to American conservatism.”

Former Bush speechwriter and Post columnist Michael Gerson had insisted that Trump supporters “are encouraging an alternate and degraded version of the American story.”

Post “Right Turn” blogger Jennifer Rubin was strongly anti-Trump and had argued that the “NeverTrump” Republicans had signaled to their own party “that it cannot expect blind party loyalty,” and that “Their higher obligation is to the welfare of the country.”

In a Wall Street Journal column back in February, Fred Barnes of The Weekly Standard had predicted that Trump would divide the Republican Party, leading it to defeat. His column ran under the headlines, “Republicans Are Campaigning to Lose. The candidate brawls and party disunity are setting up Clinton or Sanders for a win in November.”

Now, in The Weekly Standard, Barnes has written a column declaring that Trump’s victory “was part of a broad Republican triumph.” He says, “Republicans kept control of the Senate, a feat that once had seemed impossible since they had 24 seats at stake and Democrats only ten. Trump didn’t split the party. He strengthened it.”

All of the editors and contributors at—except one—also have egg on their faces. Erick Erickson, former editor in chief of RedState; Caleb Howe, Managing Editor; and Jay Caruso, Assistant Managing Editor, had all predicted a Clinton win with 48 percent, compared to 42 percent for Trump.

In order to make a dent in media bias, those of us in the media watchdog business will be watching to see if Trump follows through on breaking up the big liberal media monopolies. Another policy he should pursue is thwarting foreign ownership and control of the U.S. media.

Written by Cliff Kincaid

Cliff Kincaid is the Director of the AIM Center for Investigative Journalism and can be contacted at

Your rating: None Average: 5 (6 votes)
Comments on this post

US Media closing in on Russian TV

Media bias has been so blatant that to state this fact seems needless or redundant. It is perhaps comparable as saying summer is hot. Leftist bias in the media has gotten to the point that I question everything they say. Nonetheless, I offer but a few deplorable examples.

A die-hard Democrat friend of mine told me the 8 day market plunge right before election was due to the reopening of Clinton emails. This was what the media had proclaimed as the cause. They ignored the well-documented market movement of past elections. The market does not like uncertainty, and the market routinely moves before an election, just as it tends to stabilize after an election, although in the Bush/Gore election, it took a longer time for this to occur due to the uncertainty of the outcome. I pointed out to him that if Hillary potentially losing sent the market into a decline, then Trump winning would keep the market down dramatically. This did not occur, and the media's disinformation was disproven immediately.

The media's incessant reporting Trump's "call for banning Muslims" and "deporting 11 million immigrants" showed an excellent memory months later for rhetoric likely to turn away voters from Trump. However, the same media memory was short-lived on Hillary's calling 1/2 of Trump's supporters deplorable, racists, Islamophobic, etc.

Bernie's followers big bone of contention was Clinton's ties to Wall Street. "Release the speeches" they demanded. Then came the shocking revelation via Wikileaks that they were right: Hillary was paid over $4 million by Wall Street to give speeches over two years. Within two days this story evaporated while the locker room talk of Trump eleven years ago was released by NBC and was repeated for weeks all the way up to the election. Such talk astonished and angered the same media who had for decades defended the actions of the sexual predator standing beside Hillary. Yes, that would be the impeached Bill Clinton.

The media refused to connect any of the negative effects of Obama's policies to the president who instituted these same policies. We had to ignore this oversight by his loyal lapdogs; after all, Obama is half black and therefore not subject to the same criticism of policies of the previous 43 presidents. Notice that such courtesies do not extend to Supreme Court Thomas who is black but is a social conservative. So the media ignored Obama's lie that: "If you like your health care plan, you can keep it" while millions of Americans lost their coverage. Now there are national healthcare increases of 22% and as much as 40% increases in some states due to Obamacare. But this is not Obama's fault, the media explains. No, this is because the Republicans have fought Obamacare instead of cooperating with the omniscient, Lord Obama.

However, with Hillary the media moved from just ignoring Obama's lack of experience going into the presidency and the laws of causality between his actions and the disastrous results to actively campaigning for Clinton. I heard a whole hour on NPR on how unfit Trump was to serve as president. The panel of "experts" all echoed the same resounding conclusion: Trump was unfit.

Naturally, none of the experts made even a faint mention of Hillary's Benghazi bungling leading directly to the deaths of 4 Americans whose welfare she was directly responsible. Nor was the subsequent coverup of the video and the intentionally incorrect motive presented. Nor her response before US Congress, nor her illegally sending classified information of the highest level with which she would inevitably entrusted with again in the White House if elected, nor lying to the FBI or subsequent current cases of people sentenced for far less[ former 4 star general included] , nor the millions she received as Secretary of State to see her personally and receive the contracts or favors for said millions in her charity/slush fund that paid a remarkable 5.7% toward the actual charities with the rest going toward expenses and of course salaries. Nor the lying to the FBI about giving them all of the devices with emails, all of the emails themselves, or the outright destruction of the emails many of which are subject to the Federal Records Act, and on and on.

Nor did the media point out the most obvious fact that had Clinton not chosen to use her private server for four years exclusively and had she instead used her government server with its encryption, why, she might not have been hacked by the Russians with whom she had "reset" relations. In other words had Clinton went by the law as the rest of us do, then you will dramatically decrease the odds of being hacked. I cannot even do a travel voucher or change my allotment or life insurance without using a government required CAC card over their server.

The mainstream media is approaching Russian TV status in its bias. I cancelled my longstanding subscription to my state paper after their overwhelming support for Obama and Hillary in allowing predominantly Obama and Hillary letters, editorials, and even the framing of stories reported by the staff. Romney defeated Obama 60% to 36% in Arkansas, and Trump beat Hillary 60% to 33%.

I had informed the editor before I cancelled my subscription and I continue to inform them why I no longer want their subscription when they continually call. Perhaps if enough people cancel newspaper subscriptions, as many did in Dallas with the endorsement of Hillary in the Dallas Morning News, the finances will overcome their leftist agenda. I am none too confident, however. I am in airports constantly, and they always have CNN on, yet I notice hardly anyone watches. Motel lobbies have begun to have FOX on quite frequently now, but USA Today is still the free newspaper offered everywhere. Recently, the Wall Street journal is offered in some motels in Maryland.

I missed a few losers!

Where are the Mass Media Firings and Resignations?

I missed a few losers in my column on the big media losers of the 2016 campaign. One person told me, “Bret Stephens of The Wall Street Journal has totally lost all credibility with his anti-Trump rants in his weekly column right up to the very end. We used to be ardent fans of his, but no more!!!”

I agree that Stephens is a big loser. His attacks on Trump were relentless and he declared that he wanted to build a new political party to compete with Trump. Sounding like The Huffington Post, Stephens used his November 8 column to find Trump guilty of “unrelenting and apparently irrepressible bigotry, misogyny, bullying and conspiracy-mongering…”--- Cliff Kincaid, AIM