If you haven't seen it yet, this is mandatory. Yes, Rachel Maddow drags it out, as is her wont, but she makes everything crystal clear. (You can skip the first part about the Eichnwald story, which I discuss below.)
You might want to check out the feed of @noclador on Twitter, who has promised more. No idea whether it's legit but Wilson gave him kind of a tacit nod of approval in his replies yesterday.
posted by Anonymous : 12:55 PM
Other democratic societies with more than only two viable political parties may well think of our country as the United States of Lab Rats. Here we are, choosing between two candidates who have relatively large unfavorable ratings, which ought to be considered absurd. Add to that the finish-line red meat scandals. It becomes a valuable proof of concept, however, depending on the voter turnout. No matter what the turnout is, it will be more significant than whoever wins because of the unfavorable ratings of the candidates. If turnout is larger than in the past, the same as the past, or lower, any of those outcomes will be significant determiners -- like we've never seen -- of future campaign strategies largely consisting of tactics like stay, sit, heel, come, roll over.
posted by Amelie D'bunquerre : 1:12 PM
Kurt Eichenwald is getting right narky in his tweets. Was he stopped from writing something? If I was his editor and he brought me a story about massive manipulation of US politics by a foreign government, I'd tell him he'd have to ask the FBI for a reaction before I printed it.
posted by b : 3:43 PM
If Hillary has a Trump bomb she'd better use it soon.
posted by gerry : 3:47 PM
@Stephen Morgan 12.02pm. Under the same heading we can also put the warnings of terror attacks by al-Qaeda in the US - specifically, in NYC, Texas, and Virginia - between now and Tuesday.
posted by Anonymous : 6:02 PM
@Stephen Morgan 12.02pm. Under the same heading we can also put warnings of terror attacks by al-Qaeda in the US - specifically, in NYC, Texas and Virginia - between now and Tuesday.