2016 elections - because it's never too early

[sbr]

In a stunning development the AP story about 50% of the people Clinton met with being donors is bullshit.

http://fortune.com/2016/08/25/clinton-ap-tweet/

It was just a tweet. A single post on Twitter. No one at The Associated Press has said this yet, but you can imagine them thinking it. The tweet in question, however, touched off a firestorm of controversy around the news wire's story on the Clinton Foundation to the point where it has actually undermined the story itself.

It looked like a garden-variety promotional tweet, designed to attract attention to the AP's big investigation into allegations of conflict of interest on the part of the Democratic presidential candidate. But by trying too hard to drum up interest in the piece, the wire service made itself the target instead.
The post made a significant, and startling, claim. Namely, that "more than half those who met Clinton as Cabinet secretary gave money to Clinton Foundation." Surely this was compelling evidence of a conflict.

As sharp-eyed reporters for competing news outlets noted within minutes of the tweet and article being posted, however, this statistic was only true if you ignored the thousands of government officials, dignitaries, and so on that Clinton met in her capacity as Secretary of State.

As Matthew Yglesias at Vox pointed out, "the stark fact highlighted in the AP's tweet and social share card is, for starters, totally false." In order to come up with its blockbuster figure—that 85 out of the 154 people Clinton met with eventually donated to the Clinton Foundation—the AP "excluded from the denominator all employees of any government, whether U.S. or foreign."

There are other problems within the Associated Press story, including the fact that it attempts to make Clinton look bad for meeting with people like Mohammed Yunus, a Nobel Prize-winning economist who pioneered the concept of micro-lending to help underdeveloped nations.

But even the justifiable questions in the piece were arguably overshadowed by the misleading, clickbait-style nature of the AP's promo (which Republican candidate Donald Trump was happy to spread). It didn't help when the wire service refused to respond to criticism of the tweet, including a request from the Clinton campaign that it be amended or deleted.

The only response from AP was to release a statement saying it "focused on Mrs. Clinton's meetings and calls involving people outside government who were not federal employees or foreign diplomats, because meeting with U.S. or foreign government officials would inherently have been part of her job as secretary of state."

The problem is that there are probably a number of significant questions and concerns that ought to be raised about the Clinton family and its foundation, and the relationship between it and the former Secretary of State, who may soon become president of the United States.

But pumping up a sketchy statistic to try and drum up interest in that idea actually defeats the purpose because it makes the AP look desperate, and that in turn provides even more fodder to those who might want to cast doubt on the report's conclusions.

[Martinus]

As Matthew Yglesias at Vox pointed out, "the stark fact highlighted in the AP's tweet and social share card is, for starters, totally false." In order to come up with its blockbuster figure—that 85 out of the 154 people Clinton met with eventually donated to the Clinton Foundation—the AP "excluded from the denominator all employees of any government, whether U.S. or foreign."

Err, I would think it's reasonable to exclude from this statistics at least the US government employees as well as foreign government officials met in official/formal capacity. Don't you think?

[Legbiter]

Well good thing Vox exposed AP for the partisan hitmen that they are.

[Martinus]

Well good thing Vox exposed AP for the partisan hitmen that they are.

[Martinus]

I bet if you also count all the bellboys, taxi drivers, waiters and maids Hillary met during her time in the Department of State, the percentage of people who are her foundation's donors would be ever lower.

[jimmy olsen]

I was hoping after time out you could finally move on from him. Alas.

I did move on from him somewhat (I definitely have from alt right), but I appreciate a good troll when I see one. I mean I am still friends with Jaron and Fireblade.

Besides, don't you think it's ridiculous for an ostensibly sensible candidate for the most powerful position in the world to read those headlines as if they were some horrid revelations? They are quite clearly trolls, and she is falling for it hook and sinker. It has been said that Trump sucks as a candidate because he would start a nuclear war over a tweet - it seems in Hillary's case it would be over a dank meme.

They are trolls who have taken over the Republican party. She is absolutely right to hammer Trump over this, anything less would have been political malpractice.

Ads and a speech like this were a lock, anyone would have told you this a year ago. Many of the GOP candidates a year ago did. They all knew that the David Duke incident and Trump's other flirtations with white nationalism would be a millstone around his neck that would sink his campaign.

[Legbiter]

Tim officially tainted Hillary. 

[Martinus]

Tim officially tainted Hillary. 

No kidding. He is re-stoking my support for Trump.

[Ed Anger]

You two don't count. Sadly Tim has the vote. 

[Martinus]

You two don't count. Sadly Tim has the vote. 

All the hope to fuck Tim up is in you, though. Vote Trump. You know you want to.

[Ed Anger]

Ah, no. I'm writing in Lucius Cornelius Sulla.

[Martinus]

Ah, no. I'm writing in Lucius Cornelius Sulla.

Trump is the Sulla reborn - and unlike Sulla, he would deport Tim to Puerto Rico.

[FunkMonk]

The Donald has disappointed me. 

At the start of this drama he was perhaps the greatest troll to ever live. He punked the entire Republican party at a stride. Now, with his extremely sad and stagnant poll numbers, he seems more like a sad little joke. Where's the exuberant and reckless bashing of basically everyone but himself? It was crap like that that made him endearing. He seems like a shell of himself now. That racist Breitbart guy was supposed to launch him into a new wave of Trumpism. I see no evidence it's going to happen. Or maybe I've just become numb to it all.

Trump seems sad and low energy compared to his old self. 

[derspiess]

You two don't count. Sadly Tim has the vote. 

I'm guessing Tim is voting as a Rhode Island voter.  Rhode Island will vote Hillary anyway, and it's not like that state is going to make much of a difference one way or the other.  Our Ohio votes, on the other hand...

[Martinus]

The Donald has disappointed me. 

At the start of this drama he was perhaps the greatest troll to ever live. He punked the entire Republican party at a stride. Now, with his extremely sad and stagnant poll numbers, he seems more like a sad little joke. Where's the exuberant and reckless bashing of basically everyone but himself? It was crap like that that made him endearing. He seems like a shell of himself now. That racist Breitbart guy was supposed to launch him into a new wave of Trumpism. I see no evidence it's going to happen. Or maybe I've just become numb to it all.

Trump seems sad and low energy compared to his old self. 

I agree. I lost my heart for him about mid-July when he started losing.