| snyps said: It's a nice, well put review. You analyzed much of what was intended for viewers to notice. The only bias I noticed is that you gave more applause to hillary as if the audience represented the country. The other thing that stands out to me, you portrayed everything the candidates said as viable. Something the media does as well so again you are regurgitating what was intended for viewers to notice. Both candidates have a record of breaking promises and hillary has a political record to compare statements to. You managed the status quo of non-accountability. Both candidates could easily be last weeks news if we cared to focus on their terrible actions instead of believing their baby kisses. "I made a mistake, and it will never happen again." is a bullshit statement that was used in the debate. Until we elect candidates with proven records of integrity, Ron Paul, Bernie Sanders, Gary Johnson, Ralph Nader, even Jesse the Body Ventura or Dennis Kucinich; we will continue to be baffled when our leader does the opposite of what was promised in the campaign trail *GASP*. The current leader of the free world, He who we shall not name, is a perfect example of getting what we deserve. |
Thanks for your reply.
I was not following Twitter or other social media, so my scope of observation was limited to what was on the screen. The reaction of that audience was all that I was able to judge. The Nominees may have been more successful or less successful in their own style of Appeal so my scoring may be completely, but I tried to analyze their performance over exit polls. I am open to suggestions on how to judge this area more effectively.
As for portraying both candidates as viable, I don't think I did--at least, not equally viable. While I did not dissect their proposals, policies, positions, etc, (the review was already at risk for being TL;DR and I don't know enough about American politics to confidently analyze it objectively through my admittedly Socialist viewpoint), they did not get anywhere near the same grade in terms of substance. Trump was meandering, said a lot of nothing, was noted for gaffe's, word salad, etc. Clinton's errors were noticeable, but not systemic.
I should add Feasibility as another category for analysis--measuring the likelihood of a Nominee's proposals to help or harm things at home and abroad. Yes, I think that would address your criticism here. I'll work on getting something up tonight, and I will make sure to have that category in the next two Partisan-Free Reviews.
When it comes Lord Voldemort becoming President, I have a different opinion: you deserve better. There were a number of good choices for both sides of the political spectrum to nominate, and somehow the least likeable, most distrusted are now head to head. America deserves better.
