Is your implication that the right wing media doesn't do the same thing? Do you believe, say, Fox News or WorldNetDaily is even-handed in their reporting of what happens as between Democratic and Republican leaders?
Nope. The right wing media are even more blatant. There are two key differences though - the right wing media are far less pervasive (even though they crush on cable news and talk radio, most people still get their news from the networks, infotainment shows, and the Internet) and very, very few people are under any illusion that the right wing media are not heavily biased.
Not really so mysterious when you don't subscribe to revisionist history the way you and werepossum do. Democrats often compromise with Rebublicans by passing their shit legislation and then when it fails the GOP tries to pretend they weren't the ones that pressed for it in the first place.
How . . . convenient. You simply divide whatever the two parties do together and assign the things you don't like to the party you don't like and vice versa.
I envy the time you save by never actually thinking.
I personally think Trump is going to win the election and became the next POTUS.
I don't personally support him. I don't agree with his policies. But I think he is going to win the election regardless of that.
Mostly it is going to come down to who America hates less. Trump is going to manage to convince voters that they hate an offensive businessman less than they hate an old white woman.
The problem with Hilary is that she isn't really notable. She doesn't stand out. Obama was notable for his sheer charisma and oratory ability. Trump is notable for how polarizing he is - people either hate him or love him. Hilary - what is she famous for? Her husband used to be POTUS and cheated on her. She's a feminist. What else?
It's going to count against her.
I dunno. In the first place, most of the people are not truly swayable; they have their party, and that's how they are going to vote. (Assuming they vote.) In the second place, seems to me that most of Clinton's negatives also apply to Trump, sometimes to a lesser degree but oftimes to a greater. America considers Clinton to be rather greedy and grasping; she is running against a billionaire with copious allegations of shady deals. America considers Clinton to be awkward, cold, uncaring; America considers Trump to be a buffoon who is at least as uncaring. America considers Clinton to be dishonest and untrustworthy . . .
I don't see a lot of Hillary's current negatives that Trump or his surrogates can cleanly hit. Remember "Where was George?" You can bet their political minders do. The only one that comes to mind is that she is part of the establishment, part of the ruling elite. Even there, being the first female contender for the top chair gives her some cover, whereas Trump being a white male billionaire puts him squarely in the ruling elite even without government experience. Given that the outsider (of the party if not the ruling elite) couldn't defeat her in the primary, I just don't think he's going to get much traction there either. I do expect she will do badly in the debates - I'll be surprised if more than two come off - but even there she'll have most of the media screaming that she won and there will surely be plenty of stupid Trumpisms to give them ammunition. If one makes cogent points but also says stupid things, one cannot possibly decisively win a debate. And there's no guarantee that Trump will make any cogent points. The kicker here is that general elections are not as emotionally charged as are primaries. You're dealing with people who are less politically educated/aware and much less invested in politics. Trump's obviously a very smart guy, but I don't know that he's smart enough to shift from what worked so well in his first ever run for office to what they tell him will work in the general. Assuming the minders even know - what will work for a Senator is not necessarily what will work for a billionaire real estate mogul. I'm betting that if Trump wins, then the key argument or issue will be something not even on my radar.
I don't particularly care either way. Maybe President Trump would be better than President Hildabeast, but he could also easily be worse. And to me, the big wild card here is not a possible Hillary indictment (honestly, if I had to bet I'd bet that a Trump indictment was more likely, though obviously I'm expecting neither) but how much the Republican establishment pisses off the Republican base. I'm not at all convinced that this plays into net more votes for President Trump since some people will stay home and others will vote for the Dems or a third party.