MSNBC #1, FOX "News" #3: Role Reversal!

Rachel Maddow, from source, Variety

I know I hardly blog anymore, but I knew when I saw this headline, I had to post it. In what has seemed inevitable for months, MSNBC has finally overtaken FOX "News" as the number one cable news station. I say "cable news" as a category, because FOX has of course never really been news, having practically invented "fake news" twenty years ago.

Now, I know, there are several factors here that make this possibly a temporary--and maybe even hollow--victory. The channel that used to call itself "The Place for Politics," and said "Lean Forward," has been seemingly morphing slowly into sort of a FOX lite, at least in certain areas. The guy pulling all the wheels and pullies behind the scenes, Andy Lack, seems hell-bent on tipping the focus to a blend of "straight news," and a tip rightward. He's been thwarted by Rachel Maddow's dynamo ratings, and also to the surges by the rest of the prime time lineup. He couldn't very well fire his new ratings champions.

Or could he? The channel's second highest rated host, Lawrence O'Donnell, has a contract renewal looming, and nobody seems to know if it's going to go through. His fans are planning a march, but as often happens in these sorts of things, we don't get to hear the details. Even tonight, as the world is dealing with another terrorist act in Manchester, England (as I write this, responsible parties unknown), Lawrence is not hosting his program, and is being pre-empted by Brian Williams.

It would be foolhardy for Lack to terminate O'Donnell--who has made it clear that he wants to stay--in the midst of a ratings bonanza. It would almost instantly damage the ratings they have just started to really reap, because a huge segment of the their audience would abandon MSNBC. But I've seen this happen before. Radio channels running Randi Rhodes or Stephanie Miller when they're performing well, and replacing them with radio formats that get microscopic ratings. Sometimes ideology trumps money. Strange but true.

Of course the ratings wave also came amidst a crash at FOX, where they've been rocked by scandal, schedule shakeups, and a complete lack of focus after the departure (and now death) of Roger Ailes. I'd like nothing better than to see one of two things happen: a) FOX "News" slides to irrelevancy, with FOX Business Channel-level ratings; or b) FOX itself morphs into a more straight-news channel, free of rightward slant. But what we don't need is MSNBC basically taking their place as the new leader in "fake news."

Meanwhile, congratulations to Rachel Maddow, Lawrence O'Donnell, Chris Hayes and the roster of regulars that has performed a mighty feat, seemingly in the face of their own leadership.

[Excerpt]

MSNBC Reaches No. 1 for First Time in Weekly Primetime Ratings, Fox News Drops to Third

For the first time in its history, MSNBC ranked number one in both total viewers and the key adults 25-54 demographic during primetime for a full week among the big three cable news networks, according to Nielsen data. . .

Read more at: Variety

Donald Trump Lies Blatantly about Russia Hacking Report

We know Donald Trump lies, and does so when it is easily debunked. He lies for no good reason, about things people know are untrue. He lies about things he's lied about! His "truth teller" status during the election was and remains baffling, because he's known to be a worse liar than even the most dishonest politician. Hillary Clinton, long tarred with that brush, actually comes out close to the top of the heap of most honest politicians. So, go figure.

But with this Russia thing? He lied about something rather enormous. And still hasn't come clean. What did he know, and when did he know it? This will haunt his entire presidency, however (hopefully) short it is.

How Dumb Are Trump Voters? New Poll Sheds Some Light (They're Pretty Dumb)

Imagine my surprise.

Blast from the Past: Potential Secretary of State JOHN BOLTON!!! in 2007

When I saw that the transition team for (oh, please don't barf, keep typing) President-elect Trump [*urp!*] has thrown former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton's name into the ring for potential Secretary of State, first I had this stomach discomfort. Then a shriek of, "Our number one diplomat is going to be a man with no diplomatic skills whatsoever???" And then, my darkly humorous inner voice conjured up something from the past. It was how Rachel Maddow--then a host on Air America Radio--used to refer to the white mustachioed rabble-rouser. To see what I mean, play this clip from something called The Rachel Maddow Podthing, a precursor to her eventual The Rachel Maddow Show. You're likely to get a kick out of it, if for no other reason than just seeing the kind of fun she liked to have when she wasn't a semi-serious, pseudo news anchor on the teevee machine.

Russia Admits Continuing Contact with Trump Campaign

Nobody will read this post (or those like it), or watch this video who should. And if you could force them to, they'd play it off like it's no big deal. But if they were being honest, if we all were, we know the answer to Rachel Maddow's hypothetical "Storytime." If the Russians were meddling in the McCain/Palin campaigns affairs, meddling in the outcome of the election, and it was discovered that the Obama campaign was in cahoots? The outrage from the right (and from many other quarters) would be deafening.
 [Story continues below]




I'll go further than that. If the scenario had played out that way, Republicans would have done everything in their power, would have used every tool in their toolbox to prevent the inauguration of Obama. Failing that, they'd have spent the next weeks, months and years investigating the connection, making hay of it in the news, and probably at best attempting to impeach, and it's not too far fetched to imagine them looking toward charges of treason. Does anyone really doubt that? 

Everyone's hair should have been on fire over the near certain Russian involvement in Wikileaks' hacking and distribution of Clinton campaign emails. It was a bigger story than the gossip contained therein. And when the circumstantial ties to Russia and Trump operative Paul Mannafort (and others) are also known, a narrative isn't hard to form. This should have been the focus of the "October surprise."

Here's hoping that more people than Rachel Maddow are staying on top of this story. But as long as she is, maybe she'll have the same success she had getting the Chris Christie Bridgegate story into the mainstream.

September Update: Everyone is in Great Health!

Well, I've done it again, I've let the blog just sit here for days on end, no updates, no nuffin'.

Sorry about that. I have more excuse for that than usual. Long-time friends, in fact surrogate family members from my two decades in Las Vegas have moved across the country, back to Ohio, and in with us. That has been a tremendous reunion, extended celebration, and little time or room for much else. The Other Half is highly irritated with all things political, and has nearly banned it from discussion. . .leaving the spare time for me to actually read and consume news and info on what's going on, rather than to write about it.

The big news this week, of course, is the health of the presidential candidates. Particularly after the health scare Hillary Clinton had on Sunday. Initially, the explanation of dehydration, exhaustion and pneumonia was iffy, sounding to some like convenient cover before finding out what was "really" wrong. But mostly that's because Right Wing World has spent weeks and months creating a fictional world where Clinton is a reanimated corpse or something. In the days since, Clinton has seemingly recuperated, her doctor has released a completely credible health assessment, and all but the kooky fringe (a disturbingly large contingent of people, I will concede) should be satisfied on at least that issue.

Meanwhile, Trump--who uncharacteristically wished Clinton well on her recovery--made a spectacle of his own health, having a very showy appearance on Dr. Oz, using a second health assessment by the same quack doctor, and pretty much erasing whatever credibility gap may have existed between he and Clinton on the issue. He also seemed to fudge on his own weight, trying to pass himself off as a bit overweight when he's likely clinically obese, and trying to convince people that campaign gesticulations count as physical activity.

It's all rather tedious in total, but you know what isn't? Listening to Rachel Maddow describe it in detail. She manages to make it quite entertaining, actually! Enjoy.

Rachel Maddow on the Pitfalls of NOT Nominating a SCOTUS Justice

If conservative Republicans win the PR battle, and manage to stall the Supreme Court nomination process, they have a chance to have a conservative seated. But only if a Republican wins the presidential election. Even with that (for liberal Democrats) unfortunate outcome, the Republicans manage to potentially lose a lot along the way. A number of potential 5-4 decisions, some of which would certainly have gone the conservatives' way, would end in a tie. Meaning they'd lose. So in each scenario where it was that tight, liberals effectively win. This is a huge dice roll for the GOP.

One of Rachel Maddow's biggest strengths is her ability to supply context and history to subjects like this, and tease out the many and sundry implications. One of her best monologues was on this subject on Monday night. Take a look.

Rachel Maddow: GOP Embracing "The Fringe" - It's New, and Nuts

Image from source, Washington Post

I have a feeling that Reince Priebus must just be rocking himself to sleep every night, unsure of what to do. The Republican Party has fostered and built the Frankenstein's monster that is Donald Trump, and activated the torch-bearing villagers. The twist is, the villagers support the monster, and want to set his maker's laboratory ablaze! For years, they courted the paranoid, the conspiratorial, the frothingly xenophobic, the rabidly homophobic, the acidically racist and the overzealously religious. Those people were supposed to rush to the polls to vote for everyone with an (R) after their name. They weren't supposed to control anything, either by becoming the majority, or by aligning behind a non-establishment candidate.

They should have seen this coming. They have had to deal with (and pretend to just adore) the Tea Party. They've had several nutbars from the fringe actually get elected. They had to suspect that it was possible that eventually a non-establishment candidate would rise to the top as a presidential candidate. What they didn't factor in was a cult of personality, a hero-worship of a bona fide "conservative" celebrity. I have to note that I put conservative in quotes here, because one of the most curious parts of this whole thing is that Donald J. Trump does not align well with many of the core principles of modern day Tea Party conservatism. And I just as easily could have put "celebrity" in quotes, as Trump is the kind of celebrity that is famous for being famous. He's literally a Reality TV star, on par with a Kardashian.



Could Donald Trump have a
Lonesome Rhodes moment?
Image fromWikipedia.

So, no, the GOP couldn't have predicted that the base voters could put aside their hardcore anti-abortion stance, shunt aside their anti-gay feelings, ignore their religious fervor, and go all in for a famous bag of gas. And follow him no matter what. He's not Teflon like Ronald Reagan, he's something altogether different. He's akin to a cult leader, and his followers are guzzling the Flavor-Aid. The only way to stop this thing, to my mind, is for the GOP to expel him from the party, and in doing so, very likely fracture their party. Barring that, they have to hope for a coalescence of support for a candidate by the non-crazy GOP voters that swells larger than Trump's support. Or, they have to hope some event or happenstance takes him out of the running. It's not likely to be a gaffe that does it, unless it's of Lonesome Rhodes proportions.

[Excerpt]

A leading presidential candidate embracing the fringe? That’s nuts — and new.

In the three years since the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Conn., one of the more inexplicable aspects of its aftermath has been the persistence of the insane conspiracy theory that the killings never really happened. Sandy Hook “truthers” contend that the incident was either faked in its entirety, or, if it was real, was committed by the government for some sort of political effect. . .

Read more at: Washington Post

Kevin McCarthy Drops Out of Contention for Speaker of the House

I have to wonder if the withdrawal of Kevin McCarthy for Speaker of the House has more to do with a) his accidental revelation that the Benghazi/email investigations were about hurting Hillary Clinton; b) Rachel Maddow's very effective campaign to show that the potential "Speaker" doesn't speak very well; c) the Tea Party faction and their resistance to the establishment; or d) that Mr. McCarthy is possibly about to have a sex scandal. Time will tell, but it's kind of fun for a Democrat.
 

It's just the icing on the cake that McCarthy managed to mangle a metaphor in his announcement.

John Boehner Calls it Quits

You can tell that my blogging reflexes have slowed to a crawl when John Boner Boehner up and quits, and it takes me this long to comment. But I had to say something. There are few politicians I've had as much fun poking, as the weepy, orange-faced Speaker of the Souse House.

But it's hard to have very much fun with it, when it seems as though Boehner himself is so cool with the notion of quitting. You don't get much happier than singing "Zippity Doo Dah" on your way to the press conference. So, we won't have Drunky McCriesalot to kick around anymore. And in time, the new guy (probably Big Giant Head, Kevin McCarthy) will become as much a target as anyone before him. And hey, at least Boehner escaped the fate of the past three Republican Speakers, who have all been mired in scandal. As far as we know. It took years for Denny Hastert to get found out.

Rachel Maddow on The Tonight Show with Jimmy Fallon

Love me some Rachel, unplugged.

Big Shake Up at MSNBC

Ed Schultz, from source, PoliticsUSA

I've been a regular watcher of MSNBC since Countdown with Keith Olbermann first caught fire, back during the dog days of the George W. Bush administration. After a several years-long honeymoon from the media on Bush, finally someone was on the teevee telling it like it was! It was refreshing. He was pretty much the only one.

For all the talk of "liberal media bias," I wonder how many people remember the climate after 9/11 and on through the beginnings of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. It was a time of "Freedom Fries," and Dixie Chicks boycotts. Bill Maher being cancelled for being politically incorrect on Politically Incorrect. If you criticized Dubya, you could be met with, "Why do you hate America?" Freedom, liberty, patriot. . .all of these words were appropriated and practically trademarked by the GOP.

So yeah, Olbermann--bombastic as he was--was like a beacon of sanity in the middle of a surreal, conservative alternate reality that we somehow got sucked into. Eventually, the more popular Olbermann got, the more his network, MSNBC, came to take on more of his flavor. Rachel Maddow went from appearing sporadically on other shows to appearing regularly on Keith's show, to guest hosting, to her own show. And when Olbermann was shown the door, Rachel carried on, becoming the face of the network. I still watch her show, as is evidenced by her regular appearance on my blog.

Occasionally, you'll see other MSNBC clips here, but not too often. As Maddow spun off from Olbermann, so too did The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell. I like him, but he's not "must see" viewing for me. Likewise, All In with Chris Hayes spun off from Maddow.  Hayes is drier, wonkier. He's good, but again, not appointment viewing. With each generation of cloning, the shows (beyond

See? No "News" in the name.

Rachel) seemed to lose something. And then MSNBC seemed to make the mistake of trying to clone its evening shows all over the schedule. It became almost entirely a politics and news commentary channel.

Actually, there is very little wrong with that concept. Unlike FOX "News"--who they are often and unfairly considered the mirror counterpart--MSNBC doesn't have "news" in its name. It doesn't bill itself as "fair and balanced." Its slogans are "lean forward" and "the place for politics." So, their political leanings are completely fine, or ought to be. The weak spot was ratings, and I believe that's because it became very much stuck in a rut. There is a sameness across the day, with similar guests, similar styles, similar sets, colors, music, hosts. When most of the shows have such interchangeable parts, nothing is appointment viewing anymore.

So, MSNBC is shaking things up, and jettisoning some of their daytime programming. The old heave-ho to Now with Alex Witt, to The Cycle (the landing ground for a handful of guests from other shows) and The Ed Schultz Show. In their place will be an attempt at NBC-style "hard news." None of these things make me sad. Except that some of it will be hosted by Chuck Todd, who I think is kind of a tool, and one with a bit of a conservative bent. Joining him will be Brian Williams, on his road to redemption. So, cool, we may have some better place to turn for actual news then we've had lately.

This, I'd love to see, but I kinda doubt it.

Also, goodbye Ed Schultz, I won't miss you most of all. If you'd taken Rev. Al with you, it wouldn't make me sad either (someone please tell Al he actually has a working microphone?). I've never, never cared for Ed, and thought he was a bad fit from day one. So, that's my favorite part of this news. Now, they'll probably follow these changes with more. I wouldn't be surprised to see Chris Hayes at least moved if not cancelled. O'Donnell could see the same, I suppose. Rachel Maddow is likely going nowhere, unless they move her up an hour. And who knows about Lockup. I'll never figure out why they still air that so often.

All in all, change is inevitable in television programing, even if we can tend to get used to our old favorites. FOX "News" had an unusually stable roster for most of its existence, but has seen a few shakeups in recent years. CNN is still wont to cancel and move stuff around. So I say great. Hope it works, hope it makes things better. Just don't mess with my Rachel, mmm'kay?

[Excerpt]

 

MSNBC Is Canceling Ed Schultz And Giving His Show To Chuck Todd

 

MSNBC is expected to announce that they are canceling Ed Schultz and giving his timeslot to Meet The Press host Chuck Todd. Mediaite is reporting that The Ed Show along with two other programs will be canceled. . .

 

Read more at: PoliticsUSA

Rachel Maddow and Seth Meyers Discuss Donald Trump

Very entertaining, even if you're tired of all the Trump talk.

 

Rachel Maddow Interviews Rick Santorum

Obviously, within the context of a couple of segments of her nightly show, Rachel Maddow was unable to get to every point we'd like her to ask Rick (don't Google me) Santorum. But this segment did a couple of newsworthy things: it undoubtedly gave Santorum a little bit of buzz, evidenced by the fact that the story is currently trending on Twitter. Secondly, Santorum fans might just discover that Maddow is a different breed of cable pundit. I can't imagine a similar interview of a Democratic candidate on Hannity, for example.

 

Scott Walker's Logo Lacks Originality, Vision, May Be Too Liberal

On Monday night's The Rachel Maddow Show, Rachel pointed out that the new Scott Walker for President logo may be all nice and patriotic, but it's hardly original. I can't find the clip from the show, but I can show you the ones it seems to be inspired by. The logo looks like a direct steal from an eye care company. And as a graphic artist who specializes in logos and brand identity, I've got to say that using the "e" in Walker is an odd place to drop the logo in the first place. But it's understandable to want flag imagery, and there are only so many ways to represent Old Glory in a simplified "bug."

But how funny is it, that Walker's logo also looks like the logo of former liberal talk radio flagship for  Air America Radio, WLIB? That right there is kind of hilarious. But if recent history is any indication, even a controversial logo (Hillary Clinton, Ted Cruz) will probably be retained by the candidate, despite any argument to change it. There's too much invested in the design. Even if it kind of looks like the logo for US Airways.

[Excerpt]

Eyeglass company: No Scott Walker endorsement in logo

America's Best Eyeglasses is reminding people that their logo may look like Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker's new campaign logo, but they're not endorsing him, or any other candidate for that matter. A handful of angry tweeters pressed the eyeglasses and contacts company this past weekend, after Walker revealed a campaign logo that looks very similar to the their boxy American Flag-redux logo. . .

Read more at: CNN

Rachel Maddow Expresses Confusion Over Donald Trump's Allure

Rachel Maddow has long been one of my favorite liberal pundits, long before her MSNBC show debuted. What I like most about her is the research behind her work, the context provided, and the unique angle from which she approaches a story. I also appreciate her humility and honesty, a rather unique feature in her profession. [Story continues below]



So, I won't question her confusion as it regards Donald Trump. Her perspective on the whole Trump allure is, "Why? I just don't understand." I don't get it either. This is a clownish buffoon, leagues ahead of the rest of the people jokingly referred to as "the GOP Clown Car." His appeal as even a reality TV star confuses me. He's an asshole. He's self-centered and self-serving. He's the worst kind of bullshitter, one whose bullshit is undisguised, heaped tall, sitting right in front of you with that ridiculous hair on top.

Trump's ludicrous boastfulness is transparent bullshit, whether it's his alleged investigation in Hawaii concerning the nonsense behind the President's "real" birth certificate. His solution to any foreign policy challenge, or domestic policy problem is a blanket, "I could solve that, and I'd solve it fast, and it would be marvelous." No details, because it's just bullshit. His ego knows no bounds, but is as hollow as papier-mâché.

So, my confusion has nothing to do with Trump himself. He's easy to figure out. He's a boastful jackass and bull-shitter. Fact checking him would become a full-time job for many, many people in the press. But his appeal? THAT is confusing. It's like explaining the appeal of music that grates on your ears. How can anyone like that, right? That's Donald Trump. Apparently, if you like him, you just like him. Maybe the assholery and bullshittery is your gangsta rap, or your death metal.

Rachel Maddow Indulges in Some Franklin Graham Schadenfreude

The fact that televangelical dynasties are a thing now ought to bother people. Sure, folks like Jerry Falwell and Oral Roberts and Billy Graham caught on with the (gullible) public for some reason. Fine. I get that. But now that the first generation is gone or going, each seems to have a son following in the "family business," and for some reason they're given a similar level of reverence and relevance. Why? What did this idiotic, hateful son of Graham do to warrant him even being newsworthy?

Well, for some reason televangelists are now apparently like car dealership dynasties, and will get to hold down a corner of their "industry" in perpetuity. Since they won't fade into obscurity, at least they will continue to say ridiculous things, and make idiotic public stands like this one. It helps to be able to laugh heartily at their expense.
 

Is MSNBC Shifting Away from Leaning Forward?

Television and radio are prone to sudden and dramatic shifts in schedule, in editorial tone, and even in complete formats. In the case of programming that caters specifically to liberals, these changes can often be almost inscrutable. For instance, though liberal talk radio has always had difficulty getting a

Keith Olbermann handing off to Rachel Maddow.
Those were the days.

market foothold for a variety of reasons, it has often been the case that a station (or chain of stations) will abandon the format for programming that gets worse ratings.

It's not hard to feel like there's something more at work than mere market forces sometimes. As a long-time consumer of liberal-oriented information (not to the exclusion of all else, mind you), I'm very, very, very familiar with this phenomenon. I had to chase The Randi Rhodes Show all over the internet, through two or three sudden complete disappearances, and finally her rather abrupt retirement. Other favorite hosts have come and gone with no word, and poor Stephanie Miller is now operating out of her house!

So, I rather scoff at the old "liberal media" trope. It's a moldy, lazy, inaccurate assessment of how things really are. So, if it is indeed true that MSNBC--struggling this year in the ratings--is about to abandon its liberal leanings, it won't surprise me much, though I'm not happy about it. For one thing, their biggest star is Rachel Maddow, whose eponymously named show is unlikely to shift focus without both irritating its host, and losing its audience. What she needs is a stronger lead-in, or a shift to 8:00 pm, putting her in the actual lead spot that Countdown with Keith Olbermann used to occupy.

I like Chris Hayes, but he's a bit dry, as is the curse of many a scholarly liberal (see: Thom Hartmann). And I like Lawrence O'Donnell, but he's better at his current spot. Still, I'd prefer either to a return of the likes of  Scarborough Country, Joe Scarborough's old gig before Morning Joe. By the way, can we talk about Scarborough for a second? His very presence as host of a three-hours-per-day show on MSNBC ought to single-handedly dispel any "MSNBC is the flip-side of FOX 'News'" comments. At least until Ronan Farrow or Joy Reid show up as hosts of the oddly named Fox & Friends. But I digress. . .

Frank's kid (I mean come on) is out at MSNBC,
at least as host of his own show.

If Rachel Maddow finds herself smack-dab in the middle of Right Wing World in a format shift, she'll balk, and probably walk. If they lose her, they might as well change the format of the channel to something completely different. There's very little chance MSNBC can compete with FOX as a cloned or "lite" version of that channel. They could instead go hard news--Maddow might even welcome that, and hell, they'd be unique if they did--but would ratings actually go up for that? Righties still wouldn't watch, because reality has that unfortunate "liberal bias" they don't have to worry about on FOX.

I don't envy the position Phil Griffin is in, being in charge of programming there, and undoubtedly with corporate overlords breathing down his neck to improve ratings. But quick fixes don't come easily, especially when you consider that the situation may correct itself with the political and news cycle and the 2016 election. Getting rid of Farrow and Reid can't hurt, and putting in Thomas Roberts again is actually heartening. He's newsy and known to be (gay) liberal, so he's a good blend without feeling traitorous to the audience. Some shuffling around with the schedule? Fine. A wholesale change in tone? A mistake with a capital "M." It all comes down to this, I think: Does Comcast care if MSNBC improves in the ratings, or are they trying to squelch their liberal leanings before a big election? After having seen Clear Channel's treatment of liberal formats on radio, I think that's the most germane question.

[Excerpt]

MSNBC Shifts Ronan Farrow, Joy-Ann Reid; Thomas Roberts Returns to Dayside

First on TVNewser: A year-old experiment at MSNBC is coming to an end. As TVNewser first told you earlier today, “The Reid Report” is being canceled, and we can now confirm that “Ronan Farrow Daily” is also being shelved. Both Reid and Farrow will take on new roles with the network. . .

Read more at: TV Newser
 

Ted Cruz Showboating Gives Lame Duck Dems a Christmas Gift

That unctuous, creepy, smarmy toad Ted Cruz shot himself and his party in their collective feet. Captain Ego kept the Senate in session for an ultimately pointless "point," and allowed the lame duck Democrats time enough to pass a bunch of appointments that would have gone unfilled! Good job, senator dumbass!

Rachel Maddow uses an excellent football story to take us to the glory that is Cruz's epic fumble. You still digging this guy, tea baggers?
 

In Case You Missed It: Rachel Maddow Finds a Silver Lining in the 2014 Election

I forgot to post this yesterday, and it's too good to forget. Rachel Maddow was one of MSNBC's main commentators on their election coverage (yes, FOX-lovers, I'm her one viewer, haha), and did a pretty good job during the dour thing (when Chris Matthews wasn't being a dick). People who claimed it was funereal on that channel didn't watch, or only caught a snippet. Because Maddow lives for this stuff. She's a political junkie who thinks of elections like Christmas, no matter who is winning.

As such, even though the night was dire for liberals, Rachel culled the returns for some good news. And delivers it with the appropriate amount of "yes, I'm digging through a pile of poop for nuggets of gold here." So, if you don't know about the good things that came out of that dismal election, here's your go-to source.