The Media Needs To Do A Better Job Of Covering Trump

The following post is by Dan Rather and Elliott Kirschner: 

Donald Trump is a liar. He is a bigot, a misogynist, and a deadbeat. He has just been found by a jury to be a sexual abuser. He faces multiple other serious criminal investigations. He spurred a violent insurrection. He has repeatedly demonstrated complete disdain for the foundations of American democracy. The list of traits that makes this man unfit for the presidency fills pages.

 

And yet despite these debased qualities, or maybe (depressingly) because of them, he is immensely popular with many Americans. They cheer on his worst impulses. They bask in his hatred. They are fueled by the danger he poses to this nation. They have propelled him once again to be the favorite for the Republican presidential nomination.

And although many Americans don’t want to believe it, at this moment, he is a real threat to return to the presidency. 

Among other things, Trump is and always has been a performer, and performers, no matter how vile their message, crave and thrive in the spotlight. 

Last night, CNN gave Trump not only a spotlight, but a platform and a rabid crowd of cheering supporters. He made the most of it, as chiling and distressing as that might be.

Those who have made up their minds on Trump — those who love him and hate him — undoubtedly found plenty of justification for their opinions watching, ignoring, or doom scrolling his performance.

But what about the casual observer, the disaffected, the persuadable? Trump knows how to command a stage. He knows how to go on the attack. And the format CNN gift-wrapped for him allowed him to score a mark.

 

There is a school of thought that Trump is so toxic that the more America sees of him, the less they like him. And there were moments last night that could easily be plugged into effective attack ads against him. 

But what we should have learned from 2016 and the years that followed is that people as shameless as Trump do not measure their success by metrics of civility. It’s about demonstrating primal dominance, and that instinct delivered him the presidency once before. And even though he lost reelection, he remade American politics in ways with which we are still contending. 

Trump played the part CNN surely knew he would play. What did they hope to get from normalizing this demeaning and dangerous demagogue? Ratings? Relevance? A tack to the mythic “middle” in line with new ownership and direction? Trying to become some new version of Fox News? Is any of this worth endangering the health and security of our country?

When CNN announced that they would give Donald Trump more than an hour of free prime time for a “town hall” (more like a town maul), it was clear what was going to happen.

Trump would lie, and bully, and insult, and lie, and lie, and lie some more. That is who he is. It is who he has always been. 

There is no moderating a discussion with Trump. It is nearly impossible to engage in dialogue by asking probing follow-up questions. Because he will just ignore them. And lie and lie and lie. And this is especially true when he has an audience that seemed hand-picked to double as a campaign rally — hooting and hollering with approval the more he launched into his mendacious invective. 

The press will have to figure out how to cover Trump as he stomps his way toward renomination. Liars should not be given open mics in formats where they can filibuster falsehoods unchallenged. Edit what he says with context. Do not sugarcoat how untrue many of his rantings are.

America rejected Trump in 2020. He is further weakened by the court cases he faces. But he remains a potent force. He will get his message out. Let us hope the press will analyze it, not amplify it.

 

The future of not only American journalism, but of America itself, will be shaped by how Trump is covered going forward.

The New CNN Poll Is Very Troubling

The charts above reflect the results of the new CNN / SSRS Poll -- done between August 3rd and September 7th of a national sample of 2,119 adults, with a 2.8 point margin of error.

I found these results troubling. They show people are losing faith in our electoral system.

MSNBC Leads In Daytime Viewers For The 1st Quarter

 

The Nielsen numbers show that for the first quarter of 2021, MSNBC led all other cable shows in daytime ratings. Fox led in primetime for the quarter, although both MSNBC and CNN narrowed the gap. During the week of the January 6th insurrection, CNN led in average viewers.

Cable News Channels - Who Watches And Where

These maps and charts are from Morning Consult. The maps show where the audience is in the country for the three cable news networks. The darker the color, the less the viewership -- and the lighter the color, the more viewers.

The charts show the counties with the most viewers for each network -- for the general population, Democrats, Independents, and Republicans.

CNN Rates The 2020 Democratic Presidential Nomination

This chart shows how Chris Cillizza and Harry ententes at CNN thinks the 2020 presidential nomination race stands currently among Democrats. They update their top ten ratings on a monthly basis. Here's what they say about the candidates:

1. Kamala Harris: If O'Rourke looked like he was definitely running, we might have made him number one. But it's still up in the air, which means that the California senator is in our top spot for a second straight month. She appears to be moving methodically toward running, and her profile -- an Indian-American and African-American woman with a law-and-order background -- looks tailor made for the 2020 Democratic electorate. Harris' big challenge? She's never been on a stage as big the one she will be on if and when she announces she's running. (Previous ranking: 1)

2. Beto O'Rourke: The guy just lost a Senate race. And yet, here we are with O'Rourke in second. It's tough not to pay attention to a candidate who seems to have energized Democratic activists in Iowa, won the MoveOn.org straw poll (showing he has some oomph with grassroots progressives), has won plaudits from Obama and is making moves toward running. Oh, and we don't think it's going to be particularly difficult for O'Rourke to get noticed given he just raised nearly $80 million for a Senate bid. Still, folks really shouldn't get ahead of themselves. Being ranked second in what will be a very large field is a long way away from actually winning. Will Democrats actually nominate a white man in 2020? Can O'Rourke actually stand the spotlight that is sure to come if he runs? We may just find out soon enough. (Previous ranking: 10)

3. Joe Biden: Everything the former vice president has said and done over the past year makes it very clear that he is planning on running for president. The latest? His assertion that he is the "most qualified" person in the country to be president. And the vast majority of polls we've seen put Biden at or very near the top of the field. The question is, can her maintain that frontrunner status in a party that seems less than interested in picking a septuagenarian white male as its next national face? (Previous ranking: 3)

4. Cory Booker: New Jersey's junior senator manages to keep moving up our list. Part of that is attributable to the clear yearning for young faces among Democratic activists. (Booker is only 49.) Part of that is that a tireless work ethic that seems to be paying dividends. When noting how much money Booker raised for New Hampshire Democrats, state party chairman Ray Buckley said Booker is "the best friend New Hampshire Democrats had in 2018." Booker, who is black and the former mayor of Newark (50% black), could be in a prime position to win black voters, who will make up 20%-25% of the primary electorate. Booker though has his flaws. But some progressives view him as a dreaded "neoliberal," and some may see him as a bit over-dramatic (see his "Spartacus" moment). (Previous ranking: 5)

5. Elizabeth Warren: The last month has made clear just how much damage Warren did to her chances with a badly botched attempt to put to rest questions about her Native American heritage. The Massachusetts senator seems to be struggling to regain that momentum, although it's important to note -- as Politico reported recently -- that she has already begun the laborious process of building a 2020 campaign machine. That, plus the more than $12 million she has in the bank to spend on a presidential bid, mean Warren may be down, but she's not out. (Previous ranking: 2)

6. Bernie Sanders: The case for the independent senator from Vermont is fairly simple. He won over 40% of the 2016 primary vote, and the party has, if anything, moved closer to his leftist positions since that election. Sanders also has an infrastructure in place and name recognition to stand out from a crowded field. We wonder though if time has passed Sanders by. He just came in third in a straw poll with just 13% among progressive MoveOn.org activists. Sanders won 78% in that same straw poll in 2016. Additionally, other fresher faces may be better able to claim the outsider label in 2016. It was the ability to seem outside the establishment that propelled Sanders in 2016 more than anything else. (Previous ranking: 6)

7. Amy Klobuchar: We probably had the Minnesota senator ranked too highly last month, given the obvious hurdles she has to clear -- namely that she isn't a well-known figure nationally (at all) and has to show she can raise money to compete with some of the top-tier folks. Still, Klobuchar's serious and steady approach to politics and policy -- not to mention her Midwestern roots -- could make her a player in the Iowa caucuses. (Previous ranking: 4)

8. Sherrod Brown: You want someone with a long progressive record and a history of winning in the Midwest, then let me introduce to senior senator from Ohio. Brown has one of the most liberal voting records of any senator. He just easily earned another Senate term from Ohio voters, despite all other major statewide Democratic candidates falling short. A Democrat winning Ohio's 18 electoral votes would be a major Electoral College boon, and Brown's electability could sell with Democrats desperate to beat Trump. Still, Brown's a white male in a party that is becoming less white and was intent on nominating women in 2018. He may not be a great fit. (Previous ranking: 9)

9. Julian Castro: He's running! Well, basically. The former San Antonio mayor tried to get a jumpstart on the pack this week when he announced he was forming an exploratory committee -- and would make a final decision by January 12. He's almost certainly in, but questions remain as to whether there is room for both young Texas Democratic firebrands, Castro and O'Rourke, in this race. (Previous ranking: 7)

10. Kirsten Gillibrand: There was some question as to whether the junior senator from New York was game for 2020. It now seems that she is seriously contemplating a bid. On the face of it, Gillibrand has a lot going for her. She has the most anti-Trump record of any senator. She has the megaphone that the New York media has to offer and easily won reelection there last month. Yet in a crowded field, Gillibrand may have some trouble standing out. (Previous ranking: Not ranked)

Latest Electoral Projections For The U.S. House Outcome

From FiveThirtyEight.com

From CNN.com

From cbsnews.com

Public Wants Trump To Testify Under Oath For Mueller

The Mueller investigation has started to interview (under oath) some of the people highest up in the Trump administration. They just finished interviewing Attorney General Sessions, and will be interviewing Steve Bannon next week. That means they are getting close to wanting an interview with Donald Trump.

For his part, Trump has backed off his earlier claim that he would be happy to testify under oath. He is now claiming that it's not necessary for him to testify (since he claims no collusion has been proven). That's not going to fly though. His lawyers know that, and they are doing their best to either limit his testimony, or have it done in written form. That is silly. Clinton testified under oath when being investigated, and you can bet that Mueller will want Trump to do the same.

That's also what the American people want. They say, that if asked by Mueller to testify, Trump should do it in person and under oath. About 78% want that, while only 18% don't -- an enormous gap of 60 points.Trump is already the most unpopular president since World War II, and trying to get out of testifying is not going to help him.

The chart above is from a new CNN / SSRS Poll -- done between January 14th and 18th of a random national sample of 1,005 adults, with a margin of error of 3.7 points.

CNN Gives Us Four Scary Numbers For Republicans

(The Republican and Democratic symbols above are from Alltop.)

There is really only one number that really matters in the coming election -- the number of voters (both Democratic and Republican) who show up and vote on election day. If the Democrats can turn out large numbers of their voters, they will win (and possibly flip Congress). If they don't, then they will lose (and the Republican nightmare will continue). With that in mind, I give you this interesting article.

Chris Cillizza at CNN.com gives up four numbers that should worry Republicans as we approach the midterm elections in November:

The reality -- and I'm not sure how much of this was accurately conveyed to Trump -- is that every leading indicator points to a wave headed Republicans' way that could well deliver control of the House to Democrats in 2019.

Here are four numbers that tell the story.

• 40: That's the average -- AVERAGE -- seat loss for the president's party in midterm election since 1962 when the president's approval rating is under 50%. Trump's approval rating in the Gallup weekly tracking poll released Monday afternoon? 37%.
• 12: That's the average Democratic lead in the generic congressional ballot as of late December. ("If the election were today, would you vote for a Republican or a Democrat to represent you?") That's worrisome when you compare it to where the generic stood in other major wave elections. At this time in the 2014 election, a very good election for Republicans, Democrats had a nearly 2 point edge on the generic ballot. In 2006, the midterm election where Democrats won back control of Congress, the party's generic ballot edge was only 10 points.
• 3: There have only been three midterm elections -- 1934, 1998 and 2002 -- in the last century where the president's party didn't lose House seats. In all three of those elections there were major extenuating circumstances -- Great Depression, Clinton impeachment and September 11 terrorist attacks -- that upset the historical trend. Short of that sort of cataclysm, however, the president's party usually gets walloped.
• 0: Exactly none of the past five presidents have seen their job approval numbers go up in the year before their first midterm election. (Shout out to Republican pollster Lance Tarrance for this data point!). President Obama went from +13 in approval in 2009 to +1 in 2010. Ronald Reagan went from +18 in 1981 to -3 in 1982.  You get the idea. Barring a massive unforeseen event, it's very unlikely Trump's approval rating gets much better between now and November.

Trump's Job Approval Is NOT Improving

This chart shows the results of the latest CNN / SSRS Poll -- done between December 14th and 17th of a random national sample of 1,001 adults, with a margin of error of 3.6 points.

Donald Trump's job approval among the general public is at a dismal 35% (10 points below where it was last March). And it's still sinking, as disapproval has risen to 59%. That's a negative net approval rating of 24 points.

Most Fox Viewers Have A Simplistic View Of The World

The chart above is from the YouGov Poll, using information gathered from the profiles of 200,000 YouGov members.

It shows that most Fox News viewers (60%) see the world in black and white terms. Things are either true or false, and people either believe in truth or they are against the truth. This very simplistic view of the world helps explain why they can believe in the outrageous lies put forward by right-wingers, and passed on by Fox News. These are the people who accept bumper sticker solutions to the nation's and the world's problems.

Smarter people know that is simply not the case. We live in a world composed of many shades of gray -- and many times the things we hear about are neither completely true or completely false. And the solutions to problems are most of the time far too complex to be put on a bumper sticker. The people who know that prefer to get their news from PBS or MSBNC.

Cable News Coverage Of The Choice Debate

The charts are from Media Matters for America. They did a report on how the cable news networks covered the pro and anti-choice debate (abortion) between January 1st of 2015 and March 6th of 2016. It turns out that the three (CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC) are very different in their coverage.

Fox contained overwhelmingly anti-choice stories in that time period, while MSNBC contained mostly pro-choice stories. Anti-choice stories outnumbered pro-choice stories on CNN, but not by a whole lot. They were somewhere in the middle between Fox and MSNBC.

All three aired at least some misinformation on the topic, but CNN and MSNBC didn't broadcast anywhere near the misinformation aired on Fox. That's because Fox isn't really interested in truth. They were created to be, and remain purely a propaganda arm of the Republican Party (and right-wing politics).

But it's the third chart that bothered me the most -- the chart showing the gender of those the networks have invited on to speak about abortion. It seems to me that the issue of what a woman has the right to do with her own body should be a matter for that woman (or women in general).

Men have always had the right to control their own bodies in a free country, and have assumed they also had the right to control a woman's body. That is wrong, and it is against the precepts of any free country. Women should have every single right that any man has, and in equal portion. Anything less is, in my opinion, unconstitutional.

And it is also wrong to have mostly men discussing a women's issue on the cable news networks. It's time for those networks to do the right thing.

Are The Cable News Networks Telling You The Truth ?

Are the cable news networks telling you the truth. That's a valid question, because they are supposed to be doing exactly that. Unfortunately, none of them do it all the time. Their greatest failing is in letting the pundits they have on say anything they want -- and they don't challenge them when they tell obvious lies.

The chart above is from PunditFact (last updated in January). It shows how many pundit statements, statements that go unchallenged, on the three cable news networks are true or false. Sadly, none of the three do an exceptional jobs of delivering the truth to their viewers.

CNN does the best job -- with 53% truth and 26% false statements. On MSNBC, the ration is 34% to 41% -- and on Fox, the ratio is 22% to 58%. If you count the Half-truths as falsehoods (which they really are), then the false statements climb to -- CNN (47%), MSNBC (65%), and Fox (77%). That's abysmal.

How are we supposed to sustain a democracy when the purveyors of news allow so many false statements?

My Thoughts On The Democratic Debate

(This caricature of the Democratic Debaters is by DonkeyHotey.)

I have to start by saying how disappointed I am with CNN. They would like for us to think they are just doing us all a favor by holding this debate, but it became quite obvious from the beginning that for them this was just an opportunity to make a lot of money from advertisements. The debate was scheduled for 7:30pm, but it was about 18 minutes later before the candidates actually began to speak.

I probably should have expected that, but it's still disappointing. Also disappointing was their overuse of graphics to try and turn the event into some kind of entertainment show -- rather than just an opportunity to perform their function to inform the public. But that is what corporations do -- try to make everything an entertaining and profitable venture (even when it would be better not to do that).

I will give credit to Anderson Cooper, who moderated the debate. He wasn't afraid to ask the hard questions of all the debaters -- and he did a fairly good job of making them answer those questions.

How did the candidates do in the debate? All of them did fairly well. Sanders was strong on the economic issues (which is his forte), but seemed to struggle on gun violence and the Middle East questions. Clinton was strong on gun violence, held her own on the economic issues, and sounded like the voice of reason on the Middle East. Both did well on education, opportunity, and college costs. Both did well in discussing global climate change. Both were also good on Social Security and blasted GOP attempts to cut it. Sanders wants to expand benefits, and Clinton called for enhancing benefits for those getting the smallest benefits. Both disappointed me when talking about Edward Snowden and his actions.

Sanders did have the political courage to say he would vote for marijuana legalization. I applaud him for that. Clinton was not willing to go that far (sadly), but only came out in favor of medical marijuana and decriminalizing possession. I doubt this is going to be a huge issue in the Democratic primaries though.

In the final analysis, I don't think either of them lost or gained support -- and I'm betting the polls next week look very much like the polls last week.

As for the other three, they showed (at least to me) why they are not first-tier candidates. They seemed to be struggling to stay up with Clinton and Sanders throughout the debate. I would be very surprised if any of the three start climbing much in the polls. I do think Martin O'Malley trumped all the other four with his plan to have the country 100% on green energy by 2050 -- but I doubt that will be enough to vault him into contention.

Was there a winner? Not really. Clinton and Sanders performed as expected, and neither made any real gaffes. I think the supporters of both probably left feeling satisfied with the performance of their candidate.

There are five more of these debates that will be held. After watching this one, I think that will be plenty -- and I can't agree with those who are calling for more that that.

NOTE -- One thing did sort of surprise me. I had expected a lot of talk about how bad the Republicans and their policies are, but while a few jabs were thrown, there wasn't a lot of that. For the most part, the debate was centered on Democratic issues.

Clinton Enters Democratic Debate With A Large Lead

Tonight, five of the six Democratic candidates for president will participate in their first debate (Lessig was not invited by CNN to participate). And Hillary Clinton enters that debate with a large lead over all of her opponents. According to the latest national poll, Clinton leads her closest competitor, Bernie Sanders, by about 19 points. That's with Joe Biden being considered a candidate. If you take Biden out of the mix, then Clinton's lead over Sanders grows to 24 points.

Will Biden be a candidate? He's still toying with the idea, but has not jumped in yet (and will not participate in the debate). I think he's waiting to see if either Clinton or Sanders commits an egregious error in tonight's debate. If they do commit an error that hurts their candidacy, then he might enter the race. If they don't, I think he'll stay out of the race.

And the way I see it -- neither Clinton nor Sanders is likely to commit an error. Sanders supporters are counting on their candidate to win the debate big, and et his campaign moving again (after being stuck in the mid-twenties for quite a while now). I doubt that will happen either. Clinton is an experienced debater. I expect both Clinton and Sanders to do a good job in the debate -- and both to remain about where they currently are in the polls after the debate.

CNN has been talking for a couple of days now about how big an opportunity this is for the minor candidates (O'Malley, Webb, Chafee) to jumpstart their own campaigns. Again, I disagree. I'm sure they will probably come out swinging in the debate, but I doubt it'll do them much good. This primary election is between Sanders and Clinton (and perhaps Biden if he enters the race). Everyone else is just wasting their time and money.

These charts were made from the results of a new CBS News Poll -- done between October 4th and 8th of a random national sample of 343 Democratic primary voters, and has a margin of error of 6 points.

-----------------------------------------------

And below is the last pre-debate net favorability rating among Democrats for Clinton and Sanders. The net favorability rating is favorability minus unfavorability (and the higher the number the better).
Note that Democrats rate Clinton's net favorability 13 points higher than Sanders'. Clinton also has a significant margin among women, Blacks, Hispanics, moderates, conservatives, 30 to 49 year-olds, 50 to 64 year-olds, and those 65 & older.

Sanders has an advantage among Whites and those 18 to 29 years-old.

Men and liberals view both candidates with an equal net favorability.

This is from a new Gallup Poll -- done between September 12th and October 10th, and has a margin of error of about 4 points.

Why Won't CNN Allow ALL Of The Candidates To Debate ?

If you've been following the political process recently, you may have noticed that while their are six Democratic candidates, only five have been invited to participate in tonight's Democratic Party presidential debate.

CNN has invited Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Martin O'Malley, Jim Webb, and Lincoln Chafee to debate the issues important to Democrats -- but Harvard Law Professor, and legitimate presidential candidate, Lawrence Lessig was not invited.

Why wasn't he invited? CNN will tell you its because he does very poorly in the polls. So what? O'Malley, Webb, and Chafee also do very poorly in the polls (sometimes failing to get even 1%), and yet they were invited. And Lessig has raised a million dollars for his campaign -- significantly more than either Webb or Chafee.

I can understand why CNN (and Fox) limited the number of candidates on the big stage for the Republican debate. Putting all 17 on the stage at the same time would have made the debate too ridiculous -- giving no candidate enough time to explain his position. They limited the number to 10 (11 in the CNN debate), but made up for it by holding a second debate for those left out of the big debate.

But that's not happening here. There are only six Democratic candidates, and there's no justifiable reason for leaving out any of the six. If CNN could handle 11 Republican candidates on the stage, then they certainly should be able to handle six Democrats debating. That is just fair (especially since there is not a second debate being held).

Evidently fairness is not important to CNN. Instead, they see themselves as some kind of gatekeeper, whose duty is to tell the American public who is a serious candidate and who is not. And in doing that, they have abandoned their own mission and subverted the job of the party members. It is up to Democrats to decide who is a viable candidate -- not CNN. It is CNN's job just to provide the information voters need to make an informed vote -- and leaving a candidate out of the debate is failing to do that job.

There's no other way to say it -- CNN was wrong to not invite Professor Lessig to debate.

(The caricature of Lawrence Lessig above is by DonkeyHotey.)

Fox News Is The Most Untrustworthy Cable News Network

Pundit Fact (by the Tampa Bay Times) checks the accuracy of statements and claims by the "talking heads" and pundits that appear on the three cable news networks (candidates and government officials are excluded). The then research those claims and rate them as to their truthfulness. Here is their rating system:

TRUE – The statement is accurate and there’s nothing significant missing.

MOSTLY TRUE – The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information.

HALF TRUE – The statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details or takes things out of context.

MOSTLY FALSE – The statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression.

FALSE – The statement is not accurate.

PANTS ON FIRE – The statement is not accurate and makes a ridiculous claim.

The chart below shows the latest findings of the networks throughout this summer. Once again, Fox News leads all three networks in the false claims they allow, and are last in the claims that were true. CNN has the most true claims and the least false one. MSNBC falls in the middle.

But while Fox News is the worst, none of the three networks are as good as they should be in telling the truth, and in confronting false claims.

Will Christie Be Dumped From The "Big Kids" Debate ?

We're just about three weeks away from the next Republican presidential debate. It will be held on September 16th at the Reagan Library in California, and it will be hosted by CNN this time. CNN has said they will follow the lead of Fox News and restrict the main debate to 10 participants -- and hold a secondary debate for those who can't make the top 10.

In the last debate, Carly Fiorina was relegated to the secondary debate, but it seems obvious that she will be in the major debate this time. That brings up the question -- who will be booted out to make room for Fiorina. It looks like it could be Chris Christie.

The chart above shows the RealClearPolitics average of the major polls taken in the month of August (Rasmussen Poll, Fox News Poll, CNN/ORC Poll). The top 10 candidates range from Donald Trump at a 22% average down to Rand Paul, John Kasich, and Mike Huckabee, who all have a 4.3% average. Christie is in 11th place with a poll average of 3.3%.

There will be more polls in the next two-three weeks, and things could change -- but if Christie doesn't start doing better, he's the guy that gets demoted.

NOTE -- You may note that Pataki and Gilmore are not on the chart. They couldn't even average the pitiful 0.3% that Graham got.

CNN Will Also Divide GOP Debaters Into Two Groups

(This image of the GOP clown parade is by DonkeyHotey.)

After a somewhat lackluster debate in Cleveland, the GOP's clown parade moves on down the road. The next stop is the Reagan Library in California, where CNN will host the second Republican debate on September 16th.

CNN has announced that they will follow the lead of Fox News, and divide the candidates into two groups -- a top tier of 10 candidates who will participate in the main debate, and a second tier of candidates who will participate in a second debate. There is one difference though. CNN is requiring the candidates to have at least 1% in the polls to participate. That means Jim Gilmore, who has been unable to reach that very low bar, may not get to participate even in the second-tier debate.

It is likely that Carly Fiorina, who was voted best clown in the first debates, will join nine others in the first-tier debate this time. That brings up the question -- who will be relegated to the kiddie table to make room for Fiorina at the adults table? I'm guessing it will be Christie that will be demoted -- but it could be Huckabee or Paul, both of whom have been doing poorly in recent national polls.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

CNN will also host the first Democratic candidate debate in Nevada on October 13th. That debate will probably include all five declared candidates (Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Martin O'Malley, Jim Webb, and Lincoln Chafee) -- and even Joe Biden, if he loses his mind and jumps into the race before than.

In addition to that CNN debate, the Democrats will have five more debates, to be hosted by:

CBS, KCCI and The Des Moines Register in Iowa on November 14

ABC and WMUR in Manchester, New Hampshire on December 19

NBC and the Congressional Black Caucus Institute in Charleston, South Carolina on January 17

And two more will be hosted in either February or March: One by Univision and The Washington Post in Miami, Florida, and another by PBS in Wisconsin.

Another Social Security "Scare" Story ?

Washington (CNN)Six and a half million dead Americans could be, at this very moment, opening bank accounts, drawing paychecks and applying for credit cards from beyond the grave.

It's not the premise of the latest horror movie. But a new report from the Social Security Administration's inspector general outlining the millions of Social Security numbers affiliated with Americans past a reasonable life expectancy, that don't have any death records attached, is certain to be a nightmare for the agency.

The report found 6.5 million Americans aged 112 or older still have open Social Security numbers. According to the Gerontology Research Group, as of 2013 there were only 35 known living people — worldwide — that had reached that age.

The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs committee is holding a hearing on the report Monday afternoon.

The paragraphs above are from a CNN story. Loving something they can try to turn into a scandal, it doesn't surprise me that the media is jumping on this story. It also doesn't surprise me that the congressional Republicans would rush to hold a hearing -- and they'll probably try to use it as an excuse to claim the Social Security system is broken, and must be either privatized or have its funding cut.

But just how important is this glitch in the system? Is the Social Security system paying out huge sums of money in benefits for that 6.5 million people? No. The truth is that only 13 people of that 6.5 million they are talking about actually are receiving Social Security benefits. And if anyone doubts those 13 people deserve their benefits, it would seem to be a small matter to have them checked out. It is obvious that huge sums of money are NOT being paid out to these dead people.

The story goes on to say about 67,000 people filed tax records using some of those numbers even though their names did not match the real name of the person who had that number. That's a pretty tiny number (about 0.010% of the 6.5 million), and since the names didn't match the money could not be refunded. Again, not a real problem.

In addition, employer requests for verification were made on 3,900 of those numbers (or about 0.0006% of the 6.5 million). Again, not a problem. These verifications should have been, and probably were, denied just by checking the birth date (since 112 year olds are not generally out looking for a job).

Now it would be nice if a way could be found to get these names off the government rolls. But don't let the media or the Republicans convince you that this justifies doing anything to hurt Social Security. Social Security works, and has been responsible for reducing the number of seniors living in abject poverty from 50% to about 10%. It would be good to increase benefits, and lift that other 10% out of poverty -- but any claim that the system is broken (or bankrupt) is nonsense.

25% Of Public Relies On The Network Telling The Most Lies

Politifact.com has updated their information regarding how truthful the pundits featured on the cable news networks were. Their latest figures are for the month of September of 2014. They examined the claims made by each networks pundits, and rated them as true, mostly true, half true, mostly false, false, and pants on fire (outrageously false). Their results are shown in the chart above.

It seems that nothing much has changed. Fox News is still the network featuring the pundits that tell the truth the least and tell falsehoods the most. CNN is the most reliable network when it comes to telling the truth and telling the fewest falsehoods -- and MSNBC falls between Fox and CNN. This explains why Fox viewers are the least informed viewers on the facts (as has been shown by several studies).

That would be bad enough, but a survey done last April by the Public Religion Research Institute of 1,538 adults in the U.S. shows an even more troubling fact. That survey shows that a shocking 25% of all Americans trust Fox News to give them accurate facts (the highest percentage of any news organization).

That's right. Fully one-quarter of the population trusts the network that lies the most to give them accurate information (see chart below).