Feb 10 2016

New Hampshire Results and Exit Poll


92% of Precincts Reporting.


Candidate Raw Vote % Delegates
Donald Trump 94,893 35.2 10
John Kasich 42,733 15.8 3
Ted Cruz 31,436 11.7 2
Jeb Bush 29,866 11.1 2
Marco Rubio 28,382 10.5
Chris Christie 20,169 7.5
Carly Fiorina 11,260 4.2
Ben Carson 6,149 2.3
Jim Gilmore 129 0.0
Other 4,793 1.8


Candidate Raw Vote % Delegates
Bernie Sanders 142,146 60.0 13
Hillary Clinton 90,734 38.3 9
Other 3,998 1.7

A couple items of interest- Bernie Sanders got way more votes than Trump and Hillary Clinton got almost as many. Before the Primary projections of Bernie’s margin were centered around 13 to 14 points (CNN, Real Clear Politics) and even I was somewhat conservative with my estimate of 10 to 15. His final margin is 21.7 points.

Exit Poll

Democratic only of course, who cares about Republicans? Besides these tables are hard work and the Republican one is twice as big.

Before you draw any particular conclusion from an individual result, you must first consider the percentage of all responses that result represents- 90% of a 10% universe is not very significant. Next you should consider the magnitude of Sanders’ overall victory, results that are higher or lower than the average will help identify strengths and weaknesses. Still you have to remember that even in areas lower than average, outperforming expectations contributed to the final margin.

For instance- Sanders heavily defeated Clinton among Men, but they represented only 45% of the electorate. He did not exceed his average result among Women, who represent 55% of voters, but he still got an outright victory and beat expectations.

That’s a simple case. You have to treat the more complex ones the same way.

From The New York Times.

Q/Group % All Voters Bernie Hillary
Male 45% 66 32
Female 55% 55 44
18-29 19% 83 16
30-44 22% 66 32
45-64 42% 53 45
65 and over 17% 44 55
Urban, suburban, rural
City over 50,000 12% 57 40
Suburbs 48% 58 40
Small city and rural 40% 63 36
Who do you think is honest and trustworthy?
Only Clinton 6%
Only Sanders 50% 95 3
Both of them 39% 26 73
Neither of them 3%
Who shares your values?
Only Clinton 11%
Only Sanders 33% 97 2
Both of them 51% 48 52
Neither of them 4%
Which was more important in your vote for president today?
Positions on the issues 72% 66 32
Leadership or personal qualities 25% 44 54
College degree
College graduate 60% 56 43
No college degree 40% 67 31
Under $30,000 14% 71 25
$30,000 – $49,999 17% 60 38
$50,000 – $99,999 33% 64 35
$100,000 – $199,999 28% 55 44
$200,000 or more 8% 46 53
Political philosophy
Very liberal 26% 66 33
Somewhat liberal 42% 57 42
Moderate 27% 58 39
Conservative 4%
Replacing current health care system with single taxpayer-funded plan for all Americans
Support 63% 70 29
Oppose 32% 39 58
How worried are you about a major terrorist attack in the U.S.?
Very/somewhat 69% 56 43
Not too/not at all 31% 71 29
How worried are you about the direction of the nation’s economy?
Very/somewhat 80% 65 34
Not too/not at all 20% 43 57
Registered as independent/undeclared
Yes 41% 72 27
Financial situation
Getting ahead financially 16% 53 47
Holding steady financially 67% 59 39
Falling behind financially 17% 69 28
What do you expect for life of the next generation of Americans?
Better than life today 25% 61 37
Worse than life today 38% 70 29
About the same 35% 48 50
Issue that matters most
Health care 23% 54 45
Economy/jobs 33% 59 38
Terrorism 10% 49 47
Income inequality 32% 70 29
Income tax rates
Increase for all 10%
Increase only on income over $250,000 78% 59 40
Not increase for anyone 11%
Gun household
Yes 30% 69 28
No 70% 57 43
Decided whom to support
Just today 14% 44 48
In the last few days 12%
Sometime last week 6%
In the last month 16% 70 29
Before that 52% 61 38
Candidate quality that matters most
Can win in November 12% 19 79
Cares about people like me 26% 82 17
Honest and trustworthy 34% 91 5
Has the right experience 26% 15 85

The New Hampshire exit poll was based on questionnaires completed by primary voters on Tuesday as they left election locations throughout the state.

The poll was conducted by Edison Research of Somerville, N.J. for the National Election Pool which consists of ABC News, The Associated Press, CBS News, CNN, Fox News, and NBC News.

The results are based on 2,215 Democratic primary voters at 45 randomly selected polling places, interviewed as they were exiting each site.

In theory, in 19 cases out of 20, the results from such polls should differ by no more than plus or minus 4 percentage points from what would have been obtained by seeking to interview all voters who participated in each party’s primary in New Hampshire. Results based on smaller sub-groups, such as specific demographic groups or backers of a particular candidate, have a larger potential sampling error. Groups that are too small to be sampled accurately are represented with a dash.

In addition to sampling error, the practical difficulties of conducting any survey of voter opinion on election day, such as reluctance of some voters to take time to complete the questionnaire, may introduce other sources of error into the poll.

Feb 10 2016

Puntnig the Pundits

“Punting the Pundits” is an Open Thread. It is a selection of editorials and opinions from around the news medium and the internet blogs. The intent is to provide a forum for your reactions and opinions, not just to the opinions presented, but to what ever you find important.

Thanks to ek hornbeck, click on the link and you can access all the past “Punting the Pundits”.

Follow us on Twitter @StarsHollowGzt

New York Times Editorial Board: Republican Budget Tantrum

By law, dating back to 1921, the president of the United States must submit an annual budget request to Congress. On Tuesday, President Obama submitted his eighth and final budget. And like all presidential budgets, it is a statement of values and priorities, a blueprint for turning ideas into policies, a map of where the president wants to lead the country.

This week, even before the president’s budget was released, the Republican chairmen of the budget committees announced they would not even hold hearings with the White House budget director to discuss the proposal.

Their decision is more than a break with tradition. It is a new low in Republican efforts to show disdain for Mr. Obama, which disrespects the presidency and, in the process, suffocates debate and impairs governing.

Jim Hightower: How Corporate Bamboozlers Intend to Widen Inequality in America

The basic problem facing the corporate and political powers that want you and me to swallow their Trans-Pacific Partnership deal is that they can’t make chicken salad out of chicken manure.

But that reality hasn’t stopped their PR campaign, pitching their “salad” as good and good for you! For example, a recent article touted a study blaring the happy news that TPP will increase real incomes in the U.S. by $133 billion a year. Even if that were true (and plenty of other studies show that it’s not), it’s a statistic meant to dazzle rather than enlighten, for it skates around the real bottom line for the American public: An increase in income for whom?

In the past 15 years or so, and especially since 2008, it’s been made perfectly clear to the workaday majority of people that the corporate mantra of “income growth” benefitting everyone is a deliberate lie. Practically all of the massive annual increases in U.S. income, which every worker helps produce, now gushes up to the richest 1 percent, with millionaires and billionaires (the richest 10 percent of 1-percenters) grabbing the bulk of it.

Read the rest of this entry »

Feb 10 2016

The Breakfast Club (Start Swimming)

Welcome to The Breakfast Club! We’re a disorganized group of rebel lefties who hang out and chat if and when we’re not too hungover we’ve been bailed out we’re not too exhausted from last night’s (CENSORED) the caffeine kicks in. Join us every weekday morning at 9am (ET) and weekend morning at 10:30am (ET) to talk about current news and our boring lives and to make fun of LaEscapee! If we are ever running late, it’s PhilJD’s fault.

 photo 807561379_e6771a7c8e_zps7668d00e.jpg

This Day in History

Highlights of this day in history: a Cold War prisoner exchange; boxer Mike Tyson convicted of rape; Arthur Miller’s ‘Death of a Salesman’ opens on Broadway; Bob Dylan’s ‘The Times They Are a Changin” released.

Breakfast Tunes

Something to Think about over Coffee Prozac

Because things are the way they are, things will not stay the way they are.

Bertolt Brecht

Read the rest of this entry »

Feb 09 2016

The Daily Late Nightly Show (NH Primary)

Bernie by a Yuuuuge margin, 59% to 38.2% as of this writing (42% Reporting) or a margin of 20.8 points.

Pretty impressive huh?

Bigger than The Donald- 33.9% v. Kasich at 15.7% (41% Reporting) or a margin of 18.2 points.

The New Guy

Jessica Williams- Sr. Beyonce Correspondent

Trevor’s guests this week are-

Mr. Continuity

Pardon the Integration

Larry’s panelists this week are-

Mr. Mainstream

You can always count on BillO to play the fool

Stephen’s guests this week are-

Friday will be a repeat.

Feb 09 2016

New Hampshire Primary Results- Open Thread

Polls are starting to close but there is a tremendous backlog indicating high turnout.

Every indication is that on the Democratic side Bernie Sanders will have a blowout victory with a margin of between 10 and 15%. Everything you’ve been hearing about name recognition and neighbor State advantage is a flat lie. New Hampshire hates Vermont and has since the Revolution when Ethan Allen and the Green Mountain Boys stole half the State (you could look it up).

Also, at the start of the campaign, Clinton had 100% name recognition to Sanders 25% and led the polls by over 50%.

When I say decisive victory all you have to do is look back to 2008 when Clinton came in at 39.1%, Obama at 36.5% and Edwards 16.9%. She was certainly quick enough to claim it then.

On the Republican side expectations are that Trump will walk away with 36 to 38% of the vote with Cruz and Kasich perhaps in the teens and Jeb! and Christie in the high single digits.

By comparison in 2008 John McCain had 37.1% and Mitt Romney 31.6%.

Why 2008? It was the last Presidential Election without an incumbent, apples to apples.

Barring delays due to the crushing volumes of voters, all polls will close by 8 pm ET. There will likely be an early call for Sanders, really, the only question is the margin. On the Republican side it might go either way. The media has been trying to suggest that Trump is not as strong as the last polling would indicate and has been going out of its way to find Jeb! and Kasich supporters since they are the kind of conservative centerists the Versailles Village loves.

No live blogging. Updating sporadic at best.

Feb 09 2016

Is This Feminism?

Vote for Hillary or go to Hades
By Roger Simon, Politico
02/09/16 05:17 AM EST

On Saturday, for example, Madeleine Albright, a secretary of state under Bill Clinton, took a stage in Concord, New Hampshire, with Hillary Clinton to promote her presidential campaign.

Of all the qualities that Albright could have emphasized — Clinton’s experience, intelligence and courage — Albright emphasized the one quality that Sanders couldn’t compete with: Hillary Clinton is a woman.

What’s more, women who don’t vote for Clinton because she is a woman will be consigned to the eternal fires of Hades, Albright said.

“There’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other,” Albright told the crowd.

You would think the Clinton campaign would not have to worry about women voting for Hillary, but the signs have been very bad so far. In Iowa, though Hillary won the women’s vote overall, she lost women ages 30-44 to Sanders by a hefty 21 percentage points and women ages 17-29 by a stunning 70 percentage points.

A 70-point gap is the kind of result you’d expect to see in an election in Russia or a Chicago ward, not an Iowa caucus.

Clearly, the Clinton campaign must now do something. So in order to win over women ages 17-29, it has brought out Albright, age 78, and Gloria Steinem, age 81, as surrogates.

And you can see why campaign consultants get the big bucks.

The strategy? Shame women into voting for Clinton.

Clinton has real qualities and real accomplishments. But Albright says the reason to vote for her is God will send you to a special place in hell if you don’t. (As far as I know, God has not yet publicly endorsed, but maybe He did so by email and it got lost on Clinton’s private server.)

Asked to explain why some women flock to Sanders, Albright said, “The bottom line is: I don’t know.”

Steinem does know. When asked by TV host Bill Maher why young women are going with Sanders, Steinem said it was a good way for them to meet boys.

“When you’re young, you’re thinking, ‘Where are the boys? The boys are with Bernie,’” Steinem said.

Having read that, I have to ask- is this Feminism?

Is it Feminist to suggest, as Gloria Steinem did, that the only thing on young women’s minds is sex and that they are rendered totally incapable of rational political thought by the prospect of the scent of testosterone?

To her credit Ms. Steinem walked that back and apologized for the remark.

More problematic is Ms. Albright’s assertion because it is an endorsement of Identity Politics over larger policy concerns.

Should Blacks only vote for Blacks? What about Jews, should they only vote Jewish? Perhaps Women should vote for Carly Fiorino, she’s a woman. Will women go to a special place in Hell if they don’t?

Identity Politics has been used by the Neoliberal Establishment to divide us as a nation. You can see it in the Republican’s not so subtle appeal to Racists, but they use it in other areas as well, Abortion Rights, Gun Control, Religious Fundamentalism and Bigotry to name just a few.

Democrats use it also, Hispanic against Black against Jew against Women and above all against those scary, scary Republicans.

The point is it’s a smokescreen to get people to accept bad policies and vote against their own self interest so the Political, Financial, and Media Elites can maintain their positions of power.

As their control over events declines because of the failure of their ideology we can only expect attempts to foster tribalism to increase division.

Don’t be fooled. This is a class war and they are losing. Too many of us if we refuse to be baited and not nearly enough of them unless we turn against each other.

What Ms. Albright and Ms. Steinem said was sexist, not feminist.

Feb 09 2016

A Smear?

It’s hardly worth denying that the Clintons, Bill and Hillary have been staunch supporters of the Banksters and their Too Big To Exist Mega-Banks. You may choose to excuse it, but their policies, Bill’s as President and Hillary’s as Senator, are simply a matter of record.

Bernie’s campaign has has raised justifiable concerns about the enormous amount of money Hillary was paid directly by those Mega-Banks and other financial institutions for making speeches to them. Since we now learn that one of the conditions of her contracts is that a paid stenographer make a transcript of her remarks (and only Yellow M&Ms in the Green Room), the Sanders campaign has quite reasonably asked if she will release them.

She’s certainly within her rights not to, they are her property not public record.

Her campaign has taken 3 positions in relationship to the transcripts, first- that she was quite tough in her remarks to the Banksters and scolded them for their excesses. Secondly, that they’ll release them if Bernie does the same. Thirdly, that there is no evidence of quid pro quo, that is, money paid to influence a particular vote which if proven would be, technically speaking, a Bribe which is a criminal offense.

Let’s take these in reverse order. Hillary’s voting record is persistently and militantly pro-Bankster, it may in fact be that this is entirely unrelated to her speaking fees, you can make up your own mind. I’m sure Sanders would release any transcripts and recordings of speeches he’s made to Banks but there aren’t any, Bernie’s entire net worth is about 2/3rds of what she got for just one speech.

Her campaign also said that $200,000 Sanders got from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee for his Senate campaigns was “Wall Street” money. A lot of other people and businesses contributed to the DSCC too. To call that “Wall Street” money is a bit of a stretch from someone who took $675,000 directly from Goldman Sachs and put it in her pocket, not into campaigning.

Which leaves us with the proposition that she’s privately a Bank scold in private despite her record of complete Bankster support in public.

Or maybe not so much-

What Clinton said in her paid speeches
By Ben White, Politico
02/09/16 05:15 AM EST

When Hillary Clinton spoke to Goldman Sachs executives and technology titans at a summit in Arizona in October of 2013, she spoke glowingly of the work the bank was doing raising capital and helping create jobs, according to people who saw her remarks.

Clinton, who received $225,000 for her appearance, praised the diversity of Goldman’s workforce and the prominent roles played by women at the blue-chip investment bank and the tech firms present at the event. She spent no time criticizing Goldman or Wall Street more broadly for its role in the 2008 financial crisis.

“It was pretty glowing about us,” one person who watched the event said. “It’s so far from what she sounds like as a candidate now. It was like a rah-rah speech. She sounded more like a Goldman Sachs managing director.”

At another speech to Goldman and its big asset management clients in New York in 2013, Clinton spoke about how it wasn’t just the banks that caused the financial crisis and that it was worth looking at the landmark 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reform law to see what was working and what wasn’t.

Hillary Clinton can’t run away from her Goldman Sachs problem: Report suggests her paid speeches were decidedly pro-Wall Street
by Sean Illing, Salon
Tuesday, Feb 9, 2016 11:15 AM EST

At a previous debate, when asked about her previous efforts to curb financial corruption, Clinton again dropped the ball. She said she went to Wall Street before the Great Recession and told those crafty bankers to “Cut it out!” and to “Quit engaging in these kinds of speculative behaviors.” Obviously this wasn’t a compelling defense of her record.

These kinds of questions aren’t going away. If anything, it’s going to get worse for Clinton. The calls for her to release the transcripts of her paid speeches at Goldman Sachs are getting louder every day.

This is really a lose-lose proposition for Clinton. If she does release the transcripts, she’ll have to defend everything she said, and that’s not a position she wants to be in. As another attendee of one of the speeches put it, “It would bury her against Sanders. It really makes her look like an ally of the firm.”

If she sits on the transcripts, the most likely move, the speculation and pressure will only mount. A Democrat close to the campaign told Politico that “If it were up to me I’d just say go ahead and release them and deal with it. But I can understand why they don’t want to because anything can be taken out of context and blown up.” Clinton pushed back on ABC’s “This Week,” saying “Let everybody who’s ever given a speech to any private group under any circumstances release them. We’ll all release them at the same time. I have never, ever been influenced in a view or a vote by anyone who has given me any kind of funding.”

This may be the only angle Clinton can take on this story, but it won’t make it go away. Goldman Sachs isn’t a typical “private group” and the notion that she’s never been influenced by the people giving her millions of dollars isn’t plausible. In any other election cycle, Clinton could easily survive this story – and she still can, of course. But 2016 is the year of the populist, and this will plague her campaign for several months.

Hillary Clinton’s artful smear: Her Goldman Sachs speaker fees matter, even if she doesn’t understand why
by David Weisberg, Salon
Tuesday, Feb 9, 2016 07:58 AM EST

At a Democratic debate in New Hampshire, Hillary Clinton accused Bernie Sanders of an “artful smear” for an insinuation that the secretary has been “bought” because she accepted six-figure speaking fees from big banks and corporate interests.

“You will not find that I ever changed a view or a vote because of any donation I ever received,” Clinton argued.

Accepting her response as fact – and there is no evidence to the contrary – the mammoth speaking fees still matter. It is not only relevant whether our leaders’ voting records are affected by the fees they accept — but it is also important, in both appearance and with regard to ethical measure, where those speaking fees come from at all.

Let’s take Goldman Sachs as an example. According to records, Hillary Clinton accepted speaking fees from Goldman Sachs for three engagements between June and October of 2013 totaling $675,000. Regardless of the content of those presentations (and Clinton should absolutely and without hesitation agree to release those transcripts), those engagements occurred after it was clear that Goldman Sachs had contributed not only to a national economic meltdown but also to the financial devastation of countless investors – individuals, families and organizations – through the investment banking giant’s fraudulent sale of doomed-to-fail investments.

What was $675,000 in pocket change for Goldman Sachs is $675,000 in lost savings and lost homes for bilked investors – $675,000 that went into the pockets of an already incredibly wealthy Hillary Clinton.

Accepting Clinton’s assertion that millions of dollars in speaking fees have not affected her voting decisions or views as fact, those fees are nevertheless problematic.

What is absolutely fact is that she indeed accepted those fees, and accepting those fees, in and of itself, raises questions of ethics and equity; and that is not an “artful smear.”

Feb 09 2016

Punting the Pundits

“Punting the Pundits” is an Open Thread. It is a selection of editorials and opinions from around the news medium and the internet blogs. The intent is to provide a forum for your reactions and opinions, not just to the opinions presented, but to what ever you find important.

Thanks to ek hornbeck, click on the link and you can access all the past “Punting the Pundits”.

Follow us on Twitter @StarsHollowGzt

Dean Baker: Financial Reform: It’s About Improving the Financial System, Not 2008

As the Democratic presidential race heats up, the debate on financial reform has taken a bizarre twist. Somehow the measure of a good reform is its ability to prevent another 2008-type financial crisis.

While it is reasonable to subject a reform agenda to the 2008 test, this should be at most a side issue. After all, it is virtually certain that our next crisis will not look our last crisis. Financial reform first and foremost is not about preventing the last crisis, but rather about designing a financial system that more effectively serves the rest of the economy.

Finance is an intermediate good like trucking. It does not directly provide value like food or health care, the value in the financial sector depends exclusively on its ability to make the rest of the economy function better. This means effectively getting money to businesses and households who need to borrow. And it means providing safe investment vehicles for people to save for retirement or other purposes.

An efficient financial sector provides these services using as few resources as possible. With that in mind, it is hard to make the case that our financial system is efficient. It has exploded in size relative to the rest of the economy over the last four decades, with the narrow commodities and securities trading sector increasing fourfold.

Tom Engelhardt: Shoulda, Woulda, Coulda

Here’s my twenty-first-century rule of thumb about this country: if you have to say it over and over, it probably ain’t so. Which is why I’d think twice every time we’re told how “exceptional” or “indispensable” the United States is. For someone like me who can still remember a moment when Americans assumed that was so, but no sitting president, presidential candidate, or politician felt you had to say the obvious, such lines reverberate with defensiveness. They seem to incorporate other voices you can almost hear whispering that we’re ever less exceptional, more dispensable, no longer (to quote the greatest of them all by his own estimate) “the greatest.” In this vein, consider a commonplace line running around Washington (as it has for years): the U.S. military is “the finest fighting force in the history of the world.” Uh, folks, if that’s so, then why the hell can’t it win a damn thing 14-plus years later?

If you don’t mind a little what-if history lesson, it’s just possible that events might have turned out differently and, instead of repeating that “finest fighting force” stuff endlessly, our leaders might actually believe it. After all, in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, it took the Bush administration only a month to let the CIA, special forces advisers, and the U.S. Air Force loose against the Taliban and Osama bin Laden’s supporters in Afghanistan. The results were crushing. The first moments of what that administration would grandiloquently (and ominously) bill as a “global war on terror” were, destructively speaking, glorious.

Read the rest of this entry »

Feb 09 2016

The Breakfast Club (Irreverence)

Welcome to The Breakfast Club! We’re a disorganized group of rebel lefties who hang out and chat if and when we’re not too hungover we’ve been bailed out we’re not too exhausted from last night’s (CENSORED) the caffeine kicks in. Join us every weekday morning at 9am (ET) and weekend morning at 10:30am (ET) to talk about current news and our boring lives and to make fun of LaEscapee! If we are ever running late, it’s PhilJD’s fault.

 photo 807561379_e6771a7c8e_zps7668d00e.jpg

This Day in History

The Beatles appear on TV’s ‘Ed Sullivan’; Sen. Joseph McCarthy launches his anti-communist crusade; World War II’s Battle of Guadalcanal ends; Soviet leader Yuri Andropov dies; author Alice Walker born.

Breakfast Tunes

happy Birthday, Carole King

Something to Think about over Coffee Prozac

I have a total irreverence for anything connected with society except that which makes the roads safer, the beer stronger, the food cheaper and the old men and old women warmer in the winter and happier in the summer.

Brendan Behan

Read the rest of this entry »

Feb 08 2016

The Daily Late Nightly Show (Ladies and Gentlemen- Sam Bee!)

So 10:30 pm ET is the big debut of Full Frontal, Sam Bee’s new show on TBS. Here’s what we know about it so far-

It will be a weekly, like John Oliver’s Last Week Tonight; in fact she’s sharing studio space with him. Her offices were last used by Stephen Colbert’s Late Show transition team. Her husband Jason Jones is part of her executive producer group along with Jo Miller and Miles Kahn, all are Daily Show alumni.

There will be no desk or guests, only a short monologue the Ms. Bee will deliver standing on her set. The bulk of the show will be short films in Ms. Bee’s trademark interviewing style many of which will be directed by Razan Ghalayini, a documentary film maker who has been working with Glenn Greenwald’s The Intercept organization.

Ms. Ghalayini is the director of one of the two pieces that have been previewed where Sam Bee follows the journey of a Syrian refugee from Jordan. She speaks fluent Arabic and had just recently done filming in the region and was quite familiar with it. The other piece being promoted is about how ill-equipped the Veterans Administration is to handle the medical care of female Vets.

Finally there’s been a lot of ink about the writing staff. Ms. Bee and her team took extraordinary measures to ensure diversity and appears to have succeeded to a large extent. I won’t bore you with the process, the bottom line is that most of the TV writers who have visited the show have noted that it’s pointedly mixed to a remarkable degree especially in terms of female to male ratio.

It all sounds pretty exciting and different to me. I certainly hope Sam Bee has a hit on her hands the way John Oliver does.

As for the other guys, frankly some of their stuff works for me and some of it doesn’t. Late Show is a waste of Stephen Colbert’s talent. It’s good at times but the format is very conventional down to the relentless flacking of whatever the movie of the day is. Trevor Noah is still very raw. His interview skills are almost entirely lacking due, I think at least in part, to his unfamiliarity with U.S. culture. His monologues are better than they were but are still somewhat hit or miss. The correspondent pieces are mainly excellent.

Of the bunch I think the one who’s best (besides John Oliver who is uniformly brilliant) is Larry Wilmore who’s found a format that works for him and while his correspondent pieces are not up to Daily Show standards, his monologues and personal bits are definitely up to Stewart standards. I know the panels are considered by some to be a huge waste of time because they get unfocused and off topic with everyone simply trying to tell the funniest joke instead of exploring the issue at hand.

The New Guy

So Long, Farewell, Auf Wiedersehen, Goodbye!

Web Exclusive- Debate Debate

Trevor’s guests this week are-

Mr. Continuity

Nasty Talk and Tiny Hands

Larry’s panelists this week are-

Mr. Mainstream

The Wild Animal Expert

Stephen’s guests this week are-

Friday will be a repeat.

Older posts «

Fetch more items