Not since the Titanic has a ship sunk as quickly as MORNING JOE. Justin Baragona (INDEPENDENT) reports:
According to Nielsen, the four-hour broadcast of Morning Joe drew only 680,000 total viewers on Tuesday, representing a 12 percent dip from Monday’s airing. Additionally, the program only averaged 86,000 viewers in the coveted advertising demographic of adults aged 25-54, also down 12 percent from the previous day.
Compared to the average viewership for 2024, Morning Joe’s total audience on Tuesday was down 38 percent and 37 percent in the key demo. Tuesday also represented the third-lowest-rated Morning Joe broadcast of the year. This further continues the slide that began the moment Scarborough and Brzezinski revealed on Monday that they had recently sat down with Trump to “restart communications.”
The moment the husband-and-wife pair opened Monday’s show by dramatically announcing they’d sought to mend fences with the incoming president, after spending years describing him as a threat to democracy and a “fascist,” droves of MSNBC’s devoted anti-Trump viewers flipped the channel.
While it’s typical for the show to grow its audience throughout the morning, Morning Joe lost viewers immediately after the announcement. During the 6 a.m. block, the program averaged 839,000 total viewers and 113,000 in the 25-54 demographic. The next hour, though, overall viewership dropped to 694,000 and sunk 38 percent in the demo.
Amid the intense blowback from viewers and critics alike, with some blasting the hosts’ “disgusting show of obeisance in advance” while accusing them of being “double agents,” the MSNBC stars have dismissed the criticism. “I saw for the first time what a massive disconnect there was between social media and the real world because we were flooded with phone calls from people all day, literally around the world—all very positive, very supportive,” Scarborough told viewers on Tuesday.
“They need FEMA there at this point—that’s the level of disaster they created,” one rival network executive told media reporter Oliver Darcy about the mess Morning Joe needs to clean up with its audience. Even some MSNBC colleagues have slammed the stars’ “cowardice,” with host Katie Phang tweeting: “Normalizing Trump is a bad idea. Period.”
Washington Post media critic Erik Wemple encouraged the remaining viewers of MSNBC’s Morning Joe to turn off the show after hosts Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski visited President-elect Donald Trump at Mar-a-Lago last week.
Scarborough and Brzezinski have faced blowback over their Trump meeting and seen declining ratings, which Wemple and others chalk up to the fact that the pair were so quick to meet with Trump and discuss a “new approach” after selling him to viewers as a threat to democracy for months leading up to the election.
Wemple called Scarborough and Brzezinski’s explanation a “remarkable spectacle” in a column for The Washington Post.
This is C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot: for today:
Thursday, November 21, 2024. Satan's cabinet picks remain a sorry lot.
Harris, on the other hand, is looking like a much stronger finisher than she did on election night. In fact, the Democrat now has a higher percentage of the popular vote than Presidents Trump in 2016 (46.1), Bush in 2000 (47.9), Clinton in 1992 (43), or Nixon in 1968 (43.4). She has also performed significantly better than recent major-party nominees such as Trump in 2020 (46.8), Trump in 2016 (48.2), Mitt Romney in 2012 (47.2), John McCain in 2008 (45.7), George W. Bush in 2000 (47.9), Bob Dole in 1996 (40.7), George H.W. Bush in 1992 (37.4), Michael Dukakis in 1988 (45.6), Walter Mondale (40.6), Carter in 1980 (41), or Gerald Ford in 1976 (48).
Yes, some of those historic results were influenced by the presence of strong third-party contenders. But most were not. And the bottom line is that the gap between Trump and Harris is narrower than the difference between major-party contenders in the vast majority of American presidential races.
Why make note of all the presidents who ran better than Trump? Why discuss the narrowness of his advantage over Harris? Why consider, in addition, that the Republican majorities in the House and Senate will be among the narrowest in modern American history? Because it puts the 2024 election results in perspective—and, in doing so, gives members of both parties an understanding of how to respond when Trump claims that an unappealing nominee or policy should be accepted out of deference to his “powerful” mandate.
Yes, Donald Trump won the election. He will be the next president. There’s no question about that. But it’s also one of the narrowest popular vote wins in U.S. history. He got less than half the votes cast, winning a plurality but not a majority of the popular vote.
Trump won by about 2.5 million votes out of more than 150 million cast. That means his lead over Vice President Kamala Harris in the popular vote is down to about 1.6%. In fact, when comparing Trump’s margin of victory to every presidential election going back to 2000, the president-elect boasts the smallest margin of anyone who’s actually won their election and the popular vote.
So take a step back and keep all of this in mind when you hear Trump and his supporters suggest that the election was this enormous wave in which a transformation swept across the country, in which Americans were just begging for a MAGA makeover.
Republican senators have balked at Trump potentially forgoing the routine FBI background checks to install former Representative Matt Gaetz as attorney general as well as other controversial nominees like Pete Hegseth to lead the Pentagon and Tulsi Gabbard, another former House member, to run national intelligence.
Trump’s transition team hasn’t signed an agreement with the Justice Department and FBI that would allow the bureau to vet nominees, according to a person familiar with the matter, who asked not be identified discussing internal deliberations. The agreement is typically an initial step to begin the process of vetting.
Donald Trump’s transition team is said to be “upset” with Pete Hegseth because he “hasn’t been honest” about the sexual misconduct allegation from his past – prompting insiders to consider other options to lead the Pentagon.
Hegseth was tapped last week to become Trump’s defense secretary but now those in the president-elect’s inner circle are “quietly preparing a list of alternative” candidates, Vanity Fair reported.
“It’s becoming a real possibility,” a source told the outlet’s special correspondent Gabriel Sherman.
The source said that the Trump team was taken by surprise after a serious sexual assault allegation against Hegseth came to light, which led Trump’s incoming chief of staff Susie Wiles to question the former Fox News host on a call last week. Hegseth was never charged with a crime and denies the allegations.
“People are upset about the distraction. The general feeling is Pete hasn’t been honest,” a second source told Vanity Fair.
A “prominent Republican” close to the Trump transition team told the outlet that some are also unhappy with the president-elect’s choice due to Hegseth’s lack of qualifications to lead the nation’s defense.
“There are Republicans with a background in the Defense Department who are privately saying, ‘I’m not working for this guy,’” the source said.
The Florida Republican resigned last week as soon as Trump announced his nomination, which complicates the release of that panel's findings, but former ethics chairman Charlie Dent published an op-ed for MSNBC arguing that Gaetz's exit from Congress should not prevent the public from learning what lawmakers found.
"Gaetz thought his resignation could block the report’s release and avoid having disturbing details from the report going public," Dent added. "Well, not so fast."
"The precedent of post-resignation disclosure is particularly stronger surrounding sexual misconduct by members," Dent wrote.
The House Ethics Committee had an ongoing investigation into similar allegations. That panel planned to vote on whether to release a report on its findings just two days after Gaetz abruptly resigned from Congress. Lawyers for two women who spoke with the committee have said they testified that they witnessed Gaetz under the influence of drugs and sexually assaulting a minor in 2017. Gaetz has denied the allegations.
Trump also tapped Fox News host Pete Hegseth to be defense secretary. A woman alleged Hegseth raped her in 2017. He has denied the allegation, and police never pressed charges against him. Hegseth admitted to paying the woman a settlement amount, saying he feared he would lose his job at Fox over the accusation.
“Look, I believe in vaccines. I think they’ve saved millions of lives,” Sen. Mike Rounds (R-South Dakota) said in an interview. “If he has a different point of view, then he’ll have to explain them to us.”
President-elect Donald Trump last week selected Kennedy to run the Department of Health and Human Services, the nearly $2 trillion agency that oversees federal health insurance programs, medical regulations and vaccine approvals. The selection has alarmed federal health leaders and medical groups, who say Kennedy should be nowhere near the nation’s public health infrastructure given that he has repeated debunked claims about vaccines and made other false or questionable assertions.
So, as the second Trump administration looms and her husband is poised to “go wild on health,” in Trump's words, pushing to change vaccine requirements, remove fluoride from water, and more if his nomination to appointed secretary of health and human services is approved, Hines is in the increasingly rare position of being a woman with choices.
One option: Hines could divorce Kennedy. She can point to the Nuzzi situation, which was reportedly consensual, if generally icky. (A third-party investigation into Nuzzi's work at New York found no evidence of journalistic bias in her work, but reporter and publication “agreed that the best course forward is to part ways” nonetheless.) A former babysitter has also made credible allegations of sexual assault, as reported by Vanity Fair (Kennedy responded in other outlets by saying he is “not a church boy”). The animal stuff is disturbing, and the anti-vaccine stance and false claims that stir up hysteria and dangerous medical situations that can result in entirely preventable deaths is not ideal either. Hines’ home state of California does still have no-fault divorce—but maybe not for much longer, if the Republicans have anything to say about it.
She could stay married to him and order up the Melania Trump Starter Pack: Dark, oversized sunglasses and a tight-lipped grimace pair gorgeously with legally wedded resentment and a sprinkling of “no comment” responses. Hell, Melania isn’t even planning to move into the White House this time around, sources say. Maybe she and Hines could hang out in Florida (Hines’ state of origin), get some brunch, and not talk about the havoc their husbands are wreaking on the country. You can be legally married and quiet, as both women have demonstrated. Last Thursday, Hines was spotted on Kennedy's arm at a Mar-a-Lago party, yukking it up with Team MAGA, Trump himself reportedly included. Maybe this is the sacrifice she's willing make in the name of plentiful shrimp cocktail.
A third option would be for Hines to take her own philosophy about improv to heart: Commit, 100 percent, and lie in the bed she’s made. The apparent path of willful ignorance and silence Hines has taken so far, as if not acknowledging Kennedy's campaign and controversial views would make it so that they might as well not exist, is no longer one she can walk, given the announcement of Kennedy's nomination and seeming inevitability of his continuing presence in the political arena.
Welcome to Washington, Cheryl. What'll it be?
These are the nominees we get when 'independent' media like THE NATION, DEMOCRACY NOW!, THE PROGRESSIVE, IN THESE TIMES, et al fail us by spending three months leading into a presidential election attacking not Donald Trump but instead attacking Kamala Harris -- and doing so on a daily basis.
As Steve Nicks asks, "What shall I say this time?" ("Straight Back").
My kindness is pretty much shot for the year.
So I wish so many of you writers would just stop bothering me.
This morning it's a guy who wants his COMMON DREAMS column highlighted. And I've told him not before. He's one of the ones who attacked Kamala constantly. Now he's going to be our answer? F**k you. You're part of the reason that Trump will be sworn in.
And now you think we should just forgive you and ignore what you did? Your actions have consequences that probably won't effect you -- you're a White, straight male of a certain age. But it will impact and destroy the lives of the many of the rest of us.
He wants me to know that he actually wrote some supportive columns about Kamala but COMMON DREAMS didn't run those.
Really?
Is that the truth? Because if it is (a) you waited to share that until after it no longer matter and (b) don't share it with me, week after week, Ava and I documented how the 'independent' media was destroying Kamala's campaign with one attack after another.
I'm not your priest and I'm not going to absolve you.
If you want to share what COMMON DREAMS did, share it in a column.
But you won't.
You'll just whisper it because whether it's Mika and Joe or some non-corporate lefty, you're all about protecting yourselves and the circle jerk you try to pass off as an 'independent' media.
Your new column? Weak sauce. And the points you barely make should have been made during the election. Cry to someone else because I don't feel sorry for you. You're guilty and you're responsible. And I'll feel bad for the way you destroyed hope for so many Americans, but I don't -- and won't -- feel sorry for you.
Senator Patty Murray's office issued the following:
Washington, D.C. — Today, U.S. Senators Patty Murray (D-WA), Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, and Dick Durbin (D-IL), Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, reintroduced their legislation to clarify that victims of discrimination can seek damages for emotional harm under federal law—after the Supreme Court curtailed their ability to do so in its devastating April 2022 ruling in Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller. The senators’ Clarifying Civil Rights Remedies Act of 2024 ensures that people who suffer emotional harm because of discrimination they experienced are able to seek restitution under federal anti-discrimination statutes—recognizing that while discrimination may not cause a financial loss, it can and often does cause lasting emotional distress.
“Our legislation recognizes the plain truth that people who are discriminated against often suffer lasting emotional harm and should have the ability to seek justice in our courts, including restitution — even if the discrimination they experienced did not have a financial impact,” said Senator Murray. “The Supreme Court’s failure in Cummings to recognize and account for the humiliation and distress a person can experience after being discriminated against in a classroom, a doctor’s office, or other settings was a profound mistake — our legislation would right this wrong and ensure victims of discrimination can seek the appropriate damages they deserve.”
“Discrimination can leave a lasting mental impact on those who experience it. That’s why the Supreme Court’s decision in Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller is so harmful. It prevents those who have suffered emotional distress due to discrimination from seeking damages,” said Senator Durbin. “I’m joining Senator Murry in introducing the Clarifying Civil Rights Remedies Act to clarify that damages for emotional harm are available to victims of discrimination. No one who faces discrimination should be denied justice in court.”
In April 2022, the Supreme Court ruled in a 6-3 decision authored by Chief Justice Roberts that victims of discrimination cannot sue under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 or the Affordable Care Act to recover damages for emotional distress caused by illegal discrimination. The decision denies many victims of discrimination an appropriate remedy for the harms they have suffered.
The Clarifying Civil Rights Remedies Act of 2024 makes explicit that remedies available for violations of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act include compensatory damages, including for emotional harm. The legislation ensures that victims have recourse and that incentives exist to encourage recipients of federal funds to comply with our federal civil rights laws.
“As advocates for women and girls, including LGBTQI+ individuals and survivors of sexual violence, we’ve seen the range of harms that can follow after experiencing discrimination, including harassment and assault. The Clarifying Civil Rights Remedies Act of 2024 is critical for victims to receive remedies they are entitled to under our civil rights laws,” said Gaylynn Burroughs, Vice President for Education & Workplace Justice at the National Women’s Law Center. “Justice was impaired when the Supreme Court limited remedies for emotional distress in its decision in Cummings, but we are grateful for Senator Murray’s leadership in ensuring that victims of harassment have explicit rights to remedies for emotional harm.”
“Discrimination can devastate a person’s well-being. It can lead to anxiety, depression, and even substance abuse. Since the Supreme Court’s decision in Cummings, students across the country have been denied a financial remedy for the emotional harm that discrimination has caused them,” said Adele Kimmel, Public Justice’s Students’ Civil Rights Project Director. “The Clarifying Civil Rights Remedies Act is an important first step in restoring the availability of this crucial remedy.”
“Access to our nation’s courts is critical to make real the promise of our nation’s civil rights laws,” said Megan Schuller, Legal Director of the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law. “When the Supreme Court failed to recognize the intent of vitally important civil rights statutes and erected yet another barrier to vindicating those rights, it placed Americans with disabilities and others at greater risk of experiencing discrimination in schools, hospitals, workplaces, state and local government programs, and other settings with no meaningful recourse. We are grateful to Senator Murray for reintroducing the Clarifying Civil Rights Remedies Act, which will correct the Court’s flawed interpretation and restore to people with disabilities and others the ability to access justice.”
In addition to Senators Murray and Durbin, the legislation is cosponsored by Senators Baldwin, Blumenthal, Booker, Casey, Duckworth, Helmy, Kaine, Sanders, Van Hollen, Welch, and Whitehouse.
The legislation is endorsed by the National Women’s Law Center, the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, Public Justice, American Association for Justice, Autistic Self Advocacy Network, the Arc of the United States, National Disability Rights Network (NDRN), National Black Justice Coalition, The Trevor Project, American Atheists, National Alliance for Partnerships in Equity, National Alliance to End Sexual Violence, Know Your IX, and Just Solutions.
A one-pager on the legislation is available HERE.
Read the full text of the Clarifying Civil Rights Remedies Act of 2024 HERE.
###
That's something to focus on. Some pathetic and cowardly writer who helped put Donald back into the White House? You're on your own.
The following sites updated:
-
Who won at the 2024 Country Music Awards?3 hours ago
-
-
He was always useless7 hours ago
-
-
-
-
Easy Sheet Pan Chicken in the Kitchen7 hours ago
-
-
Tonight I hand out the Emmys7 hours ago
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
