Rachel Maddow Talks About Russia More Than All Other Topics Combined

MSNBC host and hack Rachel Maddow continues to babble endlessly about alleged 2016 presidential election collusion between U.S. President Donald Trump and the Russians.

What Exactly Is Maddow Doing? According to an analysis by The Intercept, a whopping 53 percent of Maddow’s diabolically inane rants between Feb. 20 and March 31 centered on unproven allegations that Trump colluded with the Russians.

Furthermore, this pitiful coverage “dwarfed the time devoted to other top issues,” particularly those that painted President Trump in a positive light.

Maddow Coverage

Why Is This Relevant? Besides proving that Maddow desperately needs psychological help, this data shows that she is an unreliable source for meaningful commentary about the election.

“Given her political expertise, journalistic acumen, and influential platform, Maddow is ideally suited to explore the Democrats’ 2016 electoral collapse in an insightful way,” The Intercept noted. “But the time and investigative zeal that Maddow has devoted to Russia has come at the cost of any such analysis.”

Is Her Attitude Ubiquitous Among The Left? It has certainly been mirrored by failed Democrat presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, who last week blamed her loss “on meddling by the Russians, weeks of incriminating disclosures by WikiLeaks, investigations by FBI Director James Comey and the alleged prevalence of misogyny among the American voting public (including white women, apparently),” according to the Conservative Tribune.

There appears to be reluctance — if not outright “resistance” — among the left to admitting their failures. Rather than fess up to having screwed up, they’d rather double down on conspiracies and other such nonsense.

———-

Read More:

U.K. Daily Mail: Inside Hillary’s Doomed Campaign’s Bickering And Denial
New York Magazine: Why Do Democrats Feel Sorry for Hillary Clinton?
U.S. News: Hillary Clinton’s Likability Problem Has Nothing To Do With Her Womanhood 

———-

What Does It Mean For Conservatives? Not much. Not a shred of definitive evidence has yet surfaced proving that Trump or his campaign staff ever colluded with the Russians to affect the outcome of the 2016 election.

However, plenty of evidence has popped up suggesting that the Obama administration illegally surveilled Trump’s campaign for political purposes. Yet for some odd reason, Maddow has refused to pay much heed to this evidence.

What Does This Mean For Maddow? Better ratings, apparently. The Daily Caller pointed out that her MSNBC show’s ratings have been through the roof, meaning she’s somehow, some way, managed to find an audience to listen to her bizarre theories. Good for her, I guess.