2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumterrifying report.
Two Respected Liberal Journalists Issue An Important Warning To Democrats
Journalists, pundits, and opinion writers are used to criticism; one can never please everyone and they damn sure should never try to please anyone. However, it is worth spending a few hundred words to warn, once again, that the level of sheer animosity and hostility roiling among Democrats does not bode well for winning anything in November.
http://www.politicususa.com/2016/02/28/respected-liberal-journalists-issue-important-warning-democrats.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)For our nominee. Will be record turnout.
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]Precision and concision. That's the game.[/center][/font][hr]
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)
ALBliberal
(2,344 posts)To vote for her but I don't think he would do much campaigning for her.
Politicalboi
(15,189 posts)Like it's going to change people who already know better no matter what lies are being forced on us. This will NOT be a come together moment for me anyway.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)
calguy
(5,330 posts)Until this plays out. Doesn't sound like reality is your thing.
JEB
(4,748 posts)JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)JEB
(4,748 posts)Anybody who calls that war criminal friend is my enemy.
JEB
(4,748 posts)JEB
(4,748 posts)ALBliberal
(2,344 posts)PonyUp
(1,680 posts)ALBliberal
(2,344 posts)Elected president with that high of an unfavorable %. Must be brought to heel
Meldread
(4,213 posts)It doesn't shock me that a bunch of heteros would sit on the sidelines and pout when they lose a primary, because they don't have anything at stake. Meanwhile, those of us who actually have skin in the game look on in horror as we see the SCOTUS completely up for grabs. We watch as the Republicans are in full meltdown mode, and what should be our crowning moment of victory, is instead a potential defeat because of traitors within the ranks.
...and yes, if you don't vote for the nominee in November, you are a traitor. Anyone who fails to do whatever is necessary to defeat the Republicans is on the side of the enemy, as far as I am concerned, and will be treated no different. I don't care who you are supporting in the Primaries. If we lose in November because Democrats don't turn out because they are pouting at home, I will never forget it, and every time I encounter someone who sat it out, I will go out of my way to completely ruin and fuck them over at every opportunity. No mercy and no remorse.
TM99
(8,352 posts)that we are 'traitors' is not going to work to get any Democratic candidate elected.
And Capeheart wasn't 'attacked' for being gay. 
He was rightly attacked for pushing a lie and then when he got caught never owned up or retracted it.
Meldread
(4,213 posts)I said you had to vote.
I never said Johnathan or Rachel were attacked because they were gay. I said they were gay and had skin in the game, unlike the many heteros who sit on the sidelines and pout. If you read the article you see that it is talking about turn out, and them both expressing concerns over it. Rachel most CERTAINLY was attacked over bringing up this fact, especially since she brought it up in relation to Bernie Sander's claims that he would produce dramatic turn out. She was then savaged as being in the tank for Clinton.
Also, I'm a leftist as well, and you know as well as I do that we only have two choices in this country: Democrats or Republicans. It's our job to try and drag the party leftward whenever we can, and that is what I work to do. However, regardless of the outcome, I support the nominee, because even the worst Democrat is better than the best Republican.
I have no interest in sweet talking anyone, and I sure as hell ain't begging. I'm just making my position clear: when I find people who sit this out, I will personally go out of my way to fuck them over in whatever ways that I can.
TM99
(8,352 posts)I vote. Always!
I am bi-racial. I have skin in the game as well. That's why I don't want a bigot and a racist like Clinton in the White House.
Do your best sweetheart, we leftist Greens, independents, and socialists are done being shat on, taken for granted and then told to turn out or y'all will give us more shit. Big tent my ass. Y'all need us now, not the other way around. 
Meldread
(4,213 posts)If you read the original article, the entire article is about Democrats (on both sides in the Primaries) threatening to sit out the election if the other candidate is nominated. THIS is what I am responding too.
TM99
(8,352 posts)They have watched their party pushed ever rightwards. It is their right to vote or not vote as to how they see fit. And if the Party itself is pushing the inevitability of the wrong candidate, only the Party has itself to blame for the abysmal results.
onenote
(42,768 posts)(including Clinton supporters or Bernie supporters) that would sell out those amongst us who are part of racial or religious minorities, gay, or disabled by not casting a vote to defeat Trump.
TM99
(8,352 posts)And I am allowed mine.
The ones to blame are not the voters. It is the ones who promote the wrong candidates.
On one thing we agree, I voted against the anti-LGBT bigot Bill Clinton in 1996 and the anti-LGBT bigot Barack Obama in 2008. Did you?
onenote
(42,768 posts)Do I have your permission to add "sarcasm"?
Now turning to your question, I voted for Bill Clinton and Barack Obama because while they weren't where I wanted them to be on some issues, they were on others and more likely top come around to where I wanted them to be then Dole or McCain were ever going to be.
TM99
(8,352 posts)So to use you as an example, Trump is fine with gay marriage, is against NAFTA and the TPP, wants money out of politics, and is ok apparently with universal health care. I am hardly defending him. I would never vote for him because of other policies and his obvious racism.
But you seemed to compromise some of your integrity to vote for two anti-LGBT bigots. Why would you assume others would do the same? Why would you assume that their reasons for the compromises and votes they do or don't make are not as equally as valid as your own.
onenote
(42,768 posts)Transcript.
WALLACE: But, Mr. Trump, let's take one issue. You say now that the Supreme Court has ruled that same-sex marriage is the law of the land and that any politician who talks about wanting to amend the Constitution is just playing politics. Are you saying it's time to move on?
TRUMP: No, I'm saying this. It has been ruled up. It has been there. If I'm a, you know, if I'm elected, I would be very strong on putting certain judges on the bench that I think maybe could change things.
But they've got a long way to go. I mean at some point, we have to get back down to business. But there's no question about it. I mean most — and most people feel this way.
They have ruled on it. I wish that it was done by the state. I don't like the way they ruled. I disagree with the Supreme Court from the standpoint they should have given the state — it should be a states' rights issue. And that's the way it should have been ruled on, Chris, not the way they did it.
This is a very surprising ruling. And I — I can see changes coming down the line, frankly. But I would have much preferred that they ruled at a state level and allowed the states to make those rulings themselves.
WALLACE: But — but just to button this up very quickly, sir, are you saying that if you become president, you might try to appoint justices to overrule the decision on same-sex marriage?
TRUMP: I would strongly consider that, yes.
And as was "obvious" from my answer, I base my vote on the entirety of the two candidates that have a realistic chance of winning. If you think based on that that McCain and Dole were preferable to Obama and Clinton...well, I'll let you figure it out.
TM99
(8,352 posts)Like Clinton he flip flops faster than hot meat on a grill.
We differ in that I do not vote based on 'chance of winning'. I vote the better candidate on the totality of principles, positions, policies, and character.
onenote
(42,768 posts)By the way, I'm voting for Bernie this week (early voting) in Virginia. I think he can win the GE. The fact that I'm not optimistic about his getting the nomination, won't change my vote.
But ultimately, when it comes to the General, I'm going to compare the repub candidate to the Democratic candidate and base my vote on what each one -- since one will win -- is likely to do while in office.
My votes for Clinton and Obama are certainly validated by the results compared to what would have happened under a Bush I, Dole, McCain or Romney presidency. Things like Clinton's veto of bills banning "partial birth abortion" or Obama's veto of bills repealing the ACA or forcing the Keystone Pipeline down our throats and other vetoes directed bills overturning EPA regulations. Also Clinton's nomination of Ginsburg and Breyer and Obama's nomination of Kagan and Sotomayor, to say nothing of whom the repubs would've rammed through to replace Scalia if Romney was president.
And while the LGBT community had plenty of reasons to be disappointed with Clinton, he took steps that never would have been taken by Bush I or Dole (such as issuing an executive order banning antigay bias in the federal workplace, appointing the first openly gay foreign ambassador, and reversing a longstanding policy under which security clearances could be denied a person because they were gay. Similarly, Obama didn't start out where i would've liked, but he got there -- something that neither McCain nor Romney would have done.
TM99
(8,352 posts)I am not. There is a difference.
I always vote. I would have had no problem voting for JKF, LBJ, McGovern, and Carter had I been old enough. I voted for Jesse Jackson. I saw through Clinton while still in AR, so no I voted for Perot twice. I voted for Nader in 2000. I voted for Cobb in 2004. I voted for no one in 2008. I voted for Obama in 2012.
I can't vote for a Clinton. So if Sanders doesn't win, I will do a write-in or vote Green. I will vote down-ticket Democrats as long as they are not New Dems. They have to go.
onenote
(42,768 posts)Like it or not, that's the reality we face. Voting for a Green candidate or Cobb etc is like betting that your home team will win the World Series, even if they're not actually one of the teams in the playoffs.
TM99
(8,352 posts)When neither party represents the changing will of voters then we go elsewhere.
You Democrats fell for Clinton and gave us NAFTA and the repeal of Glass-Stegall. Some of us were actually in reality and knew what the negative consequences would be. You Democrats support Clinton who fell for the Bush lies about Iraq and was a cheerleader parroting all the talking points. Some of us were actually in reality and knew what the negative consequences would be.
onenote
(42,768 posts)Meldread
(4,213 posts)If you are not going to support the Democratic Nominee, and stating that you haven't done so in the past, marks you as an enemy for everything that this website stands for. I will be keeping an eye out for you once these primaries end, and will enjoy seeing you Tombstoned.
You are not a liberal or a supporter of a leftist cause. You are a spoiler and a traitor. You would rather play the role of spoiler and let a Republican win.
It's fine to hate the two party system. I hate the two party system as well. However, that's the reality in which we work. It's a consequence of having first past the post voting. If you want to advocate for breaking up the two party system, and you want to make that part of the platform--I'm behind you. However, in the meantime, you don't fucking stab the lesser of two evils in the back so that the greater evil can win.
TM99
(8,352 posts)If I choose not to support Clinton, I have already stated that I will not post here again until after the election. I respect the ToS of a private site.
But this is the primary season, got it? And I support Bernie Sanders, a Democratic candidate for the office of the president.
I am a leftist, always have been so take your spoiler & traitor bullshit elsewhere. I voted against the bigoted Clintons who were denying my sister the right to marry anyone she so pleased, and you praise her like she is the second coming. Who are you to tell me that I am not a supporter of liberal causes.
Guess what? I don't have to be a registered Democrat to post on this site. I support plenty of good Democrats down-ticket, and I always vote my conscience.
I am not beholden to a party as an independent. And you better wake the fuck up because the majority of voters in this country are like me, not like you. You will need my vote to win the GE. I said it earlier, and I will say it again.
The Democratic Party does not support us, Greens, socialists, and independents, and hasn't for many decades now. You disparage Greens and blame Nader for Bush, when it was a corrupt SCOTUS, a corrupt GOP state party, and 200,000 Democratic voters who went for Bush in FL, not the Greens that made it close enough to steal. You call democratic socialist positions and policies 'pie in the sky', 'free stuff', and sparkly unicorn guano. You demand that independents just hold their noses and vote for the Democrat based on fear of a SCOTUS appointment. Hell the first person floated by Obama to the SCOTUS is god damned Republican!
And now y'all need us. You can't win the GE without the leftist Greens, socialists, and independents. And here you are again calling us spoilers, traitors, and non-liberals because we are sick of being shamed into voting for a party that does NOT support us or represent us. Vote for us, you say. Why, we now ask? You are not going to represent those positions and policies that we want and need. Well vote out of fear then because Republicans are surely worse than us. Why? Y'all are already scary enough. Do you think we want another free-trade loving, corporatist slowly evolving lying bigoted & racist Clinton anywhere near the White House? Well fine, fuck you then, if you don't vote for us, it is your fault if we lose. No buddy, it is not our fault. It is solely the fault of registered Democrats who are the ones too 'moronic' apparently to see what their party has become and the bullies who think they can dictate to other adults what is important.
You are one of those bullies. You have no business speaking to me or anyone like this. If I said to you what you truly deserve after such a diatribe, I would get the hide, when it is apparent that you are the one over-the-top and worthy of said jury!
Meldread
(4,213 posts)...and I hope, as you were tucking those big angelic wings under the covers tonight, that you remember that it was people like you that helped fuck your own sister over. You can sleep soundly knowing that your ethical hymen will remain intact.
TM99
(8,352 posts)I fought DOMA until it was repealed.
You can continue with the insults all you want. It is apparently all you have left because you know you were out of line to speak to me in that way.
Get grip, you need me a hell of a lot more than I need the likes of you as evidenced by your vitriol.
Meldread
(4,213 posts)First, your premise that the party has moved ever rightward is false. The party has been moving further and further to the left, thank goodness, due to the hard work of activists and those of us fighting for change. I don't know how old you are, but you cannot compare the Democratic Party of today to the Democratic Party under Bill Clinton. They are two different parties at this point, and this is why Clinton is struggling. She is from the old guard, and has a record that reflects it. If the party hadn't moved further to the left, there would still have been an opening for someone like former Senator Webb. There was not, because the party no longer has a viable right flank.
Is the party as far to the left as I would want it? Fuck no. However, the truth of the matter is Hillary is no worse than Obama on virtually every issue, and is now running on a platform that is to the left of Obama in 2008. There is no reason to believe that the party will not keep moving further to the left, the way that I want it, and that Hillary will be forced to keep up.
Second, they have "the right" to do what they want. We cannot legally make them vote. However, we can legally hold them accountable for their actions, which is exactly what I intend to do. If you respect such people who would betray the entire movement, and condemn millions of people to suffer under a President Trump, then frankly there is something wrong with your moral compass.
TM99
(8,352 posts)So is my acute observation of the actual history of the Democratic Party.
The Party of today is the party of Clinton and the 1990's. The voters on the left may indeed be more progressive but the establishment is not.
VulgarPoet
(2,872 posts)You have no right to talk about skin in the game, especially not when the DNC has sold us down the river. /bye.
Meldread
(4,213 posts)...then that will just make you worse than all the others, a traitor thrice over.
There is no mercy or excuse for people who refuse to go out and vote for the nominee. Zero. Not with Scalia's SCOTUS seat waiting to be filled, and so many other SCOTUS members knocking at death's door, meaning the next President may get to appoint anywhere from 3 to 4 new members. If you want to betray every queer person by sitting out, say so right now, so that we know where you stand.
Arazi
(6,829 posts)there's zero historical support that she will
She's a moderate corporatist
You're placing your faith in somebody whose never been on the "left's" side
Meldread
(4,213 posts)Do I think Clinton will appoint a corporatist? Yes. Do I think Trump will appoint a corporatist (like himself)? Yes. Clinton will also likely appoint someone who is shit on civil liberties like privacy, because she is a security hawk. Trump will likely do the same.
However, Clinton will also appoint someone who is going to protect Roe vs. Wade, be favorable to the entire civil rights community (LGBTQ, African Americans, Hispanics, Women, and Immigrants), and other positions that are essential. Trump will not.
So, that is your choice. You either have Clinton or Trump making the appointment. One is clearly shit across the board, and one is still shit but at least has the kindness to cover it in chocolate first. In the end, her appointments will be no different than Obama's.
Arazi
(6,829 posts)shes also very, very late to the game on LGBT rights. I don't trust her one iota on that. She's still a member of the fucking Family on K street for gods sake
You do know Trump is pro civil rights like Dems right? He's actually more in line with Dems than Rs on that
He's also anti-TPP unlike HRC
Her record reeks of religious sanctimony until (wow, how convenient) recently. You trust her?
Really?
I don't. Anyone trying to threaten independents because SCOTUS has some cognitive dissidence to overcome in trying to persuade that she won't nominate anyone friendly to our concerns.
Meldread
(4,213 posts)First, on her late arrival on LGBT Rights: Dan Savage and Michelangelo Signorile have summed up my feelings on the matter nicely. LGBT voters are not stupid. We know where Clinton stood.
Second, I will let Michelangelo Signorile disabuse you of the notion that somehow Donald Trump is more pro-LGBT than Hillary Clinton (laughable).
Third, don't speak to me as if I am divorced from the past, or that I am somehow a wide-eyed Clinton crony. In 2008 I spent a hellva lot of time campaigning against her, to the point that I even had pictures of dead American Soldiers and Iraqi Children circulated blaming her for their deaths for her IWR vote. We worked hard to defeat her here in Virginia, and Obama beat her with more than 60% of the vote. That was not an accident. We did everything we could to drive up the vote for more delegates.
Fourth, I want nothing more than a true leftist to seize control of the Democratic Party, and begin purging any of the old establishment that does not immediately conform to the new line. Sanders couldn't even bring himself to endorse DWS's primary challenger, and he left his only real ally in the DNC swinging in the wind. He has proven himself to be a shit leader across the board. Just because you can say some populist things that people like, doesn't mean that you actually have what it takes to lead. Sanders has proven, time and time again throughout this campaign, that he is incapable of leading a leftist Revolution. It's because of his own ineptitude that he is losing to Clinton. It's not because Clinton is a strong candidate, they are both weak candidates, it's just that Sanders is much weaker than Clinton, and Clinton had more built in advantages with the establishment. However, Sanders knew all of Clinton's strengths and weaknesses before he even announced his campaign. So, there is no excuse for him and his failure.
Arazi
(6,829 posts)You're blinded by HRC love as you admit.
The DNC shot themselves in the foot by handicapping any of the bright new stars like Julian Castro or Patrick Deval so they could anoint Queen Hillary. Don't blame Sanders or OMalley for seeing the handwriting on.the wall and trying to make a atand.
Sanders has been shafted from the beginning. Its damned amazing what he's pulled off with .002% media coverage and the entire weight of.the Democratic party against him
If you think that I have any love for Hillary, you are nuts. I wouldn't piss on her if she was on fire. However, I will vote for her over Trump or any other Republican.
You, however, are blinded by Sanders love if you think that he didn't have the potential to win this race, and then squandered it. There is no reason that Sanders should not be winning right now. ZERO. Clinton is a horribly weak candidate, and that is entirely the reason Sanders has been able to pull off everything he's been able to achieve with .002% of the media coverage and the entire weight of the Democratic establishment against him. This is not an argument for the strength of Sanders, it is an argument for the weakness of Clinton.
Yes, you are right to blame the establishment. Though, why you think Julian Castro or Patrick Deval are somehow magical liberal saviors is beyond me. They are still part of the DLC establishment, and they're both--as far as I am aware--in the tank for Hillary.
I actually do believe Sanders has/had the ability to win the race but still firmly believe the DNC has tried to destroy him. And that matters a lot
Secondly, other candidates would have helped with turnout, messaging, voter excitement and platform creation. Stifling that competition puts us right here. They aren't magical saviors - they're messengers for the future and help shape the party so the faithful know where we're going. Right now we're in limbo. Who does the DNC love? Tulsi Gabbord or Dan Lipinski?
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)now, so she was answering a very rhetorical question.
and her answer was to leave it between a woman and her doctor. her health, her life, comes first! That is exactly right.
demosincebirth
(12,543 posts)
noamnety
(20,234 posts)There are lots of us with skin in the game for all kinds of reasons. And we're all arguing basically from the same perspective - that when someone betrays us we have long memories.
Not sure why people would think millionaire politicians should be exempt from that.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)
Meldread
(4,213 posts)Did you even read the article for context in what I was saying?
The entire article is about people (on both sides in the Primaries) saying that they are going to sit out and not vote in the General Election if their Candidate doesn't win. THAT is what I am responding too.
Yes, if you sit home in November and refuse to vote, then you are a traitor. Period. You've effectively cast your vote for the Republican Nominee.
WhiteTara
(29,722 posts)Politicalboi
(15,189 posts)Give us a candidate with a history of truth and not selling out. Traitor my ass. I will never forget the weak candidate we were left with because it's her turn.
Meldread
(4,213 posts)...and that left us with Sanders, who is too weak to win. I agree with that. I think it's shit. Senator Warren should have run, and she could have won. The establishment Democrats (who were always backing Clinton) made it clear that she'd best sit it out. So she did.
Now, we are stuck with Clinton. Shit happens. Sometimes we lose. However, condemning millions of people to suffer under a President Trump, who may get to make anywhere from 3 to 4 SCOTUS appointments is beyond short sighted, cruel, and stupid.
Right now, the entire fight is over who is going to control the SCOTUS. You have a choice: Either Trump appoints people to the SCOTUS or Clinton appoints people to the SCOTUS. Sitting out is an automatic vote for Trump.
Politicalboi
(15,189 posts)Bernie is the BETTER choice hands down. He doesn't have to defend his wife's past life, and lies he told long ago that never leave. Sitting out is not a vote for Trump. We still have a choice, and Bernie would be the better choice. I'm a lesbian who doesn't want the Donald in charge either, but since him and Hill are friends, I find not much difference between them. They both work for Big Corp not the little people.
Meldread
(4,213 posts)...at least when it comes to ideological purity. However, Sanders has proven himself to be a weak leader across the board. It's not good enough to simply be for the right issues. He actually has to have a means of executing and carrying out the vision. He doesn't have the second part, and this is one of the reasons he is not being successful right now.
It is not because Hillary Clinton is a strong candidate. She is not. She is a weak candidate for all the reasons you have listed. The problem is that Bernie Sanders is an even weaker candidate, and this has allowed Clinton to gain the upper hand. It is very unlikely that he wins now, and even if he did somehow make it to the White House, he would effectively be powerless.
Sanders has never been able to use the political power he has gained to his advantage. He has a movement behind him, a strong and vocal movement. Yet, he has never used it effectively. When he was being stabbed by the establishment like DWS, what was his response? To leave his one real ally, the VP of the DNC, hanging in the wind. He should have called for DWS to step down, endorsed her primary candidate, and really turned her into an example of what happens when you cross him. He needed the establishment to fear him, and he needed to send the signal that he wouldn't tolerate betrayal once he won the White House.
He has done none of this. Thus, should he actually win the White House at this point, he will be faced not only with Republican opposition (which would be united against him), but he would also face Democratic establishment opposition. Sanders calls for a revolution, but he fails to understand what a revolution actually is... it's an insurgency campaign against the ruling class. The entire point of a revolution is to overthrow that ruling class, and inevitably begin purging them from the power structure as you bring in your allies to replace them. Sanders has done nothing to lay the ground work for a successful revolution. He's made it entirely about him being elected to the White House, and then somehow--magically--everything was supposed to change. It was supposed to send some type of mystical signal to Democrats and Republicans, a pseudo-voter finger wag, that they better get in line or else! (Of course, he never said what "or else" meant!)
I don't doubt Sanders' loyalty to liberalism or the issues. I doubt his ability to lead. Contrast it with Clinton. Bernie Sanders has struggled this entire campaign to really have a foreign policy platform. Why? Because Clinton sent out the message to all Democratic Leaning foreign policy folks that if they advised her rivals that they would be shut out of her White House. They would essentially be black listed in D.C. This is how Clinton is playing the game. Bernie is not playing the game. He sipped the Obama Kool-Aid of Hope and Change.
Sorry, there is no hope or change. There is only fighting the Republicans, the Conservatives, and the DLC Democrats inch by bloody inch. You then entrench, compromise with the lesser of two evils where you have to, and then wait for another opportunity to fight some more. It's not about a single election. It's about pulling the country, bit by bloody bit, further to the left. Then it is about defending the ground we've taken for ourselves. I am proud of the work we've done so far, and I am excited about the work we will do in the future.
I do not want all the hard work we've put in to be lost, simply because some people in the movement want to take their ball and go home. It's not THEIR fault that Bernie Sanders is losing to Clinton. It is Sanders own fault--he owns it.
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)influence of money on public policy, goes in reverse. The root of all our problems will be lucky to receive a little lip service from the walmartriarc as she rolls in the mud with the other money grubbing piggies. Every policy, every advancement, every step forward for my cause hinges on our ability to influence policy. You say we have nothing at stake? We have everything at stake, as do you. You're choosing to back the horse that will buck you the second you've served your purpose. Nothing at stake. Listen to your damned self!
Meldread
(4,213 posts)I shouldn't have said it the way that I did. I am simply frustrated with people saying they will sit out the General Election.
By the way, I am not choosing to back Clinton. I am simply assuming that she is going to be the nominee. That is what this entire thread is about--people refusing to vote for the Democratic Nominee. My stance is the same toward Hillary supporters who would refuse to vote for Sanders.
TM99
(8,352 posts)these authors when they use Capehearts lies and false equivalency myth as part of their argument.
The only reason Sanders supporters rightfully went after him was because he went on MSNBC and promoted the lie that Sanders was not in the photos documenting his actual civil rights activism. And once forensic proof was provided, he fucking double-downed on it. He never retracted it. He never printed an apology. Instead he is whining still about being attacked for 'criticizing' Sanders. He didn't criticize Sanders, he rat-fucked him. There is a monumental difference.
In general yes, he is correct. The Democratic Party is in trouble. Those with eyes to see have know this as Obama's presidency unfolded. He was not the hard left progressive socialists he campaigned and marketed himself to be.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)people see his name in the byline and close the article... so I have been told.
TM99
(8,352 posts)I know it may be full of lies and propaganda. How can I trust a journalist to remain impartial if they have already not done so? 
She put up a highly misleading graph a couple of weeks ago. Fox News level of bullshit.
TM99
(8,352 posts)I don't watch her show. I don't have cable, and I have never seen it outside of excerpts on YouTube.
noamnety
(20,234 posts)would know the difference between opinions and facts.
"Jonathan Capehart, who made the mistake of putting his opinion in print"
ebayfool
(3,411 posts)animosity and hostility. NOW, he's concerned? Pfffft!
Samantha
(9,314 posts)The main premise to me is fundamentally flawed. And that is all I will comment on this.
Sam
IdahoGoBlue
(15 posts)Then stop telling Americans that their candidate isn't electable, that he's a dreamer, that the uneducated youth are all he has, etc etc. All we hear is that the system is rigged. So why turn out? Why don't you just pick the candidate a bit more blatantly DNC and corporate shills? You are creating this yourselves. I won't vote for the Clintons third term in office. Deja-spew.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)He didn't bother doing the most basic part of his job, and got caught.
Waiting For Everyman
(9,385 posts)And I don't need some blogger to tell me how to be and what to think.
book_worm
(15,951 posts)it will be fine.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)and it did not go well
I am waiting for the day after the election...
my difference is from my cat bird, both sides are doing it, but the Clinton supporters are doing it more. I am biased, after what they did to me. And those folks are still posting here. They will continue to post here, and some are posting pretty divisive crap. As I said, this is both sides do it, but from my cat bird seat, it is an 80-20 in favor of HRC fans doing it.
I do agree though, on a final edit, that this will affect turnout, and I suspect sifnificantly enough that it might as well decide the election, But that warning will continue to fall on deaf ears.
EdwardBernays
(3,343 posts)The same reasons people support Sanders are the same reasons they won't support Hillary..
There's no playing nice to make Hillary not dishonest and corrupt and funded by corporations, lobbyists, big pharma, weapons manufacturers, etc. Heck her campaign chairman owns one of the biggest lobbying firms in DC.
Sanders supporters won't fight against that for months and then support it in November. At least many won't. And they shouldn't.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)Sorry, Jonathan, you made statements of what you pretended were facts, and you were shown to be incorrect. And when you were told you were wrong, you still tried to weasel out and make it 'he said, she said', rather than admit you made false statements.
As Rachel Maddow said, “because lower voter turnout usually bodes well for the more conservative candidate, this is not a good thing for the Democratic Party this year.”
Psst, that's WHY we have lower turnout - so the more conservative candidate could win the nomination. Those with the power to influence turnout put their power behind the more conservative candidate, and did what they could to depress turnout, to make it simply a coronation.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)
SleeplessinSoCal
(9,145 posts)But there's a crazy man, who will relish taking apart Obamacare and appointing corporate friendly justices to the Supreme Court. No way can we let our infighting undermine the Democratic Party on the eve of the potential self destruction of the GOP.
Suicide for us is not acceptable.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)And, I always vote.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)That guy never quits.
kstewart33
(6,551 posts)Depaysement
(1,835 posts)When the purge is finished and the coronation ceremonies begin.
smiley
(1,432 posts)perfectly fine with talking about the democratic race.
It's staying unbiased towards Hillary that they have a problem with.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)
delrem
(9,688 posts)When the ratfucking and swiftboating started 8 months ago -- it's been top-down ever since.
The racial taunting, likening "white progressives" with racist white supremacists. Sending coded messages that Sanders didn't really work for civil rights as a youth, but Hillary and Bill did. "BernieSoBlack". Calling Sanders' supporters "BernieBros" and saying they're sexist and misogynists as well racists. And it's never stopped. Even today there're several more OPs pushing those memes -- ratfucking works SO well.
I've never seen such a downright evil campaign in my life. Talk about burning bridges - talk about disrespecting the progressive left. Oh yah, after all of that claiming the title "progressive".
And then to expect the targets of that shit to turn around and vote for the candidate who won by using that strategy against them, against their very persons?
Right.
Consider this: the Clinton/Brock ratfucking program hasn't been targeting Republicans, it's a Democratic campaign targeting Democrats who voted Obama in '08 and '12. '08 was a nice victory, but not much more than 50%, and '12 was enough of a squeaker that one would think that no rational candidate would deliberately alienate a huge percentage of that voting base with the kind of dirty tricks that HRC's campaign has been using. Of course there'll be a lot who'll hold their nose and vote for the "lesser of evils", while wondering wtf they're doing it for, knowing the ramped up wars and war profiteering that'll result will be on their head, on their conscience as being the first enablers, and knowing the appointments of investment bankers to all key economic positions will be on them. While they watch how after their vote for this "lesser evil" everything that they hoped for, politically, has been made impossible.
haikugal
(6,476 posts)Now we can add "traitor" to the list of our shortcomings. The new meme.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)Attorney in Texas
(3,373 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)and which he very directly called 'reporting' and himself a reporter. He is a hack, and his little escapade is a huge, giant part of why I despise that entire style of politics and the part of this Party that fests upon it.
He lied, now he's lying about his lies and bearing false witness against his critics by claiming he is criticized for opinion rather than mediocrity and mendacity.
He is helping to burn this Party to the ground, I do not trust persons who behave like that and I have a lifetime of dealing with the press. Fuck the culture that gives rise to Capeharts.
delrem
(9,688 posts)This "Terrifying Report".
Geeze Murphy.
Whatever anyone says, Maddow is one bright cookie.
Why hasn't Maddow pushed back against HRC's dirty tricks?
I don't know. I really don't know.
Something about this so SUCKS.
jillan
(39,451 posts)to create a scandal about Bernie and was busted.
Rachel is a cable news show host that tells the same story every single nite, puts on plays and gives her viewers a quiz at the end of the week.
If these poor wittle "journalists" can't handle the primaries, then maybe they should find another line of work!
The 4th estate is gone folks. Tabloid news has been put in it's place.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)I think that is exactly where we are at today. Hard to believe we screwed this up so badly that the clown car now has a very good chance of winning.
