Kristol is, but Carville, the person being quoted, was Clinton’s main campaign strategist (both Bill and Hillary) and has been a consultant for a very large amount of centrist democrat campaigns on all levels. He has always been a Democrat, but in the Clintonite wing of the party.

No we vote for neither. Maybe you should support a party who has anything to offer or any reason to vote for them other than “we are extremely very evil right-wing genocide supporters, but we promise the other side can still be worse”

No, you don’t get how elections work. If they can support genocide and ICE and building the wall and, and, and… but because they are more competent and polite than Trump, they are lesser evil. And they should be able to take votes for granted for everyone that isn’t “moderate Republicans” and those are the only ones that they should appeal to, everyone else is just expected to have blind loyalty to the Party in terms of “vote blue no matter who” then they have no incentive at all not to just make every evil the Republicans do bipartisan and just keep moving right and enabling the Republicans like they have done for the last 30 years, at least. If there is supposed to be nothing they should lose my vote for, there is nothing they wont do.

Surely you’re a Russian bot for questioning this. Any lack of support or questioning of Democratic candidates is proof of Russian Bothood.

So it is propaganda to report on or think that Bill Clinton or Barak Obama’s opinions and public endorsements carry any value or have relation to the Democratic party’s positions? Surely since Bill Clinton wasn’t currently president at the time, it was a conspiracy theory and not established and verifiable fact that the entire establishment worked for Hillary for both the 2008 and 2016 primaries. They happened to have failed in 2008 and succeeded in 2016, and the DNC leaks proved the party was against Bernie. Surely Obama’s endorsement of Biden and calling all the moderates to dropout and endorse Biden meant nothing since Obama wasn’t currently in formal control of the Democrat party.

More like 3 people vote to help genocide by driving into a crowd of minorities, 2 vote to do a land acknowledgement while driving into the same crowd of minorities being genocided, and 5 are too horrified to vote for either option.

Literally, if genocide is not a red line, there is literally no evil you will not support if it is the blue team doing it.

Sure, I understand. I just think that that is still an exaggeration.

No, I don’t think that is true. He still mostly maintains markets and privatization. There is some complications as he felt the need to bring oligarchs in line, which might mean undermining their capital and control of markets and he did reintroduce regulations and some subsidies of the market after the Shock Therapy extreme free markets destroyed the Russian economy. But he isn’t a social democrat, other than very few policies that the older boomers insisted on having that were watered down versions of what they had during the Soviet Union had.

The Democrat establishment wants nothing more than to be polite Republicans, and feel that they should be able to use that to only appeal to “moderate” Republicans and tell everyone else to fall in line. This is only one way. They are fine losing to Republicans if the alternative is to do anything progressive.

For all of Trumps extreme and immediate faults, he does not “suck Putin’s Butthole”. He was willing to support Ukraine for a small window in which he thought Ukraine could win. His opposition to Ukraine is his unwillingness to be seen backing a loser and Zelensky not giving him dirt on the Biden’s from Hunter’s appointment to the Burisma board to use the Biden family’s corruption against them in the election. Also, currently the need to get more diesel and oil on the market to be seen to do something about it for the midterm elections.

What do you mean by that? Sure he brought back some regulations in the market to stabilize it and make it functional after the ultra-free market Shock Therapy completely impoverished and destroyed the Russian economy. But, even if you think he is cynical, he is mostly appealing to Russian nationalism and Eastern Orthodox Christianity to appeal to his base. I would more describe him as a Nationalist Liberal, but outside the US definition of liberal being Democrat aligned and conservative means Republican aligned, liberal and conservative are not mutually exclusive.

Unless you are using the definition of conservative to mean trying to bring back and maintain the past, which depending on your timescale would mean that he is trying to bring back the Soviet system. In that case he would definitely not be a conservative.

Sorry, just reread it again. They also played the “He’s been associated with Hasan Piker” card.

“Supporting a candidate is a choice, not an obligation. Party loyalty is not blind obedience. Support must be earned, and a vote is never owed.” Weird how the logic is exactly the opposite if it is a right-wing establishment candidate. They are actively denouncing the entire Democrat electoral strategy.

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/opinion/2026/10/16/why-were-leaving-el-sayeds-spot-on-the-ballot-blank-opinion/92281935007/

The op-ed cited in the piece covers it, basically calling him a “terrorist supporter” for being anti-zionist and not leaning into full islamophobia (my framing, not theirs). This op-ed is also published in other Michigan outlets than Detroit News (I don’t know local Michigan outlets thoroughly enough to tell if one would be considerably more respectable) and on other outlets attributed to being republished and originally put forth by Reuters, but I can’t find a link to the Reuters version.

It is David Kramer and Lon Johnson former Democrat strategist and former party chair of the Michigan Democratic Party. Yes, conservative aligned reporting have interest in boosting this signal.

So do you hate all governments or politics that have cops or jails?