ctkatz

colbert could have offered the other candidates an interview with the same terms. he had no intention of doing so. crockett even said so. the fcc called her saying that this was going to happen and she had the right to appear on his show.

if he wasn't going to invite her on, then that interview can't air on the public airwaves.

instead of taking up for him and blaming everyone under the sun for the incident, why isn't anyone asking why he wouldn't have her on? not unless the consipiracy of "CbS cEnSoRs 4 tRuMp!!!" rules all around you.

you think trump cares about a democratic primary race for a senate seat more than likely staying red airing? this is so far beneath him AND weiss.

uh huh.

if bernie actually did the work to attract me actual base of the party, which by the way are not college age kids but black people, specifically black women, he would not have lost the primary.

and since that election he had another 4 years to work on his extreme deficit with black voters, but had zero outreach with that cohort. instead he doubled down on the youth vote.

that's not a strategy to win a primary. but it's a perfect strategy to try to split off young voters into not supporting the democratic choice in the future. and not shutting down conspiracy theories about rigged primaries doesn't help either. what it does is create distrust where there shouldn't be, fracture the party to turn against itself instead of the real threat which is the republican party, and in fact increase the chances that republicans win in greater margins because the super bernie side refuses to be smart and do damage limitation by not voting for the viable non republican candidate.

and by the way a few additional things that need to be considered:

1. if he wants the democratic nomination, why doesn't he formally join the party? what he was asking for has been equal access to resources without a full commitment to the party. you all would rightfully object if I declared I'm running for president as a democrat even though I'm a registered non partisan. what makes him any different from me as far as the party is concerned?
2. it really is rich how you are all upset about the democrats (allegedly) putting the thumb on the scale for a candidate so now there is a pledge that all people in dnc leadership have to agree to that formally states that leadership will be neutral in all party races from now on. so which is it, you don't want the dnc influencing races or do you not want the voters in the districts to decide who their candidates should be without party influences?
3. you also all think that the super progressive democratic candidate will play everywhere in the country. sure, it may work where I live. but I'm a blue(r) dot in a state trump won by 31 points. you have to run candidates that will win and super liberals in places like appalachia, oklahoma, or wyoming would consider it a good race if they lost by 50 points.

what it seems like to me is that what the vast majority of people here want is to destroy the democratic party from the ground up in the name of a stupid purity test the vast majority of the party does not agree with, and they want to do it while the most dangerous, insane person who is also the head of a violent cult is in the white house. you're trying to make your own left wing cult with either bernie or aoc as the head and the rest of the party is not with that.

as I said above I'm not a registered democrat. I find myself politically closer to aoc and bernie. and I'M telling y'all that following and supporting hogg's move will end the democratic party or any viable non republican party for generations.

i agree with hogg that the party needs a reset, but the vice chair of the party should not be the one making that comment because it gives all appearances that the party will be picking and choosing the primary candidates and throwing their weight behind their preferred candidate. that's going to lead to party fractures and a lot of hard feelings. you want to ensure more republicans winning easier than they should on the local level? have the party pick the candidate instead of the people in the district.

that's why i am very glad the chair has pretty much laid down the law. the party leadership (save one) is committed to electing democrats wherever they are whoever they are. one person in leadership is committed to electing specific democrats to office.

which if you think about it is a colossal failure. he's down in florida. he's had ample opportunity to elect his chosen democrats in florida with his pac. how successful were his candidates? and you've got people who see that (lack of) success he had in florida and say, "yeah, let's take that plan and apply it nationwide, even if the better democrat for an area isn't someone that hogg prefers."