Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Wow. NYT is such a liberal rag...

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
msallied Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-04-09 11:15 PM
Original message
Wow. NYT is such a liberal rag...
Edited on Wed Nov-04-09 11:17 PM by msallied
This was on my Twitter page:

The Morning After, Democrats Regret Lost Chances to Win http://bit.ly/2MEmve

Great way to frame the way Democrats actually fucking won two Congressional races.

P.S. I realize that it's about the New York mayoral race, but I've been seeing headlines like this ALL DAY.
Refresh | 0 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-04-09 11:16 PM
Response to Original message
1. Welcome to the disabused club, msallied. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
tblue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-04-09 11:25 PM
Response to Original message
2. Yeah. Almost makes it sound like they're rooting for the other team.
That's what me thinks is going on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
LynnTheDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-04-09 11:26 PM
Response to Original message
3. Dems Win Two For Two
A headline not seen in the US media.

Dem Wins Seat Held By Republicans Since U.S Grant Was President

Another headline not seen in the US media.

Damn, the US media is so LIBRUL.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
msallied Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-04-09 11:53 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Precisely. And yet all "we" supposedly care about are two gubernatorial races.
And the latest buzzword: referendum.

I fucking HATE our media more and more with every passing day. Hate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
burning rain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-05-09 12:44 AM
Response to Reply #3
8. That's a different issue, but it's interesting.
Democrats have been winning congressional special elections since Obama got elected, while they faired poorly in them after Bill Clinton got elected in 1992. This suggests that Democrats should do alright in 2010, unlike 1994, though we need to post a solid win on healthcare and hopefully some other big ticket issues like EFCA and DADT repeal so our side's pumped up for the mid-terms--Republicans will be pumped up in any case, on sheer hostility.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Rosa Luxemburg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-05-09 12:26 AM
Response to Original message
5. Calll the NYT and tell them (but doesn't Rupert own it)
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
amandabeech Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-05-09 12:36 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. You're thinking of the Wall Street Journal. n/.t
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
burning rain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-05-09 12:33 AM
Response to Original message
6. The New York Times is a big newspaper.
It's to be expected that they're going to have an article wholly devoted to Democratic failings in a NYC mayoral race in which the Democratic candidate came tantalizingly close despite being hideously outspent, and having lacked the expected support of major Democrats and allied groups. It doesn't pay to bury one's head in the sand. Bloomberg is an enemy of the middle class, bent on destroying rent stabilization laws. His re-election is unfortunate indeed, especially as it was avoidable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
jacksonian Donating Member (699 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-05-09 01:18 AM
Response to Original message
9. Dems didn't screw up in NYC
exit polls showed Bloomberg had high approval even among those who didn't vote for him. The reason it was close was because the mayor got a lot of term-limit and over-advertising backlash from people thinking their vote didn't really count.

If we had engaged with a serious campaign, it would have just become a referendum on his job and it would have sucked up mucho $$$ to compete - and lose probably anyway. Believe me, no sense running against a billionaire with 60% approval.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon May 06th 2024, 01:24 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC