GA-06 and SC-05 election day & results thread

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

All these special elections show a pattern that in areas where Trump cratered, Democrats are not able to do much better than Clinton did. In areas where Trump did well, or rather Clinton didn't do well, the Democrats are ascendant. It basically shows that a traditionally Democratic leaning district that voted by 10 points for Trump should be just as much of a target as districts like GA-6 where Trump barely won.

Democrats need to have a 435-district strategy.

I don't disagree with that, but there will always need to be priorities. And which districts are your priorities shape your general message for the electorate, which is extremely important. If the Democrats don't have a general message for the country, they will lose in 2018.

Even in 2006, they didn't actually compete everywhere. But they did have some pretty solid candidates lined up in case magic happens or a late breaking scandal. It is how they won FL-16 when the Foley scandal broke.

[anthonyjg]

So sick of the smug revisionism and, frankly, ignorance coming from liberals who claim that "before year XXXX, the GOP was alright and not crazy yet."  You all would have hated Eisenhower, just accept it.

I mean, I have very little love for Eisenhower, but I don't see how anyone can deny the GOP's lurch to the right.

That's all fair and fine, but both parties have lurched away from the center (or, more accurately, been purged of any meaningfully influential moderate wing), and I'm not going to sit here and pretend I would have loved JFK because he doesn't seem quite as in-your-face progressive to me as a modern Democrat.  I am a frequent criticizer of today's GOP, and I won't deny it lurched right; it's the romanticization of past Republicans strictly in order to further demonize current ones that gets annoying ... if you're left of center, you can trash the current GOP perfectly fine without saying a single good thing about past Republicans.

Ah ok, I see your point. I maintain that pointing out a party's history has a time and a place, but I do agree that romanticization of past Republicans is at best intellectually dishonest and at worst counter-productive.

[publicunofficial]

So sick of the smug revisionism and, frankly, ignorance coming from liberals who claim that "before year XXXX, the GOP was alright and not crazy yet."  You all would have hated Eisenhower, just accept it.

Agreed, conservatism has always been a cancer and there are no good Republicans.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Reagan was a drooling senile war criminal who traded arms for hostages and America's social safety net for tax cuts. So maybe we shouldn't aspire to that.

But that wasn't how the base saw him now was it?

He drove the republican party into the crazy ideological brain-dead party of taxes are hitler heil America party it is today. The democrats shouldn't aspire to nominate a charismatic senile old man who wrecks systems in a way that devastates the country due to his stupid sociopathy.

If said "stupid sociopathy" gets the taxes raised, Medicare for All passed, free tuition ala most of Europe,  then I don't see why not let it happen.

What were the men who freed the slaves but a worshipper of the political devil and a lawyer to tycoons who suspended habaeus corpus? Others decided to use Tea Party/Mitch McConnel-esque tactics to railroad his successor, who was just following the orders said man laid out because it wasn't radical enough?

What was the man who got the New Deal through but an egomaniac cripple with some racist tendencies

What was the man who got Civil Rights and Voting Rights out the door but an insecure, opportunistic, corrupt boogeyman who probably used a lot of ballot-stuffing to override one of the most iconic, clean, but low-key man in Texas and then bugged his opposition for the landslide?

Sorry sweetheart, but a little "stupid sociopathy" is very much a necessity. What is politics but a cutthroat endeavor?

Reagan finished the transformation of the right's ideology from problematic but able to be reasoned with to the stubborn, simplistic, feelings based wrecking ball it is today. Roosevelt and Lincoln did nothing of the sort. The Democrats weren't drained of nuanced thought in 1932. It definitely moved left(not enough, frankly), but it didn't go crazy. The kind of leftism that mirrors Reaganism would be dangerous in a similar way. Raising taxes on the rich too far can actually have pretty serious consequences. We should certainly raise them a decent amount, but the mythical economy killing point does exist (probably somewhere between 50 and 80 percent). I don't think sanders would acknowledge that. It looks like "raise taxes on the one percent" is becoming the lefts "when in doubt, cut more taxes", in both rhetoric and negative effects.

 

Reagan was a drooling senile war criminal who traded arms for hostages and America's social safety net for tax cuts. So maybe we shouldn't aspire to that.

But that wasn't how the base saw him now was it?

He drove the republican party into the crazy ideological brain-dead party of taxes are hitler heil America party it is today. The democrats shouldn't aspire to nominate a charismatic senile old man who wrecks systems in a way that devastates the country due to his stupid sociopathy.

The way you make it sound suggests that Reagan set the country on fire and by 1989 he had throughly destroyed both the country and his Party. None of which is true but yeah.

He did a lot of bad and not a lot of(if any) good.

[RINO Tom]

So sick of the smug revisionism and, frankly, ignorance coming from liberals who claim that "before year XXXX, the GOP was alright and not crazy yet."  You all would have hated Eisenhower, just accept it.

Agreed, conservatism has always been a cancer and there are no good Republicans.

[Bojack Horseman]

This election proves to me that the Republican Party is no longer a political party, it is a cult of low-IQ extremists that has no objectives for governing. It exists only to hold onto power at any cost. It is incredibly sad that getting people to vote Democratic when an incumbent President is disliked by 60% of voters is like trying to get people to shop at Kmart. America is doomed.

[TheSaint250]

Lol I'm loving all of the "Republicans are idiot fascist sexist bigots" s***. Couldn't be more wrong. Stay classy, Democrats.

[RINO Tom]

This election proves to me that the Republican Party is no longer a political party, it is a cult of low-IQ extremists that has no objectives for governing. It exists only to hold onto power at any cost. It is incredibly sad that getting people to vote Democratic when an incumbent President is disliked by 60% of voters is like trying to get people to shop at Kmart. America is doomed.

57.1% of the people in the great GA-6 have a four-year degree or better, and 79.5% went to some college.  Let's compare that to nearby GA-4, a D+24 district represented by a Democrat, where 29% have a four-year degree or better, and 61.6% went to some college.

You really shouldn't call either party's voters low-IQ when there are literally millions of each, but at least don't sound low IQ yourself while doing it.

[Kingpoleon]

All these special elections show a pattern that in areas where Trump cratered, Democrats are not able to do much better than Clinton did. In areas where Trump did well, or rather Clinton didn't do well, the Democrats are ascendant. It basically shows that a traditionally Democratic leaning district that voted by 10 points for Trump should be just as much of a target as districts like GA-6 where Trump barely won.

Democrats need to have a 435-district strategy.

The fight beteeen the strategies of Rahm Emmanuel and Howard Dean created a powerful balance in 2006 and 2008. With Schumer overseeing it, the Democratic victories then were only created because Dean and Emmanuel poured resources into their opposing strategies, strengthening the Democratic brand across the nation.

[krazen1211]

Lol I'm loving all of the "Republicans are idiot fascist sexist bigots" s***. Couldn't be more wrong. Stay classy, Democrats.

It's funny how the voters of GA-06 went from kale-eaters to KKK members in a few days!

Who are the Dem voters here? Well, Ossoff's own campaign pointed out that they had trouble reaching all the basement dwelling losers living in their mommy's basement, because mommy was voting Republican!

[Technocracy Timmy]

Lol I'm loving all of the "Republicans are idiot fascist sexist bigots" s***. Couldn't be more wrong. Stay classy, Democrats.

Then they run people like Ossof in an effort to win over lifelong Republicans since many voted against a Republican once in their entire lives (Trump) all of sudden they're gonna embrace the Democratic Party in droves.

This strategy doesn't work. Didn't Hillary already try to court moderate republicans in 2016 with mailers to Utah about how religious she was and giving speeches with neocons on the stage with her? I thought I remembered her trying to do outreach programs to moderate republicans as a way of pulling states like AZ and NC into the Democratic fold. She made inroads, but let's not kid ourselves and expect lifelong R's who flipped once in their entire lives to become permanent members of the Democratic Party.

[TheSaint250]

Lol I'm loving all of the "Republicans are idiot fascist sexist bigots" s***. Couldn't be more wrong. Stay classy, Democrats.

Then they run people like Ossof in an effort to win over lifelong Republicans since many voted against a Republican once in their entire lives (Trump) all of sudden they're gonna embrace the Democratic Party in droves.

This strategy doesn't work. Didn't Hillary already try to court moderate republicans in 2016 with mailers to Utah about how religious she was and giving speeches with neocons on the stage with her? I thought I remembered her trying to do outreach programs to moderate republicans as a way of pulling states like AZ and NC into the Democratic fold. She made inroads, but let's not kid ourselves and expect lifelong R's who flipped once in their entire lives to become permanent members of the Democratic Party.

Exactly. That's the hole in the strategy: either work at it over time or wait for a more favorable generation to come along and start voting.  Yes, you're right about Hillary and moderates.  She used Meg Whitman and others to highlight her "bipartisan" appeal.  I will say this, though: she had more luck on the presidential level than Dems did in GA and other places with anti-Trump GOPers since many voted for her as a way to prevent Trump from winning.  The problem is that Republicans voting for Clinton didn't/doesn't mean they will go, "I need to vote straight ticket!" and vote for Dems when they like the Republicans there.

[Rookie Yinzer]

This is a Republican district. Karen Handel may have been a terrible candidate (and person) but that doesn't mean they wanted someone ideologically different from them in the seat. The doom and gloom reaction to this loss by both the left and right is intellectually dishonest.

[Cactus Jack]

Ossoff was a dud without substance. I'm left-wing, but I don't mind a centrist or Blue Dog type so long as they run on actual issues instead of how much their opponent or the incumbent sucks.

[Technocracy Timmy]

This is a Republican district. Karen Handel may have been a terrible candidate (and person) but that doesn't mean they wanted someone ideologically different from them in the seat. The doom and gloom reaction to this loss by both the left and right is intellectually dishonest.

Yeah but given that the DCCC is trying to expand their outreach largely in areas like GA-06 (suburban Republican strongholds that don't like Trump), then this result is still concerning. Many of the Republican districts in California are exactly just that.

[Virginiá]

0 Cross-over appeal - This guy got 0 cross-over appeal, no Republican votes.

I'm confused. I thought the polls had him with not-insignificant Republican support? How exactly could he get 47-48% without Republican support? Did he just completely run away with Indies?

He ran against a failed mediocre candidate - Handel is a terrible candidate who has had failed runs for Senate, Gov & is prone to making stupid errors & is by no means to be characterized as an out-standing candidate.

So what? This is exactly the kind of district where basically any Republican starts with an edge. What Hillary and Ossoff's narrow losses here show us is that maybe their performances are something of a hard ceiling for the next year or two at least.

Districts that begin shifting against their previous party tend to take time to do so. The shifts that happened recently in GA-6 seem to be sticking, but they were never enough. I think Ossoff could have carved out a tiny win if everything went right for him, but everything clearly didn't.

Blew a whopping 30M - For all that money, those many donations, those many volunteer hours, taking those DNC/DCCC resources away from other potential races, he has to answer & deliver. Business executives have to answer for a failed situation or when they blow up money, why does a politician get total immunity?

I can agree with the idea of blowing 30m being stupid. At some point, politicians need to understand that it is possible to waste a ton of money, and that it isn't always necessary to constantly fundraise. 2016 and GA-6 have shown us that money does have its limits, and I'd rather strategists find those limits rather than set fire to countless more millions.

However, a theory that makes some sense is that the massive attention and money this race got is exactly what motivated previously unmotivated Republicans. This is something to keep in mind even for Bernie-esque candidates who may catch fire in the future.

Did worse than Hillary Clinton - While Hillary trailed Trump by 1%, Ossoff lost by 4% even when Trump is doing terribly. Handel is not a strong candidate either. Everywhere people have over-performed Hillary, Quist by 15%, Thompson by 20%, the SC person too. Ossoff went down with record money & support.

This is kind of disengenous. He performed about as well as her in the 2nd round, and beat her numbers in the 1st round. What you're talking about is his losing margin. The important thing is he managed to keep the overall base of votes that Hillary developed in that district. Further, even considering what you're saying, +/- a couple points is hardly anything to gripe about in the first place.

I feel like you're just reaching for reasons to buttress your argument here.

[Bojack Horseman]

The mere fact that one has a college degree doesn't exempt them from being stupid. My dad is a perfect example of this.

[136or142]

This election proves to me that the Republican Party is no longer a political party, it is a cult of low-IQ extremists that has no objectives for governing. It exists only to hold onto power at any cost. It is incredibly sad that getting people to vote Democratic when an incumbent President is disliked by 60% of voters is like trying to get people to shop at Kmart. America is doomed.

57.1% of the people in the great GA-6 have a four-year degree or better, and 79.5% went to some college.  Let's compare that to nearby GA-4, a D+24 district represented by a Democrat, where 29% have a four-year degree or better, and 61.6% went to some college.

You really shouldn't call either party's voters low-IQ when there are literally millions of each, but at least don't sound low IQ yourself while doing it.

It's the socially liberal SJWs who defend the idiot Republican cultists who I dislike the most.

the idiot Trump cult may be capable in their line of work, but they've all been programmed to mindlessly chant "fake news" at every story critical of President Trump or the Republican Party.  

You can also look at the thousands of Republicans who pointed out that 'carbon is the stuff of life' after some fossil fuel association put out an anti global warming ad stating just that.  Every one that I saw regurgitated the tag line in that ad word for word.  

If you look at the polling on people who 'believe' global warming is real, it's almost entirely Republicans who are the deniers, and and overwhelming number of Republicans are deniers, so this isn't a case of me believing that a relatively small number of Republican who post on message boards falsely represent the vast majority of Republicans.

I presume they must have some capabilities to hold a job to afford the internet, but base Republican voters are idiot cultists.

[RINO Tom]

And would you all suggest that out of the tens of millions of people that voted for Democrats in 2016, the most loyal ones are not in large part "idiots"?

[TheSaint250]

This election proves to me that the Republican Party is no longer a political party, it is a cult of low-IQ extremists that has no objectives for governing. It exists only to hold onto power at any cost. It is incredibly sad that getting people to vote Democratic when an incumbent President is disliked by 60% of voters is like trying to get people to shop at Kmart. America is doomed.

57.1% of the people in the great GA-6 have a four-year degree or better, and 79.5% went to some college.  Let's compare that to nearby GA-4, a D+24 district represented by a Democrat, where 29% have a four-year degree or better, and 61.6% went to some college.

You really shouldn't call either party's voters low-IQ when there are literally millions of each, but at least don't sound low IQ yourself while doing it.

It's the socially liberal SJWs who defend the idiot Republican cultists who I dislike the most.

the idiot Trump cult may be capable in their line of work, but they've all been programmed to mindlessly chant "fake news" at every story critical of President Trump or the Republican Party.  

You can also look at the thousands of Republicans who pointed out that 'carbon is the stuff of life' after some fossil fuel association put out an anti global warming ad stating just that.  Every one that I saw regurgitated the tag line in that ad word for word.  

If you look at the polling on people who 'believe' global warming is real, it's almost entirely Republicans who are the deniers, and and overwhelming number of Republicans are deniers, so this isn't a case of me believing that a relatively small number of Republican who post on message boards falsely represent the vast majority of Republicans.

I presume they must have some capabilities to hold a job to afford the internet, but base Republican voters are idiot cultists.

If I had a penn. for every time a Democrat called anything critical of Dems, especially Obama and Clinton, racist or sexist, I could pay off the US debt.

[publicunofficial]

This election proves to me that the Republican Party is no longer a political party, it is a cult of low-IQ extremists that has no objectives for governing. It exists only to hold onto power at any cost. It is incredibly sad that getting people to vote Democratic when an incumbent President is disliked by 60% of voters is like trying to get people to shop at Kmart. America is doomed.

57.1% of the people in the great GA-6 have a four-year degree or better, and 79.5% went to some college.  Let's compare that to nearby GA-4, a D+24 district represented by a Democrat, where 29% have a four-year degree or better, and 61.6% went to some college.

You really shouldn't call either party's voters low-IQ when there are literally millions of each, but at least don't sound low IQ yourself while doing it.

It's the socially liberal SJWs who defend the idiot Republican cultists who I dislike the most.

the idiot Trump cult may be capable in their line of work, but they've all been programmed to mindlessly chant "fake news" at every story critical of President Trump or the Republican Party.  

You can also look at the thousands of Republicans who pointed out that 'carbon is the stuff of life' after some fossil fuel association put out an anti global warming ad stating just that.  Every one that I saw regurgitated the tag line in that ad word for word.  

If you look at the polling on people who 'believe' global warming is real, it's almost entirely Republicans who are the deniers, and and overwhelming number of Republicans are deniers, so this isn't a case of me believing that a relatively small number of Republican who post on message boards falsely represent the vast majority of Republicans.

I presume they must have some capabilities to hold a job to afford the internet, but base Republican voters are idiot cultists.

If I had a penn. for every time a Democrat called anything critical of Dems, especially Obama and Clinton, racist or sexist, I could pay off the US debt.

If I had a penny for every time a Republican was racist or sexist, I would have enough money that the GOP would actually care for what I have to say.

[136or142]

And would you all suggest that out of the tens of millions of people that voted for Democrats in 2016, the most loyal ones are not in large part "idiots"?

Yes, some hard core Democrats mindlessly regurgitate what the Democratic Party leaders say as well, but I don't see how anybody can dispute the material difference between the Republican base and the Democratic base in terms of their willingness to believe and regurgitate absolute nonsense, such as I pointed above.  

1.The hard core idiot Republican base is about 35% of total voters.  These are the people who continue to support President Trump.  I don't think the idiots on the Democratic side is anywhere near that large.

2.The Republican Party has an infrastructure of non elected dissemblers at Fox 'News' on talk radio (not just Rush Limbaugh and other national high profile radio show hosts, but in every state there are local versions, like Lars Larson in Oregon and Washington state), newspapers like the Washington Times, the Washington Examiner and the New York Post, and internet sites like World Net Daily and Breitbart.    I know of no such equivalence on the Democratic Party side.

The idiot Republican base here and elsewhere would say "New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, Rachel Maddow..." what have you, but while these outlets obviously make mistakes from time to time I think there is no question that these outlets have a standard of basic intellectual honesty (not that every opinion journalists at those newspapers or guests on CNN do) that Rush Limbaugh et al do not have.  

Unless you can show to me an equivalent cast of high profile dissemblers on the left who the idiot Democratic base mindlessly regurgitates, I think it's fair for me to say that your comment is based on nothing more than the mindlessly lazy thinking of 'both sides do it/both sides are equally bad."

The best I think you could probably come up with are 'The Young Turks' but then, as we saw in the election, unlike the base idiot Republican dissemblers of whom some were Never Trumpers until he won their party's nomination, The Young Turks hardly ever embraced Hillary Clinton.

[Suburbia]

And would you all suggest that out of the tens of millions of people that voted for Democrats in 2016, the most loyal ones are not in large part "idiots"?

Yes, some hard core Democrats mindlessly regurgitate what the Democratic Party leaders say as well, but I don't see how anybody can dispute the material difference between the Republican base and the Democratic base in terms of their willingness to believe and regurgitate absolute nonsense, such as I pointed above.  

1.The hard core idiot Republican base is about 35% of total voters.  These are the people who continue to support President Trump.  I don't think the idiots on the Democratic side is anywhere near that large.

2.The Republican Party has an infrastructure of non elected dissemblers at Fox 'News' on talk radio (not just Rush Limbaugh and other national high profile radio show hosts, but in every state there are local versions, like Lars Larson in Oregon and Washington state), newspapers like the Washington Times, the Washington Examiner and the New York Post, and internet sites like World Net Daily and Breitbart.    I know of no such equivalence on the Democratic Party side.

The idiot Republican base here and elsewhere would say "New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, Rachel Maddow..." what have you, but while these outlets obviously make mistakes from time to time I think there is no question that these outlets have a standard of basic intellectual honesty (not that every opinion journalists at those newspapers or guests on CNN do) that Rush Limbaugh et al do not have.  

Unless you can show to me an equivalent cast of high profile dissemblers on the left who the idiot Democratic base mindlessly regurgitates, I think it's fair for me to say that your comment is based on nothing more than the mindlessly lazy thinking of 'both sides do it/both sides are equally bad."

The best I think you could probably come up with are 'The Young Turks' but then, as we saw in the election, unlike the base idiot Republican dissemblers of whom some were Never Trumpers until he won their party's nomination, The Young Turks hardly ever embraced Hillary Clinton.

AM Joy (which is a pretty good show sometimes), Bill Maher, etc. are the equivalents.

[136or142]

And would you all suggest that out of the tens of millions of people that voted for Democrats in 2016, the most loyal ones are not in large part "idiots"?

Yes, some hard core Democrats mindlessly regurgitate what the Democratic Party leaders say as well, but I don't see how anybody can dispute the material difference between the Republican base and the Democratic base in terms of their willingness to believe and regurgitate absolute nonsense, such as I pointed above.  

1.The hard core idiot Republican base is about 35% of total voters.  These are the people who continue to support President Trump.  I don't think the idiots on the Democratic side is anywhere near that large.

2.The Republican Party has an infrastructure of non elected dissemblers at Fox 'News' on talk radio (not just Rush Limbaugh and other national high profile radio show hosts, but in every state there are local versions, like Lars Larson in Oregon and Washington state), newspapers like the Washington Times, the Washington Examiner and the New York Post, and internet sites like World Net Daily and Breitbart.    I know of no such equivalence on the Democratic Party side.

The idiot Republican base here and elsewhere would say "New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, Rachel Maddow..." what have you, but while these outlets obviously make mistakes from time to time I think there is no question that these outlets have a standard of basic intellectual honesty (not that every opinion journalists at those newspapers or guests on CNN do) that Rush Limbaugh et al do not have.  

Unless you can show to me an equivalent cast of high profile dissemblers on the left who the idiot Democratic base mindlessly regurgitates, I think it's fair for me to say that your comment is based on nothing more than the mindlessly lazy thinking of 'both sides do it/both sides are equally bad."

The best I think you could probably come up with are 'The Young Turks' but then, as we saw in the election, unlike the base idiot Republican dissemblers of whom some were Never Trumpers until he won their party's nomination, The Young Turks hardly ever embraced Hillary Clinton.

AM Joy (which is a pretty good show sometimes), Bill Maher, etc. are the equivalents.

I don't know who AM Joy is.  Bill Maher has a lot of problems, but I haven't seen anything from him saying things that are simply false in the way that Limbaugh, Fox 'News', Breitbart, New York Post... do.  

Also, what is the totally number of Democrats who use AM Joy or Bill Maher for the primary news sources?  With the idiot Republican base, I think virtually all of them only read, listen to or watch those sources.

There is simply no equivalent of these outlets on the left as there is on the right, and to the degree that there are left wing dissemblers (from an earlier day I would have mentioned the left wing loony conspiracy theorist Ray Talifero on KGO in San Francisco) they have nowhere near the impact.

I should point out here for people who aren't familiar with KGO and who might think "ah far left liberal talk show station from San Francisco", their prime time weekday host (8:00 PM) I believe was the mostly right wing Bill Wattenberg (he was a nuclear physicist whose prime interest was in promoting nuclear power and frequently alleged that anybody who opposed nuclear power was either a dupe or part of an anti nuclear power conspiracy) but he was also mostly on the right.  Ray Talifero was essentially buried by being on from 1-5 AM (not that he deserved a prime time spot.)

I believe KGO also had a right leaning host during the home drive prime time spot (3-? PM.)  Like a lot of talk radio stations, KGO had a news/weather/sports traffic program for the early work drive prime time spot (7A.M to ?.)

[Skunk]

And would you all suggest that out of the tens of millions of people that voted for Democrats in 2016, the most loyal ones are not in large part "idiots"?

Yes, some hard core Democrats mindlessly regurgitate what the Democratic Party leaders say as well, but I don't see how anybody can dispute the material difference between the Republican base and the Democratic base in terms of their willingness to believe and regurgitate absolute nonsense, such as I pointed above.  

1.The hard core idiot Republican base is about 35% of total voters.  These are the people who continue to support President Trump.  I don't think the idiots on the Democratic side is anywhere near that large.

2.The Republican Party has an infrastructure of non elected dissemblers at Fox 'News' on talk radio (not just Rush Limbaugh and other national high profile radio show hosts, but in every state there are local versions, like Lars Larson in Oregon and Washington state), newspapers like the Washington Times, the Washington Examiner and the New York Post, and internet sites like World Net Daily and Breitbart.    I know of no such equivalence on the Democratic Party side.

The idiot Republican base here and elsewhere would say "New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, Rachel Maddow..." what have you, but while these outlets obviously make mistakes from time to time I think there is no question that these outlets have a standard of basic intellectual honesty (not that every opinion journalists at those newspapers or guests on CNN do) that Rush Limbaugh et al do not have.  

Unless you can show to me an equivalent cast of high profile dissemblers on the left who the idiot Democratic base mindlessly regurgitates, I think it's fair for me to say that your comment is based on nothing more than the mindlessly lazy thinking of 'both sides do it/both sides are equally bad."

The best I think you could probably come up with are 'The Young Turks' but then, as we saw in the election, unlike the base idiot Republican dissemblers of whom some were Never Trumpers until he won their party's nomination, The Young Turks hardly ever embraced Hillary Clinton.

AM Joy (which is a pretty good show sometimes), Bill Maher, etc. are the equivalents.

Most Democrats I know hate Bill Maher.