No indictment, but how do Democrats deal with this:

[Jim Lane]

278. You're certainly correct that JPR prioritizes progressive change over getting Democrats elected

One of the first votes I ever cast was for a Republican candidate who was more progressive than his Democratic challenger. That was long before DU was established. I suppose that, if the same election were to occur today, I'd have to go over to JPR to tout the virtues of the more progressive candidate.

Electing Democrats and achieving social progress are two different goals. Therefore, even though they're usually compatible, they'll sometimes diverge. Each website has made its choice about which goal to pursue in such conflict cases.

Some of the people on JPR would like to see Bernie run third-party (which, in my opinion, there is zero chance he'll do), but others on JPR don't favor that approach. A difference between JPR and DU is that the pros and cons of such a run may be discussed there but not here.

You complain about alert stalking. What I know is that, from both sides of the Clinton-Sanders divide, there were repeated charges of alert stalking. I saw posts hidden that were, IMO, perfectly proper, with the only logical explanation for the hide being that the unlucky poster ran into at least four jurors who voted their partisan passions rather than their obligations as jurors. Most importantly, I saw such posts from both sides. At the hate-filled cesspool site that I mentioned, I saw sack dances when the alert stalking of Bernie supporters succeeded.

I wish I had a nickel for every time I've heard 80% or 85% or whatever number is used, therefore the Sanders people are in total control, therefore the Clinton people are a poor persecuted oppressed minority, wah wah wah. It seems that many Clinton supporters use that trusty old argument to tell themselves that abuse of the jury system ran only one way and every pro-Clinton DUer was a perfect angel. They're deluding themselves. Abuse ran both ways.

And the admins, to their credit, were upfront about being totally on the Clinton side. If you want to defend the expulsion of WillyT -- over, IIRC, two posts deemed offensive -- then you'll have to explain why so many pro-Clinton people with double-digit hide counts were amnestied back in. Did their conduct, and the quotations in my sig, reflect what you "find acceptable in political discourse"?

I don't share your concern that posts on DU would help generate negative stories about Clinton. Another major Clinton-supporter meme for more than a year has been that Clinton has for more than 20 years been the target of an unremitting barrage of Republican attacks, and is now therefore bullet-proof. I can't imagine that any criticism of Clinton posted on DU told the GOP anything they didn't already know. For that reason, I don't see how the new DU rules will protect Clinton from criticism out in the real world.

As to the loss to DU, it's a matter of perception. My own perception is that JPR plus the new, restricted DU are, even taken together, less valuable than the old DU was. The obvious problem is that, even aside from rules, posters on both sites are largely preaching to the choir.