Democrats Outraged Over ‘Real News’ Epidemic


Democrats are beside themselves over the avalanche of ‘real news’ stories in the last six weeks.

It all started at about 8:30 p.m. on November 8, when certain media outlets began spreading ‘real news’ stories about Hillary Clinton.  Specifically, that she was toast.

“It was horrible,” recalls Caitlyn Pitterpatt, a young volunteer for the Hillary campaign who spent election night in the Javits Center, at times literally shaking, but mostly crying.  “First was the real news out of Florida.  And then to make matters worse, real news stories started showing up about Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.  And now that the campaign is almost over I’m even hearing real news about having to get a real life and a real job.  Real news is hateful and violates my rights.  I demand a safe space, away from real news.”

Some on the Left have even speculated that real news was a problem before the election, and may have even influenced the way some people voted.  “There’s solid evidence that ‘real news’ may have unfairly swayed people against Hillary,” says DNC staffer Gail Whaley.  “People have been exposed to twenty-five years of ‘real news’ about one of the most unlikeable people in American political history, along with a constant stream of real news stories on her corruption, dishonesty, and raw political ambition, not to mention real news video clips of her passing out and pitching head first into the gutter less than two months before the election.  This was all real, and it’s just unacceptable that it would affect someone’s vote.  We need to launch an investigation into the ‘real news’ problem before it gets out of control.”

Less disputed is the fact that ‘real news’ stories have continued to directly influence what Americans believe, even weeks after the election.

“It’s shocking,” says Dr. Todd Spicemeister, Professor of Che Guevara Studies at U.C. Berkeley.  “You get these ‘real news’ stories being spread around the internet, and pretty soon everyone is going around saying that Trump won the election.  Which he did, of course, but that’s the point.  Is ‘real news’ really real?  Yes – which is why it should be banned.”

Stay tuned.

The views expressed here are those of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views of


About Author

John White lives in the Chicago area with his wife and seven children.


  1. How can any 21st Century American fathom the reason for the Electoral College when we just observed that the winner of the popular vote by 3 million votes lost the Electoral votes? If we remove Citizens United vs. FEC dark money we would return to the constitutionally guaranteed “one person, one vote”.

    Do American voters know how Electors are chosen? I don’t! And, are electors allowed to vote in the November general election? If so, how can an elector vote for candidate A in the November general election then vote for candidate B in the December electoral vote?

    by Marc Schulman – History Central

    The Electoral College was created for two reasons. The first purpose was to create a BUFFER between population and the selection of a President. The second as part of the structure of the government that gave extra power to the smaller states.

    The first reason that the founders created the Electoral College is hard to understand today. The founding fathers were afraid of direct election to the Presidency. They feared a tyrant could manipulate public opinion and come to power. Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Papers:

    • I missed your posts prior to the election where you stated your concerns about the continued existence of the Electoral College.

      In fact, I missed any such posts by Democratic voters or supporters.

      I did see many posts bemoaning the possible end of the Republic, et. al. when Mr. Trump alluded to the fact that he would act within his rights should there be issue with the election process.

      You probably provided us with some.

      If it weren’t for double-standards, liberals wouldn’t have any standards.

  2. Is this a Catholic website or an anti-Democratic website?

    It’s really odd that this website makes a mockery of the fake news issue. Pope Francis speaks eloquently about it.

    Catholic much?

  3. To MORGAMB & whomever else:
    Here is a very significant statistic bearing on the validity of the role of the Electoral college in our national elections. If California is removed from the total popular vote count, Trump wins the popular vote by 1.4 million votes, a popular majority of 50.6 % to 49.4 % for Clinton. In other words, Trump wins the total popular vote in 49 of our 50 states, but loses because one verypopulated state votes overwhelmingly Clinton.

    The Electoral college system thus prevents one state from having an undue influence or skewed result on who is elected President. The system served its purpose very well in this election.

    • The popular vote is the “one person, one vote, Not a convoluted masking by a secondary vote. I can’t see why there is this argument about California voting Democrat? If the popular voting is held properly there is no distinction by state. In 2016 the Democrat won the popular vote by over 3 million. Who cares what each state does? It is a national election, not state. The total irony is the fact that Clinton won the popular vote and lost in the electoral voting. Anyone concerned with fairness would consider this adequate reason to eliminate the electoral college.

Leave A Reply