While violence is despicable no matter from where it emanates, be it from the left or from the right, the display from the Montana candidate crosses a line of sorts.
Yes, there has been violence from the leftist side of politics at a variety of recent events around the country. I don't condone these and suggest they do nothing to further the cause of those being violent, and in fact may do the opposite.
However, this is the first time in my memory where the actual political candidate was the perpetrator of the violence. This is the line that was crossed. I searched the last 100 years and found no incident where a candidate for a major political office initiated a violent act against another candidate, the press, or any citizen during a campaign. In fact, the only violence engaged in by major politicians in the history of the country was the Burr-Hamilton duel in 1804. Hamilton lost and Burr was charged with murder. Dueling was outlawed by most states in 1859.
The fact that a candidate initiated the violence sends a message that violence is acceptable. It shows that people in the United States no longer see institutions as a way to resolve our conflicts peacefully. It's another indicator that we are indeed descending into chaos.
How bad does the dem candidate have to be to lose to a "press pusher?" Ummm Hillary bad? Naked "performance" bad?
Gianforte wins. He probably gained votes from those sick of being ignored by the press
Joe - I believe a majority of Montana voters vote by mail and their ballots were cast days and weeks ago. And they can't change their vote at the last minute. The most likely reason he won IMO. The incident today had no effect on the outcome.