To All the Progressives That are Pissed at Democrats for Voting for the CR...

[louis c]

...there is only one way to solve all our problems. Elect more Democrats. Stop blaming the minority for not being able to get anything accomplished. That's why they call it the minority. We don't have the votes.

The minority party cannot put a bill on the floor of either branch of Congress without the consent of the leadership. All the Democrats can do is filibuster a bill or appointment in the Senate, and at any time the majority can change that rule by a simple majority vote. The filibuster rule is not in the Constitution. So, the Democrats cannot solve the DACA problem, or any problem, on their own. We all get the moral point. The Democrats are all on your side. But if you think things are bad now for you, what do you think it will be like if we get two or three more years of this shit with fewer Democrats?

I'm 65 years old and third generation from immigrant grand-parents. I'm with the DACA immigrants because that's what I believe in. I'm for choice, yet I'm a male. I'm for Gay rights, although I'm straight. I'm for more funding for education, although I have no children. I'm for equal pay for women, although I'm a man. I'm for a $15 minimum wage, although I make much more than that. I donate to Democratic candidates from outside my district, even though they won't directly represent me. I'm for civil rights, even though I'm considered white. I could go on and on.

The point being that the issues I believe in, economic or social, are best advanced by the Democratic party. Anything that weakens Democrats, weakens the ultimate goal of the issues I care about, even though very, very few affect my life, personally.

If the people who are upset with the Democrats for not being able to solve the DACA situation, or any other issue, want to punish them, they are really punishing themselves. The answers to our problems will certainly not be by electing fewer Democrats, but more. I have no problem if a Democrat who better represents your interests runs in a primary against another Democrat, that's Democracy. My problem is if your primary candidate loses and you don't work just as hard for the other Democrat in the general election

If that happens and the final choice Democrat loses to the Republican, it will make matters worse for you. It will bother me on election night and I may have wasted a few bucks in my donation to the finalist, but in the end, you're fucked way worse than me.

If we didn't learn that lesson in 2016, we all deserve what we get.

[nini]

1. Oh Please

What's with all this making sense stuff here????

[Sophia4]

16. I'm from California.

We elect Democrats. We WORK to elect Democrats.

It's the lazy bums who claim to be Democrats from other states who are responsible for Trump and the Republican Congress.

Democrats in other states need to go to farmers' markets and other events, set up tables and start talking to voters. That's how you get Democratic majorities. It's hard work.

Just posting on the internet does not get Democrats elected.

[Demsrule86]

23. You are correct Sophia.

[still_one]

52. I am from the Bay Area in northern California, reliable blue, and while the large population

centers are blue, Nunes is an example that California has their districts that are as bad as the reddest state

Also keep in mind California also elected Reagan and Pete Wilson, so we are not always on top of things here

[appalachiablue]

57. Glad you reminded so I don't have to now. Toss in AZ Goldwater, CA Nixon.

[still_one]

59. Every state has their issues

[appalachiablue]

60. For sure. Those who fail to realize that will learn fast.

We're still living under Reagonomics and all that it's brought, for 40 years now lest we forget.

Jan. 20, 1981 I well remember the Inaugural Address and 'The Government is the Problem' opening shot because I was living, studying and working in DC.

For 12 years we endured the Reign of RR and GHWB, up close. A nightmare I won't forget, same as many others.

[Sophia4]

64. Nunes meeds to be retired.

But most of California is way over Reagan and Wilson.

[still_one]

66. Have you ever been to the San Joaquin valley or Orange County? As for Nunes, unless implicated by

Mueller for illegal activity, it is highly unlikely that he will lose his seat in 2018.

Also, have you forgotten Arnold Schwarzenegger?

[Kilgore]

54. A bit of perspective

I agree with your view that hard work brought Dems to power in CA.

I dont agree with your "Lazy Bums" comment. I live in a historically blue area with generations of Democratic union members in the manufacturing industries. The predominant view last election was no one cared about their jobs or made an effort to keep their jobs on shore. Having been hit with multiple plant closures and downsizing, they view the Democratic party has walked away from them. I can hardly blame them from being drawn to a message that tickled their ears with promises of bringing industry back. Guess what, the Republican message is gaining traction here.

I do agree that we need to get more Democrats elected, but walking away from our traditional base is not how to do it. I also agree that reaching out with the appropriate message and not alienating is the way to go.

Lets start by not calling them "Lazy Bums"

[appalachiablue]

58. 2nd that, 'lazy bums'?

[Sophia4]

63. Democrats do appear to have walked away from people who worked in the American

manufacturing sector. I can understand how they feel.

Changing the Democratic Party in that respect has to be a part of our strategy if we want to win elections. The Democratic Party has to be the party of all working people.

[Hortensis]

84. NO. We promised them jobs. They chose white supremacy,

male white supremacy at that. Studies since 2016 have shown that the biggest driver was not economic but rather resentment at losing white advantages, and in particular white male privileges for the men.

[brer cat]

91. +10000 nt

[mcar]

93. This!

[ehrnst]

55. Or the lazy bums who sit around for four years then suddenly

want to decide what Democrats do shortly before the election, instead of doing the actual work of building the infrastructure, getting out the vote, supporting the candidate of the majority, and soiling one's ethical purity by participating in "establishment" politics?

That kind of lazy bum?

[Sophia4]

62. Those too. The important thing is to get out the vote.

But those working in the Democratic Party have the responsibility to choose candidates who CAN BE elected, candidates who are warm and loving as well as capable and who attract votes.

If Californians' votes counted in presidential elections the same as the votes of the people in Nebraska or Kansas, Hillary would be president right now.

[ehrnst]

67. Hillary got elected by a substantial majority in the general - and was chosen by Democrats to be

their candidate, so I'm not sure what "unelectable, not warm and loving and capable," candidate you are talking about.

Can you clarify?

[Sophia4]

71. Strategy -- swing states.

Many more Democrats have to vote to elect a president because so many Democrats are hidden in heavily populated states like California and New York where an individual vote counts for far less than a vote in a state with a low population.

It's extremely undemocratic and unfair, but that is how it is. Democrats have to nominate an outstandingly attractive candidate, someone who appeals to more voters in all states, not just in blue states. We need a moral leader.

[ehrnst]

72. You still didn't answer my question

Here it is again: " so I'm not sure what "unelectable, not warm and loving and capable," candidate you are talking about.

Can you clarify?"

Hillary was and is a moral leader, so I'm also not sure what less than moral leaders you claim Democrats are putting forth. Again, can you clarify?

I was asking for clarification of what candidates you are talking about that lack what you say we need.

Are you going to answer?

As to swing states, Hillary lost by a sliver, and in populations less than were suppressed by GOP votes. Now if we don't acknowledge and address voter suppression, any candidate we put forth - even one as qualified, endorsed, inspirational and transparent with her finances as Hillary Clinton won't get the votes if they are suppressed.

You seem to be unfamiliar with voter suppression in the 2016 election. Here is more information:

https://www.thenation.com/article/wisconsins-voter-id-law-suppressed-200000-votes-trump-won-by-23000/

https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/democracy/reports/2016/11/11/292322/voter-suppression-laws-cost-americans-their-voices-at-the-polls/

https://www.thenation.com/article/the-gops-attack-on-voting-rights-was-the-most-under-covered-story-of-2016/

[Sophia4]

73. The answer is obvious.

Hillary won the popular vote, but because states like mine, California where she won by a large margin, don't count for what we should in the electoral college, Hillary lost.

She did not campaign much in California where she won.

Where she campaigned, unfortunately, she lost - at least I hope she campaigned in the swing states where she lost, because we sure didn't see much of her here in California where she won.

But then that's charisma and caring for you. It wins votes where you don't campaign much. And where you go and campaign, you lose.

[ehrnst]

74. Are you saying that she's the candidate that you refer to

that is less than moral, less than warm?

In what way? I saw the most competent, honest and qualified candidate of the entire field in Hillary, as did the vast majority of Democratic voters.

What was it about her that you found less than moral? You've said who, now please explain the why.

And as you know, she did indeed get the vast majority of votes, and there were swing states where she lost by a sliver that had documented suppression of more voters than she lost by. See my previous post for more information on that.

And apparently she was charismatic enough to win California on her actual qualifications, rather than a tally of visits (and she did visit California btw - perhaps you missed reading about it?). And spending a lot of time where she had strong support isn't really a good use of limited resources, is it? I don't know if you've worked on a campaign, but that's a basic financial formula.

Here is a helpful graphic that will clarify where she visited:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-last-10-weeks-of-2016-campaign-stops-in-one-handy-gif/

As far as I can see, she won Virginia, Maryland, New York, Minnesota.

The future is diverse, and where she won, there is diversity. Candidates like Hillary are the future - the ones that win the voters who have economic anxiety, and the ones who are not straight white men. Hillary actually got legislation through, and actually got affordable health care for people (CHIP) instead of just yelling about health care, with no results.

I think that reverting to the past to appeal to voters we lost in the 60's will do far more harm than good. And of course we need to up our game on big data, and dealing directly with the lies that are told about our candidates - and believed even by those on the far left.

We are not the party that panders to white male privilege and racism. That way lies disaster.

[ehrnst]

81. Hello? (nt)

[lapucelle]

75. The party doesn't "choose" candidates. N/T

[Sophia4]

79. Depends on how you define "the Party."

Is the Party the hierarchy, the administrators of the Party, or is it the voters?

That's a central question that Democrats need to answer.

[ehrnst]

80. The voters. Sometimes the vast majority of them might choose differently than you

But Democratic voters always choose the candidate. That question has been answered in every primary.

Perhaps you are unclear on what and how the party leadership works, as you seem to be unclear on a lot of things about Democrats.

Here is some more information on Democratic leadership and what it is they do:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_National_Committee

https://www.democrats.org/about/our-leaders

https://www.conginst.org/house-democratic-leadership-positions/

Do you have information that contradicts this? Because I haven't seen any that isn't consistent with what is at those links.

I hope that as you spend more time here on Democratic Underground, you will become more familiar with Democrats and the organization that supports progressive candidates. You're new here, so there may be a learning curve.

[Sophia4]

82. I was an officer in my Democratic Club and very active.

I know very well how it works. Thanks.

[ehrnst]

83. So, then, what is your answer to the

question you posed of what the Democratic Party is, that you posit is undecided by Democrats?

"Is the Party the hierarchy, the administrators of the Party, or is it the voters?"

Since you state you know very well how it works, you certainly have determined that.

Which is it?

[Sophia4]

85. I'm not really sure. That's why I asked the question.

[ehrnst]

86. Nice evasion...

You don't think it's the voters, but I don't think you have the nerve to say what you think Democratic leadership does.

Hillary was the people's choice, the choice of the vast majority of Democrats. And yes, the leadership agreed with the voters, like they should.

That shows you right there what "the party is." But you want to contradict people who say it.

"Is the Party the hierarchy, the administrators of the Party, or is it the voters?"

What is your issue with the leadership? And why is "voters" the wrong answer for you?

[ehrnst]

92. Thought so.

Passive aggressive posting is very obvious here on DU, more than those who post think. Sock puppets fall apart when they are run through the wash too many times.

Say hi to BMUS for us, K?

Have a blessed day.

[lapucelle]

95. ,,,

[R B Garr]

96. oooh, THAT explains a lot!

Been wondering. Thank you.

[lapucelle]

89. In NYS, candidacy is open to anyone who is eligible to run.

There is a high school student here in NY running for state senate. He's trying to defeat a member of this group.

The Independent Democratic Conference (IDC) is a group of eight members of the New York State Senate who were elected as Democrats and are in a majority coalition with the Republicans in the chamber. The IDC is led by Jeffrey D. Klein, and also includes David J. Valesky, David Carlucci, Diane Savino, Tony Avella, Jose Peralta, Jesse Hamilton, and Marisol Alcantara. "Independent Democrat" is not a recognized political party in New York State, so members of the caucus appear on the ballot as Democrats, but support the Republican leadership once elected.

The idea that the "party hierarchy" or the "administrators of the Party" somehow "select candidates" doesn't get much traction here in NY. In my county, a Republican official was one of the Democratic candidates necessitating a Democratic primary election. He was neither selected as a candidate nor prevented from running as a Democrat by our local party.

[Sophia4]

90. Interesting!

I think I read about that.

[R B Garr]

97. That's funny. Why does it have to be divided up in your mind??

That's really not such a central question, after all. It's just leftover and manufactured angst.

[BoneyardDem]

88. So which Dem candidates would not warrant a vote in comparison to a non Dem?

for that matter, which non-Dem warranted a vote in the last election over a Dem?

[R B Garr]

98. candidates who are "warm and loving"

You mean with cookies??

[brush]

77. Yes, I don't know who this poster is but I like him.

[angrychair]

2. I guess for me its this

First, let me make it unequivocally clear, I am definitely going to vote for a Democrat, no matter what and so should any and everyone that really cares about everything from the women in their lives to immigrants that make our nation great.

That said, I still have a right to feel pissed off, let down and frustrated at their performance and to support and encourage a primary candidate of those that should have been better. If that candidate loses than always vote Democrat no matter what, but if we at least run a primary on some we have made it clear we expect more from that candidate in the future and having a (D) after your name does not guarantee a lifetime appointment with no questions asked.

While I have very close family and friends that are very impacted by these issues, in many cases I could never fully understand the fear and anger and disappointment felt by people of color or women on the shitshow that is the Republican Party. I am a survivor or sexual assault as a child so I do have a very real connection to that issue.

My point is that we have a lot of people in office that have been their a long time and sometimes that is good and sometimes it is not. We have to be willing to trim our tree every now and then so new branches can grow, new directions and help our tree grow bigger and healthier.

[louis c]

7. I think that faulting the minority party for not changing things

is like blaming the victim.

The Republicans in the Senate changed the rule for Gorsich's confirmation. They changed the rule to repeal Obamacare (and still lost). They changed the rule for their tax scam legislation. All passed (or failed) by simple majorities.

If the Democrats held to the filibuster to shut down the government, which created pain for many other Democratic constituencies, when the Republicans felt the time was right, they would have changed the rule again to a simple majority.

We would have accomplished nothing, screwed some of our loyal constituencies, alienated many Independent, moderate voters and the DACA recipients would be in worse shape.

Here's what everyone needs to understand. WE DON'T HAVE THE VOTES or the PRESIDENCY.

Until we do, no Democrat is responsible for anything that's fucked up.

[angrychair]

9. On this particular issue

I am not alone, many Dreamer advocacy groups feel the same, they could have managed it better.

In retrospect it would have been better to accept the CR with the 6 year CHIP on Friday, avoythe shutdown and picked up the DACA fight 4 weeks later as a stand-alone issue. There will not be a second shutdown within 4 weeks.
The fear I have is that republicans will either talk a lot of talk in the Senate to only let it die in the House where there is a lot more political cover or craft a “take it or leave it” bill that has a pathway to citizenship for DACA kids but otherwise has stomach-churning provisions meant to dare the Democrats to vote against actual DACA citizenship legislation. In other words, ratfuckery. Which, FYI, is what the last CR was...

My point is that if we are going to take a stand then take a stand and sell it but don’t take a stand and 48-hrs later seemly back out of it for what, to the casual observer, appears to be the very same deal you initially said “no” too. People, especially our Democratic base, want to be a principled stand, inspired and to see backbone right now and taking a little heat from a bunch of racist and xenophobic assholes is well worth the benefit but you have to sell it and mean it.

[louis c]

12. At least the Dems heightened awareness on the issue

and got some promises on the record. Even if the Repukes renege, we have the video tape.

[Demsrule86]

26. That is what I think. We gave it our best shot at considerable risk as this is an election year and

it appears folks don't consider DACA worth shutting the government down for...which surprises me.

[Cha]

44. It's not over yet.. it was a strategic move

for now as is known. We'll see what happens in Feb

[Demsrule86]

49. It could work out...don't know. The GOP doesn't want to alienate the Latina community but they also

don't want to alienate the Trumpers.

[GulfCoast66]

65. They do not give a shit about that Latina community

They might have 5 years ago, but the are hostages to their base now cause they got nothing else. Why do you think so many are retiring?

Hate to tell you, but the house is not passing DACA as long as republicans control it.

We might as well find a way to make that clear to our base and the American People. Then work to win the house so we can enact DACA.

[bigbrother05]

19. The Dems proved they could and would shut it down for a principle

Yes, they could have avoided a weekend shutdown. With that minimal act, they served notice that they would stand up and got Mitch on record re: DACA. Now they can't hold CHIP over our heads or talk about not supporting the troops after he squashed the Dems proposing paying the military and survivors.

No one that is awake believes anything he says, so on in just over 2 weeks we'll come to the McConnell Shutdown and we've got video to prove it. If they go nuclear, everything from that point onward will belong only to the GOP and once we sweep them out in Nov, we'll have the 50% + 1 option working for us.

[Cha]

45. Thank you, bigbro

[Demsrule86]

27. That included the wall money and the military so we have no cards in four weeks and we are closer to

deportation.

[Sophia4]

17. It starts at the state level. If a DUers governor and stage legislature are Republican,

the DUer needs to volunteer to change that.

Democrats don't have the money the Koch brothers and other right-wing Republicans have to stage propaganda wars against rational thought and good ideas, so we as individuals have to donate our time and effort, walk from door to door, organize a Democratic Club, stand up for what is right with your friends, talk to people, etc.

California, Reagan's home state, now has a Democratic legislature and governor. The change can be made, but it takes real work. Democrats in other states have not done that work.

We see how things can change from what happened in the Senate election in Alabama.

Let's see that happen in Michigan and Pennsylvania, Ohio, Iowa, Indiana and Minnesota to say nothing of Florida, Georgia and Mississippi.

Everywhere. It's a matter of getting organized and working hard.

[Demsrule86]

28. You should make this a stand alone thread...it is that good and on point.

[True Blue American]

35. I do not think Democrats lost

They have funding for CHIPS for 6 years for a measly 3 week extensions.

Republicans lost that bargaining chip,and if Mitch refuses to bring up DACA as he publicly promised
he will be shown for the liar he is.

Trump is already useless. Congress is trying hard to get things done with out him. This may turn the useless Congress around. Mitch is not going to last much longer.

[Demsrule86]

24. Any Democrat should receive a 'lifetime appointment' unless a better Democrat comes along who can

win a primary and a general. the alternative is a Republican. And until we start understanding that hold their feet to the fire bullshit causes us to lose elections, we will continue to lose. Imagine a world where Gore won...or Obama didn't lose the House in 10 Thus neutering him for six years. He stopped most of the GOP shit...but couldn't get any progressive policy...imagine if we got off our asses and voted in 14...Merrick Garland would be a justice and the Trump asshat choice would not. We have to recognize that Democrats are our only chance to stop Republicans.

[angrychair]

33. In principle I dont disagree

With the caveat that complacency breeds apathy. I think we should recognize when we need a changing of the guard and be willing to do it. I’m not saying we replace for the sake of replacing but there comes a certain point in which it becomes obvious there isn’t any fight in them and it become a revolving door of lobbyists and autopilot voting that is more focused on keeping the money flowing than actual benefit to citizens. Always Democrats!

[Demsrule86]

37. I would settle for a little apathy and winning personally.

I also value experience in the Senate and House. But I have no issue with people in a state wanting a change...I get very angry when outside groups take it upon themselves to fund primary challenges as in the Tim Ryan Ohio situation or our revolution in West Virginia...who fielded a candidate who would surely lose in a race that is already difficult. In both cases, we could lose the seat in a year when we desperately need to retake the House and the Senate.

[Kilgore]

61. Thats how we achieved a fossilized leadership

https://www.cnn.com/2017/10/10/politics/democrats-age-problem/index.html

Washington (CNN)The young blood in the Democratic Party is (still) waiting for its moment.

Democratic leaders across both the legislative and executive branches are generally older than leadership on the other side of the aisle, leading to some restlessness among the lower ranks who have been patiently awaiting their turn at the top.
The most recent blow to those hoping to climb the ranks? Dianne Feinstein, 84, the oldest senator currently serving in the chamber, just announced a bid for re-election to the seat she's held for two and a half decades.

[maxrandb]

32. Sorry but that's a fantasy

We need to stop "trimming our trees" and start taking an axe to the Retrumplican tree.

Call me crazy, but I think it's the Retrumplicans that need to fear us... not the Dems

[angrychair]

43. I disagree

If the last year has only done one thing it’s shown us that there are a lot of good, intelligent and inspiring young Democrats out there who are willing and able to serve, we only have to give them the opportunity.
We have members that are great people but they’ve locked in a position, from Congress to city council, and served in that position, without challenge, in some cases for decades.

[alarimer]

3. The problem is that the Rs cannot be trusted.

They WILL renege on this deal. And then what?

[OnDoutside]

8. Then rather than "the moral high ground", Democrats will be on firmer ground in shutting down the

Government next time, and they can use that in ad after ad showing that Republicans can't govern and can't be trusted to govern, especially in purple states.

[Demsrule86]

25. We are no worse off...consider this. The GOP will never support DACA not matter what. Now what can w

we do about that. Bring it back in two or three weeks hoping to hurt the Gop...that is about it.

[maxrandb]

34. Well, we could start by

Devoting just half of the energy we use to hold Dems accountable, to holding Retrumplicans accountable.

The Cleveland Browns suck, we should take all their draft picks away!!!

[Demsrule86]

38. Stop just stop...no bashing the Cleveland Browns damn it. Haven't they been abused

enough? I still love you Cleveland!

[alarimer]

39. How do we hold the Rs accountable, though?

We don't vote for them, so it's not like they will lose OUR votes. And clearly they care only about the people that DO vote for them and, mostly, the people that contribute to their campaigns, who are their real constituents.

I think this type of "caving" (it remains to be seen whether this was smart strategy, but maybe it was) has the potential to depress turnout, but the election is far enough off it may not matter.

There is a time limit on Dreamers. Sometime in March, I think, they will start to lose their protections and likely start to be deported. Now, maybe this will make Trump and company even more unpopular, and be good for Ds politically, but I'd rather not screw with people's lives that way. Once they are gone, they are unlikely to be able to return.

[maxrandb]

41. Vote them the hell out of office

And then salt the racist fields that produced them

[SWBTATTReg]

4. Great post...and I agree...

The only way you can advance and deal w/ issues of contention is with more of us in Congress (progressives, independents, democrats), because republicans are seriously not interested in providing balanced and fair laws, and are only beholden to a tiny group (leaving a very large majority in the dirt).

We need to stick together and work together as one. We need to vote as one.

We all know that there will be issues that we disagree amongst ourselves on, and thus, will discuss among ourselves on how to handle.

We must never lose that laser focus on recapturing Congress and other state houses from the traitorous republicans, who can only win by conspiracy w/ a foreign government and/or buying those seats with a seriously flawed tax bill that they themselves, the repugs admitted, was for their donors.

[Demit]

5. I agree with you. Dems made the best of a bad situation, also got something out of it.

I was pissed when I first learned they had seemingly capitulated, then I read explanations from people who know a hell of a lot more than I do, and was persuaded we did all right, considering. The story isn't over, it's more of a to be cont'd thing.

[OnDoutside]

6. Fantastic points, thank you.

[apnu]

10. "electing more Democrats" HAS to be at the local and state level first.

Because of Republican gerrymandering in the past decade.

The local playing field is not fair for democracy. The only way to change that is to elect more Democrats locally, be involved locally, and change the local politics and state politics from within.

We spend a lot of time on DU talking about Federal level issue and pols, but its the lock down on the states that keeps the Republicans in power. Break that and things will actually change.

[BobTheSubgenius]

11. One tiny quibble...

"...not being able to get anything accomplished" could easily be "not being able to get everything accomplished"

A great reminder of the meaning behind the old Bismarck quote: "Politics is the art of the possible."

[louis c]

13. Politics may be the art of the possible

But three is never going to be greater than four no matter how many times you vote.

[Sophia4]

20. Democrats are in the majority, but aren't pushed to vote.

It's up to those who care about these isssues to get other out to vote. Democrats haven't been doing that well enough.

Gerrymandering should be a big issue in coming elections.

Democrats need to WORK to get voters to the polls. When Democrats lose, it's because Democrats are lazy.

[Delmette2.0]

14. My plan is this.

My city is usually votes democrats so does my precinct. So I am going to work with my Democrat County Central Committee and find a R precinct and work for their Democratic candidate.

My state legislature needs more Dems and this is how I can help.

Also my state needs a Dem rep in DC. So I'll help out our nominee.

[Sophia4]

21. Good plan!

[Demsrule86]

30. Great idea. I usually do something similar. But since my guy Tim Ryan is facing a primary opponent

which was foisted on us by out of staters , I have to work on his campaign. We could lose the seat...thanks Move on and others for nothing.

[Delmette2.0]

42. Take care of your own district first.

Few of us have a solid Democrat incumbent and can spare the time and energy for another district. I am lucky to be retired and pissed off.

[Demsrule86]

50. Got to...usually Tim is elected easily but Trump took Trumbull county narrowly but still he did it.

Where I live we went for Hillary and people I see out and about don't like Trump...but this primary is just stupid. We could lose the seat. I have given to Move on for years and I cut them off...supposed to help us.

[Sophia4]

15. The problem is that I'm from California.

If our votes in presidential elections counted as much as the votes of people from the so-called "swing states," then Hillary would be president. If we had equitable representation in the Senate, the entire political situation would be much better.

So, from California, I say, "It's not fair."

California votes resoundingly Democratic. What more can we do?

It's the Democrats in other states -- all of you, who are responsible for this mess.

We in California do all we can.

[louis c]

18. I'm from Massachusetts, so it's not much different

We have two great Senators and 9 great congress men and women.

I usually go up to New Hampshire and Maine in presidential election years to knock on doors. We phone bank at the union hall into competitive districts around the country. I send a couple of hundred dollars to Democratic candidates in important elections, like Jones in Alabama and Northam in Virginia.

So, there are some things that you can do. Nevada and Arizona are always competitive in Presidential election years. I'm sure the AFL-CIO has phone banks for the targeted Republican held Congressional districts in your state so you can call in or canvass in them. And everybody accepts checks, if you can afford to donate.

[Demsrule86]

31. It is not fair. I wish there was a way out of this mess.

[Demsrule86]

22. +10000

DU REC.

[spicysista]

29. Great post!

I've been really quiet because this is a complicated issue. I'm not sure what people thought would happen given that the democrats control nothing.
I absolutely feel the pain of DACA and other immigrants with questionable legal status. The fact that they live in fear is something that should trouble anyone into action. They, however, are not the only community suffering in real daily fear. As a military family, a black woman who votes like her life depends upon it, and the mother of 3 black boys and 1 amazing little girl, I feel troubled at the level of discourse aimed toward our own.
People of color and immigrants represent an out sized portion of our military and federal workers. These people can relate to the immigrant community because we often live/work/interact with them daily.
I live in a military community. My neighbors to the left of me, directly across the street from me, and immediately behind me are or are married to immigrants. They are from Japan, Puerto Rico, and Ghana. I have no idea what their politics are. I do know that we were all uncertain about getting paid.
Let's not allow them to pit community of color against community of color. There are many urgent issues going on in the country. Millions of children now have healthcare. My husband and those like him currently deployed can rest assured that their families are, at least for the next few weeks, okay. All we can really do is elect more democrats.
All this talk of challenging democrats from the left......just.....stop. Please. Trying to replace Joe Manchin with a "bluer "dem will only result in the loss of a blue seat.
Be outraged! Righteous anger can be very useful. Direct it at the people that control everything. Not the folks without power. Vote! Vote blue and don't fall for the distractions. Stay as focused as those on the right. They are the enemies of progress! Let's fight for DACA together!

[MaryMagdaline]

36. Shutting down the government is a worse tactic for Dems

It is our constituents who are hurt the most when there is a shutdown. Progressives are pissed, yes, but federal employees, parents of kids on Medicaid and Chips, are not. We had to remove at least some of the hostages (kids on CHIPS) before we continue warfare.

[procon]

40. Nope. Dems knew how a shutdown eventually break, but they gambled anyway.

The Senate Dems wrestled a minor concession from McConnell, who was happy to give them more than enough rope to hang the whole damn Party. The Senate Dems are experience pros, but any neophyte who reads the news knows that the Senate has no authority over the House. They have no deal to pass anything!

This whole thing will go to instant replay in a couple of weeks, but since the Dems have already blown their wad, they have no more options left. We'll be lucky if the Republicans don't force them to sign away the farm and their first borns.

[louis c]

47. You make my point

The minority is powerless and if we criticize them for not being able to accomplish the impossible, we'll keep them that way.

[Cha]

46. Mahalo, louis.. interesting, encouraging,

personal account of what it means to be a Democrat.

Unfortunately for too many.. it's all about them.. they don't care about the big picture like the Planet, the Supreme Court, or all the other progressive issues that President Obama implemented to make our world a better place.. and trump is destroying.

[mcar]

48. This!

[Ohiogal]

51. A Republican relative

Recently was bitching to me recently about a school levy on the ballot in their next election.

Said she was tired of hearing people say "it's for the common good."

"I hate that phrase!" she said.

I just stared. Then I said, "other people voted for school levies when WE were in school, so WE could have a good education."

"Well, yeah, I suppose...." she said. Then changed the subject.

They are all so selfish. All they worry about is money and gripe that they pay too much in taxes. Never satisfied with what they have.

Sheesh, I drive an 11 year old car, live in a house built in 1950's, and don't buy new clothes very often, but if I can help kids in my district have better schools, I'm all in for any levy they put on the ballot. I just don't get their mind set. It's all about me, me, me, and what do I get out of it.

[Weed Man]

53. Only one quote comes to mind.

[Progressive dog]

56. That makes sense to me, nt

[KG]

68. just think of all that dry powder!

[yallerdawg]

69. For the most part, we are all liberal progressives who vote for the Democrat.

The difference is mostly in supporting incremental pragmatism or hopeful idealism.

We should always remember where we are going is more important than how we get there, regardless of which camp prevails.

[louis c]

70. "For the msot part"...well, there were just enough

anti-Hillary progressives who voted for Jill Stein to hand our country over to a dictator.

[lapucelle]

76. I'm a Democrat who works and votes for Democrats.

And in my spare time, I sometimes post on Democratic Underground

[saidsimplesimon]

78. louis,

Please, notify the DNC. " If we didn't learn that lesson in 2016, we all deserve what we get."

It saddens me that the argument becomes those who did not support your candidate are responsible. Give US a candidate free of baggage.

[louis c]

87. Wow, you still don't get it

If we have a primary and your candidate doesn't get nominated, yet you vote third party and let the Repukes win, you're to blame. Period.

In 2008, I donated to Hillary in the primary, made calls and knocked on doors for her.

When Obama beat us, I worked just as hard, with just as much enthusiasm for him as I did for her.

You see, I know what a binary choice is. I know every Democrat will get attacked in the General by the real political enemy. Remember "pals around with terrorists"?

If you're a Democrat, you're a Democrat all the time.

[mcar]

94. Yes!