General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums
Progressives storm Democratic primaries
Veteran blue-state incumbents are hitting unexpected turbulence this year.
By LAURA NAHMIAS and LAUREN DEZENSKI 02/11/2018 05:30 PM EST
Progressive insurgents are launching challenges to Democratic members of Congress in some of the country’s bluest districts, sparked by deep frustration with the party establishment and anti-Trump anger.
Most of the challengers are long shots at the moment. But some are putting a scare into entrenched incumbents, thanks to their muscular fundraising and a message of liberal disaffection on issues including Wall Street, criminal justice reform and single-payer health care.
Six veteran incumbents already face energetic primary challenges from younger candidates in New York and Massachusetts. In Illinois, two Chicago-based members are being targeted from the left.
“I think Donald Trump getting elected president is part of it — the old institutional political knowledge we had about the way things works clearly just doesn’t work. And now people are knocking down the door,” said Bill Hyers, a political consultant and campaign strategist for New York Mayor Bill de Blasio and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand. “There’s a new energy and excitement out there in a new way, and it's palpable.”
more
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/11/democratic-primaries-2018-progressives-402096?lo=ap_f1
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)of the current situation, and perhaps putting our seats in jeopardy?
I'm all for running against GOPers. Not for bashing/wounding good Democrats in a critical election, not that anyone can or should keep these so-called "progressives" from running. But as the last elections demonstrates -- it doesn't always work out to our benefit.
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)I'm not sure the basis for questioning their politics. Aren't we all supposed to get along? Should we question the politics of the incumbents too? Maybe we shouldn't allow primaries against incumbents?
I don't really understand this distrust of the primary system. It was designed to get away from the "smoke filled room" but there seems to be a desire to return to that and we all just jump on the band wagon.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)this time.
Eliot Rosewater
(31,121 posts)I would more OPENLY discuss it here but I dont DARE.
redstatebluegirl
(12,265 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Demsrule86
(68,643 posts)Hortensis
(58,785 posts)staying with those sorts after the primaries. Let's never forget that 90% of those who supported Sanders in the primary moved smoothly to supporting Hillary, their second but real choice. And some of those others later on voted for her.
We need to try to counter the negative messaging to maximize those decisions and to help some new to politics realize that they really do still have good choices even if their first does not become the nominee.
We can do that by discussing good candidates and agendas here, not by engaging in really stupid back-and-forths with radicals who cannot be reached.
lagomorph777
(30,613 posts)Thanks to thumbs on the scale.
It wouldn't have been close enough to steal, had the other primary candidate become the nominee. Polls made that clear for a year.
oasis
(49,401 posts)
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Now we have trump, who reneged on trade agreeements and imposed tariffs.
emulatorloo
(44,175 posts)campaign manager who should never have been allowed anywhere near a national campaign.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)to try to see if they could get him nominated and to help him damage Hillary.
They had a massive trove of things with which to attack Sanders if he had somehow gotten the nomination.
And thumbs on a scale? Please, she beat Sanders by 4 million votes. The only thumbs were 4 million more voters.
R B Garr
(16,975 posts)The "thumbs on the scale" description is really just sour grapes. More people voted for the Democrat.
And, of course, we can't really talk about what those other "polls" actually said from a realistic and equitable POV, so that's all conjecture.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)No fair!!
R B Garr
(16,975 posts)not a conspiracy...
lagomorph777
(30,613 posts)I had this awful dream that Trump had taken the Electoral College.
The EC is exactly why there's an important difference between a 3-point lead and a 13-point lead in the polls.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Last edited Tue Feb 13, 2018, 04:17 PM - Edit history (1)
in those swing states - then you might have a point about her not doing enough for the votes....
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-election/swing-state-margins/
https://www.thenation.com/article/wisconsins-voter-id-law-suppressed-200000-votes-trump-won-by-23000/
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/12/12/the-real-voting-scandal-of-2016
And there's still doubt that she did lose the Michigan EC.
https://medium.com/nick_sharp/what-i-saw-at-the-michigan-recount-7c46fdc87243
R B Garr
(16,975 posts)the DNC “thumbs on the scale”, so your response about the electoral college isn’t relevant.
Trump got lots of illegitimate help, though. It’s all over the news now — proven fact. It would be great if you were more concerned about that.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Because the Democratic candidate won the votes, despite so many things that doom a member of a party that has had the oval office for 8 years.
No one would have done better.
George II
(67,782 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)(crickets)...
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)all ready to launch against the person I suspect was your favored candidate. You probably imagine that, because the American people had not formed opinions based on the kind of "information" they thought they had on the other candidate, he had an advantage.
Completely wrong. That candidate was a blank canvas on which professional swiftboaters could have drawn any picture they chose to swamp the nation with. Halfway into the general, half of America would have been bumfuzzled that this person wasn't in prison.
If anything, most propagandists thought the mainstream candidate had an advantage in that all America already believed they knew her, whether for or against. What swiftboaters could accomplish against long-formed opinions was limited.
Just something to think about.
Weed Man
(304 posts)This is why we are not quite united on this.
Understand establishment Democrats has had no ideas, lost over 1,000 seats nationwide, and have no plans, while the progressives have been winning (yes, winning) seats because of new ideas, new concepts, and new paths to things that we need.
Hillary is no progressive. She is a confessed Third Way Dem, which needs to leave the Democratic Party, forever.
In addition, we have been lurching to the RIGHT all my life (I'm 41), and instead of being Republican Lite, maybe we should head way back to the left, and give ideas similar to FDR ideas.
What can't hurt? We have nothing to lose by TRYING - instead of telling us, "Oh, that'll bring Republicans in" - YOU DONT KNOW UNLESS YOU TRY!
The progressives thanks you, and the people of the United States thanks you when you TRY, not give same old tired ideas that doesn't work and hasn't worked for over 30 years.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Last edited Tue Feb 13, 2018, 04:06 PM - Edit history (1)
She also happens to work well with other people, and can get things that she talks about done.
Those seem to be undervalued traits in progressives, but without them, what use is a politician, no matter how progressive?
Progressive politics requires more than generating sound bytes and memes, it requires being effective at the 90% of job that is not "inspiring."
Some of us, apparently the majority of us, understand that, and are even inspired by it.
DOTUS was very "inspiring" to those who were tired of "establishment," whatever that means to them.
Proud Liberal Dem
(24,436 posts)just the strategy thereof in some races, like with Chelsea Manning and her long shot run against an incumbent Democratic US Senator in Maryland(?)
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)Something is up in Maryland.
Proud Liberal Dem
(24,436 posts)I assumed that Cardin was running again.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)
brooklynite
(94,713 posts)Erik Jetmir (D) - Attorney
Chelsea Manning (D) - Convicted Spy & Dishonorably Discharged Army Veteran
Mia Mason (D) - National Guard Soldier, Army/Navy Veteran & Transgender Rights Activist
Jerome Segal (D) - College Professor & Peace Activist
Rikki Vaughan (D) - Restaurant Owner & Felon
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Sophia4
(3,515 posts)Demsrule86
(68,643 posts)and time going after sitting Democrats instead of trying to unseat Republicans...which could endanger the seat...I keep an eye on this sort of thing...and any who engage in this practice are banned from any sort of effort from me ...both monetarily and timewise. These folks are dead to me.
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)Cause ya know the rules around here after all.
One has to consider for a moment how and why an incumbent might get a serious challenge before jumping to conclusions.
Demsrule86
(68,643 posts)be endangered. Move On is primarying Tim Ryan...if this person wins, we lose the seat. It is that simple
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)I can barely detect he has any primary challengers. One is a perennial challenger that loses every time, and the other barely registers yet. I can't find any evidence of Move On support, even at the Move On site.
Demsrule86
(68,643 posts)But I have seen nothing either...maybe they backed down. Hope so. I was enraged when I saw that.
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)I couldn't find any article or posting indicating that they were backing anyone.
Demsrule86
(68,643 posts)offer cooperation...which he has done...think it was the tax cut. Of course he didn't vote for it and Ohioans hate it.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Candidates are chosen by majorities. At least in the Democratic party.
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)But there seems a desire to get rid of primaries and just have a "leading candidate" with no contest.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)I'm not talking about this thread - I'm talking actual primaries where the candidate wasn't the choice of the people, where there was a "smoke filled room" that put their thumb on the scale so that the actual peoples choice didn't get the nomination.
There's a difference between saying "it's happening" and actually being specific about actual incidences.
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)And the general POV that primaries are bad.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Because a discussion of candidates here on DU is not = to "returning to the smoke filled room" where nefarious evil doers put their "thumb on the scale" and thwart the candidate of the people...
If that's happening, other than in accusations here on DU, give us an example.
Response to ehrnst (Reply #173)
Post removed
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)You haven't answered that other than "one in PA...." which isn't really an answer.
What candidates were "the Obamas and Clintons" trying to steer donors away from?
Which GOP convert are you referring to, and which primary?
And how is this different if other candidates than the ones you mention attempt to get donors to back them?
Are other PACs, like "Our Revolution" do this, equally corrupt in your eyes as Clinton and Obama are?
Or is it just Democratic PACs who are wrong when they attempt to sway donors and back candidates, with the intent "to advance candidates and avoid any real competition."
George II
(67,782 posts)
Orsino
(37,428 posts)A slide into fascism was always going to produce a backlash, and for now more candidates is better. All incumbents need to be focused on achieving good things for us as soon as it becomes possible.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)One of the targeted Democrats mentioned in the article is Dan Lipinski. Make your own assessment of him, based on some highlights from his Wikipedia bio:
* refused to endorse Obama in 2012
* voted for a nationwide 20-week abortion ban
* opposed marriage equality
* voted against the Affordable Care Act
* voted against giving undocumented immigrants in-state tuition, educational benefits, welfare and health care services
* voted for PATRIOT Act re-authorization and extension
I'd say he's pretty much the poster boy for being a bad Democrat.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Demsrule86
(68,643 posts)the house in a year where we face a gerrymander still and desperately need to take the House to stop Trump. These folks cost us in 16 and are still at it apparently...they never learn.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)The argument I've seen ad infinitum is that, if everyone who voted for Jill Stein had voted for Hillary Clinton, then Clinton would have become President. Now we're discussing people who follow the Bernie Sanders approach of running in the Democratic primary and disdaining minor-party politics. That's what they should do.
There seems to be a large body of opinion on DU that progressives shouldn't run in primaries because that divides the party, and they shouldn't run in the general election because that splits the vote on the left and lets a Republican win with a mere plurality. This amounts to saying that anyone who's to the left of Clinton should just STFU and go along with policies they consider too conservative. Well, that just isn't going to happen.
If the Democratic Party establishment goes all-out to make progressives feel unwelcome, then some of those progressives will become so frustrated that they'll vote Green or stay home. That's the path the party can take to leave the House in Republican hands.
Look, if Dan Lipinski is your ideal of a Democratic Congressmember, you're free to support him. Many of us, however, think that district could do a lot better.
Demsrule86
(68,643 posts)be going after GOP held seats in a time when we have no power and desperately need to take the House. We face a gerrymander still and need to win overwhelmingly which will cost big money...it is a waste to spend money on primaries at the moment for a sitting Democrat and any that engage in this activity can expect no support from me...not for their candidates in later primaries or one single penny. We need to take on the GOP not fellow Democrats. This is not the time.
GulfCoast66
(11,949 posts)We elect our leaders.
Why not rephrase your comment - if progressives keep losing primary and party votes to democrats we progressives do not like, then some of those progressive will become so frustrated that they’ll vote Green or stay home.
That more accurately sums up the situation we find ourselves in as s party.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)There were, of course, such sore losers among Hillary Clinton's backers in 2008 -- more, in fact, than among Bernie Sanders's backers in 2016.
What I'm saying is that people are more likely to come together, post-primary, if there's a general feeling that the contest was conducted fairly and that what unites us is more important than what divides us. If there's enough vitriolic abuse of progressives just because they dare even to run in a primary, then the rate of general-election defection will be higher.
As for the term "establishment", well, the fact is that there's disagreement within the Democratic Party, which creates a need for shorthand terms to refer to it. In this thread we're talking about incumbent elected Democrats, so I think it's reasonable, and neutral, to call them the establishment Democrats. There's a case to be made for calling many of them DINOs or conservatives or R-Lite, or even corporate whores, but I personally think those terms are unhelpful (as are "purists" and whatnot for the other faction). I sometimes say "conservaDems" because, even if they're not conservative on the national scale, they're more conservative than are many other Democrats.
GulfCoast66
(11,949 posts)Last edited Tue Feb 13, 2018, 12:49 AM - Edit history (1)
All that DINO shit is why self described progressives will continue losing in party elections and primaries.
They want to have the power to define who is a real Democrat and who is fake. And that definition is based strictly on their beliefs.
You do not hear moderates impugning the character of progressives strictly for their political belief.
And a group that refers to their fellow party members as whores are not looking to join a team. They are looking for a purge.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)My view is that there's substantive disagreement within our ranks, which is normal and healthy, but that some elements on each side occasionally resort to name-calling and vitriol, which is counterproductive.
I said that "DINO" and "Hillbot" and the like were terms that people shouldn't use. You're not disagreeing with that -- at least, you're not disagreeing about "DINO" and other accusation flung from the left of the party toward the (comparative) right. You don't disclose your opinion about the insults that go the other way.
Maybe that's because you think that phenomenon doesn't even exist, because all the wrongdoing is on the part of the other side, and never by the people you agree with. You write, "You do not hear moderates impugning the character of progressives strictly for their political belief."
If you don't hear that, it's because you don't want to hear it. For a while, in 2016, my sig line was a juicy collection of such insults. Bernie supporters were bedbugs, cultists, terrible human beings, that sort of thing. You can find some milder examples right here in this thread.
R B Garr
(16,975 posts)that negates your attack. When you have to put this much effort into attacking other Democrats instead of Republicans, that also negates this attack. That's why the "so-called" moniker is accurate. No real progressive would tolerate putting a Republican in office, so let's not smear real progressives. That is the work of the Naderites and Sarandonites. Now we have Trump. 
ieoeja2
(10 posts)It is almost unheard of for the party to oppose an incumbent. But this is one of those rare times.
When his dad won the primary for re-election then withdrew said establishment put his son in his place even though his son lived out of state at the time. Everyone rolled their eyes, but dutifully elected Jr. He then betrayed the party at every turn. It took several cycles, but even the establishment finally said enough is enough and sought out an opponent.
BoneyardDem
(1,202 posts)If the Democratic Party establishment goes all-out to make progressives feel unwelcome, then some of those progressives will become so frustrated that they'll vote Green or stay home. That's the path the party can take to leave the House in Republican hands.
They already did that...didn't they learn any lessons from that method of lesson teaching? And it goes to your post upthread that for those that ended up voting for Stein etc, yes, they did help lose valuable electoral votes.
brooklynite
(94,713 posts)...no incumbent Democrat will actually be in any trouble.
saidsimplesimon
(7,888 posts)Low blow, unbecoming a gentle man like yourself. We are in this together. imo
We shall all hang together, or we shall all hang. That rogue, Ben Franklin
Weed Man
(304 posts)Not 30-year veteran who are completely out of touch of today's needs or actions.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)other in the primary. We just went through that and it helped spawn the orange buffoon as prez. Lots of good that did us.
From other posts above, sounds like one of the incumbents is a poor Democrat, so let new blood have at him and the GOPers.
Weed Man
(304 posts)Not the same tired old crap. Now is the time to introduce new blood, not wait for establishment Dems to continue to lose.
Spare me the "But,.... the Republicans!" bullshit, because you have believed it for over 30 years.
I don't. I'm a young blood, and I am tired of the establishment Democrats because they have produced nothing in my entire lifetime. it's time for something different, new ideas, and new concepts.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)BoneyardDem
(1,202 posts)...Dem votes that either sat home, voted for Stein or wrote in a name. We are now finding out most of it was hundreds of thousands of russian bots doing their utmost to create the division, with that same type of rhetoric, that was one of the causalities that gave Trump the Presidency.
and here you are, with a few likely and predictable posters yammering the same thing at the 11th hour. My resounding response is HELL NO!
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Since you are new to DU, and "young blood" you may want to learn a bit about Democrats accomplishments:
The ACA
Lilly Ledbetter equal pay act
Marriage equality
Protection of Planned Parenthood
Family and Medical Leave Act
Protecting NPR, PBS
SCOTUS judges that are holding the line on our basic rights (well, at least if you're not a white straight man...)
And many more.
Democrats define Progressive.
I hope that clarifies things for you. Enjoy your time here.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)Who was the very definition of NEW blood. Little time in Senate little time in national government period. Those were all his agenda not the Dems who have been there forever and more than half of them ran away from him in the midterms after that stuff was passed.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Last edited Wed Feb 14, 2018, 09:34 AM - Edit history (4)
IDEA, the federal law requiring the inclusion of children with disabilities in public schools. Hillary was not only involved in its reauthorization but served as a pioneer to pave the way for it in the first place.
And are you Weedman? Are you trying to tell me what has occurred in "his lifetime?"
There's some serious white straight non-disabled male privilege that can say Democrats have accomplished "nothing."
If he was born after 2000, then there has only been one Democratic president in his life...But he refuses to even acknowledge Obama...
And Pelosi had no role in the ACA? Because last I heard Congress and the Senate legislate, not the President. Have you heard differently?
What Democratic party are you talking about? Certainly not the one Democratic Underground is about.
Which Dems are you referring to who have "been there forever and more than half of them ran away after the midterms?"
I have no idea who you are talking about, and I doubt you do, either.
George II
(67,782 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)I doubt you will get an answer.
GulfCoast66
(11,949 posts)You do not know what the fuck you are even talking about.
Anything good in this country was brought about by Establishment Democrats because when America was kicking ass we were the establishment.
Safe work place
Voting rights
Weekends
Vacation pay
Sick pay
Reproduction rights.
I fucking give up. I could easily list over 100 things brought to you by the Establishment Democratic Party. But you whine for, I do not know... free weed and paying off your college debt?
Maybe you would be a better fit for another site. Some Pine for it.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)But easily ignored by a young white straight male who isn't disabled....
Privilege embodied.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Jon Svitavsky, 59, says he believes that Sanders’ “divisive” politics have fractured the Democratic Party nationally, and paved the way for the rise of Republican President Donald Trump.
http://digital.vpr.net/post/little-known-challengers-seek-unseat-bernie-sanders-2018#stream/0
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Since when is Rep. Mike Capuano not a progressive? Even his challenger says he is.
A number of the "progressives" mentioned are a part of the "truth to power" crowd.
Train wreck of a headline.
Here is another one they are claiming is being taken on by a "progressive".
http://www.ontheissues.org/NY/Joseph_Crowley.htm
Sophia4
(3,515 posts)That was a tragic mistake of devastating proportion. Any Democrat who voted for that war either has bad judgment, wasn't doing his or her job, is too easily intimidated or is corrupt. There was really no good reason for anyone who bothered to inform him- or herself to vote for war in Iraq other than that they were not doing their job. They were not asking the right questions. They were too easily swayed by the lies of the time.
No one who voted for the war in Iraq should still be serving in Congress. That is my opinion. We need members of Congress who will protect our nation from making mistakes like war in Iraq ever again.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)They are the worst of oppressors.
I have no issue with you thought on those who voted for the war. For the most part, I share them. That said, it has very little to do with anything here. Those running on an anti-Iraq war platform have little to go on.
My point stands. Train wreck of an article. Numerous progressives incumbents are mentioned. Just division.
Sophia4
(3,515 posts)We have lost so many statehouses, seats in Congress and the White House and are out in so many states. We need to be open to thinking about new people and new ideas. Where are they to come from if we close ourselves off from -- new people and new ideas?
Obviously, the people now heading the Democratic Party have not managed to win the majority in Congress, a lot of statehouses or even the presidency. That indicates there is a serious problem in the Democratic Party. We should have been able to overcome any Russian interference. The Russians played on the divisions already in the American voting population. We should be able to unite Americans behind our vision of equality, justice and the prosperity that comes when a country is taking care of its own.
George II
(67,782 posts)..."lost" the presidency - millions more voted for the Democrat than the republican. We're gaining local seats, too. It won't happen overnight but I think many of those who want to put down the Democratic Party because of seats we lost a few years ago are going to be very surprised (disappointed?) come November.
And how can you say "the people now heading the Democratic Party have not managed to win the majority in Congress, a lot of statehouses or even the presidency" when most of that happened BEFORE the people who are now heading the Democratic Party took over?
R B Garr
(16,975 posts)about Democrats. It is not helpful. "new people" "new ideas" "That indicates there is a serious problem in the Democratic party." This all sounds very familiar. This kind of misinformation is a losing strategy. It didn't work in 2016 and really needs to be scraped. None of your analysis matches the current and actual news cycles, especially about what the Russians played on. We know who the Russians targeted and why, so please let's stick to reality and not some losing 2016 strategies of divisiveness that match a limited audience from years ago now.
Sophia4
(3,515 posts)an officer. I have registered more voters than you would want to count.
We lost in 2016 because we were too rigid.
We lost to Donald Trump.
That's a really clear sign that we made a lot of mistakes.
So I can't agree that our 2016 campaign was anything near perfect.
I am very sorry if what I am saying hurts your feelings, but so many mistakes were made during the 2016 campaign, that I don't know how to answer your post.
Our Democratic Party is still split, divided -- with good Democrats on both sides of that division.
It is time to heal, and time to admit that mistakes were made in the 2016 election.
I have no idea who you are and do not want to hurt your feelings. But when we lose, we have to ask ourselves what mistakes did we make. That is especially true when we lose to someone like Donald Trump.
Sorry if my posts offend you. I just am expressing my opinion. If the 2016 Hillary campaign had been really well managed and run, Hillary would have won.
R B Garr
(16,975 posts)I do remember this tactic, though. Make it personal so that will negate the lack of facts or substance in your message. The actual facts and history don’t match what you are trying to sell here. That message and those negative messages didn’t sell and really need to be scrapped.
I’m sure you’ve heard of the Bernie or Busters. Those folks had a national campaign to deny Hillary the White House. They didn’t vote for Hillary...did you?? If you didn’t vote for Hillary and are again spreading a message about how divided and forlorn Democrats are, it really doesn’t ring true. Correct me if I’m wrong, but you’ve shared that you refused to vote for Hillary...?
You can’t pin on Democrats the intentional decision to vote for third party propaganda. It’s all over the news what happened with the Russian propaganda targeting Hillary. Those were not mistakes Democrats made. It’s absurd and disingenuous to blame Democrats for the malicious attacks from others.
Sophia4
(3,515 posts)A lot of Democratic seats have been lost since 2010.
When a Party loses so many seats and the presidency and state houses, it's time for a mighty comprehensive period of self-criticism and analysis.
We lost so much, not just in 2016, but over recent years.
It is very obvious that Democrats are making huge mistakes, not correctly judging voters' needs and wants and fears, not being willing to criticize themselves and correct the mistakes that Democrats are making.
Bernie or Bust was a symptom of what is wrong in the Democratic Party. Hillary could have addressed the concerns of Bernie or Bust. She didn't. A lot of Democratic candidates did not address those concerns. What about student loans. Biden supported a bill that eliminated the possibility of easily declaring bankruptcy on those loans I believe. Correct me if I am wrong about that. It was passed, I think maybe in 2005. And then single payer healthcare. I fully support that. It can take many forms and resemble Obamacare in many ways, but it would include everyone and the money would be taken out of paychecks. It's not necessarily government insurance. I lived in four countries that had it, and each country had a slightly different system but everyone was insured, and you could choose your doctor. At one point, I changed my primary care doctor every few months until I found the right one.
Democrats should have taken the Bernie movement as a challenge to which they should have responded. They could have unified the Party. But the Democratic Party leadership gleefully turned the Bernie movement into a bete noir and divided the Party. When you are in charge, you are responsible when things go wrong. The minority, which we are told at least and I have to believe, was the Bernie faction at maybe 44% in the primaries, something like that (I don't know the percentage). Once Hillary was nominated, she was in charge. It was up to her as the person in charge to reach out to Bernie supporters. Have we seen much indication that the leadership of the Democratic Party takes responsibility for its inability to welcome Bernie supporters back into the Party? It's about time that happen because if the Party leadership does not act on that split in the Party, it's going to be hard to win elections in the future.
The list of problems in the Democratic Party goes on and on.
Again, I'm sorry if you take this personally. But when there are so many losses at so many levels, when we have almost no say really in Congress or the White House, when so many governors and state legislatures to say nothing of the courts are Republican, not Democratic, we should admit to ourselves that we have lots too often and ask ourselves important questions.
Who do our representatives, our elected officials, really represent? That is the first, most important question.
Do the people we represent feel or believe that we represent them well?
Do they feel we represent their interests, their beliefs, their wishes?
What and who are we representing if not a majority of voters large enough to win important elections like the presidency?
Why do people feel that our candidates don't represent them or won't represent them and their interests?
There are so many fundamental questions that we need to answer before 2020.
Looks like a blue wave this year. I hope so. But we have to keep it up. The demographics and history are on our side. But maybe we in the Democratic Party have been and are doing something wrong.
Maybe it was the Russians, but if we had really huge majorities, the Russians would not be able to interfere successfully.
And here in California, I must say, when I mention the fact that my vote doesn't really count in presidential elections because of the electoral college, Democrats have no interest in changing that. So if Democrats don't care about my vote in the presidential election, what do Democrats really care about?
They don't seem to care about working people. What is the proposal of the Democratic Party for addressing employment at will and the willy-nilly firing of people for no cause in the workplaces in huge companies? What do Democrats do to represent working people who lose their jobs to artificial intelligence and new technologies? What do Democrats do to represent working people who lose their jobs because foreign products are cheaper?
The Democratic Party loses so many elections because of its internal problems.
I am reminded of the three-year-old who thinks that if she puts her hands over her ears, she won't have to go to bed on time because she won't hear her mother call her to take a bath. That's about where the leadership of the Democratic Party is at this point. Don't remind them that a failure to address the problems of voters might be behind the decline in the Party's success in elections like 2016 and preceding years.
We need to be self-critical. We need to be willing to change our Party and ourselves.
R B Garr
(16,975 posts)then you should accept that he lost and it's time to move on from that loss. I wonder if you would abide your own analogy about three-year-olds holding up their hands over their ears. I'm so sorry that hurts your feelings or makes you feel devastated, but it's best to deal with reality.
I've seen this exact same screed numerous times -- especially from 2015. Word for word, and I even recognize the writing. If you didn't vote for Hillary, then you helped to usher in Trump. Did you vote for Hillary...? You are confirming again that you didn't vote for her...? So anything you contribute about the status of the party is disingenuous. It's like the Naderites and Sarandonites who refuse to see that their own actions brought the Republicans and handed over power to them. Don't blame Democrats for the malicious actions of others.
It must be satisfying, though, to attack Democrats nonstop but insist that Bernie be excluded from the same treatment. None of what you write has been accomplished by any politician in Vermont, so it's time to just deal with reality from now on. I can't imagine spamming anti-Bernie things endlessly here, although there are many items regarding transparency, etc. that don't add up.
You are obviously trying to rewrite history about who divided the party and why and how they did that. How completely self-serving. Blaming Democrats for your own actions isn't a rational thing to do. That's the only fair analysis to how you are trying to blame Democrats for your own actions.
That's laughable how you think Bernie supporters need some kind of special treatment to be "welcomed back" to the party. Really??? This just gets more and more abstract and detached from reality. All you have to do is look at Trump and that should have you run screaming. That you insist on some special ceremonial return is truly absurd.
BTW, this sounds priestly...amirite?? 
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Priestly.
On another note, it’s interesting that some of the posters at JPR admitted admitted they *never* voted for a Democrat. If you don’t vote for Democrats, well....
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)But if you need a reason to bash Democrats, you'll use anything to "validate" your anger. "They haven't won as many elections as they should - they are failing, and didn't listen to the people I thought they should listen to....."
What is it that Democrats have done that causes you such anger? It comes out all over the place, despite long wordy backhanded posts.
If, as you keep saying, losing is an indication people wanted your opponent to win (even if you got more votes...), why would anyone who lost, especially to Hillary, run again?
I haven't heard you explain that.
lunamagica
(9,967 posts)BoneyardDem
(1,202 posts)how about voting for people who did not vote for the war but voted to fund the war?
IMHO opinion purists have little to offer the world of reality politics.
mcar
(42,372 posts)Cherry picking issues to vote against Democrats...
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)People who vote for someone who votes for funding for the war, votes to fund known wasted military projects, and votes against a pathway to citizenship for millions..... They aren't too pure for that.
Then again, not all of those mentioned in the article voted for the Iraq war. It's just what they will go to in their attempt to kick progressives out of office. It's the mind-set these articles are tailored to.
Sophia4
(3,515 posts)is that Democrats have been losing too many seats, the presidency, state houses and governorships, right down to the local contests.
Losing an election is a message from the electorate that the voters prefer the opposing candidate. It's a tough message to deal with if you are the loser. And all too often in recent years, Democrats have been the losers.
So we will either change, which means opening ourselves to new ideas and new candidates, or we will continue to lose.
As I said, any Democrat in Congress who was fool enough to fall for the propaganda that sold the Iraq War, whether to fund it or to begin it, probably does not have the judgment or courage to represent the American people well. So they should be challenged and defeated in the next election. And as someone mentioned that goes for members of our Party who don't have the courage to stand tall on other moral issues, issues of justice for all, issues like public education, like healthcare for all, like a fair tax system that insures that our government is adequately funded and that the fruits of prosperity are shared by all while we prepare for the inevitable economic slow-downs, the recessions that are a part of our system.
Standing up for what is right is not "purity." It isn't something to be ridiculed. It is the duty, the responsibility of politicians to stand up for right.
If a politician is confused about what he or she thinks is right, or if the politician cannot communicate to voters the vision of right, of justice, equality, respect for our fellow human beings, reverence and love for the environment, etc. then that politician should be voted out of office. It would be great if all sitting Democrats had the ability to know, to stand up for and to communicate the great Democratic vision of equality, justice and prosperity that is shared, but whether they do or not should be decided by the voters. And that is the purpose of the challenge, of the primary. A politician who is not up to the competition of a primary should quit and give the job to someone who is up to it.
That applies within the Democratic Party as well as outside of it.
It's the politicians now occupying seats, now representing the Party, who are responsible for making sure Democrats are in the majority and that what they do appeals to voters. They have not succeeded in accomplishing that goal.
Let's get far more Democrats in office than we have now. If it takes challenges to the Democrats already in office, so be it. The point is to have a lively, meaningful discussion during primaries and during the campaigns preceding elections. Let's have this discussion about values and issues. Let's drop the word "purity." Jefferson, Madison and Adams might have argued about it, but they argued more about the issues. We should be doing that now. Primaries are good. If the winner unites the Party after the primaries, then that is the answer. It is up to the winner to reach out to the losers to reunite the Party after a primary.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)Why do these new progressives insist on building their skyscraper from the penthouse downward?
BoneyardDem
(1,202 posts)I'm suspect of the motives of anyone that appears to be undermining good solid Dems and thereby handing another Presidency to the TRumpublicans. Remember they and the Russians are working over time to undermine our Democracy and Democratic Party on several fronts. This was one aspect that worked well for them in 2016.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)I'll bet dollars to donuts that list of targeted Dems and the list of Dems who didn't bow to kiss Bernie's ring are 100% identical...
BoneyardDem
(1,202 posts)mcar
(42,372 posts)
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)People supported different candidates in the 2016 cycle. Why is it so hard for some zealots to recognize honest disagreement? There's absolutely no call for translating support or endorsement for any candidate into "bowing to kiss the candidate's ring". It's the same mindset that led some of Bernie's more unhinged supporters to use the term "Hillbot". It's the idea that my position is so obviously right that no sensible person could be on the other side.
In 2016, Tulsi Gabbard, one of the few members of Congress who endorsed Bernie, was targeted for a primary challenge. There were threads on DU celebrating this challenge, posting links for donating to the challenger, and generally slagging Tulsi. Was that because she didn't "bow to kiss Hillary's ring"?
Incidentally, here are some words of wisdom from Gabbard's challenger, Shay Chan Hodges:
My contest is a perfect example. The current office-holder ran uncontested in the last primary election. Without opposition in this year’s primary, she would have been up against one of two unknown Republicans and a nonpartisan candidate in the general in a district that has always elected Democrats. Thus, had I not filed as a candidate, she would already be our de facto congresswoman-elect. (Source)
Finally, as to your bogus "100%" statistic: The overwhelming majority of the superdelegates supported Clinton. Anyone who wants to challenge an incumbent Senator, Congressmember, or Governor in a Democratic primary is pretty much bound to be challenging a Clinton supporter. My guess is that there are plenty of progressive Democrats who disappointed many of their admirers by endorsing Clinton, but who won't be primaried.
LuvLoogie
(7,022 posts)No one had to kiss her ring. She earned the nomination.
Demsrule86
(68,643 posts)Response to Demsrule86 (Reply #115)
Post removed
R B Garr
(16,975 posts)Clinton getting more votes in 2016 and not some DNC conspiracy. More people voted for the Democrat.
We know who was considered "Good" and who was considered "Evil", so no need to try and muddy up the waters now with this distortion.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)R B Garr
(16,975 posts)the inconsistencies are rather amusing.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)lunamagica
(9,967 posts)
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)
Sid
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)R B Garr
(16,975 posts)NurseJackie
(42,862 posts) Eliot Rosewater
(31,121 posts)Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)A progressive activist lives in a district represented by a Democrat who, in the activist's opinion, is too conservative. The activist could:
(1) challenge the incumbent in the Democratic primary;
(2) challenge the incumbent in the general election, as the Green Party nominee or as an independent;
(3) uproot entirely and carpetbag into a district where he or she has no community ties and no base of support; or
(4) just STFU because some people on DU are hostile to his or her political views.
Option (3), which you impliedly tout, is absurd. Option (2), at the presidential level, helped get us Bush and the Iraq War.
I can't escape the suspicion that people who decry the use of option (1) are really thinking that everyone who disagrees with them should fall back on option (4).
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)Don't you know your GOP playbook?
FIRST you secure a strong congressional majority, and THEN you systematically purge out the moderates you clearly despise so much...
You cannot conduct a purge when you're not the party in power and the national media narrative dictates that the party is already so rife with infighting it cannot even attack Donnie with a unified message... It's almost like trying to build a skyscraper from the penthouse down, right?
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)A primary challenge to an incumbent Democrat (as opposed to a red seat) is very bad... except when it isn't.
When the subject was a primary in a district with a PVI of D+19 -- about as far away from a red seat as one can get -- someone posted that "Tulsi Gabbard needs to be primaried".
Evidently your account was hacked or your password stolen?
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)And Tulsi is in bed with Assad, she's tweeted homophobic stuff, and is a general purpose all-around nutbar... Oh, but if you want to try making some case as to why she's a 'GOOD' Dem who is working FOR the party instead of trying to FUCK IT UP, be my guest... You want to defend Chelsea Manning for Senate, be my guest... You want to try defending the so-called Justice Dems, by all means have a go...
I give you extra credit for digging up my past posts, though... That's something 99.9% of my haters are too lazy to do. So I hope to our Lord God that every one of your 10,000 posts here is consistent with your current position without the slightest deviation because I know how to use the search function too, smart guy.
So for now, let's meet in the middle and say not all primaries are good or bad; their merits must be judged on a case-by-case basis...
Egnever
(21,506 posts)if you are unhappy with your rep as a democrat you should run in another district?
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)Besides, if you unseat the Dem but the GOP still has majority, what's gained??
Egnever
(21,506 posts)You seem to be saying anyone who beats an incumbent in a primary is destined to lose in the general?
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)but it has happened, I've seen it firsthand locally
Sophia4
(3,515 posts)Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)BoneyardDem
(1,202 posts)seriously? what a bunch of hogwash. In 2016 the winning candidate Trump, did so with the help of Stein, Bernie Bros, Russian bots, Comey and the mysoginistic assholes that now are Trump's butt-lickers. The win came after millions of advances pieces of lies and misinformation and I suspect we will one day find out, also at the mis-counting of ballots.
There is a revolution movement/web site somewhere just waiting for good little foot soldiers who want to tear the Democratic Party down and who would like the rest of the nation to believe that Russia and the Republicans will wait patiently on the sidelines while the Democratic party rebuilds in the likeness of said purist. Did I mention that purists suck?
mcar
(42,372 posts)Eliot Rosewater
(31,121 posts)Makes me angry to read that someone on this board said THAT!
But I am not surprised, I know what is happening here. Thanks for pointing it out.
BoneyardDem
(1,202 posts)www.democraticunderground.com/100210219783#post24
Eliot Rosewater
(31,121 posts)Sophia4
(3,515 posts)that deals with all the issues you raised in your post.
It's up to the candidate to bring opposing parties with his or her Party together after a primary. That's the way democracy works.
The primary is a chance to listen, debate, discuss, oppose.
The ultimate campaign is the opportunity to resolve disputes, bring people together, assure dissenters and unite.
A good candidate does unite members of the Party.
The winner is supposed to do that. The loser of a primary does not have the ability, the authority or the responsibility for uniting the Party. That is the job of the winner.
Somehow, Trump appears to have united the Republicans -- at least for the moment. But Trump insults, is mean and nasty. That gives us Democrats an opportunity to reach out and show what it means for our country when we are embracing, inclusive, kind and caring. And all this talk about purity and those who did not vote for Hillary is very counterproductive.
I'm sorry to say that. But if we want to attract voters who did not vote for us in 2016, and we must if we are to win in 2018 and 2020, then we have to forget the bitterness and reach out and include people who did not vote in 2016 or who voted for other candidates in 2016.
All the talk about them v. us is counterproductive. It will not win elections. And excluding challengers from the primary process also will not win elections. We need candidates who are genuinely gracious and inclusive and bigger in their hearts than the differences between us. We need candidates who are truly moved by their dedication to our country and to finding what is best for our country. We need candidates who work well with other Democrats, and that means working well with people whose opinions are not always the same as the candidate him- or herself.
We need to be much more inclusive of people with various opinions.
I remember when I was in college. Being gay or lesbian, the terms used then, was something people hid. It was not acceptable. It was so difficult for those who simply were gay or lesbian. It would have been difficult for the Democratic Party at that time to speak out clearly in favor of equal rights for gays and lesbians. But a movement began, and over time, being gay or lesbian has become acceptable. Time and activism can change opinions and the law in our nation. Primary challenges and other manifestations of that difficult thing, disagreement, are a part of the growth of ideas and the spread of ideas in our country.
Saying others are purists, saying that new ideas or contrary ideas are not to be allowed or heard or ultimately accepted????? Let's leave that to the conservatives. Let's leave that attitude of exclusion and "don't interrupt me with your primary challenge" to the Republicans.
We are better than that. We are liberal. We accept new ideas, challenges and new people. Let's take the primary challenges as an opportunity to hear new ideas, to see if maybe they are good or bad. What other opportunity is there for a person who feels or believes that he or she would make a better representative or governor, or other person serving in public office to learn how to run a campaign, how to win, how to reach voters, what issues work and what don't?
Of course we need primary challengers. They foment the very excitement and love of country and our Party that keeps us alive.
This program to discourage primary challengers arises from fear and the desire to dominate at all costs. Let's be open and embracing and loving and what the Democratic Party stands for -- being liberal and learning new things.
I just don't understand the exclusivity at all.
I hope I do not personally offend anyone. But I feel very strongly that the Democratic Party should be and, when it has succeeded has been, the part of inclusion. We were the first Party to nominate and African-American for the presidency. He won. If we can do that, we can be the Party that is open to all kinds of new ideas -- to the future.
That is what we should aim for.
I am tired of being depressed and anxious because we lost in 2016. We have to breathe deeply and enjoy fighting our fight.
The Tea Party breathed new life into the Republican Party. Sadly. The Tea Party is a bunch of losers basically -- living in a world of their imagination that never existed and cannot exist. But they were a challenge and made the tired old, idea-free Republican Party seem alive. And a lot of voters, the majority in too many parts of the country, bought the lies of the Tea Party and are now voting for Republicans.
We need a movement that revitalizes our Party and our nation -- but in a positive way. And we won't have that movement unless we go with change. I'm not trying to say what direction the change should take. That's up to the majority of the voters. I'm just saying we should open ourselves and our Party up to new ideas, ideas we might think are too this direction or that, but that revitalize us.
Let's give it a try. Let's allow challenges in our primaries. Let's even encourage them. A few new ideas wouldn't hurt us at all.
BoneyardDem
(1,202 posts)R B Garr
(16,975 posts)what is being preached in that post. Refusing to vote for Hillary got us the exact opposite of what they now claim to be about. It’s very deceptive.
BoneyardDem
(1,202 posts)
StevieM
(10,500 posts)He was the most important factor, by far.
emulatorloo
(44,175 posts)You wrote:
“The reason that new candidates, new Democrats are challenging incumbent Democrats is that Democrats have been losing too many seats, the presidency, state houses and governorships, right down to the local contests.”
Incumbents obviously didn’t lose their seats, or they wouldn’t be incumbents.
I have no problems with primary challenges, however what you wrote isn’t a logical rationale.
Sophia4
(3,515 posts)others could win seats.
The incumbents are the core of the Party. And our Party has been losing elections, in great part because voters see the incumbents, hear what they have to say, see the candidates in their own areas, in their own elections and decide they don't want to vote for the party of the incumbents, don't want to vote for the Democrats running in their own areas.
The incumbents ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE OUTCOMES OF RACES FOR DEMOCRATS ACROSS THE NATION.
Republicans are aware of the link between the news reports of Republicans in general and the election outcomes.
Democratic incumbents are responsible for the outcomes of races other than their own. And maybe one of the reasons we Democrats are losing is that our incumbents don't always own up to their responsibility for the losses in neighboring districts, in neighboring states. That attitude of "we're the incumbents and that means we won and are right and good about everything" may be the problem, the reason we lose in other districts. It's exclusive. We need to be inclusive. Our incumbents need to take care of the voters in their districts, those who elected them, but they also need to take care of the nation and voters across the nation need to like our incumbents.
It's good to have a vibrant and exciting primary in an election. That's the opportunity for incumbents to show their energy, their excitement about what they stand for and why they should be elected. That's their opportunity to make a noise and get attention in the press. Primaries are opportunities and should be seen as opportunities. What's wrong with liking your opponent in a primary? What is wrong with making the primary an exciting way to get your name in the news and meet a challenge with love and understanding, with inclusion rather than anger?
When we try to shut down the discussion because, after all, we won last time, or we made some political deal within the Party, voters feel that smugness and just are not at all excited about voting.
Primaries are good things. They are an opportunity to revitalize the Party.
Putin gets re-elected over and over and over. We have terms. We have elections every two to four years. And our president is limited to two terms. Our system is organized to as to encourage change, new ideas, new people, new voices, new movements. We are not a monarchy. Just getting elected does not mean a lifelong gig. Challenge is the name of the game.
If we change our attitude as a Party toward challenges and genuinely being open to new candidates and new ideas, we will do much better.
We cannot afford to get stale.
Losing in a primary is not such a bad thing if you get your good ideas and spirit out there.
Sophia4
(3,515 posts)What I meant is that the incumbent Democrats have a responsibility for making sure the Party is open to new candidates, new ideas -- especially in some case, YOUNGER candidates and ideas.
If you are too old and tired to compete in a primary, then you are too old and tired to serve and you should encourage younger, more energetic people to run for office.
Those who get elected represent the Party. If they are closed off, self-satisfied and unwilling to compete with challengers in primaries, they create an image of closed off, self-satisfied and unwilling to compete -- for all Democrats in all districts across the nation.
Note what happened in Alabama. Doug Jones ran. His chances were dismal. He brought the right energy to the race. He won.
We can do that everywhere -- run unlikely candidates, create excitement in our primaries and then wait and see. Doug Jones happened to run against a candidate, Roy Moore, whose past came back to bite him. You never know. Sure there is a lot of money involved, but lively primaries help to create an image for a party that it has some life in it.
Always supporting the incumbent or even generally supporting incumbents can be good, but discouraging primary challengers makes a party look to staid, philosophically conservative in a strange way (in spite of stances on the issues) and boring. I repeat -- boring.
We need to be the Party of excitement, of new answers to the new challenges.
We aren't that exciting Party that meets new challenges with new ideas when we have this concept that incumbents should not be primaried.
I am not planning to primary anyone, but I think primaries and frequent elections serve the purpose of revitalizing the Party, and I am for them.
Incumbents may have won their election if you look at the issue narrowly. But the incumbents in our Party are also responsible for seeing to it that their Party wins the majority of seats in elections around them. That's not happening. And the incumbents who say "I've got mine." That is, those who say "but I won my seat. Ha. Ha." are precisely the problem in the Democratic Party. The incumbents pretty much run the Party and represent it, and it's their failure if their fellow Democrats don't get elected based on the record of the incumbents. People vote in part for the Party and if those representing the Party in office are not doing it well, people don't vote for that Party.
BoneyardDem
(1,202 posts)the Republican was a pedophile and he still garnered a huge percentage of votes. It should have been a 90%-10% blow out. Are you stating that it took a nomiker of repeated and verified pedophelia still didn't play into the loss and that we can count on this in every Republican stronghold? I think your perception of reality politics isn't reality.
Sophia4
(3,515 posts)But the fact remains that we had the newer candidate. It was Moore's past that caught up with him. We need to keep our Party relevant, young and energetic. Age is not always "old" and youth is not always "young," but in spirit we need to be the Party of energy, action and excitement.
Incumbents should not be just hauled out of their seats. But having challengers is good. It keeps incumbents on their toes.
Roy Moore was the perfect image of a stale, older candidate who had lots of skeletons in his closet, so to speak.
We don't have Roy Moore types in the Democratic Party in terms of courting girls half your age, but we can still have that image when we have incumbents in office who continue to serve, continue to get elected but no longer project the kind of energy that appeals to voters, especially young voters.
There is a time and a place for everything. Our Party is, in my opinion, in many cases, not project the image that is right for our time and place. For starts, our candidates need to be really good at dealing with the technology of our time. And a lot of them aren't. That is a turn-off for a lot of voters. Then there is the physical image. There is a time in life when you don't move as quickly, speak as quickly or think as quickly as is needed if you want to appeal to voters.
I think Roy Moore not only suffered from the fact of his past relationships or attempted relationships but also from the fact that he had so much history in other ways and that he was not good at responding to the allegations against him. He was like an incumbent because he was so well known to voters in his state.
Doug Jones was the challenger and a very exciting candidate. We shall see what happens in the next election because Alabama is a horribly conservative state. But Doug Jones was that face of the courageous challenger that we need at this time when we are basically out at ever national elected level.
BoneyardDem
(1,202 posts)Roy Moore almost won...the Republican are protecting their own with everything they have. That you think this can be repeated "everywhere" when other Republicans don't have near the baggage Moore had, is incredibly naive. This particular situation cannot be repeated. Each election will have it's own paradigms, gerrymandered districts and Russian bot assistance. And I shall simply go back to one of my statements:
There is a revolution movement/web site somewhere just waiting for good little foot soldiers who want to tear the Democratic Party down and who would like the rest of the nation to believe that Russia and the Republicans will wait patiently on the sidelines while the Democratic party rebuilds in the likeness of said purist. Did I mention that purists suck?
Too many at JPS, and those coming back to DU lauded the "lessons" the nation is learning under Trump. They want a repeat. Teach everyone a lesson until this temper tantrum group gets their way. As I'd said before, No thanks, been there, done that.
Sophia4
(3,515 posts)We need to focus on youth and the future.
That is why I favor the primary system.
Roy Moore and the conservative view on politics and life are about the past.
We are the party with solutions to the problems of the future, living in a world with a higher population, feeding and housing a larger population, employing a larger population in a world with all the new technology, providing for healthcare in that new world, dealing with climate change (we really fell it in California), balancing our budget but also balancing the needs of the poor with those of the rich, justice and equality for all people regardless of race, gender, gender preference, ability, physical capacity, age and geographical location, encouraging the use of new technology, all the challenges we face.
As we saw from the Republican tax bill, the Republican vision of the future is one of division, blindness to the challenges of the present much less the future, ignorance, sectarianism, a belief in a sort of magical religion that has nothing to do with solving the human problems that I think religion should deal with (from my reading of the New Testament), nurturing hate, racial and every other kind of discrimination possible rather than love and acceptance -- just a hodge-podge of attitudes and ideas that will push America backward not forward.
Democrats need to focus on the future. We need to be the masters and mistresses of the technologies and ideas that will make us successful in the future. We have to learn to work together in harmony, because Republicans thrive on disharmony. We need to be the Party of new ideas.
I am optimistic because I believe we can do this. And if we do it in a way that is enthusiastic and not mired in the depression we have about Trump and lost elections, we will win. Americans are adopting new technologies. We need to point out to our nation that adopting new energy technologies and responding to the future with optimism, realism and courage is what we need.
Rehashing lost elections and nursing hurt feelings is not at all what we need.
I have to be careful. I do not want to insult people or hurt feelings even more than they are but right now, we Democrats are facing a challenge. When I talk to my Democratic friends, it is all anger and hurt, but that does not solve problems and it does not win elections.
We are the party of the future. Let's never forget that. We (with a lot of help from FDR) rescued the country from the depression. We got off track when we became the party associated with a difficult war, a perhaps unwinnable war and then divided into factions that could not work together or forgive and move forward.
We have to join together with people with whom we may have had serious differences. We have to see what they saw in their direction and still maintain our own direction. People make mistakes. What one person sees as a good choice, another sees as a destructive choice. Sometimes it is very difficult to know the difference.
But right now, we have to forget the past and move into the future. Obama would do that.
And that is what we need to do now -- move into the future. We Democrats have the keys to opening the technological doors into the future. The country is waiting for us to do that. We have to let it know that our focus is on the future and the ways we can respond to the problems and opportunities of the future.
BoneyardDem
(1,202 posts)...this is what I see in every single on of your posts.
R B Garr
(16,975 posts)I saw your posts at JPR where you were musing that people should have voted for Jill Stein as the "peace" candidate. You've got to be kidding. Anyone with a modicum of discernment could see she was a fraud. Donald Trump is a con man, a fraud. Jill Stein has no problem with global murderous oligarchs, after all. Let's not vote for third party frauds. Let's not advocate for them. The Russians used this same maneuver to undermine our Democratic candidate, Hillary Clinton, so it is obviously a very recognizable and useful tactic for them. You should be advocating for Democrats by now. Who would still be criticizing Democrats now...Trump should have you run screaming.
What would be more useful is if you clearly stated the mistakes made in not voting for the Democrat and openly advocating for third party candidates. It's interesting that all your energy is focused only on voluminous critiques of Democrats.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)We saw that with the Tea Party.
BoneyardDem
(1,202 posts)Sophia4
(3,515 posts)The incumbents have a huge say in what happens in the Party.
They are the power of the Party.
And they are messing up badly. That is why Democrats don't get elected in so many elections. The incumbents are the image of the Party.
If the incumbents are boring, people don't get excited about voting for the Party.
And frankly, and I say this as an over 70 person myself, when you have Democrats in Congress who really look and sound old and tired, it is time for them to quit and bring in new Democrats who are young and energetic and who appear young and energetic to voters. We need a revitalized Party -- not the same old, same old.
Don't mean any personal offense, but we have been losing, losing elections and losing more elections. At the moment things look good.
But we need to get away from the tired old image that we have had in recent years and get the image of capable, intelligent, ENERGETIC problem-solvers.
It is time for some of our older incumbents to give way for younger candidates.
That's the reality as I see it.
I know what it is to be perfectly healthy but speak and remember more slowly, have trouble getting out of a chair, etc. We need candidates who project strength, positive energy, aliveness -- like Obama did when he first ran. Many of our incumbents no longer do that. The incumbents create the image of the Party. We need to think about that. Some of our icons need to be primaried in my opinion. Age is not the only test. Having new ideas that contrast with those of Republicans is also important.
BoneyardDem
(1,202 posts)from a group where their non-establishment leader lost by millions of votes...the words by a group then went on the try and teach everyone a lesson by helping to install Trump in the Whitehouse. No thank you...that process failed the USA miserably. And yet here you are attempting a repeat.
George II
(67,782 posts)Sophia4
(3,515 posts)technology and especially knowledge of ourselves as human beings and the immense capacity we have to live together in peace in the future if we focus on solving problems together.
We need to be the Party that encourages the creativity of the individual but also a focus on the future and the wonderful possibilities of the future.
We need to ridicule the Republican motto of Make America Great Again, not directly but by utterly focusing on the greatness of American that lies ahead. Obama did that with his statement about moving forward.
No more focus on the 2016 election. Let's focus on the future that American has and our inherent promise to the American people to insure that America's future is productive, good, harmonious and healthy.
Instead of talking about gun legislation, let's talk about Americans learning to live in harmony and peace with each other at home, in the workplace and in society in general. When we focus on that, move closer to that ideal, then owning or not owning guns will be less of a problem.
Turn each issue into a positive one about the future.
Republicans cannot do that because they are conservatives and are offended by the idea that in addition to being strong individuals, we must have a strong society. In addition to being creative individuals, we need to work together to be a creative society. We need to show the absurdity of this crazy Ayn Rand philosophy. Societies actually thrive when there is a balance between individualism and social unity. That's what being a Democrat is about.
We will revive ourselves from the negativity of thinking about the 2016 loss by focusing on the future and how we can win in 2018 and 2020. Just keep thinking about what we have to offer the nation in coming elections.
We have the answers for our country. We are the future of our country. So we should be very positive going into the coming elections.
George II
(67,782 posts)"any Democrat in Congress who was fool enough to fall for the propaganda that sold the Iraq War, whether to fund it or to begin it, probably does not have the judgment or courage to represent the American people well. So they should be challenged and defeated in the next election."
and....
"If a member of Congress voted for the Iraq War, that member should not be re-elected"
That vote took place about 16 years ago, dwelling on that now is "focusing on the future"?
George II
(67,782 posts)On the one hand you say "The reason that new candidates, new Democrats are challenging incumbent Democrats is that Democrats have been losing too many seats, the presidency, state houses and governorships, right down to the local contests."
If they're "incumbent" then they obviously have NOT lost their seats! So why are you advocating "new Democrats" challenging incumbent Democrats if what you're concerned about is losing seats? The incumbents have clearly demonstrated that they are / were capable of winning and retaining their seats.
Shouldn't the emphasis be on running against republican incumbents first? Remember, Democrats in office won their elections, and where republicans are in office the Democrat lost. THOSE are the seats we should be targetting.
Sophia4
(3,515 posts)We should target seats of Republicans.
But if in an area with Democratic incumbents, someone wants to run in the primary against the incumbent, in my view that is great.
We are supposed to be a democracy. Our election system allows us to change with the times. If voters want to elect a candidate who is not an incumbent, great. That's what democracy is about.
No one should EVER, EVER, EVER discourage anyone from running for office. Primaries are an important part of what our democratic system is about. It is good for incumbents whether Republican or Democratic to know they will have to answer to voters for their decisions, their votes, their policies in the primaries.
Democrats have lost seats at all levels of government. It may be time for renewal. I loved Barbara Boxer. I think I voted for her in her first Senate election if I remember correctly. But it was time for a new voice, and Kamala Harris is great. I would like to see several people challenge Dianne Feinstein this year. I think Feinstein would probably win, but it would be a good opportunity for voters to see new, potential future candidates in a primary, and it would be a good experience for them to run. Besides, Feinstein needs to face a challenge and learn the truth from voters about what they think of her performance in office.
Elected officials and other government workers are the employees of the people. They should be challenged to answer for their votes and decisions frequently. That's what primaries are for.
Primaries are an important part of the democratic process.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)You think that would have been positive?
Please explain.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)You keep saying this.
When have Democrats not done this?
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)That applies to those outside the Democratic party as well as those inside it, and not just in general elections. Right?
Which politicians are those? Would that blame extend to Senators appointed by party leaders for outreach?
Democrats do this. Who are you talking about?
(crickets...)
lapucelle
(18,307 posts)that the voters prefer the opposing candidate."
Losing the popular vote is a message from the voters. Losing the electoral college is a message about the system.
The preference of the voters was quite clear in 2016.
Sophia4
(3,515 posts)California voted overwhelmingly for Hillary. But that did not make any difference.
Get rid of the electoral college. It is an anachronism.
R B Garr
(16,975 posts)Quit hiding behind California to justify intentional actions that ultimately resulted in Trump being in office. The same JD name is also at JPR, and it’s just shameful to see your support for Jill Stein also. 
That is exactly the type of divisiveness that needs to be shunned now. There’s no excuse for it anymore. Support Democrats.
Sophia4
(3,515 posts)But is we want to have a strong Democratic Party, we need to advocate for inclusion.
People supported candidates other than Hillary for their reasons.
I'm in California. How I voted makes no difference. It made no difference at the time.
I wish that those who are so keen to address the divisions in the Democratic Party by worsening them would spend their energy addressing the problem of the electoral college.
Hillary did not lose because of the Bernie Bros. Hillary lost because of the electoral college which deprived so many of her voters of a meaningful vote.
California voted overwhelmingly for Hillary. How I or other voters voted in California is irrelevant since California's margin for Hillary was utterly invisible in the final tally at the electoral college.
The Democratic Party used to be the party of the big tent. Where is that tent now that we need unity?
I see so much disparagement here of people who vote their conscience but did not vote as the majority here voted in 2016. It seems that many here enjoy the dissonance, the fighting and conflict within the Democratic Party.
Why? Why encourage excluding people who did not vote for Hillary? How does that build unity and strength and a big enough majority to overcome Russian interference and Republicans like Trump in the future?
Trump is a horrible president, but many, many Americans especially in states like Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan, former Democratic strongholds when unions were strong, did not come out to vote for Hillary. And that is why she lost. We in California are not to blame for Hillary's loss no matter how we voted.
It's those Democrat who voted for Trump or did not vote in the key states who are responsible for Trump.
I do not want to offend you or anyone on DU. Clearly, you voted for Hillary and did not vote for Trump. But, if you didn't live in California, you knew your vote would count. I personally urged people living in swing or uncertain states to vote for Hillary. Had they followed my advice (for which I got into a lot of trouble on another website), Hillary would have won.
But the lesson that must be learned is that we have to be unified as Democrats if we are to win in the future -- and that means listening to and working with people we don't agree with on every issue or every personality. It also means giving Californians an equal vote in presidential elections with the people in tiny, mostly conservative states like Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, etc.
Many of the Bernie Bros who are so detested here are very young. They are, like it or not, going to be a decisive voice, the decisive votes in future elections. Many, many of them registered in California as not declaring a party (our version of Independent), so Democrats need to win them over. Unwillingness to walk that extra mile and convince them to join with Democrats is the challenge the Democratic Party faces now and for the foreseeable future.
Will we Democrats meet that challenge?
R B Garr
(16,975 posts)multiple paragraphs of absolute denial. JDPriestly from JPR also lived in the exact same places in Europe that you did — amazing!
You would be more believable if you posted about the devastatingly bad decision it was to advocate openly against voting for Hillary. Your posts about her were truly vile. It only took 75,000 people nationwide to fall for the anti-Hillary/Democrats are the same as Republicans manifestos.
Nothing you write matches the current news. Russia targeted Bernie supporters to turn against Hillary. You should at least tailor your self-serving revisions to match what is actually happening in real time.
Blaming Democrats for the intentional actions of a few is shameful, but very transparent. You should own up to your actions and talk about how you are appalled to have Trump in the White House. I have to laugh at some of your JPR posts about him, though. You are so fair and understanding.
Sophia4
(3,515 posts)My daughter formed a club and invited all her friends to join except that one little girl whom she maliciously and intentionally excluded.
She announced the formation of her club at the dinner table.
I made sure I did not laugh, frown or make eye contact with her. And then I waited.
Sure enough, the little girl my daughter had excluded formed her own club and excluded my daughter.
And my daughter learned one of life's most painful lessons.
When you exclude others, you eventually get excluded. It's true on many issues -- race, wealth -- and voting preferences.
The essence of democracy is that each voter votes his or her conscience. Sometimes it means voting for someone you really don't like because the alternative is worse. And sometimes it means taking a stand and voting for an alternative candidate. The latter choice is especially appropriate when you know that the candidate you don't feel you can vote for is going to win anyway.
Hillary won by a large margin in California. My vote did not count. If you want to change the outcome of future elections so that a Hillary or someone like her can win, campaign to get rid of the electoral college which empowers states with right-wing majorities to overrule the majority of voters in the country. (I may be wrong but I think that happened in 2000 too.)
I know it is difficult to get past bitterness. It takes a wide soul to do that. But the Democratic Party needs wide souls who can forget their anger right now.
If DU wants me to leave, I'm sure I will be asked to leave. But we shall see.
R B Garr
(16,975 posts)duplicitous as your other analogies and rather inane, sorry. I'm sorry to say that it doesn't sound right to claim to be open-minded and magnanimous and then provide examples of children acting petty. You claim to be inclusive, but then show how you are perfectly capable of exclusionary and divisive behavior yourself. Very self-serving.
Your posts about Hillary were beyond vile, truly disgusting. For someone who claims to be a moral authority, the nastiness and dishonesty in them reveal a lot about character. I just find it interesting that the slim minority of holdouts who helped usher in Trump claim to be all about character and "taking a stand". It seems the right thing to do would be to go to fellow Democrats and just admit your misjudgments and mistakes. But instead you demonize Democrats more. We've seen this show before.
Everyone doesn't like the electoral college, so that's just another excuse.
It would be great if you posted a manifesto about your mistakes in judgment and how much you hate Trump instead of how deficient Democrats are. THANKs.
Sophia4
(3,515 posts)to equality in voting for president, then Democrats can complain about our voting.
California went strongly and decisively for Hillary. But our big margin for Hillary that put her over the top in terms of the popular vote (along maybe with some voters in other states) did not allow her to make it to the White House.
Dissension and disagreement are a part of the political process in a democracy.
We do not have to disagree about everything in order to be basically, profoundly on the same side politically.
We may even on occasion disagree about a particular candidate, but we are still in the same party and on the same side.
To exclude others because they did not agree with you about the candidate in a PAST ELECTION which is over and gone and will not be repeated is to make the political future and growth of your political party impossible.
Many people did not like Hillary. Are Democrats wanting to exclude all of them from the discourse, from the political conversation?
Because if so, that predicts a very dark and dismal future for the Democratic Party.
I know how it hurts to lose a political campaign. I was very, very active in the Kerry campaign as well as in the Obama campaigns and prior campaigns including those of Bill Clinton. When Kerry lost, I was devastated as were those who worked on that campaign with me. But we sought to include those who maybe supported another candidate. I also remember the loss of Howard Dean in the primary.
Losing is a part of politics. We cannot blame others who agree with us on most issues or maybe even all issues when our candidate loses or when one of the Democratic candidates loses.
Miring oneself in bitterness and hatred against those who mostly agree with us but did not vote for a candidate we really cared for is self-defeating in politics. It just does not work.
I sympathize with your hurt and even with your anger. But this is politics. Losing is a part of it. And allowing others to vote as their consciences and understanding demands is also part of it.
Shutting the door of DU to people who did not vote for Hillary may seem like a good idea. It may make Hillary supporters feel really good. But it will not build a strong Democratic base.
I did not vote for Trump. But what if I had? And what if I had and now regretted it. Would that mean that I could not join DU? That's absurd. We want people who voted for Trump to become Democrats and vote for our candidates. It's our job to select candidates that people will vote for. If different points of view within the Democratic broad group are excluded completely just because in one election they didn't vote as you or others on DU did, then how in the world are people who are Democrats but didn't vote for Hillary to communicate with those who did and heal the hurt and the anger about the lost election?
I will not ask you to step into the shoes of others. That may just be too much.
But please understand that setting up a Hillary club that no one else is allowed to join on DU is not going to lead to a strong Democratic Party.
I'm sorry that you are so hurt about Hillary's loss. The solution is to get rid of the electoral college, not to blame people in California who, knowing Hillary would win (you have no idea how Democratic California is after the Republicans nearly bankrupted us) did not vote for her but followed their conscience to vote for another candidate.
There are lots of people in California who did not vote for Hillary even though they were Democrats. And they did that knowing that Hillary would win anyway. I have urged everyone in swing states to vote for Hillary, and as I said, on another website, I got into trouble for that.
R B Garr
(16,975 posts)that you actively took part in campaigning for third party candidates to deny Hillary the White House, so don't hide behind California to pass off your very intentional goal. What's really clear in your posts is that you are unfazed by Trump in the White House, so how does that square with the duplicitous claims of progressivism. That's the type of duplicity that needs to exposed and explained. Hillary in the White House would not have led to what we are experiencing now as a nation, and for you to hold on to some outdated manifestos when the current news contradicts you, everything contradicts you, but you continue to blame Democrats for something that you intentionally decided to partake in. How lame, and how completely self-serving.
Hiding behind California and now more petty name-calling "Hillary club" and other just complete inanities is just more excuse making. You are the one who is throwing stones and forcing people to accept your excuses as if you were incapable of stopping yourself from making decisions that were meant to influence people against Hillary. You continue to get more and more abstract with each excuse. It's very noticeable.
But let's face it -- this isn't just about Hillary. You were posting anti-Biden screeds, as well when you rejoined. "Many people did not like Hlllary." Yet more people did not like Bernie. That's the reality, but I don't get to post copious paragraphs and paragraphs about how many more people didn't like Bernie. The reality is that your own intentional actions of constantly denigrating her also contributed to people turning against her (“you” also meaning the anti-Hillary brigade—the Russian’s targeted that type). It only took 75,000 gullible people nationally. I bet your constant anti-Hillary posts were not just because you disliked her. There was probably more to it than that...
It's going on years ago that Bernie lost. You should take your own advice and move on. But this isn't really about moving on since you are back attacking Democrats and ignoring current news and events. Hence the duplicity...
edit: OH, and your sentence:
"When Democrats dare to stand up for the right of Californians
to equality in voting for president, then Democrats can complain about our voting." So now it's California's fault that you refused to support the Democrat?? The excuses are really far-fetched. What does that even mean?? California is supposed to single-handedly change the electoral system and then you will vote for Democrats?? What? It's really strange.
seaglass
(8,173 posts)if you were an eligible voter.
From Skinner:
"The price of admission to DU after this election is your vote for Hillary Clinton (or your support for her if you are not eligible to vote in the United States). If you are able to vote, but you can't bring yourself to vote for Hillary, then I'm not particularly interested in listening to your bullshit for the next four-to-eight years. I don't care if you live in the bluest of blue states or the reddest of red states, if you are looking for excuses to vote for Jill Stein or Gary Johnson or god forbid Donald Fucking Trump, then this isn't the place for you. Fortunately for you, there are plenty of other places on the Internet where you can get your Hillary-hate on, and some of them are even filled with former DU members. "
I despise "conscience" voters whose egos are more important than the lives of their fellow citizens. As if anyone agrees with any candidate 100%
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Jon Svitavsky, 59, says he believes that Sanders’ “divisive” politics have fractured the Democratic Party nationally, and paved the way for the rise of Republican President Donald Trump.
http://digital.vpr.net/post/little-known-challengers-seek-unseat-bernie-sanders-2018#stream/0
Demsrule86
(68,643 posts)Democrats so I certainly do not agree.
lapucelle
(18,307 posts)Pandering to the gun lobby's corporate interests is a line in the sand.
brooklynite
(94,713 posts)....who kept us in Iraq throughout his 8 years in office?
I'd hate to think your hard and fast principles came with exceptions.
Sophia4
(3,515 posts)who voted to get us into that war should not be re-elected is that voting to get the US into war is easy, but look at Afghanistan. Few would question that getting into Afghanistan to get Al Qaeda that attacked us out was perhaps justified. But we are still there.
Someone, I don't care who, who votes to involve us in a war in a foreign country, a war that cannot be won and that will cost many lives with no reason for the war, no weapons of mass destruction, no reason, has poor judgment. It's just the truth.
War is a horrible thing. We should do everything we can to live in peace in the world.
And that is the kind of president I want. A person who knows how to make peace in a way that helps everyone involved in a conflict. A conflict-resolver, not a conflict-aggravater. That's who I want as my president.
lapucelle
(18,307 posts)Sophia4
(3,515 posts)FarCenter
(19,429 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts) 
LAS14
(13,783 posts)mcar
(42,372 posts)We've already got the NYT flogging the "Dems in disarray!!11" meme on the front page today.
Why don't these progressives run against Republicans. They are the enemy.
Sophia4
(3,515 posts)first. If a member of Congress voted for the Iraq War, that member should not be re-elected. That mistake showed poor judgment and an unwillingness to think independently about what is best for America.
mcar
(42,372 posts)They can campaign, perhaps in a primary with other Democrats, to take on a sitting Republican - you know, the people who are destroying this country right now?
Primarying a sitting Democrat, unless that person is grossly unfit, makes absolutely no sense right now.
Vote for Democrats!
Squinch
(50,993 posts)That is so useful! Thank you Nance!
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)Classic click-bait headline. It's good that more people are becoming passionately involved, some of this way, and of course they'll try to get their choices among Democrats elected in the primaries.
After, for those few szealots who can't support whichever Democrats head into the general, though,
anything else those do will be helping elect Republicans and keep power in their hands.
True progressives, capital P or otherwise, do not elect Republicans.
Gothmog
(145,496 posts)I never heard of the sanders supporter running in the Texas US senate primary before.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)maybe in 6 years the candidate won't be quite so obscure.
But if that faction tries to trip the Democrat who's lapping them in the next lane to prevent a Democrat from winning, they are NOT progressives of any kind and observers really need to figure out just what they are. And stay the hell away.
BlueDog22
(366 posts)We have to stop the infighting in the party. The Progressives, the Moderates and the Centrists in the Democratic Party have to stop this shit, and work together to beat the GOP. That's the only way we can get a 50 state strategy that can give us a majority this time around, and retake at least one branch of Congress.
The other thing we need to do is cut down on the talk and take action. We spend too much time talking and complaining, and not enough time doing.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)Until people have the good sense to adopt this strategy, however, there will continue to be intra-party disagreements, and primaries will be the principal mechanism for resolving them.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)the gas chambers, which is where the Nazis promptly sent them.
How long will it be before the left most part of any electorate learns this lesson?
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)My point was that people who say "stop the infighting" usually mean that the other side should stop fighting. Thus, the goal of unity is being used as a bludgeon in intraparty battles.
Analogies to parliamentary systems are weak if they don't take account of our system of partisan primaries. The way we reconcile the goal of unity with the goal of resolving legitimate internal disagreements is that we have a primary to deal with the disagreements, then (except in unusual circumstances) unite behind the winner.
That's why, in 2016, Bernie endorsed and campaigned for Hillary. That's why, if Bernie had been the nominee, Hillary would have done the same for him. The goal of unity does not require that all primary battles be denounced as "infighting" that must be ruthlessly suppressed.
MineralMan
(146,325 posts)and general election in November. Then, we'll have some idea of whether we're ready to embrace this "energetic" movement. We shall see, that's for sure.
pbmus
(12,422 posts)I understand the difference between Joe and Chuck and Dick and Elizabeth. And I can appreciate the varied constituencies they represent and reasons for voting one way or another.
I simply want to get rid of rubber stamp politicians who vote for the oligarchs, lobbyists, and corporations........
Demsrule86
(68,643 posts)Moveone will get nothing from me...I will give my money to the group fighting gerrymandering and Democrats.
mvd
(65,180 posts)Blue districts especially. Single payer, cutting out the corporate influence in politics, the $15 miinimum wage, strong pro-environment policies, civil rights and liberties, etc. should be good selling points if we have the right messenger.
aikoaiko
(34,183 posts)Little risk of losing the seat.
seaglass
(8,173 posts)intentionally.
Now personally I wouldn't have a problem with Stephen Lynch being replaced by someone more progressive, he is the most conservative on choice of the MA Reps but he is not my Rep and I am not that familiar with the makeup of his district, so I'll leave that to his constituents.
I LOVE Mike Capuano and it is a fucking joke that someone is running against him who states outright that there are no policy differences.
OK, lastly - my rep, Niki Tsongas' seat is open - why are they not focusing efforts here?
Eliot Rosewater
(31,121 posts)BlueDog22
(366 posts)And this kind of internal squabbling needs to be saved for going against the GOP. We need unity here.
jalan48
(13,881 posts)Demsrule86
(68,643 posts)Democrats...these people are not on our side...I believe they want Democrats to lose.
jalan48
(13,881 posts)Demsrule86
(68,643 posts)jalan48
(13,881 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)and being smart about how to get policies as close to you want enacted.
jalan48
(13,881 posts)down, "We know best" politics.
R B Garr
(16,975 posts)calling each other corrupt?? I don’t call that robust.
jalan48
(13,881 posts)Hortensis
(58,785 posts)Every primary Democrats vote for the candidate they want. Anything else is a scurrilous lie.
Where it gets dishonest is if hostile conservative and third-party voters are encouraged to use open primaries to try to defeat the choice of the majority of Democrats.
I'm sure you agree that when 20-40+% of a Democratic candidate's primary voters in conservative precincts admit they voted to promote the weaker Democrat and have no intention of voting for either Democratic candidate in the general (as has happened!) we have a problem.
That's why state Democratic parties in a number of states are now working to close primaries.
jalan48
(13,881 posts)Hortensis
(58,785 posts)How about TWO or more responsible, honest, worthy candidates, all inspiring those who support them and all sincerely asking their voters to support the winner of the primary and to go on to remove the corrupt, destructive Banana Republicans from power?
jalan48
(13,881 posts)Hortensis
(58,785 posts)that's what American needs from us.
And then maybe do one of these: 
And perhaps one of these: 
jalan48
(13,881 posts)I think it's healthy.
StevieM
(10,500 posts)In order to get single payer health care they would have to challenge Democrats in purple districts. They are the ones who are refusing to support the policies that the left want.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)The linked article notes that Joe Crowley, a machine politician from New York, has long opposed single payer. Now he has his first primary challenger in 15 years, from a candidate who supports single payer. Lo and behold, a month after her announcement, Crowley signed on as a co-sponsor to a Medicare For All bill.
Winning one race won't get us single payer. You're right that winning every race mentioned in the article won't get us single payer. But there's no one election that will do it. It's going to be a long slog, district by district and state by state. We need to persuade Democrats like Crowley to change their minds (or at least their votes), we need to replace intransigent conservaDems with progressives, and we need to oust Republicans.
We won't get single payer without a Democratic majority in the House, but even then we won't get it if too many of the nominal Democrats are voting against it.
StevieM
(10,500 posts)You need to win support from Democrats in Scranton, Akron, Charlotte, LaCrosse, WI and the suburbs of Denver. And not just the Democrats who hold those seats but the Dems running in GOP-held districts.
These Democrats are following the lead of their constituents. Right now the support isn't there. That will change as older voters leave the voter rolls and are replaced by younger, more liberal voters.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)We need, among other things, 218 votes in the House. With Crowley's switch we're one vote closer.
Crowley's district has a Cook PVI of D+29, one of the bluest in the country. It's an obvious place to start if the incumbent isn't with us.
You write that, in some districts, "These Democrats are following the lead of their constituents. Right now the support isn't there." Maybe, maybe not. Running a progressive in the primary is one way to find out if the support is there. If the incumbent never faces any challenge from the left, then people who DO support single payer (and other progressive goals) have no way to express that, except by voting for the Green Party candidate, which obviously hurts the Democrat. Crowley, for one, has perhaps decided that the support is there and that he'd better get with the program.
There's also the lay-the-groundwork aspect. In a district where the support isn't there now, a progressive who runs and loses will bring the idea (single payer, $15 minimum wage, or whatever) to the attention of more people. That's part of how the support gets built. Advances like the Civil Rights Act didn't just happen overnight.
StevieM
(10,500 posts)in districts like the ones I described. I think there is a better way.
Run people who are strong progressives, like Sherrod Brown and Debbie Stabenow. They will support a much more liberal set of policies to govern America. But they are not quite on board with single-payer. They want a public option and Medicare-eligibility at age 55.
They also, however, support strong pro-union policies, abortion rights, universal day care, and pro-environmental policies. They have a track record of being more liberal than their states.
So we can push the envelope, but at this point single payer seems to be a bridge too far. It was overwhelmingly defeated on the ballot in Colorado. I admit that it is harder to build support when it is a one-state strategy, as opposed to a national reworking of our whole system. But still, it lost by a lot.
The best way to get single payer some day is to become a more progressive country. We can do that by getting the Congress back and passing liberal policies into law.
kurtcagle
(1,604 posts)I did vote for Sanders in 2016 in the primary, in part because even though I have been a life-long progressive Democrat (and have been voting for thirty six years) I was seeing too many of those Democrats focus on what I felt has long been a pretty disastrous strategy - the pro-business DLC-centrists who have been ignoring all too many of the problems that are have been germane to a radically changing economic landscape. I also voted for Clinton in the general election, even though I think she ran a piss poor campaign, because it was obvious to me that she was completely tone deaf to what people were looking for - she was clearly uncomfortable with the agenda that the DNC ultimately came up with, and that showed. I think she is an able administrator (and would have been a good, but not spectacular, president), but I didn't see in her the change that I think needs to happen.
I'm a very early GenXer in my mid 50s. I liked Obama because he was of my generation, and overall he understood most of the changes that have been going on in this country. He was also younger than many of the people in the House of Representatives, let alone the Senate. We tend to think that as you get older you get more conservative, but that's not really true. As you get older, the important issues of the time, the things that people feel passionate about, either get resolved or become obsolete. I have two daughters, one in her early twenties, the other in her late teens. They are more concerned about finding jobs that leave them time to have a life, are convinced that their parents are workaholics and at the same time see government as being very hostile. They distrust Boomers, because quite frankly the Baby Boom Generation - conservative and liberal - have f#*@ked them over six ways to Sunday, and they distrust government largely because they see it as a bunch of moralistic Baby Boomers telling them what to do with their lives.
Those are the issues that people in their twenties (indeed all the way up to their fifties) have. And those are the kinds of representatives that they are going to vote in. The Democratics collapsed in 2016. They collapsed in exactly the same way that a superstar football dynasty suddenly collapses - they had a lot of strong, experienced professionals, but no farm teams, and when those professionals reached a point where they had pushed beyond the demands of their body due to age, it left a vacuum. They went from Superbowl winners to not even making the playoffs. Incumbents are great, but when you rely solely on your incumbents you don't develop depth, don't energize your ranks, and eventually things get stale. You play it safe. You become part of the system you went to DC to change.
So yeah, I'm positively giddy at seeing the number of challengers coming to the fore on the Democratic side. Keep in mind the GOP is playing the same game, but they are in an even worse position, because they DON'T have that same surge of young people coming in. The Tea Party (mainly Boomers, many retirees) have become the Trump party, and as Trump continues to circle the drain, so will they. So yeah, I think this infusion of young blood is both necessary and should be welcomed.
vi5
(13,305 posts)I've been hearing on here all the time "If you don't like certain Democrats, that's what they primary process is for!!!"
But then as soon as anyone dares to try that, they get complained about or shit on, or criticized or whatever else.
And that's just on here, not counting the ways that the party chairs and powers that be put their fingers on the scales for preferred candidates.
This is why the process is in place. If people want us to treat it as a joke and just let the very wise, sensible folks choose for us then just say so and be done with it and I'm sure there are a lot of people that will respond accordingly.
Demsrule86
(68,643 posts)We need to spend our resources fighting Trump by flipping Republicans seats...not challenging Democratic incumbents...waste of time and money...bad bad this year. In general... we should only primary really bad Democrats (are there any I can't think of one)...as we really need to save our ammunition for Republicans.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)Weren't those crucial moments too? isn't it never the right time?
Demsrule86
(68,643 posts)Egnever
(21,506 posts) GaryCnf
(1,399 posts)"Leftists" aren't just primarying establishment Democrats, they're running against GOPers in deep red districts.
https://m.dailykos.com/stories/2018/1/21/1734843/-Why-I-am-running-progressive-in-the-reddest-congressional-district-in-New-York-State
Reading some of these replies, you'd never know they wanted to BEAT REPUBLICANS and just happen to believe that the "play to the middle" strategy that brought us to the lowest point for our party since 1928 (when considering all elected offices) is the wrong way to do it.
left-of-center2012
(34,195 posts)Synonyms of progressive
“developed, evolved, forward, high, higher, improved, late, advanced, refined”
Antonyms of progressive
“backward, low, lower, nonprogressive, primitive, retarded, rude, rudimentary, undeveloped”
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Demsrule86
(68,643 posts)saidsimplesimon
(7,888 posts)no more than a scan for factual critique. What critical thinker walks in lock step with any political mantra? We stand for the truth, nothing but the truth and the rule of law, imo.
Demsrule86
(68,643 posts)get everything I want always... and then won't vote for Democrats in a general or primaries sitting Democrats for no good reason when we need every warm body we can get to stop Trump... risking the seat...people get upset. Not everyone who talks the progressive talk walks the progressive walk because no real progressive would fail to vote for the Democrat in a general election because it helps the Republican win.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Demsrule86
(68,643 posts)It is so true.
Cha
(297,562 posts)aren't "progressive"
Dems get things done.. that's progress. Progressives with a Plan.. like President Obama got as much as he could in a sewer filled with repub assholes who were determined to block him at everything.
Stupid people sat on their hands in the 2010 to show him a lesson.. and they stopped progress.. so I know who the real progressives are.
Demsrule86
(68,643 posts)price for their actions.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)A minority, but a very noisy one insisting they were The Only True Progressives, so this was implicit from the start.
Our Declaration of Independence and constitution establish progressive government, as Abe Lincoln expressed it 50 or so years later, "government of, by and for the people." All liberal western democracies are progressive.
Virtually all political liberals are progressive by definition, as well as a large majority of America's liberal party--the Democratic Party.
Right there any thoughtful person is going to know that a "movement" that styles itself as The Only Real, True Capital-P Progressives and sets itself to fighting and defeating other progressives -- and their progressive goals! -- is going to dirty the word bad.
For just one example, after 2016, 2017 became the year of demanding the repeal of the Democrats' progressive ACA with no chance of replacing it, while the Republican leadership was doing its best to repeal with no intention of replacing it. Where's the "progressive" principle in that?
For another in 2017, during special elections their organizaitons not only didn't support most Democratic candidates but in a few cases acted against leading Democratic candidates, even when they had no candidate of their own who were running against Republicans in the elections. Many were actively unhappy when Democrats beat Republicans. How this advance progressivism? It doesn't.
They need a name, of course, just wish they'd chosen Harry or George.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)Yet somehow not surprising.
God forbid the apple cart is shaken. We might lose. Nothing new I guess we are in Iraq for the same reason just wondering if there will ever be a safe time to stand up for what we believe in.
God forbid that the primary elections determine what a majority of citizens want, right?
Maybe we should just say “fuck democracy” and let the incumbents pass on their titles to their first born sons, since people obviously are against voting. That’s what’s being suggested.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Not clear on who you are accusing of suggesting we
Can you post a link?
Unless you are talking about people who want to keep caucuses over primaries, because I totally agree caucuses are antithetical to voters getting to choose a candidate.
George II
(67,782 posts)Eliot Rosewater
(31,121 posts)Understand there are those who WANT democrats to lose if they dont get THEIR candidate.
George II
(67,782 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts) George II
(67,782 posts)...and CLOSED primaries so we have only Democrats choosing our candidates.
I read somewhere recently (should have bookmarked it) that several states are considering converting to primaries from caucuses and others from open to closed primaries.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Can you clarify who is making it "unsafe" for you to stand up for what you believe in?
Gothmog
(145,496 posts)I am very active in Texas politics and evidently we have a primary contest for the Democratic nomination of US Senate that I was not aware of. I never heard of this Hernadez person until I saw this article on facebook https://truthagainstthemachine.com/orourke-vs-hernandez-2016-democratic-primary-repeating-itself-in-tx/ According to this article, Beto is part of some centralist wing of the Democratic Party.
I met Beto at both the National Convention and a couple of meet and greets. From what I have seen of the other candidate, I will be supporting Beto. Beto is a long shot to defeat Carnival Cruz but I do believe that he has a chance. I am very active in Texas politics and I had never heard of sanders supported candidate until that face book article and some posts from a person who I trust in the Harris County Democratic Party
I believe that Beto is the party's best chance to be competitive against Carnival Cruz and the fact that I had never heard of the other candidate is an important factor.
JNelson6563
(28,151 posts)Too bad W's bullshit wasn't quite offensive enough. But oh yes, so impressive they're inspired to get busy NOW. Oh yes, we can't mention that, just be grateful the keyboard commandos have come to show us the way!1!
Ok, snark off.
Welcome newcomers! Now that you have finally joined us, let's go win! Together LIKE A TEAM.
brooklynite
(94,713 posts)It's a SAFE-D seat in Colorado with an incumbent Democrat who's serving in leadership. The premise is that we need a "real" Democrat serving in Washington.
I'm inclined to believe we'll let this one go.....
