I doubt that there are many here more consistently and fervently liberal than I am. That is not

[Atticus]

meant as a boast; it's just for context. It's who I am. And, having said that, let me also say that I live in the real world.

Do I wish that I could always cast my vote for folks who could "check all the boxes" on the list of "strongly favored positions" that most of us have carved into our hearts? Damn right I do, but when it gets down to making a responsible, caring, progressive---adult---decision in the voting booth, I will always vote for the most progressive candidate WHO HAS THE BEST CHANCE OF WINNING. I may have serious differences with them, but those differences pale beside those I have with any R you care to name.

I remember the country that the opposition wants to return us to and I will not go back there. Let's get it together, OK?

[TexasProgresive]

1. The voice of wisdom.

[leftstreet]

2. Is this about abortion? n/t

[njhoneybadger]

3. Yes

[Yo_Mama]

4. There are a lot of districts in which there will not be a "pure" Democratic candidate elected.

The choice is whether it will be a middle-of-the-road Dem or a middle-of-the-road Rep.

If we want to win back power on the national level, the local voters are going to have to get some respect. That is, after all, what our system is supposed to do - it is supposed to elect REPRESENTATIVES. Individuals who represent the concerns, attitudes and desires of their local district.

This call for purity is really a call to be a permanent minority party. I am not in favor of this movement.

There are districts in which a very solidly progressive candidate that would please most on this board can be nominated and elected. Go for it! In some of the districts in which compromise is necessary, IMO it would be foolish to follow an "all-or-nothing" strategy. Because, in the end, someone will be elected - and it is better for the passionate progressives here if that someone is caucusing with the Democratic party rather than the Republican party. Far better.

And it is even better for these so-called "litmus test" issues, because a lot of the voting that takes place doesn't have anything overtly to do with these issues. When a judicial confirmation is in question, for example, if the Dems oppose generally, the middle-of-the-roader Dems will follow suit. This, in the end, is what will preserve the interests of those calling for these litmus tests now. Having a Republican majority in the Senate does not. Doesn't matter if your Dems are pure progressive - they still lose if they don't have 51.

When we dumped the filibuster for all judicial appts below the SC, it was flamingly clear that if the GOP ever got control they would follow suit both with the lower court nominations and the SC nominations. That's a rough calculus. That's what the Dems should be worrying about.

We really cannot afford these litmus tests. We just need to get more Dems in, and we can worry about the finer points later. We need a national strategy and we need to fight every district. Getting a good solid local Dem candidate in is a lot more important than that candidate fitting in neatly with some DNC checklist. As a majority party, there were always Dems who did not.