By Our Revolutions head says, Democrats have lost their souls. She will make them find religion.

[ismnotwasm]

Interesting.

Our Revolution endorsed 175 candidates in the past year, about 43% of whom won their races. The group facilitated more than 11,000 volunteer-led events. It supported the elections of seven state party chairs who are “progressive,” Turner said.

“The message I want to hit home is it’s driven by the grassroots,” Turner said. “Every election should be driven by the grassroots, by the will of the people.”

And she said that has consequences for establishment Democrats. Our Revolution’s network of more than 200,000 individual contributors, who have given an average of $22, are demanding progressive candidates who support proposals like Medicare for all, free college and a $15 minimum wage.

In 2018, Democratic candidates who do not support Our Revolution’s progressive agenda will not earn the group’s endorsement, Turner said. And not only that. According to Turner, Our Revolution may go a step further, supporting primary challenges in 2018, if they emerge, against Democrats who don’t run on a progressive platform.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/m.mic.com/articles/amp/184038/our-revolutions-head-says-democrats-have-lost-their-souls-she-will-make-them-find-religion

[samnsara]

1. ..I.....cant....even.......

[Hortensis]

93. ...sigh? I think these people regard the Republicans

as just a helpful dynamic in bringing us down. Far too clueless to ever reach the stage of wondering just what would happen then...

[Scoopster]

2. So they're the Club for Growth, Green Party Edition.

No thanks.

[bettyellen]

3. So still not liking coalitions?

[Squinch]

60. No. I think Our Revolution's motto is: Cooperation is Icky.

[bettyellen]

71. I love you more every day.

[Squinch]

76. Back atcha, dear!

[Phoenix61]

5. Why can't people wrap their heads around the fact

that what works one place will not work another. Running only centrist candidates will not work but neither will running only progressive candidates. Alabama ain't California and they don't want to be. Would it be better for the people of Alabama if they were more progressive? Absolutely! But they're not and they aren't going to be in 2018 or 2020.

No disrespect to Alabamians intended. It's a beautiful state with lots of wonderful people.

[nycbos]

8. Because that would actually require some effort and thought.

[Bradshaw3]

11. Because, unfortunately, tribalism ain't just for right-wingers

If people can't get behind electing Democrats in these troubled times then we are doomed to a permanent repub government control.

[Ken Burch]

64. In Alabama, that line of thinking led to us nominating Richard Shelby for the U.S. Senate.

Remember how well THAT worked out?

We've had a decades-long losing street in Alabama virtually every statewide race when we've usually nominated the most conservative Dem on the primary ballot.

Besides, in the mayor's race in Birmingham, it does nothing but help us of the more progressive candidate wins. There's no Republican on the runoff ballot.

[DetlefK]

6. Somebody is trying to copy Jill Stein.

[obamanut2012]

90. Oh, you got it

Turner has been doing that for over a year.

She could have had a decent career -- she is an idiot and vile.

[nycbos]

7. I was at the Mass Dem Convention and saw the "Our Revolution crowd"

There is more diversity at a UVM hockey game then in Our Revolution.


As a UVM alum I have been to my fare share of hockey games.

[radius777]

26. Lol. Imo, they aren't really racist, but are oblivious

to the fact that many other Dems (especially PoC) don't share their insular views.

To them, Hillary winning the nomination must be a DNC conspiracy, since they 'don't know anyone who voted for Hillary in the primaries.'

[nycbos]

34. Excatly

[Hortensis]

96. Exactly. They are ruthlessly self-ish, though.

What those who aren't "with" them think, want, need simply doesn't matter.

Psychologists say prime features of extremists on both left and right are extreme righteousness and a belief in some crisis that will destroy us all if they don't act. And, of course, whatever self-delusion is needed to maintain their zealotry in the face of reality.

The left is different, though, in zealously pursuing "universal" solutions they will force on everyone else for their own good, even if they have to kill them to do it (that last when following very bad leaders of course).

[Squinch]

61. Just out of curiosity, what were their numbers like?

[nycbos]

84. It was a pretty decent amount and they weren't all assholes.

[Squinch]

86. Thanks.

Wonder what the rank and file think of Nina and her comments about people like Brown and Baldwin.

[Squinch]

9. Oh, FFS....

[oasis]

10. While top tier Democrats feverishly battle Trumpism, they'll soon find

themselves fighting on two fronts.

I will never forget that self serving "progressive" malcontents share partial blame for putting Americans in the spot we're in.

[BainsBane]

12. We did have an election driven by the grassroots

Last edited Thu Aug 24, 2017, 03:04 PM - Edit history (1)

It was the Clinton campaign. Hers was the one campaign that spent the bulk of its resources on organizing the grass roots, on voter registration and turnout efforts. Others spent enormous amounts of money on corporate ad buys. That's not grass roots. Just because people have money to fill campaign coffers and fund PACs doesn't make them more "grassroots" than those who make phone calls and knock on doors.

Turner choose to work against grassroots Democrats and put Trump in office, and she has doubled down on her commitment to keeping him there. Two days after the GOP passed a bill deregulating banking, she gave them cover by making a speech insisting Democrats were worse on Wall Street. Trump, the GOP, and the big banks thank her for her tireless efforts on their behalf.

Note, she has also pledged to endorse Republicans. She repeatedly shows greater contempt toward Democrats than toward corporations, banks, or the Nazis. Trump's election was a victory for her and those like her, and they are determined to extend their success by getting more Republicans elected, by continuing to trash the Democratic Party AND its 67 million voters.

Long life the tyranny of donuts and water.

[ismnotwasm]

18. +infinity

[Squinch]

62. What Bains said.

[Expecting Rain]

13. Are Nina Turner and Our Revolution protected from criticism by the TOS?

Because to me, it seems like it's time for all good Democrats to come to the aid of our party.

But what is allowed here?

[Demsrule86]

16. No Nina Turner is no longer a Democrat...she is as best we can tell a Green.

[Jim Lane]

24. As best I can tell, you're completely wrong

Until reading your post, I don't think I'd ever heard anyone allege she was a Green. Linky link?

In a quick search, here's what I found:

{Question} Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein offered you a spot as a running mate, which you turned down because you want to keep fighting within the Democratic Party. Why is that a struggle worth waging?

{Answer from Nina Turner} I have history with this party. This party has a varied history as well — and certainly in this country’s history was not the party that we are today. This party was the party of the slave owner; it was the Dixiecrat party. We changed over time.

The values that say that we are gonna fight for voting rights in this country regardless of what party affiliation. We are the party that’s gonna fight for Social Security. And we are the party that’s gonna fight to increase the minimum wage in this country. We are the party that was gonna restore the Voting Rights Act. All of those things, all of the reasons why I am a Democrat — that stuck with me. And so I believe that there has to be dedicated dissenters within this party and I am the ultimate dedicated dissenter.

I think the party is worth fighting for. I believe that the Democratic Party is worth fighting for.

[brooklynite]

25. She'd do a better job fighting within the Democratic Party if she'd stayed in the Democratic Party.

I had lunch with her in 2015 when she was an up and coming representative of the Ohio Democratic Party. She could have been an influential Democratic voice, but she threw it all away.

[Jim Lane]

32. Has she changed her registration? Has she endorsed the Greens?

I can't claim to have had lunch with her. All I'm asking for is a link that anyone can follow.

[Demsrule86]

36. I put two links on this thread...she says she will edorse the person not the party...she would even

endorse Republicans...she is not a Democrat.

[madinmaryland]

42. Goddamn. She was my Rep when I moved to Ohio

four years ago. Then she just disappeared. A few months ago I started getting emails from her. I thought it was some offshoot of the Bernie Sanders camp.

[Demsrule86]

35. Below is a more recent article. She is not a Democrat anymore...but something else...I think she is

a Green...but who knows? She clearly states that it is not her job to 'fit' in with them (not us but them) when referring to the Democratic Party.

"How will Our Revolution relate to the DNC, the DCCC, the DSCC, that kind of establishment that so many activists and politicians, including you, have frequently criticized?

"NT: I don’t think it is our job nor our obligation to fit in. It’s their job to fit in with us. But the overwhelming majority of registered voters in this country, I think it’s 53 percent or maybe 54 percent, identify as independent. Now, we know independents lean one way or the other but they identify as independent so that means that both political parties need to do some soul searching. I’m certainly willing to sit across the table with almost anybody if we gonna work towards the collective good, but it is not Our Revolution’s job to fit in with them."

"Meyerson went on to ask “And how will Our Revolution relate to progressives within government who didn’t back Bernie, like Sherrod Brown and Tammy Baldwin, if they go on to seek reelection?” Her response is an indication of what is clearly self-destructive about both Nina Turner and ‘Our Revolution’. She said about those two successful and respected progressives “If they want Our Revolution’s endorsement they will seek it like everybody else and so they gotta start with the local affiliates, and if the local affiliates say that this is the person that we want to back, then there it is. There it is

"So ‘Our Revolution’ isn’t about supporting progressives or helping people learn how the system works so they can move forward progressive change. Rather it is about catering to groups of local activists, often self-indulgent, to the point of taking action that actually hurts the causes they believe in. To bring about change one has to understand the system; understanding how Congress works. Like it or not when it comes to Congress there are only two parties, Democrat and Republican. If you don’t work to support one of them you are helping the other. We saw that in the last Presidential election and we saw it in 2000 when we ended up with George W. Bush."

https://www.thenation.com/article/nina-turner-it-is-not-our-job-to-fit-into-the-democratic-establishment/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/nina-turner-our-revolution-president-from-democrat_us_595a4413e4b0c85b96c66373

[oasis]

39. Great article. nt

[Demsrule86]

54. Thanks...only a person who does not support Democrats would find Nina and her merry band of

Green refugees a good thing.

[Jim Lane]

41. Thanks for providing links that disprove your own post

You asserted, without support, that Nina Turner "is as best we can tell a Green." The links you gave confirm what's in the interview I quoted: She is working within the Democratic Party, seeking to advance her views by supporting progressive candidates in Democratic primaries. She says that Our Revolution is "open to" endorsing "a Republican or a Libertarian or Green Party person" but that's a far cry from saying that she is a Republican or a Libertarian or a Green. Your assertion in #16 is simply wrong.

AFAIK, Our Revolution has not actually endorsed any Republican or Libertarian or Green candidate anywhere. All three of these links show that the organization's focus is on the Democratic Party.

Inasmuch as you appear to be using "Green" as a generalized epithet for people you dislike, let me explain the difference. The Green Party expressly disdains the strategy of working within the Democratic Party and of supporting progressive candidates in the Democratic primaries. The attitude of the Greens, as well as that of those who are calling for a new party on the left, is that the Democratic Party is dead, it's hopelessly corrupt, etc. That's the exact opposite of what Nina Turner says: "I believe that the Democratic Party is worth fighting for."

As for the possibility (and so far that's all it is) that Our Revolution might endorse a Republican or a Libertarian or a Green, bear in mind that it's not a party entity like the DCCC. Many non-party organizations, even those with a marked lean to one party, are open to endorsing other candidates if that will advance their policy goals. For example, last year the state legislative endorsements by NARAL in Connecticut included 51 Democrats and -- horror of horrors -- 6 Republicans.

That's six more Republicans than Our Revolution has endorsed.

Your charge in #36 is that "she is not a Democrat" because she doesn't promise to support every Democrat in every race no matter what. Sorry, but that's not what the term means. Many of us on DU are Democrats who've occasionally voted against the Democratic candidate, and even voted for a Republican. The first time I did that, it was because the Democratic candidate was a conservative and the Republican was to his left. The most recent time I did that, it was because I thought the Democratic candidate was a crook; he later resigned in disgrace, took a plea, and went to prison. I don't regret either of those votes but I'm still a Democrat.

[ismnotwasm]

47. She's still a Dem, but insists on ideas over party

Any party. Which sounds fabulous, but doesn't work out very well in reality.

My own Rep Pramilla Jayapal is also a rising star, a powerful voice from a woman of color, was endorsed by Bernie and manages not to shit on Democrats every opportunity

[Jim Lane]

48. That's true. She probably wouldn't support an anti-choice Democrat. (n/t)

[Demsrule86]

55. I voted for Tim Ryan who up until recently was anti-choice. You see I am a Democrat...and I vote for

Democrats always. It is what Democrats do.

[Demsrule86]

104. She is running a new party Our revolution which will endorse anyone who

meets their purity standards...she is a member of our revolution and no longer a Democrat.

[Demsrule86]

53. Really?

"Your charge in #36 is that "she is not a Democrat" because she doesn't promise to support every Democrat in every race no matter what. Sorry, but that's not what the term means. Many of us on DU are Democrats who've occasionally voted against the Democratic candidate, and even voted for a Republican. The first time I did that, it was because the Democratic candidate was a conservative and the Republican was to his left. The most recent time I did that, it was because I thought the Democratic candidate was a crook; he later resigned in disgrace, took a plea, and went to prison. I don't regret either of those votes but I'm still a Democrat."



This violates the rules...encouraging others to vote for Republicans. You should self delete. And Democrats vote for Democrats always.

[Jim Lane]

69. Yeah, really.

In 2012 there was a thread on DU asking members if they'd ever voted for a Republican. As one would expect, there were plenty of "No, never" responses. In addition, however, there were also quite a few of us (us Democrats, that is) who had made an occasional exception.

I gather that your plan for improving the Democratic Party's electoral fortunes is to begin by excommunicating everyone who's ever voted for a single Republican? Call me crazy but I don't think that's a smart tactic. I'm glad that, in 2016, we got some Romney-Clinton voters, and I'm not ready to give up on winning back at least some of the Obama-Trump voters. Perhaps some purists can't accept that. I'll just have to live with their disapproval.

Finally, if you think my post violates the rules, you go right ahead and alert on it. I don't read the rule as applying to races that are long over. Alternatively, you can post your reasons for urging people to support a felon -- pardon me, a Democratic felon -- because having a (D) after the name is more important than basic honesty.

[Squinch]

77. Strawman on fire!!!!!!! Goalposts on the move!!!!

("Excommunicating everyone who's ever voted...republican" )

[Demsrule86]

81. My improvement for the Democratic Party begins after we get rid of Trump...what Turner will do is

snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory for us AND ALLOW the Repukes to destroy this country ...she is not a Democrat anymore than those folks who's houses I was supposed to go to during 08 and 12 who fly a confederate flag: I didn't go. You can register as anything...what you say and how you vote counts. She attacked Hillary during the last election and continues to attack the Democratic Party. And as a student of history, I know we have never had a completely liberal Democratic Party majority...never. We need a big tent...not someone like Nina primarying safe Democrats and trying to nominate non-Democrats that meet her capricious ideology which seems to me to be 'I hate Hillary and most Democrats. The candidates she chooses could be Green or even Republicans by her own words so were she to get her candidates elected, they could vote GOP not Democratic...our side would have helped elect Republicans...no thanks! Democratic elected could lose their seats-safe seats before Nina and her merry band arrived. There will be no possible resistance if we lose seats in Congress. We should support the Democratic Party not attack it. Nina is a turncoat. I can't stand her and want nothing to do with her.

[Squinch]

56. I cannot tell you how sick I am of people using their votes and voices to proclaim their

self-perceived superiority to rank and file Democrats, while the actual Democrats are busy trying to stop the destruction of the republic.

The silver lining is that Nina will run that organization to a quick death with her weird delusion that people like Sherrod Brown and Tammy Baldwin are going to grovel at the foot of her throne.

[lapucelle]

14. Poor, irrelevant Nina.

Have another donut dear.

[Demsrule86]

15. Screw you Turner...I am sure the GOP are funding your traitor Greens organization.

[MrsCoffee]

17. I wish these assholes would just stop already.

They obviously give no fucks if all they can do is bad mouth the Democratic Party 24/7 when conditions are what they are. We may not be a perfect party, but we haven't lost our fucking souls. That would be the KGOP.

If "Our Revolution" is just going to threaten the Democratic Party, let's make sure we don't let their candidate join our party out of convenience ever again. I am sick of this fake ass so-called "revolution". Who actually benefits from all this bashing of our party? It's not like we've seen any reality based criticism. It's all fake sound bytes.

[DFW]

19. Sounds like she should change her name to Nina Teaparty

Because she is practically taking their tactics and reasoning from their manual.

"If you are not pure enough, we will primary you. Not sure of you're pure enough? Just ask us. We will decide that for you." Sounds like the Kochs on steroids.

[oasis]

20. Nina Turncoat.

[maxrandb]

21. Someone tell me how this is any different than Rush Limbaugh's Operation Chaos!

Fuck any "so-called Progressive" who is fighting on the side of Rush fucking Limpballs!

[haveahart]

22. Obviously, once is not enough for Nina and the Revolution. They will never learn.

[Blue_true]

23. Nina Turner is a god-damned fool. nt

[Me.]

29. Truer Words Were Never Spoken

[R B Garr]

27. I'm getting sick and tired of this phony crap!

All she is doing is pissing people off now.

[TeamPooka]

28. You mean Nina Turner who shit all over Hillary and helped people not support/vote for her?

Fuck that shit lady.
You can go to hell and take all your Bernie supporters who voted for Trump with you too.

[Me.]

30. The Very One

Sour Grape-ism

[politicat]

31. Good luck with mine: I didn't use it, so I sold it for some good cheesecake and an advance

Copy of a new album. I have no idea what she did my with puff of air.

I use my brain and my morals and ethics instead. And guess what? It works better!

[Jim Lane]

33. The advice to progressives, distilled from this thread.

1. If you find incumbent Democratic politicians to be too conservative, and you therefore support a third party, that's evil.

2. But if you find incumbent Democratic politicians to be too conservative, and you therefore use the primary process to try to change the Democratic Party, that's also evil.

3. In other words, you must sit down and shut up.

What I see in this thread is a good ventfest in which people who don't like Bernie, who don't like anyone who likes Bernie, who in fact don't like anyone to the left of Hillary Clinton, get their jollies by denouncing Nina Turner. What I don't see in this thread is any kind of sensible reaction to the differences of opinion within the Democratic Party. It amounts to saying, "Unity will help us fight Trump and so in the interest of unity everyone who disagrees with me should STFU."

I write as a member in good standing of the Fuck Nader brigade. I've posted more than once on DU that Nader should have run in the Democratic primaries in 2000. That way, he would have been more effective at reaching people with his message (through participation in televised debates), and Bush would not have become President.

What's appalling now is that, when Bernie Sanders and others do exactly what Nader and his allies should have done -- use the primaries to advance their views -- they get denounced. Sometimes they get analogized to Nader!

It cuts both ways. If you think some Democrat is too far to the left, go ahead and support a challenger in the Democratic primary. IIRC, there was a lot of enthusiasm on DU for whoever it was that primaried Tulsi Gabbard. I'm glad that Gabbard won, but I would never say that it was somehow unacceptable for another Democrat to enter the primary against her. It's through the primaries that the grassroots voters, not the elites, choose the direction of the party.

[Demsrule86]

37. She is primarying sitting Democrats when the GOP has all the power...and she also says she will pick

whom to support based on the candidate...she will endorse Republicans...tactics like this will cause us to lose and more to suffer. She already helped blow the 16 election but her Naderism continues. Now is the time to go after the GOP not Democrats. One of those her group is pushing is a liberal for WVA. If Turner and the turncoats were successful..we would lose the seat...so Turner can F off...I am from Ohio, and she is finished as is her organization in the long run...hope she doesn't cause too much suffering in the meantime. If the GOP manages to get a 60 vote majority thanks to the likes of her, we are screwed.

[Jim Lane]

46. You equate "primarying sitting Democrats" with "Naderism" -- which is totally absurd.

Going through the Democratic primaries is the exact opposite of what Ralph Nader did. If Nader had run in the Democratic primaries, as he should have, instead of in the general election, then Gore would have become President.

You're very upset that a liberal, Paula Swearingen, is seeking the Democratic nomination in West Virginia. Democrats in West Virginia are free to argue that Manchin is a better Senator than Swearingen would be. They're also free to conclude that, although Swearingen would be a better Senator, Manchin would be a better candidate, because he can win the general and Swearingen can't. (I believe that Hillary Clinton got some votes of this type -- Democratic primary voters who would have preferred to see Bernie Sanders as President but voted for Clinton because they thought she had a better chance of beating Trump.) Finally, of course, the Democrats in West Virginia are free to vote for Swearingen if they commit the terrible offense of disagreeing with you.

You've essentially admitted what I wrote in #33. You're among the many Democrats who say that those who are to your left shouldn't run against an incumbent in the Democratic primaries and shouldn't run on any other lne in the general election. In other words, we should ignore the (small-d) democratic process, and instead just sit down and shut up. The practical effect of your vitriol toward Democratic primary fights will be to drive some progressives to the Green Party or to a new party on the left -- a result that, IMO, would be bad.

[Demsrule86]

49. You should not run a super liberal in a state like WVA...you will merely cost Democrats the seat...

and unless you want to help Republicans, it seems like a bad approach. she is going to cause Democrats to lose which is exactly what Nader did. Yes in this situation you should ignore the bullshit small 'D' and fight for survival...you should not primary any seats especially ones in red districts...this group is involved with primary Nancy Pelosi...they are a terrible group and Turner is a traitor to the Democratic party...I voted for her and now regret it.

[GulfCoast66]

66. I emotionally agree with you, but not intellectually.

And in my opinion this situation requires the type of dispassionate, cold blooded decisions that turn off idealistic voters but is necessary to actually win.

The WV race is going to be tough to win and if we carry the day it will be by a extremely small margin. If the party is forced to go through a bruising no-holds-barred primary we can be sure that a high enough percentage of the losing side of the primary will sit it out because they will have convinced themselves that the other democrat is as evil as the republicans. And we lose.

This is why totally ideological groups can harm the party. To be successful in life and politics you have to know when to push when to pause and when to reverse.

Not at all looking for a fight just trying to bring a different perspective.

Have a nice evening.

[Jim Lane]

70. Those are legitimate considerations.

The obvious flip side is that, if you join me in rejecting the strategy of third-party politics, then getting better outcomes will sometimes require launching a primary against an incumbent Democrat. As you point out, that approach isn't always right, but it isn't always wrong, either.

By contrast, the third-party approach (Naderism) is always wrong. It's also always wrong to charge "Naderism" against people who are working within the Democratic Party.

[GulfCoast66]

72. I am a proud liberal member of the Democratic Party

Although considering the membership of DU here I am probably considered a moderate. And I totally reject third-party politics. If you are not a member of the Democratic party then I consider you a political opponent. And I will oppose any candidate not in the Democratic Party.

I actually support a primary challenge against a moderate Democrat in a safe Democratic Party seat if it moves the party more to the left. But trying to primary a member of our party in a challenging district is just crazy. If both WV Senate seats were held by republicans, the ACA would be dead. Manchin gave cover for the republican Senator to vote against it.

Politics can be ugly. Ideologues lose in the end because they see the world as black and white rather than in shades of grey. Unfortunately, they can cause huge amounts of damage before they lose.

Have a nice evening.

[Demsrule86]

106. The thing I dislike most about this sort of argument is the obvious lack of interest in winning...

just getting your way and a primary candidate you like is enough...it is not enough to save this country from Repukes. This is why I can live with centrist or even somewhat conservative Dems...like Manchin. Now dear MS Turner is helping a primary candidate in WVA...a person who could never win a general...now this may fit your ideas of small D politics and be something you feel is something owed to you...I disagree...but I would just say none of this nonsense ever wins anything. Turner should join the repukes she is their enabler. She is dead to me as are all who would stop the Democratic Party from winning election because of their skewed ideology. Democrats are the only vehicle for progressive policy.

[GulfCoast66]

146. Well said...nt

[Demsrule86]

156. Thanks...these folks act as if they get the primary they want or a certain candidate and we know

who they want in 20...when it doesn't happen, there will be hell to pay, that is all that matters...how you play the game. Well my Dad managed my oldest daughters soccer team just before he passed. The assistant coach was all ' it is how you play the game'
but my Dad pointed out that no kid wants to lose every week and he worked with them and they went on to win games...it is true in elections too ...no one likes to lose and it weakens the party when it happens. No one wants to vote for a loser party or a party being attacked by those who should be its strongest supporters...Hopefully we still manage a victory in 18 and 20 despite Our Revolution, Greens and the others (not Democrats)whom I regard as traitors to the Democratic party and progressiveness in general.

[DeminPennswoods]

78. challenge from the left would help Manchin, imho

It would let him move to the right of most Dems and left of the current GOP for campaign purposes. He could credibly run as an effective centrist populist.

[Demsrule86]

108. Nope, it will weaken him.

And I tell you the truth...I will start an organization to take on our revolution if she costs Democrats seats in 18. Primaries only help the opposition. Money and time is wasted.

[GulfCoast66]

147. You are just wrong

A primary challenge against an incumbent in a very challenging district never helps and usually results in a loss. We are likely to lose this seat regardless, but if the Turner nuts show up, challenge and trash our candidate he is sunk. And then we get another republican.

But hey, it seems to me that some people supposedly on our side would rather lose a seat than have a 'DINO' in it. And I love how they parrot the republican use or RINO. Cut from the same cloth I guess. Ideologues...

Have a nice evening.

[stranger81]

67. +1

As much as some posters would like her to be, Hillary Clinton is not the left-most boundary of acceptable political discourse in this country. If all Democrats have to say to the 45% of the party that voted for Sanders in the 2016 primary is "sit down and STFU," I expect they will have many more third party defections to contend with.

[LittleBlue]

105. +2

[NNadir]

152. If you have nothing useful to say, I certainly recommend description #3.

I don't know who Nina Turner is, and I don't care.

If she's busy railing against Democrats at a time like this, she's a apologist for fascists.

It's pretty damned simple.

[Demsrule86]

38. I don't find it interesting...I despise all Trump enablers and that includes Turner whom I am

sorry to say I voted for in Ohio...ah well she was a Democrat then.

[oberliner]

40. Check out the People's Platform

1. Medicare for All

2. College for All

3. Raise Minimum Wage

4. Abortion Coverage in Health Insurance

5. Automatic Voter Registration

[Demsrule86]

50. Their platform is meaningless to me because they will cost Democrats elections.

Last edited Sat Aug 26, 2017, 11:52 AM - Edit history (1)

Thus we will never have any of the above.

[treestar]

83. exactly.

the "consequences" are Republicans winning.

[Demsrule86]

51. We had abortion coverage in health insurance (ACA) until Turner and her sort

helped elect Trump.

[Squinch]

57. That right there. They don't seem to be getting that point.

[GulfCoast66]

74. Since I disagree with the first two

Which are the only ones that have any real fiscal impact, and I am a liberal Democrat, I do not see that as a winning message for most Americans.

If we equate health care for all Americans with Medicare for all we will lose. Look at the German and other good European systems for more ideal systems. The are most definitely not Medicare for all. But they insure good health care for all.

And number 2 is just nuts. Many jobs in this nation do not require college and continuing to insist that college means success relegates non-college jobs to serf like wages. I am guessing you and most of your social circle are college grads? If not I preemptively apologize. My parents could easily afford to pay for my education, so why the fuck should the government do it for them. We need to get back to the FDR policies that worked. Pay if you can, if not we all will help you out.

The last 3 I pretty much agree with although I would guess we disagree on the level of the minimum wage.

So the Peoples Platform does not work for this liberal Democrat.

Have a nice evening.

[stevenleser]

44. ...and the horse she rode in on.

Then have the horse throw her off and stamp on her a few times.

[NastyRiffraff]

45. I despise that woman

I'm not surprised at this, though. Nina Turner began her slide into irrelevancy in the past few years and completed it during the primary. Whatever she says, it's wise to believe the opposite.

[Eliot Rosewater]

52. Trump is minutes away from starting WWIII and Nina wants to give him more power?

That simply CANT Be true, tell me that is NOT true!

Trump just gave the final order to destroy the lives of transgender people and Nina wants to cause MORE GOP power by her actions?

That simply CANT Be true, tell me that is NOT true!

Trump has decimated our government, wants to shut down the government, and Nina wants to cause MORE GOP power by her actions?


That simply CANT Be true, tell me that is NOT true!

Trump and McConnell have VIOLATED the constitution and stolen a SC Seat and Nina wants to cause MORE GOP power by her actions?



That simply CANT Be true, tell me that is NOT true!

[Squinch]

58. Never underestimate the vanity of the purist.

[peggysue2]

92. Yes, vanity and . . .

Arrogance. This is just more 'you must bend the knee' nonsense we've heard/read from other quarters. As rank and file Democrats and Democratic-leaning Indies, we need to keep our eye on the critical goal--winning in 2018, not simply for the Democratic Party but for the preservation of our democratic Republic.

As Ms Turner screeches for party purity, our house is burning.

As a Democrat I have not lost my soul. Nor have I lost my mind. We are under an existential threat as a country, a Nation built on laws, not men. No, we're not perfect by any means but we're better than most. This house is worth saving, dammit!

At the very least, we owe our efforts to those who have come before us, people who have bled and sacrificed, allowing us to come this far. We stand on the shoulders of giants; we shouldn't forget that. And the future, of course. Our children and grand babies certainly deserve better than this meathead and his grievances and band of haters.

At the moment, nothing else matters than defeating the madman in the WH and his nefarious enablers. That means showing up in 2018, leaving no doubt with our voices/votes that this appalling ignorance and bigotry shall not stand.

Last night's pardon is another example of Trump spitting on the judiciary, a deliberate attempt to tear down our most basic and honored institutions. If Ms Turner cannot see the clear and present danger hanging over all of us, then she and her followers have certainly lost their way, merely aiding and abetting the destroyers.

[Squinch]

127. This is my favorite post in a long, long time.

[peggysue2]

128. Thank you, sir.

back at you. Let's get 'em in 2018!

[Squinch]

129. I'm a ma'am, but no, thank YOU!

[peggysue2]

134. Oops!

Sorry. 'Squinch' sounded male to me. Promise not to make that mistake again Sisters, together then.

[Squinch]

135. No problem!

[Demsrule86]

139. Great post...and so true. I am sick of the 'list' tossed around here...the candidate must...

believe in single payer, free college tuition...yada yada... A 'D' after the name is sufficient for me...the god damned house is on fire people. (great analogy)

[Hortensis]

94. Lol. More like the irrational righteousness of extremists.

Not purist, that's just a conceit born of profound dishonesty. These people never change.

Listen. Understand. They're out there. They can't be reasoned with, they can't be bargained with. They don't feel feel pity of remorse or fear and they absolutely will not stop until they destroy themselves.

Or, most often, until an uptick in the national mood sticks a pin in their dream.

[mfcorey1]

59. Nina, are you threatening us like donald Drumpf does? In that case, you

can *^#$ &@ !#$^!

[Ken Burch]

63. She said "SOME Democrats have lost their souls", not "Democrats" collctively.

The headline at the link twists her words.

And what else would you say about those who've pushed us into reliance on corporate donations? Those donations are always tied to an insistence that we back the post-1981 status quo on economic policy.

[emulatorloo]

109. Our Revolution is a 501(c)(4). "Citizens United" decision. Not required to disclose its Donors.

What is a 501(c)(4), anyway?

By Sean Sullivan May 13, 2013

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2013/05/13/what-is-a-501c4-anyway/?utm_term=.e020144e0dd4

You mentioned super PACs? What's the difference?

Here's the key difference: Super PACs must disclose their donors while 501(c)(4)s do not. If you are a donor looking to influence election but do not want to reveal your identity, the 501(c)(4) is an attractive option through which to send your cash.

Why has the IRS gotten so many 501(c)(4) applications in recent years?

In 2010, the Supreme Court's landmark "Citizens United" decision cleared the way for corporations and labor unions to raise and spend unlimited sums of money, and register for tax-exempt status under section 501(c)(4). So what happened next is not surprising. The IRS was flooded with applications from groups seeking the special 501(c)(4) designation. Applications more than doubled following the High Court's ruling.

[Ken Burch]

119. That is irrelevant. Nina used phraseology I might not have used,

But that doesn't mean Our Revolution is a front of anything.

It really is as straightforward as just being a group that wants the party to have economic policies that help working people of all races.

How would YOU describe those Dems who continue to defend the policy of actively seeking corporate donors?

Why keep seeking those when the November result(which was the worst showing we could possibly have made)shows that they don't help us?

[emulatorloo]

121. First, don't put words in my mouth, as that is not how you and I discuss things

Last edited Sat Aug 26, 2017, 03:11 PM - Edit history (5)

I did not say Our Revolution is a "front."

I just wanted to remind folks that Our Revolution is a 501(c)(4). Which is a categorization that came from the Supreme Court's "Citizens United" decision. I have to take that into account when I evaluate rhetoric coming from the head of a 501(c)(4), which is not required to disclose information on donors.

Campaign finance reform is one of the top goals of every DU'er.

Secondly I get tired of reading 'analysis' of Open Secrets data which ignores that these "corporate donations" are actually donations from >folks< who work there. Despite the explanation by OpenSecrets on every page.

Is Bernie in the pocket of Kaiser Permante and Microsoft? Of course not. Their PACs gave nothing, their employees did. Is it hard to imagine that liberals/progressives work at Microsoft, and that these individuals would donate to Bernie? No.

"How would YOU describe those Dems who continue to defend the policy of actively seeking corporate donors?"

Who are these Dems exactly? Which Democratic politicians or party spokespersons are saying that?

"Why keep seeking those when the November result(which was the worst showing we could possibly have made)shows that they don't help us?"

A reminder of what post 2016 election analysis showed:

---Trump voters top concerns were terrorism and or immigration
-- Clinton voters top concerns were the economy and jobs

--Clinton won voters whose household incomes were 50k or less
--Trump won voters whose household incomes were 70k or more

-- "Economic Anxiety" is not why Trump won
-- the majority of "Obama to Trump voters" were Republicans who voted for Obama in 2008 because of Bush disaster

As to Ms. Turner, I do not believe she will last long as the head of Our Revolution. She's a terrible spokesperson.

You already know my opinion of Jeff Weaver and how I believe his rhetoric as campaign manager undercut Bernie's chances. He spent too much time on hard red-meat rhetoric but did little or nothing to broaden Bernie's base beyond the hard core.

Nina replaced Jeff as the head of Our Revolution but IMHO is just reproducing Weaver's rhetorical failures.

Her statement about Our Revolution possibly endorsing Republican and Libertarians is a case in point. There are no real world Libertarians or Republicans who share the goals and values of Our Revolution.

To me Nina needlessly shot herself in the foot, and worse yet discredited Our Revolution.

[Ken Burch]

136. I've never defended Jeff Weaver.

As I understand it, he was the one who pushed for writing off the Super Tuesday states, the decision that fed the false meme that Bernie didn't even WANT black votes.

As far as I'm concerned, it's Weaver's fault that Bernie wasn't nominated.

As it happens, Our Revolution simply happens falls under the 501(c)4 category. Why is that such an important thing to you? You posted that fact in response to my post as though it, in and of itself, proves everything anyone needs to know about the organization. That is why I responded as I did. I'm not sure 501(c)4 means anything important at all, or even if they had the option of choosing another category.

It's not as though any larger progressive good could ever come from Our Revolution ceasing to exist. What effect could that have other than pushing everything to the right.

As to "economic anxiety"-Trump didn't have to carry voters 50k and less in income level for it to matter. If turnout dropped in that demographic, as I'm fairly sure, and if HRC's votes share in that demographic was significantly lower among those voters than Obama's had been, we can still conclude that economic anxiety played a significant role. What purpose is served by insisting that it was bigotry and xenophobia and nothing else? What better strategies does insisting on the primacy of those factors lead us to?

It feels to me as though there's still an insistence that we have to choose between speaking out against bigotry and fighting voter suppression OR addressing economic justice issues more strongly than we did. Why assume we can't take strong stands on social justice, economic justice and voters suppression at the same time? From what I've seen, the argument for discounting the economic aspects of the result is an argument for keeping the party centrist on economic and trade issues when we don't gain anything from staying in those places, and when changing on those issues would not betray the "social justice" agenda in the slightest.

As a party, we are in fact capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time.

[emulatorloo]

162. Thanks for the reply, We agree a lot more than we disagree

Yes you have never defended Weaver, and I also believe Weaver much of the blame for Bernie not winning the nomination. Too many strategic blunders.

I like the idea of Our Revolution. Any group out there helping progressives and left liberals run for office is great.

I just bristle at the shade Ms. Turner attempts to throw on people who donate to Democrats. Like Rove's Crossroads GPS, Nina doesn't have to disclose who donates to Our Revolution. This is not the right analogy but it feels a little hypocritical, like people in glass houses throwing stones.

100% Agree we should continue should be taking a strong stand against bigotry, continue fighting voter suppression, and continue working for economic justice. That's always been my view and always will be

That being said I don't think anyone on DU is a centrist. We are pretty much surrounded by progressives and left liberals. I think we pretty much all agree in terms of core values and what we fight for.

I haven't seen anyone arguing for centrist positions on the economy or trade, maybe I am just mentally blocking those posts out?

But then again there are lots of things I don't understand about DU right now.

As I said, The majority of DU'ers seem to agree on pretty much everything ideological. But there are all sorts of distractions and 'controversies' lately that seem to be getting people at each other's throats (Beyoncé's New House, Tina Fey's Sheet-cake). Maybe I am too old to grasp DU anymore.

[Ken Burch]

163. Perhaps it would help if we put a condition on large donations

that stated that the party will not compromise its basic values in exchange for said donations. Or something along that line.

I don't think it's the donations in and of themselves that are the issue, as much as it is the sense that those donations have led to the party taking policy decisions that end up leaving significant parts of what should be the Democratic base(particularly industrial workers)out in the cold, that those donations have helped push the party towards taking the side of the few against the many).

[Demsrule86]

140. You need money to run Ken...I would love a perfect world where the damned Greens did not

give us Bush who gave us United and unlimited money in elections...but until such a world exists, we take the money so we can fight a much worse evil ...Trump and his minions.

[Ken Burch]

148. The money can only be justified if we actually get elected.

If we have money but we still end up where we are now...what's the point?

Why not use small-scale regular donors on the Sanders model?

Even if he actually won't sell us is list(I'm not sure that's an unchangeable thing)it can work with the activist base we had before that.

[Demsrule86]

154. Money doesn't always get you elected...however, it gives you a shot.

You have none if you can't raise money...time to stop with the I am so pure party politics and win something...100 million coming against Sherrod Brown...and unbelievable the Turner person may actually primary him...so we need money. The Green progressive crowd should not have elected Bush who then appointed justices that enacted United. Many who complain today actually caused it to happen.

[Ken Burch]

158. I hadn't heard there was talk about primarying Sherrod.

And that's not something I'd personally advocate.

Rather than depending on corporate money(and the vote-losing economic royalist policies corporate donations impose on us)why can't we try to actually create enthusiasm for our ticket? Why the absolute refusal to have us run as the party of those who were screwed over in the post-1981 economic changes?

Passion and conviction can defeat money.

And since what we just did was largely a failure, what is their this adamant refusal in some quarters to try something else?

It's not as though the only possible choices are once again saying nothing can change, or having another 1972. McGovern didn't get creamed because he was "too liberal"-he got creamed because his running mate was outed with mental health issues and because anybody running against the Nixon dirty tricks squad was going to lose in a landslide.

[Demsrule86]

159. While that might work during presidential years, it won't during mid-terms.

Also, the GOP has a great deal of money and we simply must have money to compete...and the idea that all corporations are evil is foolish.There are decent corporations who lean Dem that can support us. We can't have a war against those who employ people. As for Turner, below is what she said and a link...can I say I despise her. Sorry I ever voted for her. If you ever worked with occupy, you might understand what Turner has in mind...complete grass roots...no leaders and multiple decision makers...nothing ever gets done. We had protests against foreclosures lined up and could never work with these groups. Talk, talk all the time no action. Grass roots are important, but so is having a vibrant big tent Democratic party working in various states to elect Democrats...not Republicans or independents ...God knows who. Anyone of any political affiliation who manages to mouth the economic message our revolution promotes can get their endorsement. They are primarying Nancy Pelosi and Joe Manchin among other Democrats;but they never go after the GOP...completely foolish. If we lose the WVA seat, we could lose the ACA...18 is a high stakes election year and these folks are playing with fire.

"Meyerson went on to ask “And how will Our Revolution relate to progressives within government who didn’t back Bernie, like Sherrod Brown and Tammy Baldwin, if they go on to seek reelection?” Her response is an indication of what is clearly self-destructive about both Nina Turner and ‘Our Revolution’. She said about those two successful and respected progressives “If they want Our Revolution’s endorsement they will seek it like everybody else and so they gotta start with the local affiliates, and if the local affiliates say that this is the person that we want to back, then there it is. There it is.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/nina-turner-our-revolution-president-from-democrat_us_595a4413e4b0c85b96c66373

[Ken Burch]

160. I don't think Sherrod should be primaried.

That said, while Nina often speaks aggressively, I don't personally interpret her remarks there as a call to primary the guy. It's hard to credit her being that reckless or vindictive.

[Demsrule86]

161. She is a problem and could cost us safe seats. She is bitter and angry and doesn't concern herself

with Trump. She is the poster child for the unrepentant anti-Hillary voter. Our revolution is a complete waste of time and money. Now I have not seen many here. They seem to prefer to operate in blue states where it is easier to claim victory with little effort. But if they were here. I wouldn't work with them. In fact, they are the opposition as much as any Republican. We will just do our own thing as we always have and work to elect Democrats. These folks who in the age of Trump turn their attention on Democrat candidates and the party are not progressive. They (like the Greens) enable Republicans. Have a great day.

[JI7]

65. Nina Turner works for Jill Stein who is a Putin Troll

So turner is also a Putin troll.

[Jim Lane]

68. Would you happen to have a link for your assertion about Turner?

I see all kinds of crap thrown at Nina Turner in this thread, but every time I ask for a link I get nothing.

What I know about Turner and Stein is what I posted in #24: that Stein offered Turner the VP slot on the Green Party ticket, that Turner rejected Stein's offer, and that Turner explained her decision to stay in the Democratic Party by saying "the Democratic Party is worth fighting for."

That doesn't sound like "Nina Turner works for Jill Stein" but I'm prepared to be enlightened.

[radius777]

75. Turner is an opportunist who knows

that 3rd party/Greens have no chance, so she's following the Sanders template in attempting to... I'll be nice and use the phrase 'radically transform', the Democratic Party, which has always been, and likely always wil be, a center-leftish/mainstream liberal party.

There's no real need to remake the Dem party, but to simply go back to Dean's 50 state strategy, to rebuild/expand the Obama coalition, and to more clearly outline and focus the goals of the party so that it produces results for the working/middle classes.

[GoCubsGo]

88. Is this the same Nina Turner

who was a frequent guest on the radio show of Ed "RT Puppet" Schultz? Why, yes she is. I am horrified when I remember that I liked the both of them at one time. How far these two opportunists have fallen.

[Demsrule86]

141. That's her...and she shit on Hillary during the general and has continued to shit on Democrats.

Our Revolution is no different than the Greens.

[ProudLib72]

73. What is the fantasy world Nina lives in

where the only fight worth engaging in is within the party? She is incredibly disconnected from reality and seems to have no grasp of how politics works (ie with compromise).

Anyone who would support this nonsense is just as delusional as she is.

[mjvpi]

126. This is exactly how big money and the religious right moved the Reublicans so far to the right.

I'm 60. I've been paying attention for a long time. I saw it happen over my lifetime. Respectfully, compromise is how governing should work after the elections. Elections should be about the world that we want to bring about. Ms Turner is playing out a proven strategy.

[Demsrule86]

142. No she is not...she will cause Democratic losses...The GOP had one issue...health care which always

destroys electoral chances of those advancing it...Turner's method will only lead to GOP wins...and we can't afford that. She is a traitor.

[dembotoz]

79. Our revolution members make up the majority of my local party new members

They show up
They volunteer
They march
They are our new guard
Ignore them and dis then at your peril

[Demsrule86]

80. My condolences to you and to our party when we lose the next election and to our country when

The GOP, Donald Trump and Nina Turner and her minions (electing GOP) destroy it. If Nina people are at my local Dem HQ I won't be there. Why would I waste my time? Of course so far I have seen none.

[dembotoz]

82. Don't know where u hang out. Opposite true here

[Demsrule86]

85. I hang out in Ohio...and when Nina said she would not support Sherrod Brown who will have

a boatload of money coming against him from the Kochs ET AL...unless he kissed her ring or some such thing.,our revolution lost me and I have heard nothing out of them that would change my decision. I hear tell the GOP here are scheming to find someone to run in the primary that could get the support of this group in order to weaken Sherrod Brown. I realized then how terrible this group is. They are going to cost Democrats safe seats...hoping she has far less power than she thinks. If I never hear her name again, it would be too soon. I actually contributed to this group until I realized what they are...GOP enablers like the Greens...hell maybe they are Greens. But they get nothing from me ...but a 'Good day sir'.

[dembotoz]

89. In Wisconsin

I'm my CD, Bernie volunteers outnumbered hrc volunteers in the general maybe 2 to 1.
And they joined the party and are active.

[Demsrule86]

91. Great news...what Feingold couldn't elected in your state? And you and the gang think a more

liberal candidate should do the trick? Hopefully, you all are supporting Sen. Baldwin.

[MineralMan]

95. And who won in the presidential race in your state?

Remind me.

[dembotoz]

98. actually my county was one of 2 in the state who increase hrc turnout over obama

so stick you crap elsewhere

they worked hard

period

[MineralMan]

99. And, yet, Trump won Wisconsin.

I saw how the vote turned out. We all did. We managed, somehow, to get a Clinton win in Minnesota, but it was close. Clinton lost in your state. Feingold lost in your state.

I'm sure that many people worked hard. Just not enough people.

[dembotoz]

100. if you want a discussion about what hrc did wrong in my state the mods will shut this down fast

lots of difference from minnesota to wisconsin beyond you having a sucky football team

[Demsrule86]

115. The point is you have had a GOP governor who surivived impeachment and won re-election,

Feingold lost...there is no evidence that a far left Candidate can win any statewide election...thankfully, our revolution has not turned its attention on primarying Sen. Baldwin so far. We need to support Democrats period...not primary safe Democratic seats...in case some have missed our situation...we are in emergency mode...progresssive policy is on life support under Trump and the repukes. We cannot have save seats lost in the interest of the pure. It will take decades to fix the damage caused already.

[dembotoz]

137. Excuse me we have run centrist candidates and look how fucking well it worked

And ur advice is to do the same

Bullshit

[Demsrule86]

143. who are your referring to? No if Feingold couldn't get elected, you should

devote all your time saving Sen. Baldwin's seat...you state has shifted to the right...moderates are all you will be able to elect for some time I fear. Save your incumbent Senator and for God's sake don't primary safe Democrats.

[dembotoz]

150. Barrett and burke

[Demsrule86]

151. They were candidates for governor...Barrett in 10

when the GOP won everything when the left had a pout about not getting single payer (I well remember some of the posts here as I lurked at the time) and Feingold lost that same year so that blows your argument out of the water...in 14 after Walker had been impeached which in hindsight was not a good idea...Burke lost to a sitting governor...to me this indicates how far right Wisconsin has moved...better try to save what you can...The house is burning down people as another poster noted...if you primary sitting Democrats who are not pure enough...you will lose seats and we are screwed in terms of healthcare. The GOP owns it all...turn your attention to the real enemy ...Republicans and leave the Democratic Party alone.

[dembotoz]

157. See nothing rational in ur comments

[Demsrule86]

110. Big deal...she still lost Wisconsin...so how would a more liberal our revolution approved candidate

win? I tell you the GOP are going to trick Nina into supporting them if they haven't already. She and our revolution are open to Republican candidates by her own words.

[dembotoz]

113. see my reponse directly above

mods would be unhappy if i go into why hrc did not carry wisconsin

[emulatorloo]

164. I doubt mods give a shit, as they've heard all the insta pundit-class narratives before

I live in IA part time, we used to be purple state that voted Democratic for President except for a very few times.

Wisconsin was the same way.

Our states are Red States now.

Kochs have shat out tons of money in both our states for what is it? 10 years now? Constant lies against Democrats. It had its effect.

I don't know what else to do but fight back against that and work to elect Democrats in 2018.

[Hortensis]

97. Lol. "Ignore them and dis then at your peril"?

What's your "new guard" going to do with us? This "peril" you threaten others with?

Don't answer. I know you don't know. That would be up to your new, strong leader, and you have no idea who malignant right wing schemers are currently planning that to be, much less what the agenda will be.

If you are capable, though, maybe consider that left-wing extremists are so small in number, and ultimately always so repulsive and incompetent in their behaviors, that the parties they briefly form always fail and they seldom win more than some odd seats here or there.

Left-wing zealotry's largest victory in a century, by far, has been, in a small way, to help remove the Democratic Party from power, a yearned-for goal they couldn't begin to do on their own, and turn the U.S. over to right-wing extremists lead by ultraconservative billionaires and a mentally disordered clown.

[Demsrule86]

111. More threats...hey we get it... some are hinting that they helped take down Hillary by not voting

for her and if we don't bow down to them...they will do it again. Wow...guess they don't mind Trump so much.

[Squinch]

155. Why does support of these people always have to include a threat? Hmmmm?

Here's my position with respect to them: I will join with them in voting for Democrats. Period.

No threats. No need for special attention or adulation, no demands that anyone "bend the knee" to me, no demands that good people like Sherrod Brown need to jump through hoops to impress me personally, no pronouncements about how they have lost their souls (though they DID lose us an election), no pronouncements about how I will drop a new soul on them from up here on my high horse.

I will join with them in voting for Democrats. Period. When they oppose Democrats, I will point out, loudly, that they are, once again, supporting the regime that squats in the White House right now and that is bent on destroying the Republic that I love.

[dawg]

87. If they want the "mainstream" Democrats to support their issues ...

all they've got to do is win primaries. And if there really is a vast sea of non-voters willing to support single-payer and free college for all, then they should have no problem at all in getting them out to the polls.

On the other hand, if their "revolution" somehow fails to materialize in the primaries, they need to get with the program and support the "lesser" good against the "greater" evil.

If they can't do that, then piss on the whole lot of them.

[Jim Lane]

101. The course you recommend is exactly what most of us followed.

By "us" I mean the 13 million or so who voted for Bernie Sanders in the primaries. Overwhelmingly, we voted for Hillary Clinton in the general election (by a larger margin than Clinton's 2008 supporters voted for Obama).

I completely agree with you about primaries. That we now have primaries, instead of the old smoke-filled rooms with party bosses, is why third-party politics is boneheaded. There's never or almost never a plausible scenario in which a progressive could be elected on a third-party line but could not win a Democratic primary.

The corollary, of course, is that it's also boneheaded to spew vitriol at progressives who do follow the course of contesting a Democratic primary. That kind of attack has no practical effect except to make it more likely that some people will make the error of leaving the party.

[Demsrule86]

103. I will not support their issues...if they win primaries they may be setting up a loss in the general

And there is no evidence that they will support Democrats that don't meet their purity standards...they have kicked out some who voted for Hillary Clinton...the fact they have Turner makes me unlikely to support anything they do.

[dawg]

116. It has to go both ways.

If they win primaries, I will support them - even if I think they are trying to go too far, too fast.

The realities of governing will become apparent to them soon enough. And I think they would gain a newfound appreciation of the "mainstream" Democrats who came before them.

And they would be infinitely better than any Republicans.

[Demsrule86]

118. The worry is they win primaries which tend to bring out the more liberal voters and lose the

election...that is the problem.

[dawg]

120. I think the primaries are a pretty good gauge of who will do best in the general.

If a candidate can get lots of Democrats out for the primaries, then he or she will probably also get them out in the general. Maximizing our turnout is probably more important than appealing to those coveted "swing" voters.

Swing voters do exist, but it is not at all clear that centrism is actually the thing that "swings" them.

[Demsrule86]

144. No, they are not...different voters turn out for primaries...the most liberal for Dems and the most

conservative for Pukes. The general electorate is much different which is why you might get a liberal in a primary in say WVA , but he will be trounced in the General and replaced with a GOP...and even if they win...incumbent Dems are damaged by primaries...it is a bad idea when you have no power to go after your own party (although Nina is not a Democrat)... those who agree with you mostly which makes me think Ms. Turner has another agenda. Just once, I would love to see her sort go after the GOP...but it never happens. Makes you wonder.

[Blue_Tires]

107. Nina Turner is batshit insane... Hard pass

And I have no time for any supposed progressive who hates Obama more than she does Trump... She's just Cynthia McKinney Jr.

Nobody else finds it odd that these hardline Liberal Teabaggers only seem to want to unseat Dems in solid blue districts?

[Demsrule86]

112. Exactly...have to wonder who is funding them? Koch may?

[Jim Lane]

138. Solid blue districts is precisely where primaries make the most sense

You'll find this thread littered with dire warnings that a primary victory by a progressive Democrat might produce a nominee who's too progressive to win the general election. That's obviously far more of a concern in some places than in others.

For example, I've heard that there are primary challenges from the left being mounted against Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) and to Congressmember Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). Without knowing much about either race, my guess is that the incumbents, both personally popular, will win renomination easily. But suppose they lose -- what will happen? West Virginia has, alas, become a red state, which went heavily for Trump. Manchin, if renominated, may win re-election because of his personal popularity, but a more progressive Democrat would presumably be the underdog in November.

Pelosi's district, by contrast, is as solid blue as they come. It's located entirely within the city of San Francisco. Its Cook PVI rating is D+37, meaning it averages 37 percentage points more Democratic than the nation as a whole. In the last midterm, 2014, Pelosi beat her Republican opponent by 83-17. Any Democrat who replaces her will also win in a walk.

So, no, I don't find it odd that the people you deride "only seem to want to unseat Dems in solid blue districts". Those are precisely the districts where a primary fight can't possibly cost the Democrats a seat.

The difficult questions come in more competitive districts. There, primary voters who are dissatisfied with the conservatism of an incumbent Democrat have to consider the benefit of replacing him or her with someone better, versus the danger that the challenger would lose the general election to the Republican. Allow me to offend the zealots on both sides by saying that there's no one-size-fits-all answer to that question.

[Demsrule86]

145. The purpose of elections is to win...when we waste money on already blue seats...we

have less money to spend on turning out GOP slime and winning back the majority. The attempt to get the perfect candidate in a blue state is akin to rearranging the chairs on the Titanic. And if we lose Manchin or any Democratic Senator, we lose the ACA and millions lose health care which kind of makes you wonder why Turner's trash talked Sherrod Brown and Tammy Baldwin...this is another thing that Turner and her ilk have in common with some on the right...they care nothing if what they do causes terrible suffering for Americans. I don't consider our revolution progressive. I have no idea what they are...but they will never win and can only enable Republicans. They could be working to stop Trump and elect Democrats in red states (truly useful) but instead they turn their sites on safe Democratic seats...disgusting waste of money and time. I have not noticed these folks at my Dem meetings, but I won't work with them. I will find another group if they show up. I want nothing to do with our revolution or Nina Turner.

[Jim Lane]

149. The purpose of elections is to get better government.

This isn't a football game, with some guys in light jerseys, some guys in dark jerseys, and you just root for your team. Winning the election is a means to an end, not an end in itself.

In the United States today, better government will almost always be served if a Democrat defeats a Republican. But, often, better government will also be served if a good Democrat defeats a bad Democrat in the primary.

Sometimes, these two ideas are in tension. You could have directed your post at everyone who, before the Democratic convention in 2016, contributed to Chafee, Clinton, O'Malley, Sanders, or Webb. Just think, those millions of people could have saved their money and spent it instead on turning out GOP slime. Well, the answer is that there's value in getting the best candidate nominated. People agree about that, even when they disagree about which candidate is better, as they did in 2015-16.

BTW, Nina Turner did not trash talk Sherrod Brown or Tammy Baldwin. I could elaborate but there is obviously no hope that I will talk you down off your irrational hatred of Nina Turner.

[Demsrule86]

153. Well, your methods will weaken Democrats and get better Republican government . You

can't get better government without electing your party and getting them back into the majority and even then you won't get everything you want-that is the truth, but it will be way better than anything any GOP type is offering. I would have thought in the age of Trump that would be apparent....but please feel free to arrange the deck chairs to suit the purest among us on the Titanic...because if our revolution and other Democratic Party haters have their way...we lose it all...the courts and progressive policy dating back to Roosevelt...already Our revolution has gone after Manchin if he is weakened and we lose the seat ...those who call themselves progressives (Green trash really) will have blood on their hands as the ACA falls to be replaced with nothing and literally millions lose their lives over time. This isn't a policy dispute. This is life and death for millions of Americans. Those who didn't vote for Hillary already have much to answer for in truth...and this is only the beginning of the Trump shit show.

[DFW]

114. Slogan's Run

Slogans, slogans and more slogans. The Democratic Party HAS to decide if it's the party of corporations or the party of the people?

WHICH corporations? Starbucks? How about the fact that Trump won in plenty of rural counties with little to no corporate presence at all? IT'S NOT THAT SIMPLE, IT'S NEVER THAT SIMPLE! If I never hear the word "corporate" again on a Democratic board, it won't be too soon.

I was around in 1967 and 1968. "All power to the people!" It meant nothing, did nothing for anyone. It got people to shout "Right On" a few times, but that was about the total lasting effect. A few guys figured that out and actually did something about it. Ron Dellums was an effective member of Congress for several years. But he did that from right at home where he came from. He didn't get elected to the House of Representatives by "THE People." He got elected by HIS people.

Republicans went to great lengths to try to slam Obama in the beginning for being a "community organizer." Why? well, maybe because organized communities run the big risk of informing the people who live in them, and informed voters do not tend to vote for Republicans. Tell Republicans you are against "corporatists" and for "the people," and they'll smile from ear to ear. Tell them you are organizing community seminars to inform voters which issues affect them and how, and which party has taken which position on those issues and they will break out abject panic.

[Demsrule86]

117. Great post...'corporate Democrats' has always been a BS slogan with no meaning.

And we need to work to elect Democrats...and there are different paths depending on the state.

[pnwmom]

122. With all that DT is doing, why is Our Revolution devoting itself to dividing & attacking DEMOCRATS?

[NurseJackie]

131. Pride. Vanity. Contempt. Revenge. (Pick one.)

[pnwmom]

132. I can think of another reason but I'll leave you to guess it.

In your own mind -- and I'm sure you can.

[NurseJackie]

133. Well, of course! That was was just too obvious. It's a "given" and not worth saying...

... ALSO... it's not worth the risks of being so direct about it. (You know how people can be.)

[mjvpi]

123. This is exactly how the conservatives drove the agenda to the right during my lifetime.

If you can't engage your altruism during the primaries, something is wrong. Elections should be about what you want our country be in the future. I admire Nina Turner's idealism. In no way is she talking about this energy and money going outside of the Demacratic Party. Our Revolution is a progressive driver in a system that has been ruled by the ability to raise cash at the expense of principles. They are proving that you don't have to. We are in the same tent damn it.

[ismnotwasm]

124. Yes, she is.

In 2018, Democratic candidates who do not support Our Revolution’s progressive agenda will not earn the group’s endorsement, Turner said. And not only that. According to Turner, Our Revolution may go a step further, supporting primary challenges in 2018, if they emerge, against Democrats who don’t run on a progressive platform.

“The grassroots make the decision” about who Our Revolution supports, Turner said. Primary challengers are emerging against establishment Democrats across the country, but they’ve yet to receive substantial organizing support. Our Revolution could change that.

[6000eliot]

125. Fuck her and her religion.

[NurseJackie]

130. Sheesh! More smearing and denigrating of Democrats! (So what else is new?)

In 2018, Democratic candidates who do not support Our Revolution’s progressive agenda will not earn the group’s endorsement,

And for that I'm sure many will be heartily grateful. From what I can tell, their track-record isn't all that stellar.