Progressive politics should not be given short shrift in Democratic elections

[bigtree]

Last edited Sat Jul 14, 2018, 10:00 AM - Edit history (1)

...reposted from another thread.


I'm sympathetic to the concerns of managing the right wing voters in conservative majority states. Winning is important, and even more so today.

What I'm not understanding is the way primary challenges are being received here. Maybe it does have something to do with the need to mollify conservatives in red states. I'll take folks' word for it.

But here's the thing. Treating progressives in your state like unwanted stepchildren, while giving fealty and political room for conservatives, means that you'll have an increasing reliance on conservative votes, and lessened support from progressive voters.

It's a needless cycle of unnecessary and self-actualizing compromising on Democratic values. That's likely why there are challenges from the left (if they're occurring in your red state). At some point, Democrats need to decide what their party and leaders stand for, outside of getting elected. Even in this perilous moment in history, those values translate into real life consequences for those who can't get their needs represented by their legislators, and transcend elections.

People aren't going to allow their needs to be held hostage to someone's cynical political agenda. Put your political formula for holding a red state seat in front of someone who wanted their Senator or rep to vote for a progressive concern not supported by a conservative electorate. Tell them where in those paragraphs their needs are going to be addressed.

I'd be more concerned, as a candidate, with those in our party who feel our leadership has made political compromises on their lives, than with the prospect that some conservative might not vote for me. That's the way I'd organize my politics. Maybe these conservative state's pols can find a way to assert progressive values and garner support from voters.

It's a mistake, folly to regard progressive challengers as a threat, while giving credence to the idea of mollifying conservative voters. Perhaps the progressive challengers can help advance those progressive ideals in your state, even if they don't prevail over their Democratic challenger, even if they manage to defeat them in the primary.

If they do generate more of a following, it would behoove 'moderate,' conservative Dems to recognize the concerns of their supporters. That's how you build political coalitions and expand your voter base with progressives, not just holding a crap shoot every election hoping appealing to unprincipled and discredited conservative politics and policy for votes wins the day.

[bigtree]

1. »

[heaven05]

8. why?

[Sophia4]

101. I lived through the 1950s and 1960s. I remember when civil rights was considered to be a

left-wing cause, far too controversial for the Democrats to really push.

Our Democratic Party has to be the big-tent party.

Otherwise, a third party can rise and split our voters.

Be warned.

[Hekate]

103. Strangely enough, it was DEMOCRATS who finally got the legislation through

[Sophia4]

104. Right. Although the Republican Party prides itself as the Party of Lincoln.

We need to welcome a broad spectrum of opinions on issues because hearing different opinions causes us to think and to grow.

We don't have to vote for people with whom we disagree. But we can listen to their ideas and not react without thinking.

The Democratic Party should welcome new, progressive ideas and change when needed as we did in the early 1960s with regard to race and "integration." That was the word for racial harmony then.

[R B Garr]

159. Such Naderesque threats. Now he's a useless fool

with nothing to show for himself except being a nasty liar.

Promoting that kind of division is why we got Bush’s war instead of Al Gore’s climate change expertise. Your revisionist history never takes things in context. These third party threats are really getting old.

[leftstreet]

2. DURec

[H2O Man]

3. Recommended.

Thank you.

[kcr]

4. My problem is the current definition of moderate conservative Dem that many of them hold.

I'm sorry, but I'm going to give short shrift to the current crop of so-called Progressive politicians who align themselves with sketchy people, like Glen Greenwald and Jimmy Dore. I question their motives when they define good, solid liberal Dems as "status quo" and use most of their energy to target them. Their true agenda shows. The fact that Our Revolution and Justice Democrats embrace them further cements my feelings on the matter.

[bigtree]

5. reminds me of the way some labeled all self-identified moderate Democrats as DLC

...and Third-Way.

I never agreed with labeling people by way of splinter organizations. The Democratic party is a coalition of interests from many diverse and disparate regions of the nation.

It's also not a party based on conservatism, in my view. Fact is, today's republican conservative politics is mainly a ruse, a front for corporate interests, or a clearinghouse for bigots and racists. Any echo of that in Democratic politics is bound to find deep and withering resistance in our party, and from progressive interests who identify their policies or politics with Democrats. We should welcome that progressive resistance, not give it the back of our hand because it doesn't support or reinforce the status quo.

It's not just a matter of the politics we practice on the internet, it's a matter of real life interests and concerns. If we focus soley on those, we should agree that our Democratic party should not be a haven or refuge for those who would deny or neglect progressive interests.

I question those who would give the same consideration in our party to conservative policies or politics.

[kcr]

12. How do you propose welcoming this resistance?

This is the part I don't get. Because I don't believe I'm giving all progressives the back of my hand when I disagree with their tactics even though I agree on policy. Just the useless ones. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to roll over and agree to their tactics that are at best useless and at worst help Republicans win. Their bullshit resistance is utterly useless and I want no part of it. I always support progressives who join the party who actually work to get things done.

[bigtree]

19. I'm a progressive

...I'm not part of any group other than registered Democrat.

I don't feel red state Democrats have my interests at heart, and I question any politician who feels they need to placate, mollify, or appease the right.

You can represent progressive voters as The Resistance, or whatever group you're going on about till the cows come home. If a candidate gives issues which are important and vital to me representation and support, they are likely to get my vote.

If not, I'm going to look elsewhere. I'm normally an issue voter in primaries, and I support the eventual nominee in the general.

I think it's a mistake to characterize progressive candidates solely by the interest groups who support them. Like the Democratic party, most of them are a coalition of interests, not a cult.

What's more important is why their supporters feel they need to organize behind them, and not rally, for instance, behind an incumbent. Progressive voters aren't some subversive plot, and neither are these groups you've listed. They are fulfilling a role that their supporters feel others are not.

[kcr]

20. You might have a point if it was just about that

But they really do show themselves.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">It honestly was a breath of fresh air. <a href="https://twitter.com/MargaretHoover?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@MargaretHoover</a> brings her own self and style, yet is true to Buckley’s legacy of rigorous exploration of political thought.<br><br>There’s a lot people can learn from how she engages those with different views than her.</p>— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@Ocasio2018) <a href="

Link to tweet

?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 13, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>


In particular, it's this quote that got me:

“She’s true to Buckley’s legacy of rigorous exploration of political thought”

That would be William F Buckley Ocasio-Cortez is referencing. Seriously.

William F Buckely JR? Really?

[bigtree]

21. she did say they debated from different viewpoints

...not really stimulating my outrage gland.

Buckley engaged regularly with many well-known liberals.

Honestly, the things folks choose to criticize her for...

I'm going to disengage from this discussion (AMJoy calling me), but thanks for the responses.

[kcr]

22. Wow

So, let me get this straight. Not joining their political organizations makes a Dem total scum, so let's smear them and misrepresent where they fall on the political spectrum and that's totally acceptable. We should embrace that because that's progressive. And hey, while we're at it, a follower of William F Buckley Jr is praiseworthy, so let's fawn all over her and give her a platform to share, as well as praising the man himself. Feel the liberal progressiveness!

No. Not only no, but hell no.

ETA check out the responses. I'm far from the only one who feels this way. She's getting her ass handed to her, and rightfully so. If she keeps this up, her star is going to fade fast.

[bigtree]

23. I don't agree that she 'fawned all over' Buckley or the other person.

...this isn't a productive discussion. Interesting how fast it became about AOC...

I'm done on this. Believe what you want. Maybe start your own thread on it.


here's the interview she's talking about (context to kcr's post for folks looking on):

Link to tweet

(I'm still not going to divert and discuss this or AOC on this thread.)

[kcr]

25. Yeah you're right

If you really believe that William F Buckley Jr's legacy was one of a rigorous exploration of political thought, then productive discussion isn't possible.

I'm making it about Ocasio? She's a member of the organizations and using the tactics you're asking us to embrace. I'm using her as an example because she's the latest and most prominent right now.

[emulatorloo]

67. Buckley was a racist and a supporter of apartheid. End of story.

William F. Buckley and National Review’s vile race stance: Everything you need to know about conservatives and civil rights

https://www.salon.com/2015/06/07/william_f_buckley_and_national_reviews_vile_race_stance_everything_you_need_to_know_about_conservatives_and_civil_rights/

[bigtree]

78. she was commenting on his interview style, not his politics

...it's sophistry to present the interview in which AOC is espousing the virtues of Democratic socialism and conclude that she was giving fealty to Buckley's conservative politics.

These are slimy political tactics.

[emulatorloo]

82. Slimy political tactics? Stop projecting.

Of course AOC isn’t giving “fealty” to Buckley. I didn’t say she was.

My post was to inform YOU of Buckley’s true legacy, as apparently you don’t know what he stood for and espoused.

She made a gaffe because apparently she isn’t informed about his true legacy. It’s unfortunate she didn’t research before tweeting.

Same goes for you. Do a little reasearch before posting.

[bigtree]

83. blocked

...carry on this personal attack without me.

[emulatorloo]

87. You were apparently unaware of the facts about Buckley.

That’s not my fault, is it?

As I say there is no shame in admitting you are uninformed. We can all do research and learn.

BTW, you can’t block everybody.

[bigtree]

92. I watched him for fucking years emulatorloo

...here's a clue. Don't assume I'm some idiot who just burst onto the political scene. I've been politically active and engaged for forty years, long before the internet brought us these baiting appeals on behalf of people's political choices.

She wasn't praising Buckley's politics. She was giving a nod to her interviewer about her debating style, comparing it to her predecessor. The entire interview is about AOC defining her Democratic Socialism.

It's sophistry, even ludicrous to suggest she gives an inch of fealty to Buckley's conservative politics. But, you go ahead.

I'm not to blame for whatever you're projecting onto me. And you don't have a right to put me down just because you may hold a different political view. How easily and readily you cast me in with the worst of whatever you believe. How easily you actually superimposed your own belief onto my opinion.

I don't know what your problem is with me and I don't care anymore. If you can't treat my opinion with respect then it's a waste of time trying to sell me yours.

Done. I'm not going through this again with you.

[emulatorloo]

93. Hey dude I am not the poster who claimed she expressed "fealty"

I am the poster who said she made a gaffe, probably because she isn’t aware of Buckley’s true legacy. Gaffes are unfortunate, but AOC’s good and she’ll probably do better next time.

We probably have the same political views as 99.9 percent of DU’er are left-liberals and progressives.

[xmas74]

145. But he can stalk

As he's done with most of my posts on this thread, even when addressed to another poster.

[KPN]

80. Hear, hear. I personally believe you are spot on

bigtree and that time will bear this out. Just as the Tea Party nuts eventually wrested control from the GOP status wuo leadership, so will the far more rational economic justice progressives do so with the Democratic Party. It will happen sooner or later.

[R B Garr]

161. LOL, that is funny that you think the Tea Party nuts

are something to aspire to.

If you haven’t noticed, the Russian’s picked up on the divisions and used you for their own gain. The only thing that was gained is they got Trump in the White House. What did you gain...?

[GulfCoast66]

6. That's all well and good.

Unfortunately way too many progressives judge being a good progressive on who you support, not what you support.

We see that playing out in St. Louis now.

[kcr]

13. Yep. This is exactly my point

Good, solid progressive Dems are being primaried simply because they didn't join the likes of Our Revolution, or Justice Democrats and kiss the ring. It's sheer spite. They claim to be against status quo "party machines", yet they've become the very monster they claim they fight and then some. The quality of their vetting leaves a lot to be desired as well. They have no qualms about lying and smearing these candidates because the ends justify the means. The fact they're friendly with right-wingers and Libertarians because of their enemy of my enemy mentality is the cherry on top. I will "give them the back of my hand" for such tactics every time. This is poison and anyone who wants the Democratic party to move to the left should decry these organizations and their schemes.

[PETRUS]

7. One thing I've noticed about your posts...

Whether or not I agree with what you have to say, you always seem to contribute something of substance. In this case you're making a point I find very valuable.

Your post made me think of an essay I read I while ago. You might find it interesting:

http://www.ianwelsh.net/the-control-of-parties-and-the-rise-and-fall-of-ideologies/

[Eko]

9. Huh,

How have we treated progressives like unwanted stepchildren compared to conservative Democrats? Also, equating "moderate" with "conservative" when talking about Democrats makes no sense whatsoever. Since when did moderate become a bad word? And lastly, you don't get to control a party because you want to, do the freaking work. Right now we have more "moderate" democrats in office,,,,,,,,,,,, so the party is more "moderate" whatever that means. For me, Ill go for whatever Democrat has the best chance of winning, progressive, moderate, "moderate conservative", or conservative democrat. You know, we have that orange trumpaboon in office.

[GulfCoast66]

15. The OP was incorrect

Last edited Sun Jul 15, 2018, 01:44 AM - Edit history (1)

We are not a moderate party and the majority of our congress members are not moderates, but liberals.

As we speak Bernie and a new Progressive candidate from Brooklyn are attempting to primary a very liberal member of the black caucus from St. Louis.

The only real difference? The sitting congress person did not support Bernie and the challenger does.

I realize I am risking a hide here. But damned if I will sit back and allow what happened on DU in 2016 to reoccur.

[Wwcd]

33. K & R

[KitSileya]

86. Not to mention, Bernie is joining with Pence to fight a Lesbian Native American woman candidate

in support of a white man. How progressive is that? How progressive can AOC and Sanders be when they fight minority candidates in support of white men?

[JCanete]

97. well I don't know. What are their politics? All that you listed is not a platform. nt

[KitSileya]

106. There's never been a native American woman in Congress.

Sharice Davids is progressive just in being herself. Except to those who think "identity politics" are a distraction, of course. If you want to find out more about her, read this interview with her:

https://www.runwithpride.org/news/2018/4/1/meet-the-progressive-kansan-who-could-be-our-first-lesbian-native-american-congresswoman

Her website is shariceforcongress.com.

[JCanete]

113. Was clarence Thomas a progressive just for being himself? That is nonsense critereon.

Have his actions on the bench been good for people of color in this nation, or bad for them?

That said,I certainly appreciate the value of having a Native American breaking that barrier, and I am NOT equating this person, who I as of yet know nothing about, to Clarence Thomas. thanks for the link, and I'll check it out.

[JI7]

10. so why work to defeat a progressive like rep Clay ?

[GulfCoast66]

14. His opponent supported Bernie. No other reason

It’s in the open now. Policy does not matter.

Only loyalty.

Because they are attempting to primary a very progressive member of the black caucus.

Who supported Hillary.

[lapucelle]

28. The common thread seems to be that these are all Brand New Congress candidates.

Corbin Trent's strategy is to use party infrastructure and institutional organization to facilitate challenging both Republican and Democratic incumbents in safe districts and to run independents in other races, if feasible. (Former Republican Marc Whitmire will be running in the GE against both the Republican and Democratic candidates for Congress in Tennessee.) It appears that the loyalty is to the PAC, rather than to any party platform and principles.

While the PAC claims to eschew corporate money, because it exploits the resources of established political parties (which are funded through donations, including corporate) the purity claims ring somewhat hollow.

Theo: What is your relationship to the Democratic Party?

Corbin: Myself, personally? I have no relationship whatsoever. The organization has very little. We intend to run within their structures, and in their primaries, and we’re thankful that they’ve set up an infrastructure that’s going to allow candidates to run in primaries. But we think that the party has—a long time ago—stopped representing the needs of the American people.

http://inthesetimes.com/article/20341/brand-new-congress-progressives-republican-party-democrat

https://brandnewcongress.org/faqs/marc-whitmire/

*https://web.archive.org/web/20170606184712/https://brandnewcongress.org/plan

*The archived page has been scrubbed from the website.
https://brandnewcongress.org/plan

[Blue_true]

11. The thing that infuriates me.

Is that people making the claim in your OP headline treat the rest of us like we are not progressive. I can't think of a single thing that Our Revoultion is for that I am not for, the only difference is in how to realize them.

[pnwmom]

17. +1. n/t

[lapucelle]

39. Here's one of the Democratic incumbents that Brand New Congress

is challenging in the Democratic primary in MO.

[Squinch]

48. Seems like they're just not liberal enough for our "friends" though.

Or was it that they aren't part of the "cool kids" club?

[lapucelle]

50. There are real fights to be waged. The MO race doesn't seem to be one of them. N/T

[Squinch]

54. Exactly. And I distrust those waging the unnecessary ones

[joshcryer]

58. It has zero to do with leftism and whether or not you supported Sanders in 2016.

Literally the only connection the Our Revolution candidates have by every single one I looked up is that they were on Sanders' 2016 campaign, in some form or another.

[Squinch]

59. Yep. So we'll lose a bunch of good incumbent progressives,

maybe lose some seats in the process due to rancor within the party, and then they'll whine that we aren't progressive enough.

And by that point we'll all be speaking Russian.

[joshcryer]

60. Wash, rinse, repeat.

Those that lose will lose because the establishment was "against them" (note: they wouldn't take money from the establishment so if they win their primaries and lose the general then it's the fault of the party for not helping them).

It's a fucking sham.

[pnwmom]

16. Far left voters who would stay home because they can't tell the difference

between a moderate Democrat and a member of the Party of Trump have never been our allies.

I've given up on appealing to the Jill Stein voters. There are a lot more potential voters in the center.

[Blue_true]

146. I agree. And POC non voters who now want in.

We need to bring in rational voters that see the big picture and stop catering to clueless babies.

[Tatiana]

18. K&R. People are not entitled to seats once they are elected.

They must continue to earn the votes of their constituents. I see no reason for the hostility to legal primaries in safe districts/states.

We should want to put the most progressive, most energizing candidates forward. We're not going to win one since MAGAt voter. Our only hope of beginning to dig ourselves out of this hole is to excite the base.

And real Democrats will pull the lever for whoever the "D" is on the ballot.

We need to do something different. We're down the WH, the Congress, and the Supreme Court.

Nobody is mobilizing based on the fiery oratory skills of Chuck Schumer, no offense. But Al Franken? Ted Lieu? Maxine Waters?

People will march all day, will get up and confront fascism without fear for those people. We need more of them.

[Trumpocalypse]

24. You have it all wrong

It is not right wing voters. They will never vote for a Democrat. It is moderate, independent voters that we need to get out and vote for Dems.

Going too far too the left will only alienate them forcing them to stay home or vote for a Republican.

As any political analyst will tell you, most elections are won in the middle, not at the extremes of right or left. Thus, any Senator, Governor, Member of Congress, Mayor or President needs to do is win over enough of these centrist/moderate/independent voters to add to their base to achieve 51% and victory. The larger or more secure the base is, the fewer of these independents need to be won over.

The GOP has had a large & secure base for over 30 years. Thus, they don't need to win over that many moderates in order to win elections.

The same is not true of Democrats. Too often many in the base make the perfect the enemy of the good and abandon the Dems either by not voting or voting for a third party candidate. Thus, the Dems are more and more forced to pander to centrist/moderate voters to get re-elected. Which in turn alienates the base even more and the cycle repeats itself.

The net result is that over the years Democratic incumbents on average have had to become more moderate while GOP incumbents have not.

While no candidate or political party is owed anyone's vote, setting the bar too high on certain issues or looking at the glass as half empty rather than as half full can be damaging overall. Why should any Democratic incumbent stick their neck out on certain issues knowing that in the end they will have to accept some compromise, which is the way our system works, and then will be abandoned by their base because they accepted said compromise. The safer path it to not take a chance in the first place and just tack to the middle.

Therefore, the insistence by some on the left for 100% ideological purity can only serve to marginalize themselves. If the left abandons someone who has a 85%-90% record of voting for progressive legislation, because of the 10% to 15% that they didn't; they why should any incumbent bother to listen to the base. The end result is that the left becomes more and more marginalized because incumbents need to move more and more go after the middle to win.

[in2herbs]

32. A few years ago I changed my political party affiliation from Democrat to Independent solely because

the democrats were never progressive enough for me, even though I always ended up voting democrat.

[Trumpocalypse]

36. Well glad you vote for Democrats

But how do you define not progressive enough?

[crazycatlady]

40. You may have shut yourself out of primaries

(Depending on your state).

[Blue_true]

148. In Florida, indies don't get to vote in primaries.

So any far left Indy that is for a far left primary candidate throw away their chance to make a difference by being an Indy.

[xmas74]

69. If you're no longer a Democrat

Why are you here?

[Blue_true]

149. Because the person identifies with democrats.

I personally have no issue with democratic leaning indies as long as they realize that they need to put their backs into our winning the General if the party nominee turns out to be someone other than their primary choice.

[GulfCoast66]

158. Well aren't you special.

Rather than try to convince fellow Democrats the follies of their ways you take your ball and go home.

[Blue_true]

147. The far left IS NOT the democrats base, POC are the base.

African Americans are the bedrock of the base, but they are being joined by Asians and somewhat by Hispanics. Some ultra liberal White kid that is pudding and morning about free college and the oligarchy is not the democrats base and I am damned tired of hearing them claim that they are.

[GulfCoast66]

155. Amen!

I’m a middle aged white guy in Florida and I know that.

But some white dude from Lilly white New England want us to believe socialist are the base. Bullshit.

[Blue_true]

156. The thing that enrages me is the continuous minimization

of POC by some that claim to be on our side. Without POC voters providing a base, we don't even get out the gate.

[GulfCoast66]

157. What enrages me is how many liberals do not even consider that progressive is a dubious title

My father grew up under Huey Long and his brother Earl in Louisiana. Good progressives unless you happened to be black. He taught me that lots of progressives loved government involvement in the free market unless it helped black folks.

I nievely thought those days were gone till I started hearing some on the left saying we spend to much effort on ‘social justice issues’.

Some things never change.

[Blue_true]

165. Spot on. nt

[marlakay]

26. I live in a conservative County in a blue state

With a republican congressman the lady who won primary is very progressive, it will be interesting to see how well she does.

[Blue_true]

150. You will be surprised.

It all depends on how she talks to people and how good her voter registration efforts and ground game are. Sometimes you can convince the moderately conservative spouse of an arch conservative if you communicate well on issues that are important to that man or woman.
I remember that when President Obama won reelection in 2012, a woman in Arizona ran over and killed her husband with their new vehicle because he didn't have the urge to vote for Romney and simply didn't vote. Honestly, on some things he would have been better off lying to her and saying that he voted for Romney, unless she had some way of checking, she would not have known any different. My guess is that marriage was likely headed for a quick divorce because he may have been sick of her politics.

[marlakay]

152. In the primary if you add all the dem votes

Of all candidates and the republican ones he almost had twice as much. Some republicans and most all no party folks would have to vote for her. He has been congressman here for 20 yrs. Greg Walden. She is gay and married and wants some form of gun control in a very gun friendly area.

I like her a lot very smart lady a engineer but we will see, she is working hard going to every city.

I have her sign but had to take down till Sept, our town you can’t put up signs until 2 months before elections. Actually maybe thats why we get along so well here.

[Wwcd]

27. Here's the smugness:

"At some point, Democrats need to decide what their party and leaders stand for, outside of getting elected"

Wtf

[Squinch]

30. There's ALWAYS smugness. Based on what, I don't know. Purity, I guess.

[bigtree]

35. really?

...the entire argument about 'far left' politics and policies being more than red state voters can bear is about 'getting elected.'

There's nothing 'smug' about expecting these politicians stand for something more than the next election.

[Squinch]

42. Do you hear yourself? ALL that matters now is that we get Democrats elected wherever it

is humanly possible. That is all. Right now nothing else matters. Because if we don't do that, there will be no more Democrats, there will be no more progressives, there will be no more Democracy.

[bigtree]

46. but it's not smug to assume only the incumbent can achieve that?

...portraying Democratic primary challengers as a threat is the real damage here. Do you hear yourself?

The split-ticket thing you describe is only if there's an independent challenge, It's not accurate to describe a Democratic primary challenger as 'splitting the ticket.' One of them will be the nominee.

If it's the challenger who prevails, the task for those concerned with winning the general will be to support them.

If it's the incumbent, their challenge will be to draw their Democratic primary opponent's voters in. Hopefully they don't just take the opportunity to swipe at them. Hopefully they don't treat them like some folks here have treated their candidate, like some splinter interest group... like a threat.

[Squinch]

47. Look. You keep trying to unseat Dem incumbents and

complaining that red state Dems aren't progressive enough for you. Have fun with that.

I'll be over here fighting against republicans. You know, the ones bringing down the republic as we speak.

[bigtree]

51. it's as if you've never heard of a Democratic primary

...democracy? Democratic process of elections?

Where does it say that incumbents should be immune from a primary challenge?

Take a look back to the heyday of Adam Clayton Powell, and a young Charlie Rangel, an upstart, challenging the political giant and ultimately taking his seat. The horror!

[Squinch]

79. Its as if you never heard of Brand New Congress and don't

understand how their goals and methods can be destructive to the most progressive candidates' chances for re-election, yet you are defending them nevertheless.

[bigtree]

88. that's the joke here.

...this thread isn't about Brand New Congress.

I haven't bothered to look at or care about BNC, because it's a diversion, a boogeyman. I haven't yet seen the disaster people here are running around screaming on my threads about. I think the risk to the party from these progressive challengers is overblown and deliberately inflated with typical campaign rhetoric; fearmongering, labeling, and demonizing.

It's not working. It's actually counterproductive to what you say you want. No one has blown up AOC and her candidates like her critics. Red-state Democrats aren't the only ones who can play wedge politics.

Me, I'm just an observer. I don't contribute anything more than my opinion here. I'd like to think I could find room to express my opinion without getting plastered with every grievance and complaint people have about Democratic challengers in a primary.

[Squinch]

89. Sure, sure. Nothing to do with BNC. Except that's exactly who we're

all talking about.

And by the by, fear mongering? If you aren't terrified, you need to go educate yourself and get terrified. If you were paying attention, no "mongering" would be necessary.

[bigtree]

94. listen carefully, since you appear to be talking past me

...the risk from these progressive challengers is overblown, imo, both to the party (the seats contested) and to the Democratic legislators they're challenging.

All of the histrionics may be understandable, but they're still ridiculous, given that this is just a Democratic primary. If the challengers get enough votes to win, they will need and deserve support. If not, the incumbent will need the votes of the challenger. This isn't the way to do that.

And listen.

Listen.

I did not write about AOC.

I did not write about BNC, not even remotely is this thread about BNC.

You really burned me up over something I don't actually believe. Now you're digging ditches around your post trying to make it stick. I'm not going to allow you to stuff me into your political box and kick me around like I'm your problem. The people you need to address are the ones actually supporting these candidates. I understand that's a lot more difficult to do than hanging a phony label on me and kicking me around my thread.

[Squinch]

96. You keep believing you're just being unfairly misunderstood.

You aren't. You may not understand that you are talking about the same races and the same people as everyone else here, but you are.

You think its overblown histrionics. That's just ignorant. We are in crisis. Every penny and every minute of our time should be going to fight republicans. Not fighting between Democrats for safe Democratic seats. Not answering whines that "red state Democrats aren't as progressive as I want."

No one is missing what you are saying. But what you are saying is irresponsible in the context of our current crisis. Of you don't want to be "kicked around" then don't be pushing this nonsense.

[bigtree]

100. I'd like to be treated with respect here

...I haven't said or done anything to be undeserving of respect here.

If you want to have your view treated with comity and respect, you need to reciprocate. Since you have no intention, I think I'll just end this here. Shame.

[Squinch]

110. Gee. You have called other's positions "overblown," "histrionics,"

"fear mongering," you're accusing Democrats of "giving fealty to republicans," and of "mollifying conservative voters" at the expense of progressives (though in fact most of the candidates being primaried by these "progressives" are among the MOST progressive incumbents we have ever had).

But you think YOU have been treated with disrespect? Good lord.

[xmas74]

115. I treated the poster with disrespect because

I said that I was tired of so-called progressives running and demanding fealty. I said it wasn't right that they were diverting finds to primarying Clay when they could save that effort for the GE.

I live in Missouri and the GE is going to be a fight. Clay is safe. He could use his time and money to campaign for McCaskill, Galloway and any number of down ticket. I'm sure whomever wins the primary in the Fourth between Renee and Hallie would love assistance from others. I'm sure one of them right now would have been happy with an endorsement from a few of them. They need all the help they can get against Hartzler in November. Instead, they choose to spend time and money in a primary they will not win.

Turns out I'm abusive because I have an opinion on a race that does affect me.

[Squinch]

124. Oh, God, I know. I just am sick about the fact we are wasting all that money

and effort, and fighting each other, while the world crumbles around our ears.

And people saying that's a good thing, in THIS election that everything depends on, makes me insane.

Do you think Clay will hold the primary? Will he have to waste a lot of money to do so?

[xmas74]

125. He'll hold it

He'll win the GE.

The point is he could be out campaigning for McCaskill or Galloway or any number of down ticket races instead of this crap.

OH, and the OP claims I'm abusive and badgering when they won't stop responding.

[Squinch]

126. LOL. I think it didn't go as he had planned it. I finally realized there is nothing to be gained

by continuing to engage. Or badger by answering.

[xmas74]

127. I'm just a bit irritated that I'm not allowed the same

Right to express myself as the OP. When they've became increasingly uncivil and I called it out it was all my fault. I believe this entire thread and every disagreement has become my fault in his mind.

I've never once had a hide in DU in all these years. Maybe I need one to up my street cred, lol.

[Squinch]

128. No, no. Don't start now!

[xmas74]

132. Just a bit irritated.

I'll get over it.

[bigtree]

129. my thread. Did you forget that? This isn't just a chat room

...and wow!

Did you just admit this seat is safe?

All this thread hijacking and drama for a safe seat?

All of the nonsense about the op being 'bait' for a safe seat?

All of this progressive bashing for a safe seat? (that not just directed at you, xmas)

Unbelievable. This is how you campaign?

What's the upside of this type of advocacy?

You do realize that these Democratic progressive candidates have followers? Do you, or more importantly, does Clay need these votes?

[xmas74]

133. More abuse.

I don't care if it's your thread. My comment was addressed to another poster.

You're obsessed. Get help.

[Squinch]

135. Oh, sorry. Did we violate your rules for your thread?

Seriously, dude?

[xmas74]

137. I guess so.

He's stalking me around this thread.
Pathetic, don't you think and probably against TOS.

[bigtree]

138. poster acts as if it's something unusual for me to respond on my own thread

...respond to her post.

Tell me, is this the bullying part or the shaming part?

I always forget which is which.

[Squinch]

139. Now you're not even making sense. Best to stop now.

[bigtree]

141. I'm not the least bit inclined to take your advice on anything, at this point

...why are you still on this thread?

Watching you trade personal attacks on me with the other poster is surreal. I'm right here!

So, what's next? The badgering is finished, onto the shaming? Or just a bit of ridicule before you begin?

[Squinch]

142. g' night.

[xmas74]

143. You've followed me around

And you're still at it.

You're pathetic.

[Squinch]

29. Progressive politics are NOT given short shrift. Some spoiler candidates are, but not progressive

politics.

And red state Democrats don't represent you, so you think the solution is to split the ticket?

In the current state of politics, serious Democrats have no time for the inane whining of the "take their ball and go home" crowd.

[bigtree]

37. here you conflate progressive politics with what you view as 'spoiler candidates'

...you carry that kind of contempt into an election and where does that leave progressive voters?

I think you forgot that real people are voting for these candidates you call spoilers. I'd be more concerned with WHY people feel compelled to abandon incumbents and others in favor of these new challengers.

It's always interesting to hear such reverence for Democratic politicians who have managed to get elected, while, at the same time, treating Democratic candidates who oppose them in our primaries, and even nominees, like they're stealing something.

I'm old enough to remember when these incumbents were outsiders, themselves, seeking a place in our party.

[Squinch]

41. I'm old enough to remember how splitting our ticket and whines about purity got us Trump.

How's that working for progressivism?

[bigtree]

44. let's get something straight

...there isn't any 'whining' in anything I've written here.

I'm surprised you can dish out these self-serving insults to people you disagree with as fast as you complain about the 'smugness' of some people here.

Split-tickets are not some new occurrence in primaries. Was a time when the only concern expressed was about independent candidates. Now these attacks in support of sitting legislators include demonizing Democratic challengers.

Maybe you'd like it better if they just cancelled primary elections for incumbents.

[Squinch]

45. Has it escaped you that the stakes are rather higher right now than they were then? I guess it has.

[bigtree]

49. of course it would be 'smug' to think

...you're the only one in this discussion concerned about that.

What you've jumped past is my assertion that putting progressive politics before 'moderation' or centrism will lessen reliance on conservative-minded voters.

You can't get all hyperbolic about progressive challengers and then just completely disregard the people who support them. Where do those voters figure in your winning calculation?

Do you think you can persuade them to put aside their concerns with ridicule, scorn, and appeals to fear? And you wonder why people abandon party politics.

[Wwcd]

31. Democrats are Progressives also. When you berrate the Democratic Party you also berrate Progressives

Perhaps go back & edit your OP again.

You clearly don't know much about the Democratic Party, if this is the broadbrush statement you stand by

"At some point, Democrats need to decide what their party and leaders stand for, outside of getting elected"

This is a flat out lie.

[bigtree]

43. it's only a 'broadbrush statement' taken out of context

...apparently you don't have a problem 'berating' Democratic candidates and nominees, so I'll take all of this hyperbole for what it is.

Politicians... Democratic politicians, red-state Democrats who people here claim can't bear progressive politics - denigrating progressives candidates as 'far left' (a term which used to be used exclusively by the right as a political slur against liberal politics) - need to be about more than protecting their seat.

If they put traditional Democratic values in front of their campaigns and truly include progressive issues and concerns in their agenda, they will generate the support progressive voters are giving to primary challengers. I mean, do these voters count, or not? If they care so much, then go out and earn their support.

But that's not what usually happens, does it? What progressives in red states usually get is the functional equivalent of this 'far left' slur and politicians, both republican and Democratic candidates, posture against these progressive candidates as 'moderates' or 'centrists' or whatever.

It's a cynical game which, apparently, is triggering the voters peeling off for these progressive upstarts. Voters aren't going to allow their needs and concerns to be held hostage to some cynical political formula to get a politician elected. Many are going to look for another political vehicle for their concerns. It would behoove politicians to give these voters more than token consideration.

[lapucelle]

52. Why is Brand New Congress primarying this Democratic incumbent in red state MO?

[bigtree]

53. I don't know

...I haven't looked closely at that race, and I don't know a thing about 'Brand New Congress.'

[lapucelle]

61. Haven't you written about Democratic nominee Alexandria Ocasio Cortez?

You didn't know that she is a Brand New Congress candidate? She will be stumping for the Brand New Congress candidate looking to unseat a liberal red state Democratic incumbent member of the CBC in MO in the upcoming primary.

[lapucelle]

62. Brand New Congress is also challenging this Democratic incumbent in the MA primary.

The Boston Globe has characterized this Democratic incumbent as a congressman who has

blended his brass-knuckle progressivism, Ivy League pedigree, and a focus on nuts-and-bolts issues — federal money for the extension of the Green Line, for fixing the Chelsea Street Bridge, and for dredging Boston Harbor — into a winning electoral formula.

[bigtree]

64. lapucelle

I posted a couple of threads with some AOC tweets. Several of them became a flashpoint of opposition to her from some posters here.

I'm not invested in any way in her campaign efforts. This thread is not acually about AOC. She's contesting her republican challenger for a very safe Democratic seat in NY. That the extent of her real influence right now, I think. If she does manage to generate more support, I think we can look at that where it occurs and make a judgement based on our political perspectives.

Right now, most of what she's doing is pressing a progressive agenda, which will either come to Congress on the lips of her candidate of choice, or, if enough pressure is exerted, the issues they press forward will emerge as past of the victor's platform or become more prominent in their campaign. That's how you advance a political agenda.

I think the histrionics here about the support she's lending for other Democratic primary challenges is fear-mongering and a slur on progressives who have the temerity (according to some here) to participate in our Democratic primary.

Any threat of these Democratic challengers keeping Democrats from regaining a majority is overblown. Funny, these primary challenges didn't seem to be a problem for Democrats (some Democrats) until AOC won.

[emulatorloo]

65. So what's your specific beef with Rep. William Lacy Clay (MO-1)?

[bigtree]

68. why would you assume I have a beef with him?

...I'm defending these candidates' right to run in our primary without being slurred as too 'far left' and a threat to our majority.

I'm not a spokesman for AOC, and I'm not going to be her whipping boy here for defending her right to participate in the primary, and to associate with, and support whoever Democrat she chooses.

I haven't said a word about that race and I think it's sophistry how some are trying to impose that race on my remarks. He's not immune from a primary challenge, and maybe you should ask someone who would vote for a challenger to Clay what their 'beef' is with him.

[Squinch]

70. No one is objecting to these candidates because they're "too far left."

But nice try.

[emulatorloo]

72. Yeah lots of strawman arguments coming from OP

[Squinch]

74. And I wonder to what purpose? We've seen this before.

[emulatorloo]

90. He has a 'evil Dems/Du'ers' narrative he is in love with, and can't let the facts get in the way.

Makes a lot of assertions he can’t support, as they aren’t supported by the facts.

Probably means well.

[Squinch]

91. You are kinder than I am.

[bigtree]

95. you can't disagree without personal attacks?

...this is despicable. I've been here since 2003.

You know NOTHING of value about me or what I believe.

[emulatorloo]

107. As I said, you probably mean well

As I mentioned upthread 99.9 percent of us here are left-liberals and progressives.

[emulatorloo]

71. You are apparently eager to have him primaried. What are your specific reasons.

It is ok for you to admit you are uniformed, just as you are uninformed about the true legacy of William F Buckley.

[bigtree]

81. so it's okay for you to smear me here? Eager? Did you read my response?

...I haven't weighed in on that race.

I don't think a challenge will be either consequential or successful, but go on and lash out at anyone who you THINK might disagree with you. I think the histrionics here are unnecessarily inflammatory and counterproductive.

But go on. You'll be speaking to yourself, responding to my posts, in very short order.

[emulatorloo]

85. There is no shame in admitting you are uninformed. Your OP is a strawman you can't support

[lapucelle]

84. "Any threat of these Democratic challengers keeping Democrats from regaining a majority

is overblown."

I don't agree. Fighting primaries takes money, time, and resources. We should be consolidating our efforts to achieve a common goal: regaining the majority. I would rather see AOC working where I live in the next county over to help us defeat powerful incumbent Republican Peter King than see her working to unseat progressive and liberal Democratic incumbents in faraway states.

The only histrionics here are coming from those who see "old, establishment, corporatists" where there are in fact liberal Democrats.

[bigtree]

98. I actually do see some real corporatists, and we do have an aging bench

...but that's not histrionics.

We can disagree about the risk of these primary challenges. I'm sure that when primary season is over, Democrats will turn to the republican challengers.

As I've mentioned before. It's natural for AOC and other progressives of like mind to band together in the primary. It's not usually accepted for a candidate to self-impose themselves in a contest. Normally they need to be invited. Are you aware of anyone you have in mind inviting AOC to campaign for them? Without invitation it could be an unwelcome gesture.

[lapucelle]

131. It is not "natural" for first time candidates to stump for and send resources to

other first time candidates challenging incumbents of the same party in faraway states when their general election race has already begun.

There are no planned local events or efforts for AOC's GE campaign thus far, at least not any that my regional organizers at the state party level are aware of. I asked at a strategy meeting last week.

Any organization that claims it is not accepting corporate help needs to actually walk that walk. The major political parties are funded in part by corporate donations. Organizations that disavow any real connection to a political party while exploiting its structure and resources are opportunists at their very worst.

[George II]

120. Lacy Clay is a highly respected progressive incumbent Democrat, one of the leaders....

....of the Congressional Black Caucus.

By the way. she's going to be out in Kansas with Sanders in a few days campaigning against two women who are running for the 3rd and 4th Congressional Districts Democratic nomination.

[brooklynite]

34. Nobody objects to progressives running primaries...

What they object to is progressives who choose to Primary INCUMBENT DEMOCRATS at a time we should be focusing our attention on beating Republicans.

[Wwcd]

38. Thank You.

[lapucelle]

63. Especially when the challenged incumbents are themselves effective progressive liberals

like Michael Capuano and William Lacy Clay.

[DinahMoeHum]

111. +1000s

Exactly.
This "nothing-but-the-best-for-the-oppressed" attitude among too many in the Brand New Congress, Justice Democrats and other Bernie spin-offs gives me mental diarrhea.

It's the major reason I eventually unsubscribed from their mailing lists.

[Cha]

117. And, Sharice Davids in Kansas District 3.. not incumbent..

but hopefully she beats the guy that BS & OAC are campaigning for..

Link to tweet

Emily's list endorsed her and glenn greenwald is calling it "establishment" money like the idiot he is.

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[George II]

121. +1,000,000

[Blue_true]

151. I respect your opinions.

But I don't agree with you in this instance. I am ok with primaries as long as they are issues based and stay away from personal attacks and insinuations, and the loser(s) get behind the winner for the General election fight. When the things I mentioned don't happen is when we lose elections.

[empedocles]

55. LBJ was, and is still not, the favorite of many Progressives/Liberal lefts,

or many commentators in this thread. However, LBJ was by far, far, far, the most effective promoter/enactor of the Democratic agenda since FDR. 10's of millions should be grateful for Medicare, Civil Rights, etc., etc. No other President, or Presidential contender, could come remotely close to what LBJ accomplished. [Nice that McGovern promoted the importance of hunger as an issue, the Gore's were admirably ahead of their constituency, but . . . , etc.]

We need to learn the lessons of history, of practicality, - or be doomed to, and forced, to learn those lessons the hard way.

[bigtree]

56. LBJ didn't craft or accomplish that agenda alone

[empedocles]

144. Actually, King got anointed.

The anointment had to go black of course. But only LBJ was irreplaceable. Given 5 decades of political perspective, the LBJ achievement in retrospective - was impossible.

[xmas74]

73. I liked LBJ

He was a jerk but he knew how to accomplish most of what he set out to do. There's something to be said about the "take no crap" approach he had. He was almost larger than life and he scared the crap out of his opponents.

Democrats everywhere talk about wanting another FDR or JFK. Personally, I'd take another LBJ with the knowledge that he could accomplish his goals and would never back down or capitulate. I love Obama but he tried too hard to work across the aisle. LBJ would not have been so nice. He also would have had no problem calling out any lawmakers who squashed all mention of Russian interference.

Let's be honest here: a reincarnated LBJ would make Trump, McConnell, Hatch, Ryan and nearly everyone else crap themselves-and he'd never let them live it down.

[bigtree]

76. it was just marvelous the way he referred to some blacks he associated with as 'nigras'

...I remember that vividly from one of the WH tapes. He was referring to Carl Rowan. Said he was one of the good ones.

Many contradictions in that man. He was more a product of his times than a moral force for good.

It's easy to get too nostalgic about a time when some folks were locked out of opportunity and justice. Johnson was a pivotal figure, but he didn't operate in a vacuum. There was JFK's and MLK's assassinations, for instance, driving his decision-making.

[Orsino]

57. No matter how many time money tells us to be more Republican...

...we ought to remember what we're supposed to stand for.

Decrying resistance or nursing old grudges shouldn't be allowed to turn us away from the change we need. 2018 again feels like about our last chance to point America in a better direction, and that may still be only a holding action until a Democrat can take the White House.

Compromise if you think you have to, Dems, but more lives will be lost if we dither.

[xmas74]

66. Honestly, bull.

We have so-called progressives attempting to meddle in my state's primary by supporting a candidate who is supposedly "more progressive" than the incumbent. The incumbent is a strong, smart man who actually sides slightly to the left of Sanders and has clout in the Black Caucus.

These candidates from Our Revolution are forcing primaries in areas they shouldn't be forced. We need to save that money for the GE and if OR actually wanted to make a difference they would contribute to candidates who could use it in the GE. The rest is needless spending and a way to punish a candidate who chose to support a woman he'd known and respected for many years instead of Sanders.

I'd like to add that I have no problem with Bush. I think she could be a fine candidate, with a bit more experience. I think she needs to run for more state offices because right now we desperately need more Dems in my state.

[bigtree]

75. forcing primaries?

...that's not how any of this works.

What that group is doing is supporting candidates. That's a normal part of our political system. If Clay is as good a legislator as you say, he should be able to withstand a primary challenge.

The vitriol against the challenger is understandable, but it's part and parcel of our political process. You can harangue them to death, perhaps, but you can't escape the fact that our democracy provides for, encourages a primary contest (even if incumbency is insulated in many ways from challenges).

Fight for the seat. Stop acting as if the opposition is stealing something. Go out and secure support.

I really don't think demonizing progressive challengers is an effective way of discouraging voters from supporting them, but have it your way.

[xmas74]

77. The challenger has done little to support the party

While the incumbent is a long time supporter.

You know nothing about what's happening in this state, though I don't think you care. We have a number of races that will need all the help they can get and you think it's great to spend primary money and time.

Clay will get out there and campaign for McCaskill. He'll campaign for Galloway. He will campaign for every Democrat running in the GE in Missouri for Congress. Bush didn't even try after the primary in 2016.

[bigtree]

102. I didn't insert myself into that race

...I was baited into responding about it.

The op has nothing to do with Clay. This is a tiresome and abusive game. I'm done with you, as well.

[xmas74]

114. The moment you posted you inserted yourself.

There have been numerous posts about Clay over the past day or so. The OP was clearly posted to bait.

I'm not abusing you. You just can't handle it when someone with actual skin in the game calls you out on the bait.

[bigtree]

118. the Clay race wasn't even on my radar

...much less a subject of my op.

Reading comprehension is essential here. This isn't a post about Clay.

You are baiting me with these Clay posts. It clear from what you just wrote. Does it look to you like I have ANY interest at all in discussing the Clay race?

This isn't a conversation, it's abusive. Why don't you move on? Better yet, start your own damn thread about Clay.

[xmas74]

119. You keep responding.

You obviously want a reaction.

There's absolutely nothing abusive in what I've written. Nothing.

The Clay race may not be on your radar but you can't stop yourself from responding, which means it was there and you're upset you've been called out. You knew about it.

[bigtree]

122. claiming my op is bait? Was that a hit and run, or did YOU want a response?

...you're doing nothing here now but badgering me.

Inspiring. I really hope, for your candidate's sake, that you aren't a prominent member of that effort. This has been amazing.

[xmas74]

123. And now YOU are the abuser. Nt

[mountain grammy]

99. Big K&R and a thank you from me..

for the OP and tread. Thanks, bigtree!

[Hekate]

105. I will tell you what's a mistake: the Calif Dem Party deciding to endorse Kevin De Leon ...

...over Dianne Feinstein. If he wins, California loses a big chunk of its power in the US Senate, because committee assignments are all based on seniority and he will be at Square One.

Whose bright idea was that in the first place? The great and glorious Revolution that specifically targets powerful female incumbents?

Can you tell I'm pissed off?

[bigtree]

108. that was a surprise

...still, she has the resources to run independent of them.

Looks to still be in a strong position to win. She's good statewise, I believe.

I like DF. I warmed to her over her handling of the torture docs. I think she's been brilliant lately, confronting Trump and the administration.

Haven't heard a word from her opponent. I don't think he's breaking through, despite the state party's endorsement.

[xmas74]

116. They seem OK with targeting anyone who

Didn't support Sanders. Clay was a Clinton supporter, through and through, and spoke about how happy he was to see a woman as president.

It's anyone who was against Sanders but it really seems to double down on powerful women. We cannot afford to lose Feinstein!

[George II]

130. And now we have Sanders, et. al. trekking out to Kansas to campaign against two....

....Democratic women (one a Native American) in favor of two white men.

[xmas74]

134. I know.

It's insane.

[bigtree]

140. Sanders' candidate is polling ahead in that race

...it's a primary, but you make it seem like something nefarious that someone would have the temerity to run alongside two women and enjoy more success.

I didn't hear Sanders say he was 'campaigning against' the women. He did say he'd be going there to support his former senior staffer.

Of course, no former presidential candidate has ever made an endorsement in a race before, right?

[Hekate]

162. That old man is fckng tone deaf

[Nero Mero]

109. Most of them downplay Russian interference

The latest breed of progressives is not your typical progressive kind. They team up with Glenn Greenwald and deny or downplay Russian meddling in our elections.

[GulfCoast66]

160. Read the history the progressive movement 1900-1950. Start with Woodrow Wilson and Huey Long.

Then tell me they are not your typical kind.

[egbertowillies]

112. Very well said and on point. Thank you.

[vi5]

153. I believe the problem isn't that our politicians aren't liberal...

...its that they want to hide that fact at worst, or at best don’t want to put the work required in to sell those policies or vocalize them. Maybe I get that in a red state or districts. But we see it in blue states and districts as well. “I’m a different kind of Democrat.” And that type of bullshit.

We need these people to do more than just say that they agree with the party platform or every other way that they avoid taking a stand on and speaking about the issues. We need to see more than just the fact that they are incumbents or have been reelected.

I really believe that Sanders and AOC arent that drastically more liberal than a lot of the folks in our party. Their biggest difference and what energized people about them and a lot of the candidates that they inspire is that they are willing to stand for and state specifics about those values. Whereas too many want to run from it or speak in focus tested, gauzy, vague terms.

[underthematrix]

154. I recommend people people put on their critical thinking caps and ask why this

great NYCD candidate is spreading her wings not in other NY CDs but in other states. Where is she getting the money to travel? Who's helping her for free or fee?

People should be cautious

[Yavin4]

163. Here's the thing, Trump has so polarized us there's no political wiggle room.

People who support Trump are going to support Trump. There are no fence-sitting Trump supporters who may come to the Democratic side. The key to winning in red states is to get your base out and appeal to people who don't normally vote.

[Kaleva]

164. The definition of progressive changes as one travels the country.

What may be seen as progressive in a district in rural Michigan may be considered moderate in a more liberal district on the east or west coast.

The only Dem to hold office as a congressional representative for more then one term since the Great Depression in my home district was hated by many here at DU.