Warren backs primary challengers against sitting House Democrats

[left-of-center2012]

Sen. Elizabeth Warren endorsed two House Democratic primary challengers Monday, backing two women taking on sitting lawmakers.

The Massachusetts Democrat is endorsing Marie Newman, who is taking on Rep. Dan Lipinski in Illinois’ 3rd District and immigration lawyer Jessica Cisneros, who is challenging Rep. Henry Cuellar in Texas’ 28th District, Justice Democrats announced in a news release.

Lipinski and Cuellar are two of three remaining House Democrats who have voted against abortion rights and Warren referenced women’s reproductive health in her statement backing Newman.

“At a time when women’s reproductive rights are under attack daily from Republican lawmakers across America, Illinoisans deserve a leader with an unwavering commitment to fighting for women’s access to reproductive health care,” Warren said. “Marie Newman is that leader.”

https://www.rollcall.com/news/campaigns/elizabeth-warren-backs-primary-challengers-against-sitting-house-democrats

[Tiggeroshii]

1. At the end of the day you have to support the candidate that you think is best

But in the general election, support the nominee -for the most part.

[NurseJackie]

15. Why wait until the end of the day? I prefer to think ahead and support the candidate...

Why wait until the end of the day? I prefer to think ahead and support the candidate who's most likely to win in a statewide election. It's all well and good to choose the "perfect" candidate that checks off all the far-left boxes... but in "Red Districts" and in "Red States" there can be no denying that the "perfect" liberal candidate isn't going to win. (see: Joe Machin in red red red West Virginia).

In those cases (and as flawed as Manchin is) I'm still THRILLED BEYOND IMAGINATION that he's there. What good purpose would it serve to run a "perfect" liberal candidate who loses? Isn't it better to have an imperfect "D" who caucuses with the Democrats and who puts us one warm-body closer to gaining (or keeping) a majority... and the ability to control the agenda? For all the vanity and fist-pumping satisfaction of being able to run a blue-blue-blue candidate in a red-red-red district (or state)... there's absolutely ZERO benefit in intentionally sabotaging ourselves just so that we can boast and pat ourselves on the back for having voted for the "best" candidate.

Fact of the matter is this... the "best" candidate isn't always the candidate who will win. Better to win than to lose.

[Tiggeroshii]

17. The most likely candiate to win may not be the best candidate.

And if he is not the best candidate, why support him in the primary if youknow theother candidate is better? We should always strive for bigger and what warren is doing is representative of just that.

[NurseJackie]

21. Because I'd prefer to WIN with someone like Manchin

Because I'd prefer to WIN with someone like Manchin (and have an extra "D" in our column) than to try and force-fit a Vermont-style politician into a district (or state) that would never in a million years elect him (or her).

The most likely candiate to win may not be the best candidate.

That's absolutely true. "Best" is always subjective... so in statewide and national politics, I prefer a more pragmatic view that allows us to keep the majority and control the agenda. There is very little consolation to be had in being able to boast about choosing the "best" blue blue blue nominee who is destined to lose in a red red red state or district. What good purpose does that serve?

It's cold comfort to boast about having "voted for the best" and then lose the election because we failed to think ahead and to choose our candidates strategically, and in a way that gives us the majority we need to regain control. In that case, personal pride and vanity mean nothing.

But, now that I think about it, I guess it means more to some people than to others. All I'm trying to say is that it just doesn't mean that much to me.

[Tiggeroshii]

24. Yeah you are comparing apples and oranges.

This is not a district in any way similar to the makeup of west virginia.

[NurseJackie]

33. I'm making a point... and clearly you understood it.

[Tiggeroshii]

36. Perhaps your point would be better understood if you were not using WV in an argument about one of

the most Democratic districts in the country, where a more liberal candidate is more fitting than a less liberal one -or, in this case the incumbant.

[NurseJackie]

40. You understood it perfectly fine.

[Tiggeroshii]

41. ..

🙅🏻

[NurseJackie]

42. ...

[Tiggeroshii]

44. ..

[NurseJackie]

45. ...

[Tiggeroshii]

46. ...

[NurseJackie]

47. ...

[Tiggeroshii]

48. ...

[KPN]

53. Your fortitude is remarkable. I applaud you.

You are also absolutely right ... including about someone’s

[NurseJackie]

56. LOL!

[dsc]

30. both of these districts are very Democratic

Lipinski literally ran against a NAZI last time and Cueller's district was a +28 district for Hillary.

[NurseJackie]

34. My point remains the same.

Thank you.

[LuvLoogie]

52. Most of the time, justice and "progressive" challengers

Tear down the incumbent as opposed to presenting an alternative.

I'll never forget a couple of my own cousins calling Hillary Clinton a criminal.

I think Newman's opportunity has passed, and she will only serve to rally Lipinski's traditional supporters around him.

[FM123]

2. I agree with Warren.

“At a time when women’s reproductive rights are under attack daily from Republican lawmakers across America, Illinoisans deserve a leader with an unwavering commitment to fighting for women’s access to reproductive health care,”

[Blue_true]

39. Same here. nt

[not_the_one]

3. a woman's choice to control her own body is NOT a negotiable plank of the democratic party

Primary their ass.

There are a few lines in the sand I will cross ONLY as a last resort, rather than vote for a russiapublican. But they need to be on notice that they are in our sights... and they can either get with the program our we will replace them.

[thesquanderer]

7. What about in a state where our only shot at electing a Dem is on the wrong side of this issue?

I have mixed feelings about this. We can't afford to put up a Dem who is more likely to lose.

[crazytown]

8. Perhaps we should be looking for Dems

with Segregationist sympathies to run in the south?

[Blue_Adept]

9. Based on the party makeup today, if we want to win in republican districts we need to start running

some nazis.

[crazytown]

11. Dem Nazis?

I am so tempted but .... I'll keep my piece.

[thesquanderer]

10. There are a significant # of pro-life dems. Not so many pro-segregation Dems.

But it is a dilemma, whether to accept half a loaf vs. giving the seat to the other side and getting none. Hence the blue dog dems. Would you primary all of them? And be okay with losing all those seats if need be?

[KPN]

54. +1000

Well done!

[mopinko]

12. lipinski is in ill. his last rethug challenger was a nazi, cuz he was the only one

crazy enough to run from that dist. no way a thug takes this seat. ever.

[sacto95834]

13. Why can't Democrats in very conservative districts...

take the position that while they might personally oppose abortion, as a matter of public policy every women should be afforded the right to make up their minds along with physicians? Might not be enough for die hard RW populations, but if that is so, I don't think a Democrat can carry the district no matter what.

[questionseverything]

18. both candidates are in solid blue districts

[thesquanderer]

29. Good to know. But I was talking about where you draw that line in states where that is a gray area.

i.e. if someone says they would never vote for such a candidate in a primary (which seemed to be the position of the person I was replying to)... the question was, do you stick by that even in a state where, if the candidate you prefer were actually nominated, s/he would be more likely to lose to the republican? Maybe not the easiest choice to make, that's my point.

[questionseverything]

32. personally i vote blue no matter who in the general but in the primary i vote progressive

[Kurt V.]

4. Excellent

[crazytown]

5. Cuellar fundraised for sitting Republican against MJ Hegar

MJ Hegar and other Democrats miffed at Rep. Henry Cuellar for helping her GOP opponent, Rep. John Carter

Rep. Henry Cuellar, a Laredo Democrat, had breakfast on Tuesday with an embattled Republican colleague, Rep. John Carter.

But this wasn't just a friendly bipartisan chat over huevos or chorizo at San Antonio's Mi Tierra Cafe.

This was a campaign fundraiser for Carter, who is badly in need of cash as he fights for political survival against former Air Force combat pilot MJ Hegar. Ticket prices ranged to $2,700 and Cuellar didn't just attend. He also encouraged others to donate.

(snip) Although I was not a host of the event, I was honored to attend as I typically do for colleagues who visit my district. Judge Carter is a dear friend and trusted colleague with whom I work on Appropriations. He is knowledgeable and supportive of issues important to South Texas. In today's climate, more than ever, friendship is more powerful than partisanship," Cuellar said in a statement provided by his campaign.

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/2018/09/13/mj-hegar-and-other-democrats-miffed-at-rep-henry-cuellar-for-helping-her-gop-opponent-rep-john-carter/

MJ Hegar is a solid Dem, endorsed by the Blue Dog Coalition .

"friendship is more powerful than partisanship"? Not in my book. Party loyalty comes first.

[crazytown]

6. Factoid: Lipinski was a Sanders Super Delegate

[jcgoldie]

14. I don't know about Cuellar but they almost got Lipinski last time and I hope they do this time

He's an anti-abortion machine politician.

[Hortensis]

16. Cuellar's way right, Lipinski overall not so bad.

In a representative democracy, representatives MUST represent the wishes of a majority their voting constituents. Not JD's far left ideology, and not national Democrats'. Those they represent. I have no problem with local districts electing antiabortion representatives if that's what they want. That's what democracy is.

I'm most troubled in this that these two endorsed candidates accept the support of Justice Democrats, who are proudly and aggressively hostile to what the liberal Democratic Party is and who its people are. I take full responsibility for my votes, and when JD calls Democrats corrupt, they are slandering me. I am not corrupt, and to me these all profoundly dishonest attacks reveal there's a lot seriously wrong with them. Big no to extremism.

[questionseverything]

19. women have a right to control their own bodies

you supporting candidates that do not agree with that simple statement is hostile to women everywhere

[Hortensis]

20. No, it's not. I have always supported legalized abortion.

I have also always realized that at some point there are more than one person and one person's rights involved.

While we're on the subject of my beliefs, I reject the complete and ruthless contempt some have for all who don't fall in line with their thinking. Along with the dishonesty and demonization that are always required to support those extreme attitudes.

We have a democracy, QE, IF we can keep it. That requires respect for democracy itself. I can live with the reality that millions will disagree with something I believe, no matter what it is, without feeling any need to make up lies about their motives and beliefs.

Oh, btw? Pew said approximately 36% of Republicans were pro-abortion and I think 24-25% of Democrats were anti-abortion. Don't bother imagining those millions should be run out of the Democratic Party in some ideological purge. They have a lot of beliefs, not just one, and they have just as much right as you to be Democrats and to vote for people who best represent their wishes.

[melman]

22. "at some point there are more than one person and one person's rights involved."

You should start a thread on that. I bet it would go really well.

[Hortensis]

23. Lol. nt

[questionseverything]

25. i am not the one trying to run off anyone as you seem to be doing to the justice dems but

I totally support primarying any dem in a safe blue district that does not agree with a woman's right to control her own body, period

[Hortensis]

26. There would be no harm in bringing attention to issues

in local districts. HOWEVER, bringing in national money and often very dishonest campaigns to overwhelm local mainstream candidates is another thing.

The good news for democracy is that local electorates have been rejecting the vast majority of the candidates that outside dissident groups like JD have been trying to impose on them. You'll probably have noticed their very low success rates out of all the seats they try to flip to one of their choices. Local constituents have a strange way of resenting outside interference by people who don't bother to hide their contempt for their beliefs, even parade it proudly.

[questionseverything]

27. again with the slander? dishonest campaigns?

are you actually calling warren dishonest for supporting a candidate that believes in a woman's right to control her own body?

[Hortensis]

28. :) Warren? No. What an interesting response, though,

to my deploring dishonesty and lack of respect for the views of others.

[questionseverything]

35. the title of the thread is warren backs primary challengers

rbg is gone now

tears streaming...my daughters and granddaughters will have to fight this all over again

ok thank goodness they say it was a troll and not true


https://www.democraticunderground.com/10142365435

[Hortensis]

37. Well, that gave me a nasty shock.

We’re on the same page regarding Notorious RBG, anyway. Good night.

[George II]

43. Justice Democrats endorsed 79 candidates last year. Of them, only seven won (9%), and....

....of those 7 who won, 3 were incumbents and one ran unopposed.

So essentially they were three for 79.

[Hortensis]

50. Three of the 79 JD endorsed won. Didn't remember, but

knew all five fingers weren't needed for the count.

It'd be interesting to know how many of the candidates were just too unrepresentative and never had a chance and for how many association with JD's outsider activists was the kiss of death.

[dsc]

31. Lipinski is not so bad?

He is exceptionally anti choice, he is against gay rights (well until he was about to lose his seat then he changed his mind, sort of), he opposed the ACA, and all of this in one of the most Democratic districts in the country. It is one thing to have to deal with Manchin in WV but he is Manchin in Illinois.

[melman]

38. +1

[jcgoldie]

51. +1

He's "so bad."

[myohmy2]

49. okay...

...I can see that...

" “At a time when women’s reproductive rights are under attack daily from Republican lawmakers across America, Illinoisans deserve a leader with an unwavering commitment to fighting for women’s access to reproductive health care,” Warren said. “Marie Newman is that leader.” "

...

[Tarc]

55. "two of three remaining House Democrats who have voted against abortion rights", and #3...

...is Stephen Lynch of Massachusetts, of all places.

I would really, really love to see Warren endorse Brianna Wu, who is running against him again in 2020.