Conservative Democrat Dan Lipinski Survives Primary Challenge From The Left

[Proud liberal 80]

It’s not just abortion, this guy isn’t a Democrat on anything. Opposed Obama on everything even his 2012 re-election. Geez, he was backed by Pelosi and the DCCC. I understand the need for conservative Dems, but not in a safe district like this.

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5ab158d6e4b0decad044b766

Edit: oh God...his Republican challenger is a neo Nazi

[Tavarious Jackson]

1. I agree.

Was he really backed by Pelosi?

[still_one]

6. Yes. I think Representative Pelosi was playing political odds, and did so thinking because he

was a 7 term incumbent the odds favored him winning, and how critical the numbers were in achieving the numbers in 2018 to get the majority in the House.

In this case the polls indicated it was quite close between Lipinski's Democratic challenger, and the results indicated that also. I personally feel that it would have been better if Pelosi did not weigh in on this, and I suspect this will be used against her when they determine the Democratic majority or minority leader.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/dan-lipinski-chicago-democrats-primary-race_us_5ab158d6e4b0decad044b766

[Hortensis]

64. I think all these decisions are the result of long and

careful study by a bunch of experts on the topic, in and out of congress. Pelosi's is the face on all their consensuses, and handling what comes with that is just part of her job.

Btw, anyone here know how Lipinski voted on HR 1 or HR 4909? They do and all the details behind these votes, and hundreds of other much older bills.

[still_one]

113. add that to the fact that this was an open primary race

[Hortensis]

125. I've come to hate those.

Do we have any idea of the numbers of the non-Democrat vote -- from the left and from the right? I've read that capital-P Progressives put a lot of effort into turning this seat.

Fwiw, although Marie Newman did very well in the primary regardless of why, being a Sanders-endorsed Democrat would be guaranteed problematic in the GE when Republican voters weigh in, along with a share of this district's Democrats who lean with blue-dog Lipinski.

Notably, Lipinski opposed the Republicans' attempt to repeal the ACA (though he originally voted against it back in 2010), he supports DACA, and he voted against the billionaires' Tax Heist betrahal.

Strong liberals like me can find plenty to dislike in his record, but his district is not dominated by strong liberals. Abortion's a huge wedge issue for most Democrats to rally against, of course, but this district's Democrats have elected him to seven terms since 2005.

Overall, it seems less likely that an open primary "stole" the election from Newman (if anyone's digging up that old refrain) than it gave her at very least a somewhat better showing than she would otherwise have had.

[Demsrule86]

128. Me too...we have them in Ohio.

[Tavarious Jackson]

175. I figured as much

The GOP came out for their candidate against the Nazi.

[Eliot Rosewater]

102. I sure hope so, but she is an educated woman who knows math real well so I am pretty sure

she did.

[Tavarious Jackson]

176. Maybe she thought if she endorsed him it would have the opposite affect

Maybe...

[Eliot Rosewater]

177. All I know is I remember 2nd grade

3 is more than 2

2 is more than 1

218 is more than 217

51 is more than 49

and so on.

Our political situation is that simple and there is NO nuance to it, none.

[shanny]

2. Sh!t.

That is all.

[Hortensis]

68. I take it you haven't checked Lipinski's voting record--either.

Everyone really should. The OP was downright silly with its not a Democrat at all evaluation. He votes with Republicans far, far less than he would if he were elected Republican from a Republican district. And with Democrats far, far more.

Take a quick look at the chart on this site--it evaluates him ideologically by the bills he's sponsored and cosponsored. A little eye-opening, isn't it? NO overlap with Republicans in that respect.

GovTrack.com
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/daniel_lipinski/400630

Daniel Lipinski's Voting Records
https://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/33692/daniel-lipinski#.WrJuwWrwZdg

I think we need to remember democracy is supposed to be about the will of the people. His constituents have been electing him since 2005 as their representative.

I'm happy it's working. I'm VERY happy our national leadership isn't using its power to try to override the will of the people of Illinois's 3rd district to try to impose someone who won't represent them.

[pandr32]

126. Thank you for this information

[Tavarious Jackson]

3. Was this a closed primary? nt

[Proud liberal 80]

4. Nope

https://mobile.twitter.com/AP/status/976327986399121409

[NewJeffCT]

14. If it was not closed

I wonder how many Republicans crossed over to vote for Lipinski?

[Exotica]

15. Not only not closed but look at this shit

https://mobile.twitter.com/lacscully/status/976329621489659904

Lipinski asked people who normally took R ballots to take D for him. He paid for out of state anti-choice groups to fly in and canvass for him. GOP has no chance with their Nazi, so they supported him, since he votes with them anyway. Deplorable. #IL03

[Hortensis]

69. I posted some info on his voting record above.

[Freethinker65]

167. Yep. The R's love him here.

No real reason this primary to pull an R ballot for many Rs that chose to vote.

[EffieBlack]

5. We're all over the place on DU

On the one hand, we're supposed to "reach out" to Trump supporters, but on the other hand, we lose our sh!t when a conservative district nominates a conservative Democrat who argues for a "big tent" party and platform more likely to attract more former Trump voters. Nancy Pelosi's supposed to step aside because she's a "lightning rod" that drives away moderate and conservative Democrats, but on the other had, folk seem upset that she endorsed a Democrat who got the support of moderate and conservative Democrats.

Interesting.

[Proud liberal 80]

8. My response

On the one hand, we're supposed to "reach out" to Trump supporters,

I don’t think we should...I have seen your posts on this subject and agree with your view and approach.

we lose our sh!t when a conservative district nominates a conservative Democrat who argues for a "big tent" party and platform more likely to attract more former Trump voters.

This district has a Cook rating of D+7, so it’s not ultra liberal but it is definitely not conservative or a district where we need a conservative Dem to win

[still_one]

16. Effie, as you alluded to, Nancy Pelosi was playing the political odds. I personally believe it

would have been better if she had not weighed in on this race, and stood aside, I suspect she did so thinking it would keep Lipinski from changing parties or running as an independent, and was doing what she thought had the best chance of obtaining a Democratic majority in the House.

I think when the next session of Congress comes up, if she wants to be majority or minority leader she will be challenged on this, but have no idea what will happen.

I think you have just made an excellent case also, though as I said I think it would have been far better if she had not endorsed anyone.

The real question isn't that Nancy Pelosi endorsed the conservative Democrat, but why Lipinski won that Democratic primary? That is probably the most telling thing regarding this district. From the results, I have to assume that many of the populous in that district are conservative on the issues, and while the election was razor thin, and Lipinski squeaked through, it still indicates that district at best represents a moderate point of view.

At the same time, that a progressive actually came as close as she did in a district Lipinski has controlled for seven terms, does send a message

[Blue_true]

21. Lots of republicans likely voted for Lipinski because their choice is a Nazi.

My guess is lots of reoublicans will vote for Lipinski in the General for the same reason. I saw someone say the district is D+7, but what is the D+7? If the other side is putting up extremely conservative candidates and Nazis, the D+7 could be a moderate to mildly conservative D+7 and may not support a liberal D, although in the race yesterday, I suspect that republicans crossing over pulled Lipinski through, a result like this is exactly why I hate open primaries, our party's true candidate gets run over by republicans making trouble or realizing that they can have their philosophy play a role in our party's result.

[still_one]

29. This is an Open Primary. I wasn't aware of that. I absolutely agree with you, open primaries

are crap.

DEMOCRATS should be the ones who determine who will be their Democratic candidate in the general election, not third parties, independents, or republicans.

We are doing this to ourselves.

Thanks for the insight Blue

[Eliot Rosewater]

105. Open primaries are the one thing that can revive the GOP and any group which also opposes Dems.

Which is ....

[still_one]

112. Yup

[EffieBlack]

71. This all very nteresting, isnt it?

It’s also possible that Pelosi read the district and assessed that a liberal might have a difficult time winning this November, notwithstanding her opponent is a Nazi, so she endorsed the Democrat she thinks can hold the seat.

But you’re right - the fact that the liberal candidate performed as well as she did definitely tells us something about how the district may be trending. And that could push Lipinski further to the left in the future.

[still_one]

115. As someone has pointed out this was an open primary, and that makes a big difference

[Brawndo]

7. An Observation

In a constitutional republic with democratic tendencies, compromise is often required but not capitulation on principles. The compromise that Lipinski represents will hurt far more than it will help the progressive cause. Curtailing women's reproductive rights is non-negotiable. The rights of potential beings do not super cede the rights of actual beings. If individuals are personally opposed to abortion that's fine, there is a place in our tent for that perspective, but it is unconscionable to then impose that belief on others through the power of the state. Holding a seat is not worth a betrayal of our core values.

[Exotica]

12. He is also a homophobic and xenophobic bigot. Anti LGBTQ, Anti

Dreamer Act , Anti Obamacare, anti Affirmative action, pro war, pro bank, etc.

What the hell was Pelosi thinking?? Obama people helped campaign against gim. His Rethug opponent is LITERALLY A NEO NAZI, so it wasn't putting anything in danger!!

As a somewhat pragmatic, young, millennial gay female of colour, this shit pisses me OFF. He doesn't stand for our party's core values!!! Yet the message (from some at the top of our party) for not just that Illinois district but all of us is "Sit down, doff yer cap, STFU and vote blindly as we say".

[Blue_true]

27. Pelosi may have more complete information on the voter makeup of the district than you do?

She has the benefit of getting information from highly paid, experienced pollsters. The pollsters may have saw that if Newman won the primary, the district could well have sent a Nazi to congress (one Illinois district DID do that).

Did Newman refuse to craft a more appealing message that would have led to conservative D's and some R's voting for her over Lipinski? I ask that question as a person who contributed to her campaign.

[Exotica]

41. voter make-up? The Republican opponent is LITERALLY a neo nazi.

Denounced by His Party as a Nazi, Arthur Jones Wins Illinois G.O.P. Congressional Primary

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/20/us/politics/arthur-jones-illinois.html

Newman was endorsed by a lot of the old Obama people, EMILY's List, all the pro choice groups, all the LGBTQ groups, all the immigrants rights groups, etc etc.

Also, his District has not went Republican since 1975. It went for Sanders over Clinton in the 2016 primaries, so the "Newman is too too far left for the district" argument is also tossed.

Lipinski (a superdelegate in 2016) even said he would vote for Sanders over Clinton in a disputed convention because his district did.

Illinois superdelegate says he'd back Sanders at contested convention

https://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-dem-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/04/dan-lipinski-bernie-sanders-222171

[Blue_true]

58. Someone else posted detailed info on Lipinski's district.

Yes, it has not sent a republican to the house in 20 years, BUT, in 9 out of 10 presidential elections, it has voted for the R. The district could well send a Nazi to the House if Newman was seriously out of step with the overall voting populace, to ignore that possibility is wrong thinking.

[Exotica]

60. a district that voted for Sanders over Clintion in 2016, and has not elected a Republican

since the 1972 elections is NOT going to elect a fucking neo nazi in 2018! Stop insulting my intelligence.

[Blue_true]

65. You make your assumptions, actual data say there could have been problems.

If you follow Sanders, you would see that he has a populist message that ignore many of the social issues that many democrats care about. Hillary Clinton campaigned in Illinois among racially and socially diverse crowds, Sanders had very white crowds. Don't assume that the district would not vote for a Nazi if that Nazi grabbed hold of a populist message, it DID vote for a racist, anti LGBTQ, anti Choice Donald Trump because he presented a populist message that appealed to them.

[Exotica]

70. ridiculous, I really mean it

Arthur Jones is a LUNATIC

ZERO chance the district would have voted for him over Newman. ZERO

WATCH HIM

Because it was not a closed primary, the Republicans crossed over and voted for Lipinski because he votes their way on many core issues. No chance even Republicans would vote for Jones. I know the term nazi is tossed around so much, but he is a REAL NAZI.

The district has not elected a Republican sine 1972. A neo nazi is not the one who is going to break that string.

[Blue_true]

73. Again, you make assumptions.

Pelosi and others appear to be relying on data. One Illinois district did in fact send a very racist candidate to Congressand btw, the claim made by many was there was no way that voters would elect him.

[Exotica]

74. Who? Show me where an open neo nazi was elected to the US House

in the last 40 years. I mean a real, open Nazi like Jones, not some run of the mill racist scum like Steve King.

[EffieBlack]

81. When in last 100 years has an open bigot supported by Nazis and KKK been elected President?

People didn’t think that would happen either.

We’re in a different time. Almost anything can happen and we scoff at horrible possibilities at our peril.

[Blue_true]

83. A guy who was openly racist and was ridiculed as reindeer man,

won an Illinois district and has been reelected twice. The belief was that the democrats could win the seat because of what the guy represented and his general foolish demeanor, but he latched on to a populist message that appealed to voters in his district.

[Eliot Rosewater]

84. I see you are still arguing with people about MATH

Anyone who still doesnt get it, might not want to, if you get my drift.

I would do my lecture again for the benefit of those who dont get it, but I think by now those who are gonna get it, got it.

[Exotica]

107. who? link please

Also, was he an open neo nazi like Arthur Jones was and was he literally disowned by the Republican party, denounced as a Nazi by the Republican party like Arthur Jones was?

I am sorry, but I would so much have rather had a closed primary and also Pelosi and others stay out, so a person who is NOT anti-abortion rights, anti immigrant rights, anti Obama, anti Obama care, anti LGBTQ rights (Lipinski is all those) could have won. Lipinski won because Republicans en masse flipped sides and voted for him because he supports Republican values on those issues.

Newman is not some flame breathing radical socialist nutter. Is she a perfect candidate? No. But she sure as shit is better for women and immigrants and minorities (OUR BASE) than Lipinksi is and she would have CRUSHED the madman nazi Jones in the general.

Those issues are the CORE of our party. If we start selling them out (especially when there is an entirely viable option with zero chance of losing in the general like this exact case was) then I am not hopeful for us starting to claw back all the 1000 plus nationwide elected positions and seats we have lost since the 2010 mod terms onward.

[Blue_true]

110. He is very racist. Was called reindeer man.

Democrats believed his open racism and kooky ways made him unelectable. He has been reelected once or twice.

[Exotica]

111. who? You have not given me a name, nor addressed any of my legitimate points

[Blue_true]

114. Are you even replying to my posts.

I have given the information twice and made sure that I was replying to your posts. Are you so interested in striking back that you are not noticing the information?

[Exotica]

118. show me where you gave me the name. I just went throw the whole thread and do not see it

All i see is reindeer man. You are dragging this whole thing down into a pedantic dialogue that is sliding the discussion away from all my original points.

Just for the record, btw, i am not, never was, and never will be a Sanders supporter, to alleviate any thoughts on that.

[Blue_true]

120. I have replied to you.

Can see that I am replying to you, somehow the information is not showing up as a reply to you, even though I see that it is you who I am replying to.

[Exotica]

121. Let me look through the entire OP thread again, from post 1 to the end

It surely would be much simpler if you just reposted the name and link to me, but I will go through every single message as you are not being co-operative at all.

[Exotica]

129. this is every post to all on this entire OP you have made so far, to me and to others

remember, you said an actual open neo nazi was elected, (not, like I said, a run of the mill racist asshole like Steve King)

What kicked this all off was that I said (and maintain) that is is LUDICROUS to assume that Newman, had she won, could have remotely put into play a chance where Arthur Jones would be elected. He is a REAL nazi, and the Republican party has denounced him as a nazi and totally disowned him and said not to vote for him.




https://upload.democraticunderground.com/100210388956#post21

21. Lots of republicans likely voted for Lipinski because their choice is a Nazi.

My guess is lots of reoublicans will vote for Lipinski in the General for the same reason. I saw someone say the district is D+7, but what is the D+7? If the other side is putting up extremely conservative candidates and Nazis, the D+7 could be a moderate to mildly conservative D+7 and may not support a liberal D, although in the race yesterday, I suspect that republicans crossing over pulled Lipinski through, a result like this is exactly why I hate open primaries, our party's true candidate gets run over by republicans making trouble or realizing that they can have their philosophy play a role in our party's result.


https://upload.democraticunderground.com/100210388956#post27

27. Pelosi may have more complete information on the voter makeup of the district than you do?

She has the benefit of getting information from highly paid, experienced pollsters. The pollsters may have saw that if Newman won the primary, the district could well have sent a Nazi to congress (one Illinois district DID do that).

Did Newman refuse to craft a more appealing message that would have led to conservative D's and some R's voting for her over Lipinski? I ask that question as a person who contributed to her campaign.


here is even one not to me where you actually say (more or less) what I SAID!

https://upload.democraticunderground.com/100210388956#post43

Star Member Blue_true (3,934 posts)

43. My guess is republicans that don't want to vote for a Nazi pulled Lipinski through.

Dems appear to have went solidly for Nrwman. One thing that race shows is why open primaries are bullshit. Democrats should chose the democratic nominee. I have a hard time seeing why Newman would not have beaten a Nazi in the General after being chosen by democrats, if she ran a halfway competent campaign. I doubt that most republicans who ran over to vote in our safe primary would turn around and vote for a Nazi in the General.


another not to me:

https://upload.democraticunderground.com/100210388956#post52

Star Member Blue_true (3,934 posts)

52. I disagree with the concept of saying anything to get elected.

I do agree with a candidate representing his or her district's voting base, or at least having a rational reason for why he or she disagrees with that voting base on an issue. Conor Lamb should be the template, he lives in the district that he represents, disagrees with the voting base on some issues, BUT provided acceptable reasons why he disagree with that voting base. Most people like alternatives presented to them, if a candidate is so rigid that he or she can't provide alternative ideas, that candidate will lose.


https://upload.democraticunderground.com/100210388956#post58

Blue_true (3,934 posts)

58. Someone else posted detailed info on Lipinski's district.

Yes, it has not sent a republican to the house in 20 years, BUT, in 9 out of 10 presidential elections, it has voted for the R. The district could well send a Nazi to the House if Newman was seriously out of step with the overall voting populace, to ignore that possibility is wrong thinking.


https://upload.democraticunderground.com/100210388956#post65

You make your assumptions, actual data say there could have been problems.

If you follow Sanders, you would see that he has a populist message that ignore many of the social issues that many democrats care about. Hillary Clinton campaigned in Illinois among racially and socially diverse crowds, Sanders had very white crowds. Don't assume that the district would not vote for a Nazi if that Nazi grabbed hold of a populist message, it DID vote for a racist, anti LGBTQ, anti Choice Donald Trump because he presented a populist message that appealed to them.


https://upload.democraticunderground.com/100210388956#post73

Star Member Blue_true (3,934 posts)

73. Again, you make assumptions.

Pelosi and others appear to be relying on data. One Illinois district did in fact send a very racist candidate to Congressand btw, the claim made by many was there was no way that voters would elect him.



https://upload.democraticunderground.com/100210388956#post83

Blue_true (3,934 posts)

83. A guy who was openly racist and was ridiculed as reindeer man,

won an Illinois district and has been reelected twice. The belief was that the democrats could win the seat because of what the guy represented and his general foolish demeanor, but he latched on to a populist message that appealed to voters in his district.



https://upload.democraticunderground.com/100210388956#post110

Blue_true (3,934 posts)

110. He is very racist. Was called reindeer man.

Democrats believed his open racism and kooky ways made him unelectable. He has been reelected once or twice.



https://upload.democraticunderground.com/100210388956#post114

Star Member Blue_true (3,934 posts)

114. Are you even replying to my posts.

I have given the information twice and made sure that I was replying to your posts. Are you so interested in striking back that you are not noticing the information?



https://upload.democraticunderground.com/100210388956#post120

Wed Mar 21, 2018, 05:33 PM
Star Member Blue_true (3,934 posts)

120. I have replied to you.

Can see that I am replying to you, somehow the information is not showing up as a reply to you, even though I see that it is you who I am replying to.




end



YOU NEVER GAVE ME A LINK OR EVEN THE NAME IN ANY OF THEM AND YOU ALSO MORE OR LESS, TO ANOTHER POSTER, STATED WHAT I SAID TO YOU

[Exotica]

138. also you posted a factually untrue reply

https://upload.democraticunderground.com/100210388956#post58

Blue_true (3,934 posts)

58. Someone else posted detailed info on Lipinski's district.

Yes, it has not sent a republican to the house in 20 years, BUT, in 9 out of 10 presidential elections, it has voted for the R. The district could well send a Nazi to the House if Newman was seriously out of step with the overall voting populace, to ignore that possibility is wrong thinking.

snip


That is NOT TRUE

the last time the district elected a Republican House member was in 1972 and it has voted for the Democratic president nominee consistently after 1988

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois%27s_3rd_congressional_district#Presidential_elections



Even before 1992 (when the boundaries where changed to make it far less Republican) it still voted for the Democratic House candidate in EVERY election starting in 1974 and since 1958 (60 years) has only had a Republic House member for TWO years (after the 1972 Nixon massive land slide)

[Proud liberal 80]

122. Not true

Year Results
2000 Gore 57 - 39%
2004 Kerry 59 - 41%
2008 Obama 64 - 35%
2012 Obama 56 - 43%
2016 Clinton 55 - 40%

[Exotica]

133. Thank you!

I am going out of my mind on this thread with some of the faulty logic, factual lies, rationalisations, and under the bus tossing of both our CORE values (abortion rights, LGBTQ rights, womens rights, immigrant rights, support for Obamacare, etc all of which Lipinski opposes) and also our core base of women, immigrants, LBTQ and minorities.

That and insane projections that a Newman win would mean the distinct possibility of an OPEN NEO NAZI being elected, especially even after the scum Republican Party denounced him as a fucking nazi.

[jalan48]

124. +1

Are we going after the so called "Deplorables" votes here? Very odd.

[Demsrule86]

154. Holding a seat is not only important but imperative when you have no power and are trying

to get a majority. Without a majority, we get GOP values or lack thereof. We need warm Democratic bodies at the moment.

[Exotica]

9. Ffs. So disappointed.

[Hortensis]

72. Don't be. This is the will of the people of IL's 3rd.

I'd be more than "disappointed," believe me, if our national leadership tried to take away a representative his constitutents have been electing since 2005 and impose someone who doesn't represent their views.

Btw, Lipinski, like most of our blue dogs, votes far, far better than today's Republicans. It's not a white or black thing. They're in the middle, voting one way on this, another on that. Go check his record and see.

But hugely important, virtually all Republicans in congress have accepted being in thrall to their big money donors, ignoring the wishes and needs of their constituents, and are intensely corrupt. If this seat was lost to a Republican in 2018, that would be a real loss for us and for America.

[Eliot Rosewater]

85. And having ONE more seat than the Nazi's is how we stop them from destroying us, everything.

MATH

MATH

MATH

why do I bother anymore Hortensis?

[Hortensis]

96. Because you're a warrior for democracy, Eliot. :)

Keep those numbers flying.

As I said to MineralMan below, we need a lot more respect for democracy on DU. Being a Democrat should mean enormously more to each of us than just wearing a blue jersey and trying to run balls against the team in red.

We have a lot of primaries to come. Is DU going to explode in outrage every Wednesday because people were able to vote for the candidate of their choice?

[Eliot Rosewater]

100. AT some point we will need a safe environment from which to say things that can

influence people who actually dont understand MATH argument vs those who know the argument but have a different agenda.

The problem is anywhere on social media where this far right or far left agenda can be promoted, is bad, real bad.

Just look at FB and that company Cambridge Analytica hacking our accounts and those talking points went EVERYWHERE.

[Hortensis]

119. +100. A fundamental conflict for social media

was being discussed in the context of CA and FB: that conflict itself boosts involvement. Without a certain amount forums die. And certainly infiltration with very different agendas than a forum's avowed one can be guaranteed to add conflict.

How to achieve balance I can't imagine, but I think one valid tool is suggested by your "anywhere on social media where this far right or far left agenda can be promoted, is bad, real bad." At least on sites that do not identify themselves as nests for that. Like FB, a line could be drawn excluding activities believed inimical to society's wellbeing.

Definitions are a huge problem, though. What's "extremist" or "far"? Compared to all of its history, the Republican congress has become extreme right in ideology. Much of the noise from the left reflects extremist attitudes (not all of course), but even the mild word "radical" is avoided everywhere to promote a false equivalency with mainstream thought.

We're not just seemingly in a fact-free political world, but a radicalism-free one also. (Same thing.)

[Demsrule86]

131. Outside groups need to stay out of local politics...let the people of the district decide.

I agree 100 with what you said.

[Hortensis]

132. :)

[Demsrule86]

153. Hello!

[Hortensis]

158. Lol. GO, Democracy!

[Demsrule86]

166. Agree!

[LeftInTX]

10. I don't live in Illinois, but this is Lipinski's district:

Although the district has elected Democrats to Congress in 24 of the last 25 elections, and has voted for the Democratic nominee in the last four presidential races, there is also a strong tradition of social conservatism in the area which has resulted in the election of conservative Democrats, as well as greater support for Republicans than might be expected based on voter identification by party. This may be changing, however, as in the 2016 presidential primary, Senator Bernie Sanders won IL-03 by 8 points.

The District has been described as "ancestrally Democratic, culturally conservative, multiethnic and viscerally patriotic."[18] It earned a reputation as being home to Reagan Democrats when in the 1980 presidential election it was one of only two Chicago districts (out of nine) to be won by Republican Ronald Reagan, along with the 6th District (an almost entirely suburban district which also included Chicago's O'Hare Airport); the district simultaneously reelected Democratic congressman Marty Russo with nearly 69% of the vote.[19] The Reagan Democrat description became even more appropriate when Reagan received 65% of the vote here in 1984, as Russo again won with 64%.[20] Redistricting for the 1990s shifted the district into more reliably Democratic territory, but Bill Clinton won the district in 1992 by just a 41%-39% margin despite receiving at least 65% of the vote in four other south side districts; he won the district with 53% in 1996 although his totals in the other south side districts were all between 80-85%. George W. Bush received 41% of the vote here in both 2000 and 2004 despite not exceeding 21% in any of the other four south side districts; it was his best performance in any district located primarily within Cook County. Much of the district's current suburban territory was in the 4th District from the 1950s to the 1970s, when that was a solidly Republican suburban district represented by Ed Derwinski; more recently, Lyons, Palos and Riverside Townships, which together approximately correspond with the district's western half, all voted for Bush in 2000.[21] Over the last eight presidential elections, the Democratic nominee for Congress has run an average of 20 points ahead of the party's nominee for president in the district.[22]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois%27s_3rd_congressional_district

[still_one]

22. It was a very close race, and that points to significant inroads made in that district to change in

the dynamics, but it didn't happen this time, but the fact remains that numbers are critical in 2018 to determine who controls the House, so while most of us here probably disagree with Lipinski on the vast majority of issues, it still presents us with the opportunity to control the House.

I think the more pertinent question isn't so much who Pelosi endorsed, but why wasn't the progressive candidate able to garner enough votes to win?

[mucifer]

30. I always wonder about races that are so close. I wonder about the machines.

[still_one]

36. Perhaps, but in this case I think it is because this district is an Open Primary, and republcians

were allowed to vote in the Democratic primary.

This is the perfect example why Open Primaries are a bad idea

[Eliot Rosewater]

86. Open primaries are the idea of GOP and putin. Well, GOP for sure.

Open primaries help the GOP only.

It is why a GOP wrote the prop to do one in CA, a prop that is defended by a lot of "progressives"

Gee, wonder why

[Demsrule86]

136. In a Democratic primary, there is no need to worry about machines in my opinion.

Unless you mean errors and not shenanigans.

[mucifer]

171. republicans want democrats who vote anti choice and anti ACA

[Demsrule86]

179. This guy voted for the ACA...after Trump was elected...and there are not going to be any

anti-choice votes...the courts are where we will lose that argument...unless we are very fortunate...Today the Ohio legislature put a bill out to make abortion illegal...no exceptions...not for the Mother's health, not for rape or incest...it is headed to SCOTUS ultimately if Kasich signs it... thanks to those who were more concerned about emails than important progressive issues. Gorsuch could be the deciding vote.

[Blue_true]

38. The progressive candidate may have adhered to a limited platform.

Tip O'Neill said that all politics is local, the Democratic Party seems to have forgotten that since Reagan and as a result has failed to win winnable races. Maybe we should examine whether Mary Newman did not chose to do what Conor Lanb did, understand her district and craft a platform that reflected her district's voting base. A person can be pro-choice, pro-LGBTQ rights, against silly wars, pro-banking regulations, against silly tax cut bills and still win in a district where voters may on whole disagree with the candidate, but the candidate must make an effort to have a conversation with those voters, even if that conversation is only to give well thought out reasons why the candidate disagrees with the voters.

[Nanjeanne]

11. Anti choice, anti ACA, refused to endorse Obama - the election is actually

now between a fake Dem and a racist anti Semite Repub. republicans will decide between the two and probably most Dems will stay home. Winning back the House with these folks isn’t going to help the Democrat agenda move forward. Sad.

My guess is many Rs changed to vote for him in Dem primary so they wouldn’t have to vote for the Nazi. Since the woman progressive (sorry forgot her name) almost squeaked through, just like here in CT when LIEberman won, the Rs made the difference.

[still_one]

33. As someone has pointed out this was an Open Primary, and a perfect example why Open Primaries are

bullshit.

How many republicans crossed over to vote for Lipinski? I suspect quite a few over the Nazi.

This is the perfect example why Democrats should determine who the Democratic candidate should be, and why Open Primaries are flawed

[Eliot Rosewater]

87. couldn't disagree stronger, more....

Winning back the house with ANYBODY is the difference between life and death for some, not all.

So not all of us will appreciate the MATH.

[Nanjeanne]

88. So true. And some of us will not care if there are actual principles the Democratic Party stands by

I guess that's what's called the "big tent" and you have your opinion as a Democrat and I have mine.

[NurseJackie]

13. It must have been the wrong challenger... probably too far left for the voters in that district.

If the challenger couldn't make headway in a primary... that's a good indicator of their likely performance in the general. No shame in trying. But it is what it is.

No doubt there will be some Sarandon-types who'll look at this as some "opportunity" and who will want the "Neo Nazi" challenger to win, in the hopes that this "revolution" thing will begin sooner.

Lipinski may not the Democrat that would do well in some New England state, but he's the one that the district chose, and at least he's a DEMOCRAT! Upon his return, that brings our caucus one person closer to being more competitive and/or someday having a majority.

Times like these... count your blessings.

[Nanjeanne]

17. Not really. If Rs can vote for Ds in primary and the R is a Nazi, I can see a lot of Rs

voting for him and pushing the real D out by a small margin. I believe it was only 2 points. Newman ran in support of the ACA, pro choice, pro gay marriage. I think she was the right kind of Democrat. At least for what I like the Dem party to stand for.

[greatauntoftriplets]

19. That, too.

[NurseJackie]

23. But, I thought "open primaries" is what the far left wanted. This outcome...

... helps to illustrate the shortcomings of that desire.

I think she was the right kind of Democrat. At least for what I like the Dem party to stand for.

I guess that it's true that a "Vermont-style" politician doesn't always play well in different parts of the country.

It often amazes me at which Democrats will win in their districts and states... but then again, I'm usually comparing them to the Democrats that I vote for in my district and my state, and they're worlds apart on many issues.

Newman ran in support of the ACA, pro choice, pro gay marriage.

But unsuccessfully. Would an even MORE left-leaning approach have worked better? Would a softer or more centrist leaning approach (both in policy and rhetoric) have worked better? Did Newman lack the ability to "read-the-room" and do everything possible to go for the win?

When a candidate loses a primary, that suggests to me that they'd struggle in winning the general. In the end, I'd rather have a win in the "D" column instead of yet ANOTHER Republican in the House.

[still_one]

34. Isn't that the truth Jackie. This is the perfect example of why Open Primaries are flawed. They

allow non-Democrats to determine who the Democratic nominee is.

[NurseJackie]

45. Thank you! I recall in previous election cycles many "free-thinking" left-unaffiliated voters....

... were up in arms about how they were being "disenfranchised" when not allowed to participate in the Democratic primary. They were loudly calling for "open primaries". In some cases they even made legal challenges against the party registration requirements and deadlines in states that had closed primaries.

For one reason or another, those individuals couldn't accept that party-business is PARTY-business. Their ability to vote in the General Election meant that NOBODY was being "disenfranchised" for their decision to not belong to our party.

It was very selfish of those individuals in their inability to comprehend how "open primaries" also open the door to allow mischievous activity from the Republicans (and other unsavory sorts from fringe groups.)

Anyway... as maddening as it is, I do think it's worthwhile to point out the "real world" contemporary examples of the inherent (and REAL) dangers and shortcomings of this Open Primary nonsense. Those unaffiliated voters on the far-far left who continually gripe about having to register as a Democrat in order to help choose Democrats need to be constantly reminded that these dangers and outcomes aren't just theory. This is real.

[still_one]

49. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

[TransitJohn]

141. Then the Party should pay for primary elections

They can't unhypocritically take taxpayer money to run a closed primary election. That's the reason for open primaries. If they want to bear the costs themselves, close them up.

[NurseJackie]

144. Agreed. This funding shortcut actually short-changes the party faithful.

[Demsrule86]

148. NO, parties are part of the election process...so join a party.

It is your choice.

[former9thward]

180. No on joins a party in Illinois.

You register as a voter. You can take a ballot for a R one election and a D the next. It has been a system favored by the Democratic party as they have controlled the legislature for a generation or more.

[Demsrule86]

185. I used to live in Illinois ...they have open primaries as does Ohio...I forgot. I hate open

primaries. But you can still join the party. I am a Democrat and work with various candidates. I meant in general join a party...wasn't directed at you...sounded harsh when I re-read it. And it was not what I wanted to convey I was thinking back to people complaining about closed primaries previously and believe if they want be part of the primary process, they should join a party. I would have all closed primaries if I could...the GOP just causes trouble with them.

[former9thward]

186. I agree with you.

But of course I believe in a European system where national parties stand for some common principles. In the U.S. parties base their ideology on geography. The San Francisco Democratic party is 100% different than the Montana Democratic party. Same for Republicans.

[Demsrule86]

187. I prefer our system over Europe...as it often leads to minority rule...often by conservatives too.

But I hate open primaries. The way we are set up I don't see multiple parties ever working as other than a spoiler...in PA third parties helped us because the Libertarian took votes from the Republican...haha serves you right Republicans... a little taste of your own medicine. I think we can agree on that!

[Nanjeanne]

40. I don't know what the "far left" wants. And why would an even MORE left-leaning approach have

worked better? I don't even understand that question.

Newman ran "unsuccessfully" if you want to call it that. So is that a reason to celebrate an anti-choice, anti-ACA, anti-gay marriage "Democrat"? I don't understand anything about any Dem being happy about this candidate or this win. Except for the fact that he is not a Nazi.

[NurseJackie]

79. If you don't understand, them I'm afraid we've reached an impasse.

I don't understand anything about any Dem being happy about this candidate or this win. Except for the fact that he is not a Nazi.

I'm not "happy" that he's the choice. I'm simply being realistic and being harassed for my efforts. I guess the best philosophy is to just accept reality and move on. Count your blessings. Take a lesson and figure out ways to improve.

Trashing the party... and/or encouraging others to not support Democrats... and/or giving people "cover" for not voting... and/or disowning and disavowing an ENTIRE party because of ONE primary... and/or wishing that the Republican had won instead (to teach everyone a less)... well, I just have to be honest her... that kind of thinking serves no good purpose. People who say or think such things are being selfish. Best to learn from mistakes or to be inspired to work harder. It's really a mistake to shun the entire Democratic party because of the flaws that result when NON-DEMOCRATS are allowed to make choices for ACTUAL Democrats in "Open Primaries".

It really makes no sense for anyone to want to give up whatever advantage that one extra "D" seat may someday bring to us. I just can't relate to those who want to throw both hands up and walk away. That's not a very mature or adult-like way to handle disappointment or to try and solve problems going forward.

That's pretty much all I have to say about this. We're talking in circles now. Feel free to add any closing comments, you get the "last word" ... but I'm done here.

Thanks for your thoughts.

[Nanjeanne]

91. Did Ms. Newman trash the Democratic Party? Did someone encourage people not to support her? I am

confused since I thought Ms. Newman was a Democrat.

And that's my last word. Different strokes and all that.

[NurseJackie]

116. "I am confused" --- Clearly so.

I am confused

Clearly so.

Did Ms. Newman trash the Democratic Party?

Nobody said that she did. Nobody!

HOWEVER... there are many individuals (some right here in this very thread) who are so overwrought, emotional, angry and exceedingly disappointed at her loss that they simply have no self-control and who ARE doing exactly that.

All I'm saying is that smearing the Democratic party and its leaders because ONE person lost a Open Primary race isn't a very smart thing to do. It really serves no good purpose. It's my hope that people find more productive ways to channel their anger... find ways to BUILD the party and make it stronger instead of continually tearing it down.

since I thought Ms. Newman was a Democrat.

Obviously, she is a Democrat. She's just not the Democrat who knew how to win an Open Primary when running against a long-term incumbent.

[Demsrule86]

140. One more person for a majority...which we need.

[Demsrule86]

149. He voted to keep the ACA .

[EffieBlack]

75. Consistency is the hobgoblin of something or other

[Eliot Rosewater]

89. Open primaries are giving the dying GOP new breath.

[greatauntoftriplets]

18. Lipinski ran lots of attack ads against Marie Newman.

I think those probably took their toll on her. Lipinski wouldn't do well in my district and I'm just next door to it. The big difference, IMO, is that my district is far more diverse than Lipinski's.

Sigh, I had hoped that we were finally rid of him.

[NurseJackie]

28. Attack ads are effective... especially against challengers who aren't prepared for the onslaught.

Maybe she'll be a stronger candidate next time. (I hope.)

[greatauntoftriplets]

37. It's very disappointing.

[Exotica]

24. a Democrat in what way? He didnt support Obama, he is anti LGBTQ, he is anti immigrant, Anti Choice

Anti Affirmative Action, anti DREAMER. He is a xenophobic, homophobic bigot. He votes against the huge core principle things that everyone on this board, whether centrist or progressive agree on (I would hope). That is NOT a Democrat to me.

[NurseJackie]

35. Maybe someone should start a petition to get him to become a Republican, eh?

Or do you see no benefit or advantage in having one extra "D" in the House... that brings us closer to being competitive, or in actually having the majority at some point.

He won for a reason. Apparently he ran a better and more effective campaign. (I've heard it was an "open" primary, too. Where non-Democrats --- or Republicans --- can choose to participate in things that ought to be left exclusively in the hands of Democrats. That was probably a factor as well. It helps to illustrate the dangers or shortcomings of the "open primary" that many on the far left often desire. This illustrates how something like that can backfire.)

I guess we'll just have to accept that he's not perfect and move on. At this point, I'm happy to take what we can get rather than whining and spreading discontent and ineffective hand-wringing.

At this point it appears to be either him or the "Neo-Nazi" Republican. Take your choice.

[Exotica]

54. he votes against so many CORE issues I stand for (abotion rights, LGBTQ rights, Obamacare,

immigrants rights (he is anti Dream Act), he didn't even support Obama etc. He might as well BE a Republican IMHO.

His district went for Sanders over Clinton in 2016 btw, so the argument Newman was too far left doesn't hold water.

Lipinski (a superdelegate in 2016) even said he would support Sanders over Clinton at a contest convention because his district went Sanders.

https://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-dem-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/04/dan-lipinski-bernie-sanders-222171

[NurseJackie]

97. But he's NOT a Republican, so be glad for that.

He might as well BE a Republican IMHO.

But he's NOT a Republican, so be glad for that. It really serves no good purpose for anyone to throw a tantrum and start shouting "Fuck-all-Democrats" or "Democrats-Suck" or "why-bother?" etc.

His district went for Sanders over Clinton in 2016 btw, so the argument Newman was too far left doesn't hold water.

Obviously, she was too far left for their "Open Primary" system. She failed to make smart adjustments that match the reality of the situation... and as a result, she lost the primary. Or maybe she just didn't "inspire" enough actual Democrats to come out and vote for her.

Hopefully she learned something and will be more competitive next time. Maybe it's time for people to seriously consider the wisdom of restricting PARTY BUSINESS to actual party members... and then to do something about THAT rather than trashing the entire Democratic party every time the "perfect" Vermont-style candidate loses a primary.

Anyway... I think we're done here. We've come full circle. Nothing more can be accomplished. You'll never convince me to hate the Democratic party or its leaders because ONE district chose ONE long-term incumbent in an Open Primary. You'll never convince me that it would be "better" if he were an actual Republican. (That's just defiant pout-y talk that I don't want to be a part of.)

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

[Exotica]

117. you make erroneous assumptions and positings. I have supported Pelosi broadly on this board

and think that she should be the Speaker when we take the House back. The only option I find intriguing to this is something someone suggested out of left field, ie, Obama (as the speaker doesn't have to a House member). I do not think Obama would ever go for it, but he is probably the only one I might think twice about over Pelosi.

Also, I am fully against open primaries. The open neo nazi Arthur Jones was literally disowned by the Republican party, denounced as a Nazi by the Republican, so many Republicans crossed over and voted for Lipinski because he votes their way on some CORE issues. That is where Lipinski got his victory over Newman.

I am sorry, but I would so much have rather had a closed primary and also Pelosi and others stay out, so a person who is NOT anti-abortion rights, anti immigrant rights, anti Obama, anti Obama care, anti LGBTQ rights (Lipinski is all those) could have won. Lipinski won because Republicans en masse flipped sides and voted for him because he supports Republican values on those issues.

Newman is not some flame breathing radical socialist nutter. Is she a perfect candidate? No. But she sure as shit is better for women and immigrants, LGBTQ folk, and minorities (OUR BASE) than Lipinksi is and she would have CRUSHED the madman nazi Jones in the general.

Those issues are the CORE of our party. If we start selling them out (especially when there is an entirely viable option with zero chance of losing in the general like this exact case was) then I am not hopeful for us starting to claw back all the 1000 plus nationwide elected positions and seats we have lost since the 2010 mod terms onward.

[NurseJackie]

127. Well, I can see you're upset.

Newman is not some flame breathing radical socialist nutter.

Of course not. I'm not sure what I may have said that gave you the impression that's what I think, however.

I do not think Obama would ever go for it, but he is probably the only one I might think twice about over Pelosi.

It's fantasy and idle speculation. As intriguing as you my find it, it will never happen. Regardless, it does provide one with a "safe" and plausible justification for expressing their distaste of Pelosi by offering up an "innocent" contrast and compare with Obama and to hint at her "flaws" because she pales in comparison to Obama. (I see. I'm not dumb.)

Is she a perfect candidate? No. But she sure as shit is better for women and immigrants, LGBTQ folk, and minorities (OUR BASE) than Lipinksi is and she would have CRUSHED the madman nazi Jones in the general.

Perhaps so. But it's clear that she failed in her ability to "read-the-room" and to successfully carry the day for this Open Primary. Surely, she was aware that she was running in an Open Primary... what kind of campaign did she run? Looks like she wasn't aggressive enough.

Those issues are the CORE of our party. If we start selling them out (especially when there is an entirely viable option with zero chance of losing in the general like this exact case was) then I am not hopeful for us starting to claw back all the 1000 plus nationwide elected positions and seats we have lost since the 2010 mod terms onward.

I guess there's always going to be someone with a pessimistic outlook no matter where one goes. Personally, I just don't think it's very realistic (or helpful) to start smearing the party by questioning whether the Democratic party has "lost its way" or has "abandoned its core principles" or is a bunch of "sell-outs" ... all because of this one candidate losing an open primary to a well-liked and strong incumbent. (Not to mention the other unavoidable circumstances with entirely predictable results, as you've already noted.)

Lipinski won because Republicans en masse flipped sides and voted for him because he supports Republican values on those issues.

So, there you have it. It's not REALLY the fault of the Democratic party and the Democratic party doesn't deserve all the scorn that's being heaped upon it in this thread (among others).

But she sure as shit is better for women and immigrants, LGBTQ folk, and minorities (OUR BASE) than Lipinksi is

Actually, in my opinion, those marginalized, threatened and at-risk groups BENEFIT when Democrats are in power... but those groups aren't literally "our base" unless they actually, consistently and reliably vote for Democrats without fail. The "base" are the loyal Democrats who vote for the Democratic candidate no matter what (even the imperfect ones). The "base" doesn't pull cute stunts to try and "send-a-message" by voting Green.

I wonder if there are any statistics or data that reveal the numbers of how (or if) these marginalized groups voted in THIS election. If they didn't vote, then they're not behaving like an actual "base" would.

Anyway.

[Demsrule86]

151. It is a Democratic Seat...that will help get a majority that will protect those things you care a

about. Without a majority...the Gop get their way. We have to win. Now, I am against open primaries but it is what it is...one more seat for the good guys...even if you don't agree with Lipinski...and who does? But he did vote to keep the ACA...an important vote...so don't be upset about it...and in two years try again.

[Exotica]

160. I blame the open primary as the primary driver of Lipinski's winning, but it was so close

that I am sure the few power Dems who supported him also helped. I do see where he voted against the ACA repeal, so there is that for a small positive. I just hope our takeover of the House is so big that when it comes to core issues that Lipinski and his fellow conservative Democrats are not the swing votes of key issues.

I just am so frustrated that we had a chance to put in someone who will vote for the issues that impact our base the most, or to a large degree. I do not live in his district, but I still do not like to see anti LGBTQ, anti abortion rights, anti immigrants RW Dems scratch out a win (via open primary shenanigans and also some Democratic leadership thumbs on the scale) when we had a chance to put in someone much more in touch with our present core values. I was not even a huge fan of Newman, but she was miles more mainstream with the party's platform and aspirational goals than Lipinski is/was.

Oh well, like you said, there is always next cycle and Lipinki is 1000000000000% a lock to crush the insane Nazi Jones.

cheers

[Demsrule86]

165. If we have the House...you can bet we won't be bringing up abortion issues or LGBTQ issues...we

need a super majority for that won't get one in 18. The courts will decide those sort of issues which is why I object to most primaries this year...we should use the money for an all out assault on the Senate and retake it...stop Trump appointing judges cold. You know Ohio has put out a bill that bans abortion completely...no exception for the life of the mother, incest or rape...we have to win majorities to stop the rightward lurch of the courts. My daughter is a Lesbian and I don't want her sexual choice to be re-criminalized and it could happen if we don't win and appoint some judges. We have to stop the GOP...I don't like this guy and I think the other Dem would have won, but the open primary allowed the GOP to influence the primary. It is what it is.

[Exotica]

169. I agree 100% with this, thank you for the cogent replies!

Sorry if I got worked up on the thread, I just feel so naked when even members of our party have such regressive views. I am very much a pragmatist most of the time.

[Demsrule86]

181. I get it...my daughter was threatened at college by right wing assholes. I showed up

and started taking pictures...The kids had a unity meeting and these hateful people showed up...I literally saw red...called Tressel's office and was mad as hell and afraid. These people had guns...I dislike this poor excuse for a Democrat also. And we should try again in two years. It is hard to be practical when the belief impacts your life. But we will triumph ultimately.

[Eliot Rosewater]

92. I swear to god, maybe some folks actually STILL dont understand MATH

Do they not understand the worst democrat is better than the best repub and why? Do they not understand how voting works?

Do they not yet understand the party with ONE more seat

ONE

MORE

SEAT

decides

EVERYTHING

including but not limited to what is even VOTED on AT ALL

[NurseJackie]

103. I know. I know. Ugh. People who say such things (or believe such things) are...

... are pouting. They're having a tantrum. The willingness to give the GOP any advantage at all isn't a very mature or adult way to respond. All I'm saying is that it's vain and prideful and it serves no good purpose to want to willingly give up the advantage we get from that one additional seat... or to defiantly smear and trash the ENTIRE Democratic party (and its leaders) because of the disappointing results of ONE open primary where the district chose a LONG TERM incumbent.

[Demsrule86]

155. He has a D next to his name and can help us get a majority.

[Blue_true]

43. My guess is republicans that don't want to vote for a Nazi pulled Lipinski through.

Dems appear to have went solidly for Nrwman. One thing that race shows is why open primaries are bullshit. Democrats should chose the democratic nominee. I have a hard time seeing why Newman would not have beaten a Nazi in the General after being chosen by democrats, if she ran a halfway competent campaign. I doubt that most republicans who ran over to vote in our safe primary would turn around and vote for a Nazi in the General.

[NurseJackie]

50. "One thing that race shows is why open primaries are bullshit." --- EXACTLY!!

One thing that race shows is why open primaries are bullshit.

EXACTLY!

[bluestarone]

20. my way of thinking is

This fucker DOES NOT DESERVE THE D behind his name! ENOUGH SAID!!!!!!!!!

[NurseJackie]

25. Would you rather he caucus with the Republicans?

[bluestarone]

31. why not?

He fucking believes like them!!!

[NurseJackie]

56. Because... fucking MATH!!! (That's why.)

Having a one-seat advantage in the House (should that day ever come) would give us much more control. It would be OUR choice for speaker... and we'd be able to decide which bills come to the floor, when which ones get killed in committee, and we'd have more control over committees and investigations.

But, hey... I understand that there are a lot of individuals who'd rather pout and throw tantrums and who'd (apparently) give up a strategic advantage because ONE candidate isn't the most idealistically pure version of what a far-left Democrat "ought" to be.

So, count your blessings. At least he's a Democrat. At least we're one seat closer to (someday) regaining the majority. That ONE seat could be important.

[bluestarone]

173. Well i gotta agree with the MATH argument that's for sure BUT

That's about all!

[NurseJackie]

174. At this point, that's the best we can hope for...

... in this open-primary environment. We can't have everything we want. Still, there's no need for the disappointed voters and onlookers to smear the party or to do/say things that dissuade people from voting at all. Every "D" counts... even the imperfect ones.

[Hortensis]

76. Oh, at least 50% completely wrong. :)

Republicans vote Repug close to 100% of the time. Our blue dogs closer to 50%.

Further, and this is huge, Repub caucuses are basically in thrall to, and have to serve, their dark money donors and all of them are severely corrupted. These days they're practically committing political suicide as they vote to screw over their constituents, but they have no choice -- AS WE ARE SEEING. Their donors will take them out for sure if they don't come through.

Our blue dogs aren't Repubs and are outside that toxic syndrome. AS WE ARE SEEING: 100% of Democrats, including 100% of our blue dog caucus, voted AGAINST the big Tax Heist betrayal.

So, it's a shame that the people of IL's 3rd haven't moved farther left (not the same as rejecting trumpism), but they've chosen and democracy is working for them. And the Democratic Party has IL 3rd's seventh-term choice (they've been electing him since 2005) to send into GE combat against a corrupt Republican candidate.

[Eliot Rosewater]

93. It doesn't even matter how he votes in the big picture, with an R in the seat the vote to protect

Gay marriage or whatever NEVER HAPPENS in the FIRST PLACE if the D ISNT in the SEAT

[Demsrule86]

156. We need a majority...if he caucused with them, he would help with their majority...without a

majority ...nothing you want happens.

[mucifer]

32. He always votes with them

[NurseJackie]

47. That didn't respond to my question. Would you rather the Republicans have a one-seat advantage?

[mucifer]

51. I'd rather we had a D that worked with us and not them. It was possible.

[Eliot Rosewater]

94. I would rather have ten million dollars, and look like Brad Pitt.

[EffieBlack]

104. You mean you dont?

There goes my fantasy.

[Eliot Rosewater]

106. More like

the good looking guy on the left

[Persondem]

134. He does not. Why the lie? Link to his ratings/voting record below

https://votesmart.org/candidate/evaluations/33692/daniel-lipinski

He does have some conservative positions, and he pays the price from the purity police.

[Demsrule86]

152. That is untrue...I posted his voting record. He voted to keep the ACA...

[Nanjeanne]

42. He may not caucus with them but I can almost guarantee he will vote with them.

[NurseJackie]

48. Probably. So do you see NO benefit of having an extra "D" in our column?

Math.

[Nanjeanne]

53. If this is an honest question - my answer is "I don't know until I see what he supports" Right now

I can't see him supporting things that are important to me - ACA, choice. If it proves me wrong - great. If he doesn't - then no the "D" in my column won't represent what I consider core "D" principles. See, I like the Democratic Party to actually stand for something. I think elections will be lost by Democrats if the long-held important values of the Democratic Party ultimately mean nothing. If Democrats have no reason to support a party - they don't vote.

[NurseJackie]

62. In our quest to regain the majority in the House, that one "D" could be very meaningful.

I'll take it gladly.

53. If this is an honest question - my answer is "I don't know until I see what he supports" Right now

That's evasive, but "if that's an honest answer" then it suggests a lack of appreciation or understanding of the importance in having the majority.

If he doesn't - then no the "D" in my column won't represent what I consider core "D" principles.

That's a prideful way of thinking that doesn't represent real-world cutthroat strategic politics. Take the win and move on. Be glad for what you've got and work harder next time. It really serves no good purpose for people smear and trash the entire party because the "perfect" candidate lost one goddamn open primary.

I think elections will be lost by Democrats if the long-held important values of the Democratic Party ultimately mean nothing.

So much hand-wringing! "Woe are we. The sky is falling. Abandon all hope." (Or something.)

See, I like the Democratic Party to actually stand for something.

Oh, good lord! So, start a petition to "kick him out" of the party and give the Republicans a one-seat advantage.

If Democrats have no reason to support a party - they don't vote.

Aww. Then they're not Democrats. (Or they're easily manipulated by the malcontents who want to "teach the party a lesson" because their feelings were hurt. Or who'd rather "send a message" by putting the worst person possible in office.

That's exactly what Susan Sarandon was telling people to do. I thought we'd moved past that. I guess not. Sad.

[Demsrule86]

157. Do you understand that without a majority, it doesn't matter what we stand for.

[Nanjeanne]

172. I understand that it matters what I stand for and I choose politicians

that support what I stand for. It matters to me. If it doesn't matter to you - then you are certainly entitled to your opinion.

So to answer your question - I understand that with a majority that doesn't vote the Democratic values, it doesn't really matter whether they are D or R. I think, even on DU, we should be allowed to discuss Democratic candidates and what we want and expect from them. If Lipinski surprises me and doesn't vote for abortion restrictions, doesn't vote against supporting the ACA, doesn't vote for conservative Supreme Court justices, doesn't vote for tax cuts for the rich at the expense of Medicare and Social Security - then I will be extremely happy and will be glad he has won and will have no problem saying as much. It's not an either/or situation. It's a discussion board.

[Demsrule86]

178. Well in essence what you get if you are so incredibly pure is what we have which is Republican

values and policy...now I would take a flawed Democrat majority anyday...and you won't get a majority without some with whom you disagree being part of it. The Ohio legislature has a bill that would ban all abortion...it is meant to go to SCOTUS where it is believed that Roe V Wade may be struck down thanks to the Gorsuch. The house is on fire. We just don't have time for this purity anymore...we just don't...not if we want to stop the GOP and I do. We will not have a majority without a 50 state strategy and a big tent.

[Nanjeanne]

183. Not pure. I disagree with Jim Himes on some things and not others but I support

him. I like Chris Murphy on many things not others. I even supported Hillary when I disagreed with some of her stands on things. But at the core I believe all those Democrats share my values.

If you think having policies that really matter is purity - then I’m glad I stand for something. By your thinking Rs should be lining up to vote for Roy Moore or this new Nazi. Hey he has an R next to his name. I just can’t play your purity game.

So we will have to agree to disagree.

[Demsrule86]

184. I think having meaningful policy matters but if all you can do for a while is stop the other guy

thata matters too...and without a majority we can't do anything. We need to work on winning hearts and minds at the grassroot level. I will say that Virginia gives me hope that we can elect both moderates and progressives and forge policy where everyone gets something meaningful...maybe not everything we want...but somethings that are important.

[EffieBlack]

78. Id rather have a D who votes with us 90% of the time than an R

Also, usually when a Dem votes with the Rs, it’s part of a deal where leadership released them on a tough vote they need to take to keep their constituents happy. And when that happens, 9 9/10ths times out of 10, it’s a vote the Dems didn’t need to win the vote - and if they needed him, leadership wouldn’t have released him.

This is different than, for example, McCain’s healthcare vote last year when he shot down the Republicans’ entire effort. That hasn’t happened in the Democratic Caucus recently - another result of Nancy Pelosi’s badassedness.

[Eliot Rosewater]

95. I would rather have a D who NEVER votes with us than an R who always does.

Why?


M
A
T
H

[EffieBlack]

99. :-)

Funny how we’re supposed to pull out all the stops to bring Trump supporters into the party - but then insist that only liberal Dems can be elected to Congress.

Hunh?

[Eliot Rosewater]

101. G R E A T point!

I am laughing because the alternative is to cry.

[Blue_true]

44. He seems to best represent the politics of his district.

His district is changing, the day will come when he is too conservative for the voting base, but that day was not yesterday.

[NCTraveler]

26. Open Primary? nt.

[Blue_true]

46. Yes. Republicans running from their candidate appear to have pulled the conservative D through. nt

[AlexSFCA]

39. dems are not taking any chances and I support the strategy

we have to win every race by any means and this is not the time to be taking any chances. The candidates will have to be able to say anything to get elected. We absolutely need to flip both house and senate this fall by any means possible including saying anything at all just to get elected. This was a close race. A more ‘liberal candidate’ was destined to lose, Pelosi knew that and did the smart thing.

[Blue_true]

52. I disagree with the concept of saying anything to get elected.

I do agree with a candidate representing his or her district's voting base, or at least having a rational reason for why he or she disagrees with that voting base on an issue. Conor Lamb should be the template, he lives in the district that he represents, disagrees with the voting base on some issues, BUT provided acceptable reasons why he disagree with that voting base. Most people like alternatives presented to them, if a candidate is so rigid that he or she can't provide alternative ideas, that candidate will lose.

[Exotica]

59. The Republican opponent is literally a neo nazi. The district went for Sanders over Clinton in 2016

so to say Newman was too left is a non-starter. The district has not elected a Republican in over 40 years. There was NO chance to be taken, whoever won the Democratic primary will 100% be the winner in the general. Now, becuase of bad endorsements and Republicans flowing over to support Lipinski in a non closed primary, we will still have a RWer who will vote against most, if not all of the core Democratic issues when actual legislation is voted on in the House. He is anti abortions rights, anti immigrant rights, anti LGBTQ, etc.

[Demsrule86]

159. And is it possible in an open primary, the GOP voted for Sen Sanders?

Sadly as messed up as our 16 election was, we can not use it to make decisions.

[Exotica]

168. I was just saying that IF Newman would have won the primary, she would have crushed the nazi Jones

It is not like the district is flaming RW'ers who would chose an actual nazi over her. 58 of the last 60 years it has had a a Democratic House Rep, even pre-1992, when it was far more Rethug leaning (it was redistricted in 1992).

There are almost no Democrats who I would support a far left candidate (not saying Newman is far left). Lipinski is one. Colin Peterson is horrid, BUT his district is crazy Red so he gets a pass. The other one who I would support a far left over is Henry Cuellar of Texas, and HIS district is even more Democratic leaning than Lipinski's recently so he needs to be primaried out.

Lipinski is an anti LGBTQ (I am a married gay women of colour) bigot. He even keeps pushing a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. Peterson and Cuellar are bad on gay rights (and other core stuff, like abortion rights, guns, immigration etc) as well.

Obviously a Republican would be much worse in their districts, but given a shot, I would love to see Cuellar and Lipinski gone via primary soon. Their vanquishers would win the general in a cake walk.

[still_one]

55. New Headline "Lipinski survied Challenge from Progressive Challenger because of OPEN PRIMARIES"

[Demsrule86]

161. Absolutely not...divide the Dem vote and you elect a Nazi...this is way to important this year...and

we support Democrats.

[vi5]

61. The Incumbent Protection racket is in full effect....

...if he won on his own then fine, the voters have spoken and all of that. But the DCCC and Pelosi and others getting involved sucks to me. Obviously in a general election against a Republican get out there and stump for them and give money to them and everything else. But putting fingers on the scale in a primary sucks in the biggest way to me especially for someone so anti-Democratic policies. It's not just one issue and this isn't exactly the deep red south.

[Demsrule86]

162. Leadership can support the candidate they deem to have the best chance...that is not

tipping the scale.

[Persondem]

63. This is the kind of crap OP I hate seeing - just hyperbolic, unsubstantiated accusations

In fact, Lipinski gets higher ratings (>50) from liberal groups and lower ratings (teens and 20's) from conservative groups.

An example is that he got a 7 from the NRA and a 100 from the Brady Campaign. He gets high ratings from groups concerned with conservation, k-12 education, entitlements, unions, veterans, seniors, children etc.

Yes, he has some conservative positions particularly on abortion, but saying he "isn't a Democrat on anything" is a crock.

See for yourself.

https://votesmart.org/candidate/evaluations/33692/daniel-lipinski#.WrJnuJch2Uk

[Proud liberal 80]

145. I will admit

My OP was a little hyperbolic. And it’s not that I don’t think that we can’t have Dems like him in the party (he would be a good Dem for a moderate or conservative district). But for a district that is D+7 and that has went for the Dem POTUS candidate since 1992 (and by huge margins since 20006 he is a terrible Dem.

[Demsrule86]

163. But he won...so try again in two years...his Dad held that seat too...it is a legacy seat.

[Mountain Mule]

66. K&R! nt

[MineralMan]

67. That's somewhat disappointing, for sure.

His primary opponent probably was just not good enough to upset the incumbent. That's a fairly common thing, really. It's difficult to unseat an incumbent in a primary election. Very difficult.

Maybe next time.

[Hortensis]

77. Seven-term incumbent. His constituents chose him again.

Democracy in action.

[MineralMan]

80. Apparently so. Since that district is not even in my state,

I didn't follow the primary race very closely. I know the incumbent. He's on the conservative end of the Democratic Party spectrum. I would rather he be replaced by someone else, to be frank.

However, it takes a very strong candidate to unseat a multi-term incumbent. It looks like the person who challenged him didn't have the chops to do that. I know nothing about his opponent, since that race really wasn't on my radar, but it's clear she didn't have what it took to take the guy's place.

It's easy, from a distance, to say that someone should lose in a primary. Making that happen, though, must be done locally and in that district. If a person is not in that district, her or his opinion isn't all that important. House seats are local elections. Very local.

[Hortensis]

90. Yes. I'd much rather he be replaced by a liberal Democrat,

too. But not by a Republican, of course.

I wish there was more respect for democracy on this forum. Being a Democrat should mean enormously more than wearing a blue jersey and trying to run balls against the team in red.

[MineralMan]

98. Democracy is a principle that is supported by many people only if things

go their way. That's truly unfortunate.

[Eliot Rosewater]

108. Now you just described every single trumper. Sadly, you are also describing others.

[MineralMan]

109. Yes, sadly.

[Demsrule86]

82. I posted this too... I can't believe this guy won.

And his opponent is a card carrying Nazi.

[IronLionZion]

123. Does he vote with Dems on important party line votes?

[Demsrule86]

139. He has so far...mostly. It is a conservative Democratic district I guess.

https://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/33692/daniel-lipinski#.WrKWtejwbIU

[Proud liberal 80]

142. Yeah

Yeah he does. I guess I am just angry that it seems on the big stuff (LGBTQ rights, abortion, Obamacare, endorsing Obama) he isn’t with us.

http://www.ontheissues.org/IL/Dan_Lipinski.htm

[Demsrule86]

147. Well there isn't going to be any legislation no those issue anytime soon...and He voted to

support the ACA...He voted with us...the Senator from PA is pro-life you know...Sen. Casey. Lipinski voted no to repeal the ACA repeatedly. Is he close to me on issues no...however, he is a Democrat and will help us get a majority. His statement is below. Many I see carrying on about this supported Mello who sponsored anti-choice bills...don't get it. I am just happy we keep the seat...and hope that even the GOP would not vote for a Nazi.


“Now for the first time since 2010 one party has control of the White House, House, and Senate. Republicans are now ready to repeal large parts of Obamacare without proposing a comprehensive, detailed replacement. I have said all along that I would consider supporting ‘repeal and replace,’ as long as the replacement is better. I will not support a replacement that takes away access, hurts those with pre-existing conditions, is a give-away to insurers and providers, or makes the middle class worse off than they are now. And I certainly do not support ‘repeal and wait.’ I have voted against full repeal of the ACA a half-dozen times over the past six years and will do so again when the House votes today on the Republican Budget Resolution. The resolution’s sole purpose is to make it possible for the Senate to avoid a filibuster as they work to pass a repeal of key segments of the ACA while there is still no replacement.

“After six and a half years of posturing and politics, Washington finally needs to get to work on a bipartisan plan to make sure that Americans have better access to quality, affordable healthcare."

[Demsrule86]

130. Incumbents have an advantage.

And I was never clear why he was primaried...his district liked him obviously...don't know why they like him.

[Awsi Dooger]

135. Incompetent handicapping by Nancy Pelosi

The opposition party never in 1000 tries would allow this type of thing to happen, if the situational tide was favoring its side to this degree in combination with the slant of the district.

The primary would have been a landslide in favor of the challenger, with full backing from speaker and national committee. And it would have been so obvious for months that the incumbent might have withdrawn, to save embarrassment.

I'm all for strategic support of the more moderate Democrat. It didn't apply here, not even fractionally. Frankly it's laughable that the theme has been pushed by apologists in this thread.

Brutal unforced error

[Demsrule86]

143. Nonsense...he was an incumbent...we need the House. She was right.

[stevenleser]

164. That is demonstrably untrue. John McCain is a good example, there are plenty of others

the Tea Party wave did not replace a fair number of less wingnutty Republican incumbents with Tea Party crazies. And they tried.

[Maven]

137. Thanks, open primaries!

This is what the so-called "unity" commission is inviting more of!

[seaglass]

146. Looks like the ones who approved of 45 helped Lipinski over the hump

Link to tweet

[Demsrule86]

150. That is why I hate open primaries.

[Exotica]

170. Grrrrrr FUCK OPEN PRIMARIES

[former9thward]

182. A comaprison shows many who normallly vote Republican voted Democatic

In 2018 the total Democratic primary vote in the IL-3rd was approximately 92,000.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/election-results/illinois/?utm_term=.6b611009e1c7

There was no primary election in 2016 or 2014.

In 2012 the total Democratic vote was 51,000 when Lipinski ran against an unfunded no name Democrat.

In 2010 the total Democratic vote was approximately 74,000.

So the 2018 primary had almost 20,000 more voters than any other recent Democratic primary in IL-3rd.