General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsI would have preferred if Heath Mello had won, even if he was antichoice
However, after months of being lectured about how democrats cannot be anything less than completely progressive and that non progressive dems need to be primaried (like Manchin), it was really rich to see the same people defend Mello.
That is all.
Given the choice between a Democrat and a non Democrat, I will always pick the Democrat.
I am just tired of BS internally inconsistent lectures about what is and is not progressive, and what is and is not the future of the Democratic party.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)
redgreenandblue
(2,088 posts)Fair point 
Trial_By_Fire
(624 posts)Just wondering...
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)
George II
(67,782 posts)
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)Thank you! Yes... that's my policy too. ALWAYS the Democrat. ONLY the Democrat.
And if we (as a party) need to be strategic, then so be it! I'll happily vote for an "imperfect" Democrat over ANY Republican. Anyone who votes "third party" because the Democratic candidate isn't pure enough is doing so for egotistical reasons only. It's vain, it's short-sighted, it's ineffective, and it's just plain dumb.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)being against abortion. He earned his high ratings from pro-abortion and birth control groups.
For me, nothing to do with Sanders at all, no matter how his more ardent supporters view it.
WellDarn
(255 posts)So you understand first hand what it feels like for progressives to be lectured through this very day about how their purity put Trump on the White House.
Maybe we can ALL stop the B.S. and start getting every GOPer out of office.
I'll be happy when even the animal control officer has an "I 
Democrats" sticker on her car.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)You are responsible for this
Whether you did it from the left or right
If you didn't you are not. I know plenty of people who didn't vote for her in the primary but were completely with her after, and they are no more responsible than I am
WellDarn
(255 posts)Thank you for this.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Big change in a short time.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)About primarying Manchin
WellDarn
(255 posts)That calls themselves something like Brand New Congress. Regardless of the quality of their candidates, and they have some grrat people with great ideas, Indiscriminate "vote them all out" movements are not just ineffective, they are intellectually lazy.
crazycatlady
(4,492 posts)If they target the right districts. No group is going to have the resources (money, manpower) to target 435 districts. The DCCC (and NRCC) will target the usual suspects plus a few more depending on benchmarks (a few districts that they're targeting are not the usual suspects).
They could be effective if they target some of these 'safe' districts. Especially long-time incumbents. But instead they'll end up a purity movement.
MO-1 is a good example.
Cori Bush is a strong black woman and a solid progressive. She has been one of the real heroes of the fight for justice for Michael Brown, a fight abandoned long ago by mainstream politicians, one of whom I will not mention.
The problem is that she is running against Lacy Clay who is admittedly the darling of big money but is no slouch either. He's the guy who put up the student art project with pigs in cop uniforms and, when the FIRC GOPers got pissy and took it down, he went out an put it back up.
I look at this race and can only think, what a waste of a great young talent.
crazycatlady
(4,492 posts)But is she already an elected official? She sounds exactly like the kind of candidate that we need to find nationwide to build the bench. I wish the primary challenger of Joe Manchin would run for state or local office to get their feet wet. Even for Congress.
She'd be great in a state legislature or local office (if she's already an elected official, keep it up).
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Who they will not support is dependent on the day and what they are told to do.
Fifty state strategy, where there is a primary let them go at it, then support the winner. Their rhetoric being focus on Manchin is poor strategy in my opinion.
Demsrule86
(68,539 posts)They don't care about the Senate clearly.
WellDarn
(255 posts)Who cast Hillary aside for Stein sure learned their lesson over Mello. Now all we have to do is figure out how to teach a lesson to the 10 time larger group of Reagan Democrats that cast her aside for Trump . . . well that or focus on maximizing the voting power of our traditional constituencies like workers, poc, oppressed ethnic groups, the poor, the LGBTQ community, etc.
All it took was one mayor's race to educate progressives on the big tent. Twenty plus years of pandering to suburban moderates taught them nothing.
Great post . . . Fill the tent!
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)I'm not sure the learn that quick but it's a start.
Demsrule86
(68,539 posts)are older than dirt...Reagan ran in 80.
WellDarn
(255 posts)The term refers not to individual voters but to the white suburban demographic that our party has been targeting for decades.
Hopefully after watching 18% of white upper middle class women and an even larger percentage of white upper middle class men who voted for Obama stab Hillary in the back, we can admit that not just the people who voted for Reagan, but the entire demographic is, just as you say, hopelessly Republican.
Great post.
Demsrule86
(68,539 posts)I say we put out our message...make our best case and realize that this past election was a perfect storm...doubt all those things will align again...and it is not unusual for a party to lose after holding the white house for eight years...we would be better off working on voting suppression and the bullshit attacks on POC by our injustice system which strip them of the right to vote...this angst about voters from a demographic 40 years ago is a waste of time...and the Reagan Democrats were working people...some were union, mostly blue color if you look at the Demographic...and except for the unions (some of who voted for Trump) who have dwindling power...they have remained with the GOP ever since.
Demsrule86
(68,539 posts)for Mello ...a local race in a red area...only significant because Sen. Sander's ex-worker Jane Kleeb is the DNC chair, and she should stop ragging on Tom Perez too. I don't think anyone from the DNC should have gone. And we have always focused on those groups you describe so I reject your entire post.
WellDarn
(255 posts)Are coming up with the facts for your last two posts.
Working class voters voted in a majority for both Hillary and Obama. In fact a large percentage of the disaffected working class you want to throw under the bus are actually lower class as a result of being unemployed, an economic demographic which also voted in a majority for us.
On the other hand, upper middle class white voters, the ones you embrace as the heart of our party, voted overwhelmingly for Trump. In fact, not only did white upper middle class white women vote in a majority for Trump, 18% of upper middle class white women in Michigan voted for Trump even though they voted for Obama in 2008. It was even worse for upper middle class white men.
Finally, if you are claiming Democrats have put all their energy toward people who look like me, you are touting the same right wing "poor neglected suburban white folks" mantra/LIE that helped put Trump in office.
Squinch
(50,934 posts)I wouldn't be happy to see them backing off their anti-slavery position either. There are some positions that are not political. They are simple decency toward other humans. Choice is simply decency toward women.
The tent can be big, but if you get rid of the most basic ideals and values, there will be no tent left. It's just a big old empty field.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)Demsrule86
(68,539 posts)
Blue_true
(31,261 posts)I have no idea why some say there is no difference given the Republican Party behavior since Nixon.
RedWedge
(618 posts)JCanete
(5,272 posts)and fish and flotsam, etc. out of the boat without acknowledging the huge gaping hole in the hull, is a futile proposition of all hands on deck continuously scooping up buckets and pouring it over the side. Women's issues, immigrant issues, crime, drugs, etc. all come back to money, either because these issues are powerful distractions(powerful because they have real consequences) over which both parties then focus a large portion of their rhetoric, or because there is a more direct financial incentive to sell certain narratives.
I would agree. Money in politics IS the biggest issue because it is arresting our ability to make progress on any of these other fronts. I would not agree with him that he should have endorsed Mello, for the very reasons that we've seen happen post endorsement, and I think it was a foolish misstep to make his own actions more divisive among the Democratic base.
I don't know that there's inconsistency here, because these candidates, Mello and Pariello, have both pledged(in spite of their previous records) not to vote to do harm to women's rights(although I understand being more than wary about this) , but also because money in politics is again, a huge root of the regressiveness that makes it hard for us to move forward on these very issues.
As for Manchin, if he literally votes for a Supreme Court justice like Gorsuch, what is he good for? If he can't stand up and maintain a vote to keep someone like that off the Supreme Court, how is he working for his constituents? He may be pandering to them, but he's still screwing them. What's left that we can maybe count on him to do, assuming we have 60 votes in the Senate as some point in the future?