FFS can we PLEASE get some new Dem candidates for CA Senate in 2018?

[nbsmom]

Last edited Sun Sep 10, 2017, 10:21 PM - Edit history (1)

As a born and raised Californian, it makes my head hurt when I hear that Dianne Feinstein is apparently still thinking about running again for Senate in 2018.

http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Feinstein-surprises-SF-crowd-by-expressing-hope-12160141.php

Then there was the "dogma lives loudly within you" remark to the Judicial nominee this week.



I get it. California likes to hang on to their Senators, because the longer they serve, the more powerful they are in the Senate. On the other hand, we have a track record of sending some really old people to represent us (I'm thinking of Alan Cranston and S.I. Hayakawa), sometimes to our own detriment.

I say we deserve better.

[MrsCoffee]

1. Not if it means losing the seat over some bitter primary.

[Warren DeMontague]

7. it is highly unlikely that California would not send a Democrat to the Senate.

Personally, I think DiFi is pretty out of touch with her constuents- witness everything from her IWR vote to her opposition to California's legalization of cannabis- that said, I'd rather see her retire than face a primary opponent.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

30. "Out of touch" is an understatement... time to put a real progressive in that Senate seat.

[Time2Evolve]

105. it is still astonishing how some dems are totally oblivious to how the optics surrounding Hillary

contributed to her loss. maybe if she actually supported progressive things she would have had a fighting chance against trump.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

115. "Fighting chance"? Wuda kicked the Fuhrer-in-Chief's azz.

[mythology]

117. Perhaps you're speaking of a different Hillary Clinton

She did support progressive policies. They may not have been what you would have preferred, but it is more than a little silly to claim otherwise.

Also she lost because of her stupid email server and the second Comey announcement. She won the popular vote quite handily and came within about 70,000 votes of winning the Electoral College.

And that is in spite of the media giving Trump almost infinite free air time, following a two term Democratic president (that hasn't happened since FDR/Truman), Republicans having spent 30 plus years attacking her, Republican vote suppression and whatever impact the Russian attempts had.

All that, and she was a mere 70,000 votes away from winning. Clearly absolutely no chance of winning.

[Time2Evolve]

150. and voter turnout for this election was a record low, geez i wonder why.

pretty much all the people i know whom cannot stand trump are willing to admit both parties put forth really bad candidates this election cycle.

[Steven Maurer]

129. Hillary didn't lose because she wasn't progressive

She lost because a lot of Americans are racist and sexist, and a handful of the left are tantrum throwers.

This is well known if you look into the polling results.

[Time2Evolve]

149. she wanted to keep weed illegal and calls african people "super predators", the list goes on..

doesn't sound very progressive to me.

[emulatorloo]

159. "African People"? Ask your manager for some help w idioms.

By the way Bernie actually voted for that 1994 crime bill, because reasons. That needs to go in your database too.

[Hekate]

172. Spell checker is your friend, as is Google. Why are you smearing Hillary?

Some agenda we should know about, Time2Evolve? Did you take a wrong turn?

[emulatorloo]

175. Bernie and environment? Read up on Bernie's bill to dump Vermont's nuclear waste on a minority town

Sierra Blanca, Bernie Sanders, Paul Welstone, A Poor Minority Community and a Nuclear Waste Dump
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/2/8/1481494/-Sierra-Blanca-Bernie-Sanders-Paul-Wellstone-a-Poor-Minority-Community-and-a-Nuclear-Waste-Dump

"Hillary hardly ever mentioned it" Once again you state things that are not true.

Hillary Clinton’s Plan to Fight for Environmental and Climate Justice
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2016/04/13/hillary-clintons-plan-to-fight-for-environmental-and-climate-justice/

You are not fact based. You are meme based or else reading off a sheet of talking points.

[Steven Maurer]

169. SANDERS voted for that "super-predators" law!

Which, by the way, was a Federal Law directed at drug kingpins and organized crime, not kids on the street. The Federal government doesn't get involved in that.

Right here you've given a **PERFECT EXAMPLE** of the double standard she was subjected to.

[NBachers]

176. Oh, you're back again?

[pnwmom]

78. No, she's been through lots of elections since that IWR 15 years ago, when she and the other Dems

who voted for it were between a rock and a hard place. They knew that if the IWR didn't pass that fall, it would pass as soon as the Republican Congress was seated in January -- and that the GOP's IWR would be a simple blank check. So the Dems who voted for the IWR put conditions on it, hoping to make it stronger than the one the GOP would have passed anyway. As it turned out, Bush ignored the restrictions and did what he wanted to do anyway -- and the GOP didn't hold him accountable.

Feinstein's constituents have reelected her over and over since then. They are more aware of how she represents them than people outside the state.

As for her marijuana position, her opinion was nuanced. Regardless, it was a state law, not a federal, so her position on it doesn't much matter.

http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article89191002.html

"Feinstein said the measure, Proposition 64, lacked protections for children and motorists and would clash with medical marijuana guidelines signed last fall by Gov. Jerry Brown."

[Demsrule86]

143. Baloney, if you can elect a GOP governor and California has...then you can elect a GOP Senator...

save the money for taking out the GOP.

[Hekate]

173. Yeah sure, she's so out of touch we keep re-electing her. If she wants to retire, fine...

We have a very strong bench. But primarying such a good Senator would be suicide.

[BainsBane]

23. California runs the top two candidates

Regardless of party. Two Dems ran for Harris seat. She beat Loretta Sanchez. I assume it must work the same way for Feinstein's seat.

[democratisphere]

2. It's all about replacing redumbliCONs, not Democrats.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

15. Indeed

Here we go again. The Democrats are not pure enough crowd reappears.

[nbsmom]

18. Betting that you didn't check out the link.

Suffice it to say that the senior Senator from CA (who has been my Senator since the early 90s) who sits on the Intelligence and Judiciary committees, told the Commonwealth Club (JUST LAST WEEK) that she believed that it was likely 45 WOULD FINISH OUT HIS TERM and that she hoped he would be "successful."


Also, some math:
DiFi is 85 in 2018. Sure, she might live a lot longer... We could assume that even if anything happened, CA will dependably send a Dem to the Senate. Then again, didn't see that recall coming back in 2003, (which meant that CA ended up with a Repub governor until 2010). And we have ranked choice voting, meaning that the top two vote getters are the ones on the ballot in November. So no, I'm not calling out DiFi on her hawkish DINO ways... I'm really wondering WHY she doesn't gracefully step aside and let another younger, deserving candidate (I'm thinking Ted Lieu or Adam Schaffer) make a run at it?

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

19. I know what she said

It doesn't change my point of view. We put up with the whole "Democrats are not pure enough" bullshit during the eight years Obama was president.

Donald Trump is the result of that.

[nbsmom]

21. Nope, not a purity test.

As far as I'm concerned, it's still all about the economy, mixed in with a metric shit ton of Russian collusion and classic disinformation and sewed up with gerrymandering and vote hacking. THAT'S how we ended up with 45.

Do you think 45 would have had any traction in any of the Rust Belt states if they hadn't felt as though they'd been left behind?

(By the way, if you haven't read "Hillbilly Elegy," I strongly recommend it.)

So, purity test aside, why isn't it abundantly clear to everyone that Dems stand for the middle class?
Why is it okay that it costs $250,000 to put a kid through college?
Why is Eric Prince still allowed to extol the virtues of fighting wars with a privatized army?
Why can't we really take the profit motive out of health care?

"Pure enough" is bullshit. You're either for the middle class, or you aren't. The Kennedys were rich, but they were fairly progressive for their time.

But my original point is that DiFi really needs to retire gracefully instead of creating a shitty primary situation that could potentially allow a Repub (with enough Koch Brothers/Robert Mercer funding) to come out of nowhere and take advantage of the ranked choice. And no, I'm not good with electing someone who will be 91 years old at the end of her term to represent a state of 39.25 million.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

47. Feinstein will be re-elected if she runs

Deal with it.

As for Trump she may be right that he'll finish his term.

With the exception of Nixon's resignation the closest the country came to removing a president was Andrew Johnson. That failed by one vote and the opposition party controlled Congress. The Republicans are not going to impeach Trump.

A better approach would be to insure that Democrats retake both houses of congress in 2018 in order to counter Trump's policies. We won't do that if we try to primary incumbent Democrats.

[Madam45for2923]

70. Please don't miss this new OP about Feinstein:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029569904

[Eliot Rosewater]

77. Yikes

I see a trend here.

[nbsmom]

88. I wouldn't have missed it for the world (Spoiler: it's my post.)

[Madam45for2923]

92. Yep, me neither!

[mcar]

55. One could ask that question about many sitting Dems/or Dem caucusers

But if one did so, one would be accused of "ageism."

Again, the DU double standard at play.

[treestar]

60. good grief I did not realize how

old she was. She would be 91 at end of term. Probably time to retire.

[mahina]

86. Who doesn't hope he is successful?

Not at his vile policy goals, to the degree that the Heritage Foundation or ALEC has written them for him. But for the country and the world.

I'd have to second or third the responses you're getting. Knocking our candidates isn't really very interesting.

It's very clear that anyone good we have is smeared 24-7 in an attempt, usually successful, to permanently brand them in the eyes of the public who don't know them well enough yet to smell the BS.

If you or anyone else has something positive to say about a new candidate, on the other hand, I'm all ears.

[Justice]

174. Whose Adam Schaffer? Really making me wonder

What agenda is here.

[shanny]

38. The purity smear goes both ways

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029551663

Can't we all just get along?

[Me.]

54. +1

[AgadorSparticus]

122. Yep. I guess the first time around wasn't enough for some people

Yay us.

[Madam45for2923]

3. We need all the Dems we got. Am gonna work to make sure we increase in numbers!

nbsmom
0. FFS CAN WE PLEASE GET SOME NEW DEM CANDIDATES?

Case in point: Dianne Feinstein is apparently still thinking about running again in 2018.

http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Feinstein-surprises-SF-crowd-by-expressing-hope-12160141.php





WE DESERVE BETTER.

[jaysunb]

4. Here's a list

Al Franken
Martin O Malley
Mike Bennet
Steve Bullock
John Bel Edwards

These men may seem a bit benign and little known, but they are the types that can get enough independent votes in the right states to win. I do not believe a woman or a minority can be atop the ticket. Just my .02 worth.

[femmocrat]

6. I must admit I have never heard of Steve Bullock.

Off to Google him.

[Warren DeMontague]

8. Pete Buttigeig.

[stevenleser]

17. Yep. He's the one. nt

[shanny]

101. totally unfair, i know--by jaysus h, the jokes will write themselves

[Warren DeMontague]

107. In 2004, one could be forgiven for imagining that a name like "Barack Hussein Obama"

Might be a deal-breaker, too.

Just sayin'.

[shanny]

108. very true. is this guy another Obama?

[Warren DeMontague]

109. I'd never heard of him until he ran for DNC chair.

The little I saw of him, though, was impressive.

[Madam45for2923]

10. " I do not believe a woman or a minority can be atop the ticket. Just my .02 worth." REALLY?

REALLY? Woah! Good to know this is the way to get what you call "independents".




jaysunb
4. Here's a list

Al Franken
Martin O Malley
Mike Bennet
Steve Bullock
John Bel Edwards

These men may seem a bit benign and little known, but they are the types that can get enough independent votes in the right states to win. I do not believe a woman or a minority can be atop the ticket. Just my .02 worth.

[KitSileya]

25. And absolutely no awareness of the fact that if independents can't handle a minority candidate

They are absolutely no better than tRump's deplorable.


Why on Earth would we want to run a candidate that appeals to them, then? We should totally ignore them, and work on appealing to the disenfranchised instead. "Independents" are apparently people willing to kill people second-hand to retain their purity, or out of childish pouting - they put "voting my conscience" above the lives of DREAMers, transgender soldiers, African Americans, women, and anyone else the GOP decides to target. I say fuck them.

[JI7]

36. they should be called out on the bigotry rather than appealed to

i got disgusted with all the poor innocent Trump voter stories we always hear about. they voted for such a vile piece of shit and it was all about them being a victim .

[CrispyQ]

65. I was told by another DUer that going after the unregistered voters was folly.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

31. Woahh is right... talk about turning back the clock.

[brush]

26. Here's another list.

Last edited Sun Sep 10, 2017, 11:06 PM - Edit history (1)

Kamala Harris
Gavin Newsom
Joseph Kennedy lll
Julian Castro
Sherrod Brown
Liz Warren
Kirsten Gillibrand
Antonio Villaraigosa
Xavier Becerra

We have a deep bench of candidates and they're all under 70.

[Mendocino]

111. I would prefer

Joseph Kennedy III over Patrick.

[brush]

114. You're right. I edited the post. I confused the two.

[femmocrat]

5. I just hope we find someone young and exciting for president in 2020.

Like "another" Obama..... although there is no one like him. I mean he kind of came out of nowhere and captured everyone's imagination and enthusiasm.... and became one of the all-time great presidents.

I am just praying someone charismatic and well-qualified emerges from the pack. There seems to be some interest in Kamala Harris and Kirsten Gillibrand on Twitter.
O'Malley has indicated that "he just might" run again, although he didn't make much of a splash in 2016. Cory Booker is also considered a possibility by some.

Some from the Obama camp, including Valerie Jarrett, are backing Deval Patrick.

Do any of those names give you a spark of interest yet? I have a huge crush on Kamala Harris right now.

[comradebillyboy]

63. Harris shows a lot of promise but

if she runs get ready for the torrent of racism and sexism she will face. And a lot of it will come from the left.

[MineralMan]

9. When are you filing?

[Madam45for2923]

74. Ah new post on the same topic, don't miss!

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029569904

[Expecting Rain]

11. Dianne Feinstein is one of the strongest Democratic leaders in the Senate.

What is your purpose in attacking outstanding DEMOCRATS???!!!

THIS SHIT IS NOT CONSTRUCTIVE.

[nini]

13. She has a vagina

I think that's starting to be a problem for many 'progressives'.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

28. You know that isn't true.

[nini]

29. Gotta disagree on many levels

There are certain factions of the left that have misogynist views. Not everyone but far too mnay and there's no denying it. That and their subtle racism.

[delisen]

147. Agree.

[pnwmom]

75. After seeing what happened to Hillary, no, I don't know that. n/t

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

119. A harsh critique of geriatric, aloof and ineffectual democrats is not likely to be gender based

Hillary lost an election to Donald Trump after facing no serious competitor for the nomination, you're going to face a decline in your social capital after a loss like that. If Bernie Sanders lost to Donald Trump it would have sounded like the HUAC circa 1953 around here.

[pnwmom]

121. Of course it was gender based. Bernie and DT were both OLDER than she was.

And she is neither aloof nor ineffectual.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

123. Feinstein, the original subject at hand is 84 years old

She wasn't being criticized for being a woman, she is being criticized for making a statement about Trump that strongly suggests she is senile.

[Expecting Rain]

126. What bullsit. Nothing Dianne Feinstein said indicated she was senile...

She made absolute sense, and was vindicated days later when Chuck and Nancy turned Trump our way on the debt ceiling.

Dianne Feinstein wants to bend Trump when we can, and resit him when we can't.

That's not senility, it's mature leadership.

[pnwmom]

128. People have forgotten there is such a thing as diplomacy, and not sounding like any angry blowhard

all the time.

And people like Feinstein and Schumer and Pelosi can get important things accomplished diplomatically.

[awesomerwb1]

154. On the senile part

At times she does look extremely out of place for an elder lady. Long pauses between answers, lost looks on her face.

I'm honestly neutral on her. I see the benefits of having a senior Senator with her experience in the senate, but I also see the things I mentioned before.

Maybe if she runs, she wins. She then retires and our Dem governor gets to appoint another Dem?

[pnwmom]

167. Long pauses? That's how an introvert thinks -- of any age. Introverts tend to think about

how they answer before they speak. (So does anyone who's aware of the gravity of a particular situation.)

Extroverts discover what they think AS THEY SPEAK.

Two different kinds of personalities, but neither is connected with senility.

[awesomerwb1]

168. I'm sure you're right about

kinds of personalities. Not sure it's what we're looking at here though.

My other point is sometimes she looks lost and when she's speaking at times she looks like she almost lost her train of thought. That's not a personality trait. And I'm going by watching videos of her from 10 years ago. Noticeable difference imo.

We need more Dems everywhere, so if it's her, cool. Not doing cartwheels about it, but don't have a problem with that either.

[pnwmom]

127. No reasonable person who understood dementia and who watched the video where she made the statement,

saying that IF he changed, THEN maybe he could be a good President, would say there is evidence on this video of her being senile.

She is painfully aware of how difficult it is to get an impeachment through Congress, and she's being diplomatic (something her critics don't have to be)-- because it is her opinion, knowing that a 2/3 vote would be required in the Senate -- that it is likely we're stuck with him for "this term." (Not clear whether she means till after 2018 or 2020).

I hope to God she's wrong, but her opinion about this matter is backed up by logic and experience. And it is NOT a sign of senility.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

130. I seriously doubt Donald Trump would find that statement diplomatic

[pnwmom]

131. He would find it MUCH more diplomatic than the sorts of things most DUers

would have been happy for her to say.

And he can be manipulated. That is something Pelosi and Schumer have figured out. As long as he's President, they won't get anywhere by openly insulting the narcissist, no matter how true an insulting statement might be.

Having seen that video, do you still think it provides evidence that she is senile?

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

132. Trump was out to embarrass Ryan and McConnell, not "make a deal" with us.

And, no. I don't think she shines in that video.

I also think Trump is smart enough to find that statement condescending, which makes it not terribly diplomatic.

Saying something that makes us all cringe while still offending Trump doesn't seem like a rhetorical mastery to me.

[pnwmom]

135. I didn't ask if she shines. I asked if you see evidence of senility in that video.

This is what you said: "She wasn't being criticized for being a woman, she is being criticized for making a statement about Trump that strongly suggests she is senile."

What was it about her statement in that video that strongly suggests she is senile? Because I know people with senility and she doesn't bear any sign of it that I can see.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

164. If so little of what Trump has said and done in the last decade has sunk in with her...

that she can sincerely express the possibility that Trump might "learn and change" and "be a good president", then yes indeed I am going with senile.

[pnwmom]

166. Yeah, right. I'm going with "not a blowhard" and "diplomatic." nt

[clu]

136. talk about identity politics

[nini]

148. Ok

[comradebillyboy]

64. That was certainly one of Hillary's big problems.

How many 'progressive' men demanded that Hillary step aside so that the man she beat could be awarded the nomination?

[Nevernose]

133. Do Nina Turner & Liz Warren have vaginas?

Could it be that most progressives, almost by definition, don't think that a person's genitals are their defining characteristic?

Maybe, just maybe, its time to go beyond obviously false accusations of sexism and deal with the actual accusations made by Democrats farther left. Not all are legitimate gripes, but many are. None of them are about sex or gender.

(Feinstein's voting record, btw, had her in the bottom half of liberal Democrats, so it's easy to see why so many real live Democrats aren't fans. And despite of all that I've written, I still take Feinstein's side about her Trump remarks. She said what a good politician would say, and a generous reading makes her comments a sly insult of Trump)

[OnDoutside]

137. Nina Turner shouldn't be mentioned in the same thread as

Democrats. She's no friend of the Democratic Party.

[Demsrule86]

144. She is more than willing to elect Republicans and has said so...she is bitter and angry...hates

Democrats.

[OnDoutside]

145. Yup. +1

[crazycatlady]

41. She's also the oldest senator

I don't mean to sound morbid but she's 84. Odds of her living through a 6 year term are not in her favor.

[Expecting Rain]

43. The life expectancy for men in this country is 76.4 years.

By your logic perhaps we should disqualify any male Senators who are thinking about running for re-election who'd be turning 76.4 years at the start of the next term?

[crazycatlady]

45. MY state elected an 84 yo senator

And he didn't live through his term (his term ended in 2014, died in June 2013) resulting in a fiasco (appointed senator of the opposite party, special election on a Wednesday in October).

I'm just saying that perhaps it is time to give the next generation a chance. There are more people in Congress born in the 30s than in the 80s.

[Expecting Rain]

46. I take it you'd oppose re-electing a male Senator a full year beyond the life expectancy of 76.4

at the commencement of his next term? Time for a new generation in all such cases?

Or is this just more divisionism aimed at good DEMOCRATS?

[crazycatlady]

48. Look I get this forum skews older

And I'm not of the generation that this forum skews towards.

Some states have mandatory retirement ages for judges (70s).

I'm just saying that older politicians should (behind the scenes) make a realistic decision with their families (and maybe staff) when it comes to their age and health and if they should retire or seek another term. It is better to realize this before your reelection bid kicks off than to cost your state money to hold a special election to replace you. Several good Democrats in their late 70s/early 80s stepped down last cycle (Harry Reid, Barbara Boxer, Barbara Mikulski (sp?).

Is the only new way to get younger Democrats in office special elections to fill a deceased senator's term?

As for retiring. I can think of a 71 yo politician who would much rather spend time on the golf course (as many retirees do). He would do the world a favor by retiring.

[treestar]

61. Not the average, but life

expectancy for that age - not to forbid them.

The life expectancy of an 84-year old woman is 91.9.

https://www.ssa.gov/cgi-bin/longevity.cgi

[Expecting Rain]

62. Good point!

[nini]

68. Possibly

And an younger senator can get cancer or die in an accident.

If she has her mind intact then go for it. the people will choose.

I get what everyone is saying but if I hadn't seen so much drama over her lately I'd be a bit less suspicious of these type posts.

[AgadorSparticus]

124. She is powerful. And there seems to be a disconcerted effort to get rid of her.

[Squinch]

12. TAMMY DUCKWORTH FOR PRESIDENT!

[nini]

14. What does her running again have to do with 'new' candidates?

Put up someone 'better' and the people will make their choice in the primary. It's pretty simple.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

32. You have it exactly right... and we can do better than DiFi.

[Madam45for2923]

37. Hmmmm you can do better than Dianne Feinstein. What a beautiful comment. There's something about it

Wondering what is it?


InAbLuEsTaTe
32. You have it exactly right... and we can do better than DiFi.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

42. Hmmmm... what is it you don't get?

You said, "Put up someone 'better' and the people will make their choice in the primary. It's pretty simple." So, yes, I agree with you, it's pretty simple, we can put up someone (a lot) better than DiFi and we can decide in the primary.

[Expecting Rain]

44. Diannne Feinstein is a giant in the Senate with seniority positions and...

she's guided by wisdom, experience, maturity, high-intelligence, and great values.

She is a DEMOCRATIC lion.

Attacking DEMOCRATS is folly.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

49. lol, you're the one who said the way to address dissatisfaction w/ DiFi is through a primary.

Are you also attacking Democrats? I personally don't think replacing one Democrat with another is an attack... indeed, it's called DEMOCRACY... where the Democratic Party gets its name from!

[nbsmom]

102. Sadly, that really isn't how it works in the California Democratic party.

Running to represent 39.5 million people is expensive, and it requires a fairly high degree of name recognition. A LOT of concern about mistiming a race, and killing your political future along with a big percentage of your bank account (think Michael Huffington).

If I had to choose someone right now, I'd probably say the Tom Steyer has the right issues (environmental activism), and a healthy bank account. He didn't have to get out of the race in 2015, but he did, and that helped voters see that Kamala Harris was the best choice on the ballot in 2016.

Now that we have ranked-choice voting in California, the top two from the primary (regardless of party) face off in November. So, technically, anyone who wants to see what they could do against DiFi could make a run for it. But again, if DiFi stays in the race, it will be more expensive and kind of ideologically on par with Clinton/Sanders.

Making things even murkier, if California is really serious about moving the 2020 primary to March and Kamala Harris decides she is ready for a Presidential campaign, we could essentially be right back where we were in the early 90s when Feinstein and Boxer ran and won their seats. We got very lucky then. I have no confidence that we'd be equally as lucky the next time.

[SharonClark]

16. FFS - keep up with the news - This has been done to death the last 4 or 5 days.

[NurseJackie]

20. Stop it.

[BainsBane]

22. Do you live in California?

If so, vote for whomever you choose. If not, "we" really isn't the appropriate word.

[brooklynite]

24. Tell us what you're doing to get another candidate?

Or is that someone else's job?

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

27. Democrats hold no principle more sacred than our own arbitrary internal hierarchies.

So, no. Whether we deserve better or not we're stuck with them because to not unquestioningly yield to them is an abomination before gawd.

[clu]

33. the supreme court

has roundly rejected prior restraint

[Demsrule86]

40. Right now we are stuck with the Republicans because of this sort of thinking...Just once,

it would be nice to hear some say ....we must do everything to get rid of Trump and the GOP...not this Dem or that one said something we don't like or took a vote we don't like...so tired of the attacks on Democrats.

[stonecutter357]

34. fuck putin......and trump...

&t=43s&ytbChannel=null

[JI7]

35. Who do you support ? and are you from California ?

[Demsrule86]

39. Absolutely not...no primaries in 18 for sitting Senators. Dianne is old school...

when bipartisanship was the norm...but her votes are what matters. Put the money into defeating the gerrymandered GOP. It won't be easy.

[Willie Pep]

50. I don't mind long-serving politicians.

I don't agree with the anti-incumbent sentiment that is so common in this country today. If a politician has proven that he/she can win over and over again in a district/state then they must be doing something right when it comes to serving their constituents. Old school pols are often the best at constituent service which matter a lot to people. Better to spend our time and energy going after Republicans.

[NurseJackie]

51. What's wrong with Dianne? (Are you in California?)

[L. Coyote]

52. Actually, what we need is more Republicans primaried by moderates and blue dogs.

I hope Dianne Feinstein does run again. We need here experience now more than ever.

[still_one]

53. I am from California, and DEMOCRATIC Californians will do just fine selecting their candidates.

Thank you all for your concerns

[LanternWaste]

56. Primaries do that for us

Primaries do that for us, regardless of what you allege we may or may not deserve.

But I do get it... New & Improved commercial branding in helvetica bold typeface over a photo of something irrelevant but sentimental is what so many young people desire these days.

Policy is boring... and often calls for ALL CAPS in an ineffectual, but most righteous response.

[treestar]

57. Find some and support them

Don't sit back and wait for someone else to do it.

[Tiggeroshii]

58. California US Senate seat aside, we are actually doing well in that front

Sabato or Cook had a blog recently that showed that democrats are 4 times the level of pledged candidates for house and senate seats than any time in the last 4 midterm cycles including 2006 for either party.

[treestar]

59. Are you a voter from California?

If not, "we" means people in California.

[nbsmom]

90. Yes, I've been a registered Democrat in California my whole life.

Also proud to have raised two members of the next generation of Democrats.

[bathroommonkey76]

66. Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle

would be great-grandparents to some 18 yr old voters- It'd be nice to have term limits before Congress starts looking like walkers from the walking dead.

[Baconator]

67. At this point a leadership handover would be almost two generations...

Ridiculous...

[Madam45for2923]

69. nbsmom hello! California resident or nah?

Last edited Sun Sep 10, 2017, 03:52 PM - Edit history (1)

nbsmom
0. FFS CAN WE PLEASE GET SOME NEW DEM CANDIDATES?
View profile
Case in point: Dianne Feinstein is apparently still thinking about running again in 2018.

http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Feinstein-surprises-SF-crowd-by-expressing-hope-12160141.php





WE DESERVE BETTER.

[Expecting Rain]

71. This California resident begs you not to call our state "Cali."

Please and thank you!

[Madam45for2923]

72. Aha!

[Madam45for2923]

73. I edited!

[Expecting Rain]

104. Bless you!

[nbsmom]

87. Yes, California native Proud to have raised two wise young CA voter, too. N/T

[Madam45for2923]

91. Ok. Are you a California resident now?

[delisen]

134. Candidates pick themselves. You don't get to

decide who runs in a primary. It is a democratic process, not authoritarian.

[pnwmom]

76. If you're not in her district, bug off. They're the only ones qualified

to know how well she's representing THEM.

[MichMan]

84. So no comments are to be made on any politician not from my own district? nm

[pnwmom]

85. People from her state are much more likely to be familiar with her actual record.

And she's representing THEM, not the people in 49 other states.

[nbsmom]

89. CA native here.

I think I'm qualified to judge.

[Madam45for2923]

93. You keep saying native. Guess not a resident now?

nbsmom
89. CA native here.

I think I'm qualified to judge

[nbsmom]

95. No, I still live here, and have raised two members of California'next generation of voters, too.

But thanks for playing.

[Madam45for2923]

97. Well others asked before and seems you took long in answering! ??? Glad you answered in my case.

Thanks for playing you too!

[nbsmom]

98. Ironically enough, it's one of the reasons it took a while for me to reply

I'm currently dealing with the health issues of a parent who was born the same year as DiFi. So yes, her age is an issue for me.

[Madam45for2923]

99. OK. Your OP did not need the FFS, for many of us that is disrespectful to our DEM figures

Makes it seem closed minded etc. Like there is some emergency to get rid of Feinstein. Not everyone agrees as you can see from both OPs and threads you started on the subject.

Am sorry about your parent. It is truly heartbreaking to see our loved ones not well.



nbsmom
98. Ironically enough, it's one of the reasons it took a while for me to reply

I'm currently dealing with the health issues of a parent who was born the same year as DiFi. So yes, her age is an issue for me.

[TonyPDX]

79. As long as there are federal contracts she can shunt to her husband's busineses,

count on her to run.

[pnwmom]

81. Why are you pushing that right wing meme?

http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/blum.asp

Richard Blum, the husband of Senator Dianne Feinstein, obtained a contract to broker sales of USPS facilities, but no evidence documents that it was due to his wife's influence.

[nbsmom]

94. Seriously?

So it's a right-wing meme now?

Okay, let's leave aside CB Richard Ellis and the USPS contract. That still leaves the FDIC deal in 2009, though...

What about the contracts going to Blum-owned Perini?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tutor_Perini

Or the defense contractor EG&G that Blum-owned URS acquired just in time for some juicy war contacts in the Iraq war:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/EG%26G

It's not a meme when it has actually happened...

[pnwmom]

100. Just digging deeper, I see.

Perini is a publicly traded company and Blum sold his stock in 2005.

And I searched "Edgerton, Germeshausen, and Grier" "Richard Blum" and there were no results linking the terms.

http://www.allgov.com/usa/ca/news/controversies/feinstein-derails-assertions-that-husband-is-chief-bidder-on-high-speed-rail-130506?news=849937

Right-wing bloggers have had a glorious time bashing California Senator Dianne Feinstein for months over the blatant crony capitalism of having the front-runner for the state’s first big high-speed rail contract be principally controlled by her husband, financier Richard Blum.

The only problem: Feinstein’s office says Blum has no financial ties to the company in question, Sylmar-based Tutor Perini Corp.

U-T San Diego cited an unnamed aide in the senator’s office as asserting that neither Blum nor companies he controls maintain any financial investment in or affiliation with Tutor Perini.

While there are literally hundreds of stories online castigating Feinstein for Blum’s alleged control of Perini—the word “alleged” is never in them—there are admittedly few mentions, like this Forbes story in March 2007 or this story, that Blum had sold his stake. Blum first became involved with what is now Tutor Perini in 1998 when he joined with Ronald Tutor to help recapitalize the troubled company. He reportedly sold his stock at a substantial profit in 2005.

[nbsmom]

118. From SF Gate

SNIP

Over the years, however, as Blum and Feinstein have grown in their respective spheres of business and politics, critics have periodically wondered whether one or the other member of this power couple had unduly used their money or influence to benefit the other.

Such questions have surfaced again in the wake of the $600 million military contract won by EG&G Technical Services, a new division that URS purchased in 2002 from the well-connected Washington, D.C., investment firm the Carlyle Group.

Carlyle is a $14 billion buyout firm whose associates and advisers include former President George Bush, former British Prime Minister John Major and former Securities and Exchange Commissioner Arthur Levitt. As part of EG&G's sale price, Carlyle acquired a 21.74 percent stake in URS -- second only to the 23.7 percent of shares controlled by Blum Capital.

Anti-war leader Bill Hackwell, a spokesman for the Answer Coalition, said he hates to see politically connected firms like URS win big defense contracts at a time when budgets for schools, health care, housing and other domestic programs are shrinking.
"We regular people don't have any say in all of this, whether the contracts are bid out or not," Hackwell said, adding that the "the whole military industrial complex is becoming enmeshed with the government."

Bruce Cain, director of the Institute of Governmental Studies at UC Berkeley, said such amorphous conflict-of-interest allegations are increasingly becoming part of the political discourse. He drew a distinction between vague concerns about people who seem to have too many powerful friends and situations in which officials make a decision beneficial to someone they know.
"We use the law to protect against the second category and elections to judge the wisdom of the first," he said.

Blicksilver rejected any suggestion of a direct conflict in the case of URS' defense contract. He said that although Blum sits on the URS board, he has no day-to-day role in running the firm, arranging its mergers or soliciting contracts. "Mr. Blum and Sen. Feinstein have never had any discussions about outsourcing, government contracts or URS," Blicksilver said.

[pnwmom]

120. Yeah, "critics." Like those rightwing critics I was referring to. As Bruce Cain at UC Berkeley said,

"'such amorphous conflict-of-interest allegations are increasingly becoming part of the political discourse.' He drew a distinction between vague concerns about people who seem to have too many powerful friends and situations in which officials make a decision beneficial to someone they know.
'We use the law to protect against the second category and elections to judge the wisdom of the first,'" he said.



California voters had access to all these amorphous allegations and rightwing suspicions when they re-elected her in 2012, giving her 62.5% of the vote.

[SCantiGOP]

80. I make it a point not to read threads in all caps

The words in all caps would have also kept me from reading it.
Surprised it wasn't alerted and removed.

[Purveyor]

82. Guess that's not working out so well for ya because you just did.

[Madam45for2923]

83. ????

[Hortensis]

96. Reality is, a majority of Californians vote for Feinstein, and they notably like

having one of the most experienced, effective, and powerful liberal public officials in the nation representing their state.

Insisting on a more radical progressive instead of the usual mainstream variety is almost certainly setting yourself up for a frustrating campaign with the usual disappointment at the end. A very significant portion of Hispanic Democrats are actually conservatives by nature, you know. They won't go for someone of Sanders' type, for instance.

If you really want to elect someone you can be satisfied with, I suggest you identify someone you can live with who respects the wishes of all kinds of Democrats and as many moderate conservatives as possible and earnestly intends to work for them. Democracy as it is meant to work.

[nbsmom]

110. Not insisting on a more radical progressive.

Younger would be good. Liberal would be awesome (and progressive would be a bonus), but I get that it doesn't play statewide.

(Although something tells me you'd have a tough time convincing Loretta Sanchez that being a ConservaDem is the way to win.)

Who would I like to see run? Adam Schiff, Ted Lieu, Tom Steyer. Not necessarily progressive, but definitely waiting for their chance to move up. Joe Sanberg has been earning his political bonafides in Sacramento, but probably needs a higher statewide profile to go with his big bank account.

Eric Garcetti, maybe. Villaraigosa, possibly, if he decides it's a waste of money to run for governor against Gavin and Jennifer Newsom.

Perhaps a majority of Californians have voted for Feinstein in the past because she was essentially the only name on the ballot. Things have changed, and I'm looking around at recent political events and thinking that a lot of these people weren't old enough to vote (or weren't even born) when Senator Feinstein was first elected. I don't know about you, but I'm definitely ready to see just how far left California voters are ready to go.

[Hortensis]

141. I'd love any indication that people anywhere were ready to move left, nbsmom,

and turns out we agree on a great deal.

I thought when we moved to Georgia from California (following our kids) at the turn of the century that the big wave of reactionary conservatism that rolled in with reaganism was starting to give way to the predicated reactionary liberal wave again. And that it'd benefit Georgia tremendously. Political scientists sort of failed to anticipate the effects of the new ultrawealthy ultraconservative activism, black money in politics, Fox, harnessed social media, etc., etc., holding a new liberal era back.

I'm basically with you except for timing, but would be with you in that if replacing our leaders empowered us. Just look at who all are helping this wonderful little idea along, though. Progressives and liberals wanting change are not exactly the only ones working hard to make this particular change happen.

And at a time when my attention is focused on the massive threats from a terrifyingly powerful and well organized plot from the right, I certainly feel no need to toss Feinstein, or any strong leader, out, but if it were part of a further energizing of liberalism in California I'd be glad, Whoo! And she'd probably end up well satisfied herself with her usual pragmatism.

I do think, though, that a few remarks that are taken badly and then blown up by a wide range of opportunistic (and extremely well funded) opponents to make sure everyone is taking them very badly are nothing such a huge change should hinge on. I'm certain that "working with Trump" statement was part of a war-time strategy and in no way indicated even the least acceptance of him or those really directing what's happening on the right. I've certainly never seen sympathies for a new wealth-dominated fascistic America in her, which I believe is what we fighting. Rump's just a fever indicating something's really wrong, and imo those focused on simply opposing him, simply advancing progressive issues, and mostly thinking Republicans in the U.S. congress are the enemy force, badly underestimate and misunderstand the threat from the right.

I'll always be a Californian at heart, but I'm not in touch with most of the people you mention, and most California issues beyond water and environment. Adam Schiff, of course, has gotten a tremendous lift from the Russia investigation and, like Ted Lieu, knows how congress works. Electing either would mean Feinstein wouldn't be replaced in DC with an amateur.

Reassuring thought in these scary times, as are what seem to be indications that moderate conservative and liberal reactions may be breaking through the dam built up over the past 45 years to keep them checked. And if it turns out to be large and strong enough, the urge for new, younger, strongly liberal leadership in California would probably be another hopeful sign. If not, it'll just be more sign of discontented weakness for opposing forces to take advantage of.

Well, sorry to babble on. Irma's passed right over our little mobile home properties in Florida, and I'm sitting here wondering what happened to them overnight, and is still happening. She sucked a great deal of Tampa Bay out to sea, Manatees stranded on the ocean floor, etc., but the waters are due to return precipitously...."early Monday morning."

[Iggo]

103. Do you live in California?

I do.

[Lil Missy]

106. HELL NO!!! We KEEP the winners!

Lets replace the pukes instead.

[Iggo]

112. Who you got better?

[Lee Adama]

113. I don't get it.

Dianne Feinstein is one of our best Senators!

[nbsmom]

116. What's not to get?

Even the best have to step out of the spotlight sometime. Dianne Feinstein will be 85 years old in 2018, meaning that if she runs and wins, she'll be almost 92 years old at the end of that term. She has been representing California since 1992. If she were to bow out gracefully, someone else (or two someones, since California has ranked choice voting and the top two advance to the election in November) can move up the electoral ladder.

I didn't see anyone complaining when Boxer stepped aside, and now we're enjoying Kamala Harris. Why isn't DiFi giving the rest of the candidates waiting patiently their chance to run and make a difference?

[Lee Adama]

140. That seems ageist to me.

[Brother Buzz]

157. It ain't ageist if she makes the decision

[Lee Adama]

158. Apparently the decision has been made and she is running.

It is completely foolish to attempt to primary a sitting Democratic Senator in a state that has open primaries where the top two go on as you could end up with a Republican facing a Republican.

[Brother Buzz]

160. The decision has NOT been made

She is positioning herself and has tuned up her reelection machine, but she has not pressed the button.

[Lee Adama]

161. Tuning up the re-election machine IS pressing the button.

[Brother Buzz]

163. Odd, the California Democratic Party hasn't received the memo yet

[Retrograde]

125. There will be 30-50 candidates

in the June 2018 primary - like there were last year - and the top 2 finishers will go on to November. The trick is to make sure at least one of those two is someone tolerable. I can see scenarios where there are enough Democrats to split the votes and let two Republicans go on to November - the opposite of what happened last year.

If we had party primaries for statewide offices I'd be happy to see a challenger to Feinstein. Given the system we currently have, though, I'm inclined to vote for her just to make sure a Democrat gets on the ballot for November.

[OnDoutside]

138. I always thought Xavier Bercerra was positioning himself for

a run at the Senate or the Governor's races. He is well able for both. It will be interesting to see what Newsome does.

[oasis]

146. Becerra is sharp. The "Hillary VP pick" conversation saw his name pop up

more than a few times. I believe the national attention boosted him to his current spot as Atty. General.

[OnDoutside]

151. Yes I thought he stood out more than the Castro brothers

during his time in the House. He seems thoughtful but yes, sharp too. If Sen Feinstein does retire, I think he would make a fine senator.

[oasis]

152. Unlike the Castro Bros. and Tim Caine, Becerra speaks perfect Spanish.

A big plus.

[NewJeffCT]

153. One of those "might have beens"

if Clinton had chosen him as VP, would Hispanic turnout increased enough to swing the vote in a state like Florida? Do TX and AZ get even closer?

[oasis]

155. IMO, Becerra had slightly more pizazz than the senator from Virginia.

That said, locking down Virginia seemed to be a big part of the Hillary team strategy. So we are where we are.

[Expecting Rain]

162. He is well able for both. IMO he needs to gain a prominence in CA that he currently lacks...

outside of politically sophisticated circles, but that he has every qualification for proving to be highly popular with the people of California (and the nation).

Xavier Becerra is a rising star.

[arthritisR_US]

139. There are good ones, even if you fail to see them.

[Demsrule86]

142. No we can't. We need to spend money on unseating Republicans not going after safe seats and making

them unsafe. Be thankful for what you have/ We have Portman in Ohio and 100 million coming against Sherrod Brown, and Move On is primarying Tim Ryan...and we may lose that seat as a result...Move On is dead to me ...fuck them.

[delisen]

156. All people over 60 must turn in their slots

Last edited Mon Sep 11, 2017, 01:07 PM - Edit history (1)

immediately because if they run they might win and we will have too many experienced and wise people in positions of power.


So the authoritarian approach is best-keep them from running because democratic voters and independent voters may elect these older people --heck I guess the real problem is democracy!




I do think readers are wise enough to recognize sarcasm-even older voters.

[Iggo]

170. I don't tell my slots what to do. They'll turn themselves in, or not, when they're damn well ready!

[Hekate]

171. You mean someone who's never run before?

What is your problem anyway?