Diane Feinstein announcement

[brooklynite]

Link to tweet

Cash on Hand: $3.6 M

[spanone]

1. K&R...

[kstewart33]

79. The popular complaint is that she's too old.

Okay, then. Let's take a look at her record. For example, the last Congress, the 114th (2015 - 2016).

[link:https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=114th-congress|

It's quite a read.

[greeny2323]

2. CA

I've said this before but in CA we shouldn't settle for anything but the very most progressive candidates. I hope some young progressive runs in the primary to give voters a choice. And if Feinstein wins the primary then of course I support her in the general.

[NurseJackie]

9. Settling? Why smear Feinstein? She's an honorable and capable and experienced public servant...

I've said this before but in CA we shouldn't settle for anything but the very most progressive candidates. I hope some young progressive runs in the primary to give voters a choice.

... she's a RANKING member who serves on many important committees that a junior "very most progressive" challenger wouldn't be on. She has served with honor and distinction. I'd hardly consider that to be "settling". Her experience and ability to negotiate and find common-ground and making progress is much more valuable to me than being one of the "very most progressive candidates." These "very most progressive" challengers you mention are frequently the ones who fancy themselves as being part of some sort of "revolution" and who take great personal pride in their "all-or-nothing" philosophy which ends up with their NOT negotiating and NOT finding common ground and NOT making any sort of progress at all. It's a weak and ineffective political strategy and ends up bolstering the status-quo (or even moving backward.) Sadly, the "very most progressive" candidates would rather starve than negotiate and accept half-a-loaf. I'm sorry to tell you, but the "Vermont-style" candidates don't always have the same appeal to voters throughout the rest of the country.

And if Feinstein wins the primary then of course I support her in the general.

Well, thank goodness for that.

[BadgerMom]

21. What Nurse Jackie said.

No 2016 redux, please. We have a great candidate. I’m not looking for a perfect one.

[DarthDem]

77. +1,000,000

If I've never thanked you for your tireless efforts against the (Russian-stoked) "perfect is the enemy of the good" divisions, THANK YOU.

[NurseJackie]

78. ###

[Alice11111]

80. She is hell on wheels. Bad ass & good heart.

[NurseJackie]

82. Hell-on-wheels... PERFECT!!

Love it!

[Alice11111]

163. Tough lady👩🗽💯💪💥

She was in an important hearing one morning. She had to miss the afternoon to be in the hospital, for a stent and heart monitor, I believe. After having her chest opened, she was back in attendance at the hearing the next morning. How many men could do that? How many people? Stress much. She handles it with preparedness and competency. Talk about dedication. Plus, she has knowledge, experience, connections, common sense & she knows which battles to pick. Not to reelect her would be idiocy.

Dems put your money against Repubs, not our best Dems, who the Repubs would help you beat.

[DarthDem]

86. Backatcha

[Me.]

100. This & More

“First woman to be top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee

First woman to chair the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence

First woman president of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors

First woman mayor of San Francisco

First woman elected Senator of California

First woman to serve as ranking member on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Authored the first major cybersecurity bill to be signed into law in years.

In addition to her committee assignments, Senator Feinstein is co-chairman of the Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control, co-chairman of the Senate Cancer Coalition and co-chairman of the Senate Women’s Caucus on Burma. She is also a member of the Anti-Meth Caucus, the Congressional Dairy Caucus and the Congressional Former Mayors Caucus. She has served as a member of the Aspen Strategy Group since 1997.
Among Senator Feinstein’s many legislative accomplishments:

Environment & Natural Resources

• Fuel Economy Standards - Increasing fleetwide fuel economy standards for cars, trucks and SUVs by at least 10 miles per gallon over 10 years or from 25 mpg to 35 mpg by Model Year 2020 – the largest increase in more than two decades, and the first Congressional action on global warming. Her bipartisan legislation ultimately led the Obama administration to put in place a mandate for a fleetwide 54.5 miles-per-gallon requirement by model year 2020.
• California Desert Protection - Protecting more than 7 million acres of pristine California desert, the largest such designation in the history of the continental United States. She was also a vocal champion for the creation of three new national monuments, safeguarding millions of additional acres.
• Lake Tahoe Restoration - Passed two bills to preserve and restore this treasured natural resource, a total of $715 million in federal funds to match investments by California, Nevada and local authorities.
• CALFED - Authorizing $395 million for a balanced program to increase California’s water supply, reliability and quality and help restore sensitive water ecosystems.
• Healthy Forests - Reducing the risk of catastrophic fire in our forests by expediting the thinning of hazardous fuels and providing the first legal protection for old-growth forests in our nation’s history.
• Headwaters Forest Agreement - Obtaining funding and brokering agreement to save the “Headwaters Forest,” a 7,500-acre national treasure and the largest privately held stand of uncut old-growth redwoods.
• San Francisco Bay Wetlands Restoration - Negotiating public-private purchase of 16,500 acres of salt ponds along the San Francisco Bay - the largest such wetlands restoration project in California history.”

https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/biography

[Me.]

101. The More

"National Security

• Revitalizing the Senate Intelligence Committee - After becoming chairman of the committee in 2009, Senator Feinstein oversaw the enactment of seven consecutive intelligence authorization bills following a six-year drought. The committee also released a bipartisan review of the Benghazi attacks.
• Reviewing CIA Use of Torture - Senator Feinstein oversaw a six-year review of the CIA’s detention and interrogation program, culminating in the December 2014 release of the report’s executive summary.
• FISA reform - Requiring the federal government to follow the requirements of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) when conducting electronic surveillance of American citizens for foreign intelligence purposes.
• Border Security and Visa Entry Reform - Helping prevent terrorists from entering the United States through loopholes in our immigration system.
• Criminalization of Border Tunnels - Closed a loophole in federal law by criminalizing the act of constructing or financing a tunnel or subterranean passage across an international border into the United States.
• Protecting America’s Seaports - Securing our nation’s 361 seaports from terrorism and organized crime through the creation of new criminal offenses.

Health Care

• Phthalate Ban - Protecting children from harmful phthalates chemicals in toys using the precautionary principle.
• Internet Pharmacies - Banning rogue Internet pharmacies from selling drugs without prescriptions.
• Breast Cancer Research Stamp - Raising more than $85 million for breast cancer research”.

[NurseJackie]

104. Awesome! Impressive! With EXPERIENCE comes ACCOMPLISHMENTS, eh? But...

... there are still those who smear her. There are those who think a "true progressive" (whatever the hell that's supposed to mean) could just swoop-in and replace her and automatically claim all of Feinstein's committee positions... instantly ... *snap* ... just like that. (These are typically the same people who believe that a "true progressive" challenger to Pelosi would automatically become the House Minority Leader.

I suppose I should be accustomed to it by now, but it always amazes me that there are still those who think that THEY know better what Californians want than do actual California voters. They often believe that a "Vermont-style" politician will be accepted by voters in all 50 states... but we can easily see that's NOT the case.

[Me.]

106. I've Asked In This Thread What Exactly Is A True Progressive

No response. Also, we need to get past the ageism being spouted constantly these days. When is the cut-off date and should we then shove seniors into a closet as useless? Such nonsense when you have someone who actually gets things done as opposed to those in the Senate that are better at posturing. What has Manchin done lately?

(to make up for lack of size)...

[NurseJackie]

107. I'd noticed that your previous question was being ignored. It's a valid question...

... especially when the phrase "true progressive" (as was being used in this thread) is just another way to give a passive-aggressive backhanded insult to Feinstein.

That's a type of "know it all" and subtle bullying behavior that makes me sick! Feinstein doesn't deserve to be denigrated with those types of stealthy smears and veiled attacks.

[Me.]

109. It's All That

good being the enemy of the perfect and purity nonsense. It doesn't get any more done than the Con Congress has nor does it move us forward as a good progressive should wish.

[NBachers]

151. Nurse Jackie, you give the best accounting of why Feinstein should be supported, not denigrated.

Let the "progressive disruptor" primari-ers start with local involvement and work their way up over the decades, learning the system and developing relationships and experience.

[NurseJackie]

161. If only they would do just that...

Let the "progressive disruptor" primari-ers start with local involvement and work their way up over the decades, learning the system and developing relationships and experience.

If only they would do just that, but they're too vain and arrogant and impatient. That element and their sense of entitlement is something transcends political realities. I blame the trendy "everyone gets a trophy" philosophy for much of what we're seeing. I also find fault with those who take great pride in refusing to find common ground. Those people are so obsessed with "no compromise" attitude and with denying the opposition anything at all... that they end up feeling like they've accomplished something by remaining still. Which, of course, is not "progressive" at all.

[George II]

17. "Give voters a choice", i.e., divide the Democratic Party even more.

For a long time voters have had a choice, and they've chosen Dianne Feinstein.

[Ken Burch]

93. The GOP is so weak in California that last time, there were TWO Democratic candidates for Senate

on the fall ballot-a result of their "top two" primary system.

California is one state where Dems don't have to water it down for statewide campaigns. They can be true progressives in those races.

Feinstein is certain to be re-elected, but why shouldn't people who want the Democratic Party to be progressive have a chance to vote for what they want?

If there isn't a real contest of ideas there this year, there never will be.

[George II]

97. What is the % of, as you put it, "true progressives" in the California Democratic voter rolls?

[Me.]

102. What Exactly Is A True Progressive According To You

and who gets to judge or are we getting into one of those purity things where the races are actually lost

[NastyRiffraff]

105. "True Progressives"

is a term that's flung around freely, but with no viable definition. What, as opposed to "false progressives"? California is a strongly DEMOCRATIC and LIBERAL state, that supports DEMOCRATS. California's has elected Diane Feinstein multiple times for a reason. She's a very effective and powerful DEMOCRAT with DEMOCRATIC values.

[NurseJackie]

108. It's a not-so-subtle way to smear Feinstein. And it's not the first time...

... that certain individuals here have used the same type of attack on Feinstein as well as other Democrats.

I'm sick of it!

[Ken Burch]

113. Critique is not "smearing".

It's not as though there is no legitimate reason ever to disagree with what particular Dem politicians do.

Dianne Feinstein has been a good senator, and she's in no danger of losing re-election. She's had primary challenges in most past campaigns and has no serious GOP challengers-there essentially aren't any figures of stature in the CA Republican party.

California is not one of the states in which Dems can only hold their ground if no public criticism of Democratic incumbents can be tolerated.

[NurseJackie]

119. Accusing Feinstein of not being a "true progressive" is a smear. There was no "critique"...

113. Critique is not "smearing".
It's not as though there is no legitimate reason ever to disagree with what particular Dem politicians do.

Oh really? Where's this "critique" you claim to have made?

The truth is that there was no "critique"...since a critique, by its very definition, suggests a detailed review or evaluation. There was NO such "critique" ... just a cleverly-worded accusation and smear that she's not a "true progressive".

She's had primary challenges in most past campaigns

Which ones? Who were her primary challengers?

California is not one of the states in which Dems can only hold their ground if no public criticism of Democratic incumbents can be tolerated.

Again... where's the criticism? What criticism? INSULTS and NAME CALLING and DENIGRATING and SMEARS are not "criticism".

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

154. Perhaps, having a choice of candidates is just a little TOO much democracy for some people.

[Demsrule86]

18. I hope not.I want a Democrat Senato rand Feinstein's seat could be up for grabs if some unknown won.

The most progressive candidates can't always win...even in California. It is a waste of time and money to primary Democrats when we have no power...go after the GOP... we don't need to hurt our own candidates who have the best chance of winning...and Feinstein is great a 'young' person would have no power whatsoever. You comment about settling was uncalled for.

[Chipper Chat]

24. Remember what happened to the republicans in Indiana

when the wacky right primaried a respected (even by democrats) Senator Richard Lugar and BEAT HIM with some nut job.
The nut job then lost to Joe Donnelly in the general.

[RhodeIslandOne]

38. The way California works it's Senate races now, that's highly unlikely

The general elections for Senate usually end up as a runoff between two Democrats. They did with Kamala Harris and Loretta Sanchez.

Under California's nonpartisan blanket primary law, all candidates appear on the same ballot, regardless of party. In the primary, voters may vote for any candidate, regardless of their party affiliation. In the California system, the top two finishers — regardless of party — advance to the general election in November, even if a candidate manages to receive a majority of the votes cast in the primary election. Washington and Louisiana have similar "jungle primary" style processes for Senators.

The Republican brand in California is dead statewide.

[Demsrule86]

70. exactly right...you get an unknown that is a wack job or can be portrayed as such by the GOP...we

could lose that seat.

[tonedevil]

129. The way the Senate race...

is run in California is open to all in the primary. All the candidates regardless of party affiliation are presented to all the voters regardless of party affiliation. The top two vote getters run against each other in the general election. Last cycle we had two Democrats on the ballot in the general. I wouldn't be surprised to see that again this year.

[Demsrule86]

157. I am aware of this...but we need Feinstein's experience (very senior ) at the moment...and

running for a Democratic incumbent's seat at a time when the GOP owns it all...wasting all that time and money...is madness. If we lose our opportunity to take the House and maybe with all the GOP retirements...the senate, it will be because of this nonsense. Move on who is now dead to me is primarying Tim Ryan here in Ohio. I cancelled my monthly support.This is beyond stupid.

[tonedevil]

162. If she runs against a Republican...

in the general it can have the effect of diminishing Democratic turn out and hurt Democrats running for Congress. Senator Feinstein has been a decent Senator, but there are those who dislike her. There are going to be Democrats running in the primary even if you hold your breath and stomp your feet. If there is another Democrat on the ballot in the general even Democrats who aren't on team Feinstein will be motivated to get out and vote. That results in more votes for Democratic Congressional candidates.

[Demsrule86]

165. That is meaningless to me...

We are talking money and time...name someone who would be endangered by low turnout. It is the excuse used by those who hate the Democratic Party and their leaders and senior members...not buying it. Spend the time to go after Republicans.

[tonedevil]

166. Are you a California...

voter? You don't seem to understand us very well.

[DBoon]

26. I think that money and effort is better at flipping red seats

Until the outsized red state majorities are removed, it won't matter who wins the CA senate

[Steven Maurer]

30. Greeny2323 doesn't want to "settle" ?

Please forgive me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the good Senator Feinstein is running for the Green nomination.

[Hekate]

42. As a Californian, I'd say we're damn lucky to have her, and obviously I have a lot of company

I see that you are a Green, or at least greeny, and that you are practically brand new to DU. We support Democrats, according to the TOS, and we make every effort to get them in office and keep them there.

California is an enormous and enormously diverse state, and not just ethnically. We are politically diverse as well. Take a look at the conservatives that various districts keep sending to the House. You want one of them to replace DiFi? We've sent both Reagan and Nixon to the White House.

We have a lot of good Dem politicians out here, and when Feinstein does retire, they will primary each other and not a sitting Senator who is one of the most powerful in the Senate.

Thank you.

[Weekend Warrior]

44. Opposition noted.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Dianne_Feinstein.htm

[roody]

91. Done.

https://www.facebook.com/DavidforCalifornia/?hc_ref=ARSHC1Y1J2YFmkhKHCutjlv2MXgDlkHQXe3P_MCEaJxJywiVvelfTvZN7yu-VHjdVL8&fref=nf

[NurseJackie]

3. Good! Happy to see this!

[democratisphere]

4. Time to get on her bandwagon, then on to victory.

[Ken Burch]

94. Getting on her bandwagon now means nothing can ever change in CA.

IF she faces no primary opposition. the state party will stay stuck in the exact status quo(and the state Assembly will keep killing single-payer, the only progressive measure that mattered in those chambers this year)for the rest of eternity.

If it's status quo this year, it will never ever not be status quo.

We're going to hold the CA senate seat no matter what. There's no GOP candidate there with any traction.

[George II]

95. When is the California Senate Democratic Primary scheduled in 2018?

Last edited Tue Oct 10, 2017, 10:00 AM - Edit history (1)

Also, since there is a Senator who is pushing "single payer" yet his/her state doesn't have "single payer" and the story has repeatedly been "He/she has no influence in what the state does", how is it that a Federal Senator from California has more influence on state legislation?

Have you gone past the headlines to research exactly why "single payer" didn't come up for a vote? (hint: it's the same reason why it isn't law in that other Senator's state, either)

[NurseJackie]

98. You make an excellent point. It's rather hypocritical to excuse it in one instance and...

... then demand it from (or find fault with) someone in another instance. Thanks for pointing it out. I always value your contributions to the conversation and the debate George II.

[Ken Burch]

111. They found a pretext to stop it.

n/t.

[Gothmog]

114. The top two candidate system has been in place for a while in California

There are no primaries and in many cases this system results in no GOP candidate making it to the general election ballot. In 2016, it was Senator Harris against another Democratic candidate

[Ken Burch]

116. That was my point, actually.

If anything, it's likely that the result of that in '18 would be Feinstein facing another Dem in the fall, with the other Dem running to her left.

[Gothmog]

143. There is still no primary under California law

The top two system does not really allow one to primary Feinstein. That is not how the system really works

[NurseJackie]

144. TMYK ★ ...

[Ken Burch]

156. The top two system IS a primary. It's just not a closed primary.

If it weren't a primary, they wouldn't also have a general election ballot.

While it is effectively nonpartisan-btw, I OPPOSE top two primaries, which are also held in Washington state for all offices and in Nebraska-for seats in the unicameral legislature-it does fulfil the function of a primary-it reduces the field for each office to two major candidates, who then face off against each other on the general election ballot.

https://ballotpedia.org/Top-two_primary

As I said, I hate the idea.

[Gothmog]

160. How exactly will one primary Senator Feinstein under this system in the real world?

[Ken Burch]

164. She'd need to be knocked into THIRD place.

So essentially, it can't happen-there's no way she could piss off THAT many people between now and primary day.

I didn't invent "top two", nor do I even support it. I'm just explaining that it is a thing and telling you how it works. OK?

[Gothmog]

167. In the real world, this will not happen

[NurseJackie]

168. Well, you see now... there's your mistake right there...

... you're limiting it to the real world.

[Ken Burch]

169. This isn't an argument between you and I

I was simply telling you what would need to happen for it to occur in a "top two" primary.

And in the post you responded to there, I agreed that it was unlikely to say the least.

Under "top two", an incumbent would have to insist on staying in the race despite becoming catastrophically unpopular, and not just one but TWO other candidates would have to gain enough support to finish ahead of the incumbent.

I'm not in California politics and it's not up to me as to whether Senator Feinstein would face such a challenge.

Please stop using the phrase "in the real world". It's not cool to imply that people are delusional just because they hold different views and a different sense of the possible than you do-and nobody who posts on this board deserves to be accused of being out of touch with reality simply because they disagree with you and don't defer to you. Using that phrase, over and over again, as you do against lots of people here, reduces the effectiveness of all of your posts-it makes it look as though you can't defend your positions on the merits of the issue in play and therefore have no alternative but to bully, badger and namecall your opponents into silence. I'm sure you're a better person than that in real life, I'm equally sure that no one who disagrees with you here lives on any world other than the real one we ALL share, and I'm surest of all that your use of that phrase has never won an argument for you here OR silenced any one you disagreed with.

Move on. Be the better person you truly are. "Be like Keith", as Nurse Jackie says.

Your use of that phrase will never make anyone to your left on DU stop posting here OR discredit anything any of us have to say.

It's a real world, it's a BIG real world, and your way of looking at this big, beautiful really real world has never been the only real way.

[Gothmog]

170. In the real world, there is no way to primary Feinstein

[Ken Burch]

171. In the real world, I wasn't the one suggesting it

We both live in the real world.

Stop already.

[George II]

125. California does have a primary, just not individual primaries for each party. So essentially....

....all candidates from both (or all?) parties run in the primary and the top two face each other in the General Election.

For example, last year there were a number of candidates running, with Kamala Harris and Loretta Sanchez (both Democrats) facing each other in the General Election. Harris won that by about 2-1.

Would individual primaries have changed the result?

Here are the 2016 Senate Primary results. Which of them pass the "true progressive" sniff test?

(sorry for the format)

Party Candidate Votes %
Democratic Kamala Harris 3,000,689 39.9%
Democratic Loretta Sanchez 1,416,203 18.9%
Republican Duf Sundheim 584,251 7.8%
Republican Phil Wyman 352,821 4.7%
Republican Tom Del Beccaro 323,614 4.3%
Republican Greg Conlon 230,944 3.1%
Democratic Steve Stokes 168,805 2.2%
Republican George C. Yang 112,055 1.5%
Republican Karen Roseberry 110,557 1.5%
Libertarian Gail K. Lightfoot 99,761 1.3%
Democratic Massie Munroe 98,150 1.3%
Green Pamela Elizondo 95,677 1.3%
Republican Tom Palzer 93,263 1.2%
Republican Ron Unz 92,325 1.2%
Republican Don Krampe 69,635 0.9%
No party pref. Eleanor García 65,084 0.9%
Republican Jarrell Williamson 64,120 0.9%
Republican Von Hougo 63,609 0.8%
Democratic President Cristina Grappo 63,330 0.8%
No party pref. Jerry J. Laws 53,023 0.7%
Libertarian Mark Matthew Herd 41,344 0.6%
Peace/Freedom John Thompson Parker 35,998 0.5%
No party pref. Ling Ling Shi 35,196 0.5%
Democratic Herbert G. Peters 32,638 0.4%
Democratic Emory Peretz Rodgers 31,485 0.4%
No party pref. Mike Beitiks 31,450 0.4%
No party pref. Clive Grey 29,418 0.4%
No party pref. Jason Hanania 27,715 0.4%
No party pref. Paul Merritt 24,031 0.3%
No party pref. Jason Kraus 19,318 0.3%
No party pref. Don J. Grundmann 15,317 0.2%
No party pref. Scott A. Vineberg 11,843 0.2%
No party pref. Tim Gildersleeve 9,798 0.1%
No party pref. Gar Myers 8,726 0.1%
Write-in Billy Falling 87 0.0%
Write-in Ric M. Llewellyn 32 0.0%
Write-in Alexis Stuart 10 0.0%
Total votes 7,512,322 100.0%

[Ken Burch]

133. I didn't say California DIDN'T have a primary.

I said that it had a primary that can produce situations where two candidates of the same party face each other on the general election ballot.

And the results you posted illustrated my point...there's no possible way that a primary challenge in California can lead to a Republican winning a statewide race in the fall.

[George II]

136. Most likely but not definitely. Looking down the list of candidates from less than a year ago....

....who was best qualified to win the election last year, and who could be in the list for next year, including Dianne Feinstein?

[Ken Burch]

138. If you're basing that on support levels, the top two were the most likely to win

Don't know enough about anyone with less support than them to speak to their qualifications.


Side question as I look at that...what the heck was the story with the one person who was running as "President Cristina Grappo"? Did her parents name her "President"?

[ehrnst]

158. What pretext was that? (nt)

[JHan]

103. So you live in California?

[Ken Burch]

112. No, but I've seen how it works.

There's been this fixation with limiting which races progressives are nominated in.

[JHan]

115. really?

[Ken Burch]

117. The GOP is dead in Cali.

We all know it.

There's nobody there waiting in the wings...there's no Reagan or Schwarzenegger figure on standby.

[JHan]

118. No, the really is to you making an insinuation that progressives are oppressed in California.

[Ken Burch]

120. I didn't use or even think the term "oppressed"-that would be insensitive.

The mere fact of seeking office doesn't subject a person to oppression.

I was talking about the fact that it seems to be ok in Cali for progressives to be in small-town local government or state Assembly seats, or SOME U.S. House seats, maybe occasionally one of the U.S. Senate seats...

but there always seems to be some sort of unspoken rule winnowing them out of the governorship and at least one U.S. Senate seats, and the mayoralities of the larger cities.

Those positions seem to be reserved for "centrists", for some reason.

[JHan]

121. I consider Jerry Brown to be progressive minded and he's governor.

This sounds like a litmus test Ken. I'll just end up repeating things I've said to you in dozens of other exchanges.

[Ken Burch]

137. The term "litmus test" is heavy-handed.

When the phrase "no litmus test" is invoked, what else can it mean but that we have no right to hold the people we elect to anything?

What, as you see, do we have the right to expect of Democratic officeholders and what do we NOT have the right to expect?

As to Brown...he's progressive on balance, and I'd have always voted for him in the fall.

But there were tons of rightward tacks he made that I don't think he ever had to make.

He was absurdly "law and order" as governor and especially as Oakland mayor, he appeased the Prop 13. crowd,and achieved nothing in doing so, since none of them were even going to consider voting for hi, he ran as the "flat tax/balanced budget amendment" candidate for president, and he spent way too much time joining the right in trying to delegitimize progressive activists. He was also a hard-line drug warrior decades past the time when there was any pragmatic reason for any California Dem to take that stance.

And what do you think it says about him that he inspired that Dead Kennedys song?

And it looks as though he often used his influence in the state party to push for the nomination of the least progressive candidates possible, which made little sense in an era when California has moved further and further to the Left.

He's been better in his last two terms on policy and rhetoric and I commend him for that.

[NurseJackie]

123. "Those positions seem to be reserved for 'centrists', for some reason."

Those positions seem to be reserved for "centrists", for some reason.

Gee! I wonder what that "some reason" could be. Hmmm... Maybe it's because California isn't Vermont? Because California voters aren't comprised entirely of "True Progressives™" Because California voters choose the people that THEY want to represent them?

But when you say "some reason" in that context, it's highly unlikely that you're actually referring to the ACTUAL and LEGITIMATE reasons... instead you're employing a rhetorical device that's used to cleverly suggest some sort of oppressive conspiracy.

but there always seems to be some sort of unspoken rule winnowing them out of the governorship and at least one U.S. Senate seats, and the mayoralities of the larger cities.

Those positions seem to be reserved for "centrists", for some reason.

There's no conspiracy going on. And I should let you know that you don't need to actually use the word "oppressed" when statements like the ones quoted above CLEARLY conveys that meaning.

"some reason" (= reasons other than the actual ones) ... "Unspoken rule" (= conspiracy) ... "winnowing them out" (= oppression) ... "reserved for centrists" (= exclusionary conspiracy) ... "small-town government" (= oppression through isolation).

Give me a break! We can read, you know. The meaning is clear, Ken. We're not stupid.

[Ken Burch]

134. I didn't mean the meaning that person took from it.

I have never posted here with nefarious intent, Jackie, or with hidden intent or with coded meaning.

"unspoken rule" is not the same as "conspiracy".

And nothing I said equated to claiming that progressives were oppressed within the California Democracy. My actual description would be that the party puts limits on how far they can go, which is pointless in California because there aren't any significant blocs of voters there anymore who will vote for a Dem but only it the Dem was a "moderate". California isn't Missouri.

You have no reason to assume that everything I say here an attack on the party or a part of a plot against the party. None of it is. I simply feel, as I've always felt, that it's not healthy to give anyone an unchallenged re-nomination for ANY office.

I didn't smear Dianne Feinstein...it would have been a smear to call her a reactionary. She's not a reactionary, she's a centrist, and has presented herself as such throughout her career, starting when she was the least progressive Dem on the SF Board of Supervisors.

She has done a lot of good as senator, but it's not a slur against her to point out that she's particularly progressive. And given that she's unbeatable, what difference does it make what I say about her?

[NurseJackie]

142. LOL!

Yeah right.

"unspoken rule" is not the same as "conspiracy".

Oh, please. Don't give me that. I'm smarter than you realize, Ken. When there's actually NO unspoken rule to begin with, then you ARE indeed implying that there's a conspiracy of oppression.

And nothing I said equated to claiming that progressives were oppressed within the California Democracy.

Wrong again. I cited every example in my previous post.

My actual description would be that the party puts limits on how far they can go, which is pointless in California because there aren't any significant blocs of voters there anymore who will vote for a Dem but only it the Dem was a "moderate". California isn't Missouri.

Really? How interesting. That's quite a claim. Any proof? Links?

You have no reason to assume that everything I say here an attack on the party or a part of a plot against the party.

Oh brother! What a silly thing to say! If I actually made such assumptions then you'd be correct. But the fact is that I don't assume such things... therefore you're wrong.

I didn't smear Dianne Feinstein...

Yes you did, and I already explained how. I don't need to repeat myself. If you want to read it again, just scroll up. I was clear the first time.

but it's not a slur against her to point out that she's particularly progressive.

Well, if that's what you were doing, then it wouldn't be. But that's not what you were doing, so it is.

And given that she's unbeatable, what difference does it make what I say about her?

So are you now suggesting that because a candidate is "unbeatable" that it's perfectly fine to smear and attack and denigrate them? Do the DU rules not apply to "unbeatable" Democrats?

[lapucelle]

147. "And given that she's unbeatable, what difference does it make what I say about her?"

Where have we all heard that before?

[NurseJackie]

159. Exactly! I've smelled this type of thing before.

It's so very tiresome.

[Ken Burch]

152. Sorry. From now on I won't.

Didn't know it was a slur. My bad.

[brer cat]

122. Your thread title is simply absurd.

Did CA "never ever" change after electing Richard Nixon? Further, if you really want to do some good, why not suggest spending our resources against republicans or conservative Democrats? It's a waste to go after a good, liberal Democrat who is sure to win reelection.

[skylucy]

5. ...

[oasis]

6. If she's willing and able, why not?

[awesomerwb1]

10. What's your definition of able?

FYI Californian here.

She's 84, and will be 85 by November 2018.

Sometimes she does not look in the moment to me. Personal opinion and nothing personal.

I just believe the party needs new blood but if she wins again, it goes without saying we'll all get behind her.

More than anything we need to UNITE AGAINST THE COMMON ENEMY. If we fail to win back the house next year despite all the negatives in the GOP, it will be one of the biggest fuck ups in political history in my opinion. And I wouldn't put it past the Dems + Bernie to do just that.

[oasis]

13. She seems to be doing ok after recent pacemaker proceedure. If reelected,

she'll possibly step down before the end of her term. I sense Feinstein believes her experience and influence can best serve the party.

[awesomerwb1]

22. I agree experience counts a lot

and of course seniority.

I was unaware of her pacemaker procedure. Glad she's doing ok.

[Weekend Warrior]

45. Do you have a video of one of these moments?

"Sometimes she does not look in the moment to me."

[Hekate]

60. DiFi is almost 15 years older than Trump, and he's senile and she's NOT...

Ruth Bader Ginsberg looks as fragile as a pile of bird-bones, but she is still as sharp as a tack.

Thank the Goddess for both of them.

[sheshe2]

145. Thank you, Hekate!

Ruth Bader Ginsberg looks as fragile as a pile of bird-bones, but she is still as sharp as a tack.

Thank the Goddess for both of them.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

155. So right about RBG... she's a dynamo!! Just gotta hope she NEVER retires before we put a Dem back in

the White House.

[awesomerwb1]

64. I'm sure you'll be able to find them yourself n/t

[Weekend Warrior]

81. Is this one of the ones you are referencing?

https://m.

I disagree with your assessment.

[Hekate]

149. Oh I see, you just smear and run

Thanks for clearing that up.

[Demsrule86]

71. She is in the Senate not the house.

And if we fail to win the House it will be because of the Our revolution and Move On bullshit move of primarying Democrats...fight Republicans.

[Hortensis]

7. Good for her. Bad news for her enemies.

[Cicada]

8. We need new leaders who might run for President some day

Like LA mayor Garcetti. Who has Mexican, Italian and Jewish roots and who is super appealing.

[Hortensis]

19. They're coming. Great experience and power connections are GOOD things.

Once in power, after all, they actually have to produce, and too many politicians can neither produce nor get reelected without selling their power to whoever will keep them in office.

Unlike most elected officials these days, weaklings who must satisfy the requirements of their financial "backers," Diane Feinstein is extremely experienced, is very powerful within her party, has decades of broad and deep web of connections to state- and nationwide power centers that she can call on to help get things done, is effectively financially independent, and depends only on the voters for reelection.

Cicada, kick out and replace LOWER LEVEL people, the weaklings who aren't coming through. Don't go after those whose names are known because they have what it takes to rise to the top.

[George II]

20. The Senate is not a training ground for President. Incidentally, look back in history....

...you'll see relatively few Senators who are elected President.

Before Barack Obama you have to go back to Lyndon Johnson/John Kennedy and then Harry Truman and then Warren Harding.

That's in 100 years.

[zipplewrath]

69. Yeah, the senate is a tough place from which to run

Even Obama was "barely" a senator. It can be hard to win from a senate seat. Truth be known, governor is a better place from which to run. In this day and age a cabinet secretary might do well, but you always have the "Washington insider" issue.

[BeyondGeography]

126. So no Kamala Harris for Prez then?

What’s funny about DiFi’s most ardent defenders here is many also happened to be the most vocal supporters for Harris for President back when that was a thing. And Harris was only on their radar for that conversation because Boxer retired. Whatever your views on Harris, she definitely adds to the Party’s overall bench strength. When incumbents hang on until they’re 90, otoh, the Party is deprived of new faces and voices, just like Harris. Yay, DiFi!

[George II]

127. Did you see the post to which I responded? Context is the key.

[BeyondGeography]

128. Is Harris 2020 a non-starter because shes in the Senate?

If not, then we have a legitimate presidential candidate because an older Senator made way for a younger replacement by retiring. Maybe argue that point instead of hiding behind context.

[George II]

131. We have a long way to 2020. My point was that here in 2017 we should not be looking...

....for a candidate to run for Senate in California based primarily if he/she would make a viable Presidential candidate in 2020.

I don't think that was the primary reason that Californians voted for Kamala Harris in the primary or the General Election. Their priority was electing a capable Senator. And they did.

[BeyondGeography]

132. My point is there's a cost associated with people who effectively benefit from lifetime tenure

And their enablers do the Party no favors.

[George II]

135. I seriously doubt that when Californians first elected Dianne Feinstein they weren't thinking....

...."lifetime tenure".

So, who should replace her, if anyone?

[BeyondGeography]

139. I defer to the many Californians on this board

who can surely point to a qualified alternative in a state that is 2/3 Democratic at the governance level and has been deep blue for many years. Unless you’re saying resistance is futile.

[George II]

141. All I can say is that the candidates should put their names in and run. The voters will decide....

....who is "best" for them.

[DBoon]

28. when garnett finishes a term for governor. he will make a great president

Nt

[delisen]

35. Be great if Garcetti would build a powerful

service-oriented or foreign policy-oriented non profit and head it for the next few years.

[Weekend Warrior]

46. That is up to Mayor Garcetti. nt.

[Honeycombe8]

53. It is easier for a rich man to get into Heaven....

than for a Senator to get into the White House.

The Senate is not the track to the White House. Governorship is. Although there have been exceptions (JFK, Obama), it is rare. And they are exceptional. They also didn't have a long stint in the Senate.

The more Senate votes you have under your belt, the more there is to attack.

It takes Senate newbies a while to get their sea legs, and they don't have any power. It's best if the ones with years there and some clout get re-elected, generally speaking. Feinstein is very powerful in the Senate, brilliant, tough, all while being respectful and knowledgeable. People listen to her. That sounds like a good Senator to me.

[Not Ruth]

11. 3.6M reasons she is going to win

Stand up to ageism

[crazycatlady]

12. The Senate is a 6 year term

My state re-elected a senator at the age of 84. He did not live to see the end of his term and the process to replace him was a clusterfuck (caused by the governor).

Hell we have a 71 yo in the White House who is so senile he has no business being in any public office.

[MyOwnPeace]

32. "Hell, yeah!" on the 71 yo!!!!!

There needs to be better long-range planning on the part of leadership - but, what has been done since President Obama won in 2008?

Really, is there ANY "planning" being done by the Democratic Party - or do we just sit back and let the in-fighting take place?

[crazycatlady]

34. Lately there's been some done

Right now a group called Run for Something is training and developing millennials to run for office. Other groups (Emerge America, Emily's List) are developing women. I believe there's similar for Latinos and LGBT.

[delisen]

36. and a much younger vp who perhaps is crazed.

[NewJeffCT]

15. considering what Meg Whitman spent in California several years back

$3.6 million is nice, but not a huge amount.

[Hekate]

50. That may be the number of votes she got, but I'd have to look it up from an actual computer

[MoonRiver]

14. That's disappointing.

Of course I will support the Democrat, but I do hope she is a little more outspoken about the Moron in Chief.

[iluvtennis]

16. I'm a Californian and glad she's running again. She and Kamala Harris are a great team.

[Orrex]

43. I'm kind of hoping that you don't have Harris for much longer

I'd love to see her in the White House.

[iluvtennis]

65. LOL, I'd love that, but don't see it happening in our current hate filled US environment

[Lunabell]

23. Sigh

[leftofcool]

25. Thank you DiFi! We need more of you.

[Cryptoad]

27. Kr

[BadGimp]

29. She has been at it long enough

time to hand off the mantle of leadership imo

[hueymahl]

31. I don't get it

Under her leadership, we have seen our party decimated in every possible category, losses in the executive branch, losses in the house, losses in the senate, losses in governorships and losses in state houses.

Yes, I know she is not directly responsible for all the losses. But she remains one of our party's primary leaders. I think it is time for a change in leadership. I wish she would not run.

[Weekend Warrior]

51. You are not correct in your observations. You leave out a lot.

Under her leadership, we have seen our party grow and contract, we have won and lost the executive branch, gained and lost seats in the house, gained and lost seats in the senate, etc..

[Hekate]

52. Senator Feinstein does not lead the Democratic Party. She is a US Senator doing a tremendous job

...in the Senate.

Good lord.

[JHan]

56. +++++ .. tell me how and why this needs explaining?

[Hekate]

59. Honest to God I do not know why

There's another thread with an even stupider argument about Columbus.

[JHan]

61. yup..for emphasis...

[roody]

92. Voting for war.

[hueymahl]

58. She is absolutely A leader of the party

I did not say she was THE leader.

She is influential in setting party policy and spending priorities. She speaks on behalf of other candidates. She fights against Trump and his minions.

She has done A LOT of good for the party. Unfortunately, the strategy she and the rest of the leaders of the party (little p) have advocated has utterly failed since Obama was elected.

There is plenty of blame to go around. I appreciate everything she has done over an illustrious career. But it is now time to step aside.

[maxsolomon]

33. Too old. Is she trying to set a record?

It's time to pass the torch.

She won't end Gun Violence in America if she lived to 200.

[Brother Buzz]

39. My Magic 8-Ball says it is 'Very doubtful' she will break Strom Thurmond's record

[maxsolomon]

40. You can't beat it if you don't try I guess

[Madam45for2923]

49. Absolutely!

[pnwmom]

54. California's Senator Cornelius Cole was first elected at age 86

and continued till he was 102.

[LanternWaste]

57. What then do you believe is the allowable maximum age to be effective

"Too old..."

What then do you believe is the allowable maximum age to be effective, and on what objective measure is that number based on?

Or is simply another "too old, but I can't support my allegation" post?

[maxsolomon]

66. How old are you anyway?

That's the age where I'd put the cut-off.

Anyway, congrats; you've exposed me as an Ageist again. Nothing excites young voters to put down their phones and vote like their great-grandma running.

[Hekate]

62. It's amazing how many people bring up gun violence, forgetting how she became Mayor...

Christ on a trailer hitch.

She gets to stay as long as Californians keep voting for her or until she retires. I'm a Californian.

[maxsolomon]

68. I'm not. I think she should retire. I know how she became Mayor.

SHE brought up Gun Violence in her announcement. Not "many people".

[SaschaHM]

37. Good. If folks want to see her replaced, convince the voters to do it.

There's no reason that we can't have a 2 Dem General election for that Senate seat again. Hell, it would actually be beneficial down ballot for house races if we had a 2 Dem Senate race.

[Demsrule86]

72. It costs money...and is stupid to use if for a primary. Use the money against Republicans.

[SaschaHM]

74. Propping up another Democrat candidate such that we have another Top 2 finish in the primary..

is the best way to use money against the Republicans. CA has a jungle primary. We guarantee a seat for a Dem and deny republicans a flashy top tier race for bring out their voters for lower tier races, which boosts our house races.

The worst case scenario for us here is a Dem v. Rep w/ a dissatisfied left. Feinstein would win, but our excess voters would stay home.

[RhodeIslandOne]

41. Meh, the wrong "older" Senator retired in CA

I would have preferred Boxer stayed on a couple years ago and Kamala had been able run for this seat.

[Madam45for2923]

47. Great news! DEMS FTW!

[Lee-Lee]

48. It looks like in CA if she fails to finish the term the governor appoints someone

My only issue is that with her statistically unlikely to finish her term that means the CA voters don't get a voice in who replaces her, and then whomever gets appointed by the governor gets a huge boost toward winning the election to fill the seat by virtue of dropping into that seat and staff.

I think it is short changing the voters in that regard, and a play in part to ensure the person the party wants, not necessarily the people, gets to fill that seat and gets the biggest advantage come the election to fill it.

[L. Coyote]

55. Bravo. I hope the Russians don't primary her.

[Hekate]

63. No kidding

[liskddksil]

67. I've read that a competitive primary could be better for the CA Dem Party

If 2 Democrats were able to get into the top 2 spots, not only would no Republicans be on the Senate ballot, but their enthusiasm and turnout would significantly diminish on Election-Day, helping us win in many down-ballot races.

[SaschaHM]

75. You'd also bring out those on the left, who would stay home since Feinstein

would cruise to victory anyway without them.

They can come, vote for their D senate candidate and then vote D for house/local races that aren't as flashy.

[Nevernose]

84. No, but I certainly wouldnt mind if another Democrat did

It’s only a bad thing if me presupposes that Feinstein is entitled to the job because she’s been elected before. There are, I’m sure, man younger, more liberal people that could do the job as good or better.

Though clearly she is far better than any Republican would or could be.

[Spy Car]

73. I'm thrilled Dianne Feinstein is running for re-election to the Senate from California.

She and Kamala Harris represent us well.

I am resigned to the idea that the Senate may not be Sen. Feinstein's springboard to the presidency.

[RandySF]

76. I think it's going to be Dem against Dem In November, 2018.

[DarthDem]

87. For the Primary?

Mmm, not sure. But Feinstein will win regardless.

[RandySF]

88. The general.

They all run together in the primary and the top two face off regardless of party.

[DarthDem]

90. I Know :)

I live here.

I just wasn't sure what you were forecasting or if you were outside looking in and confused. My bad, I gotcha now.

Hopefully if Feinstein does have some purity challenger, s/he won't get much attention.

[Tatiana]

83. I'm opposed to her decision, but I don't live in California.

I think someone more progressive could be elected. But, if California likes her, I think they have the right to vote for her.

Hopefully the governorship remains in Democratic hands in case (Lord, forbid) something unfortunate happens.

[Tavarious Jackson]

85. At that age........

I personally would prefer a younger person but if she wins, she has my full support

[Starry Messenger]

89. Id like to know if she were grooming someone for later

I’m not really interested in replacing her just to replace her, but time marches on. Kevin De Leon expressed interest, and there are other very able CA folks. She has so much cash in hand, there isn’t a credible opponent for her seat, and she does fine, and never claimed to be a radical. But it would be nice to have a plan for later...

[loyalsister]

124. I wish Senators Kennedy and Byrd had done so

We really need them to look ahead. Late in their careers, policymakers have a unique responsibility to help mentor successors. This isn't just keeping the family business going. People in government have a profound impact on the entire world.

[Blue_Tires]

96. And the usual suspects on the purity left are already declaring war

typical...

[zentrum]

99. Depressing.

We need some new faces. Especially from one of our most progressive states.

[brooklynite]

140. So what are you doing to find someone?

Or is that someone else's job?

[BeyondGeography]

146. Incumbents have name recognition and money in the bank

Plus, this isn't Delaware. Boxer could have remained Senator as long as she wanted but she called it a day and we got a younger Senator with a very bright future out of the deal. Would that more septuagenarian and octogenarian Democrats would make the same choice.

If you want to know how our Party got old, this is how.

[m-lekktor]

110. smh. nt

[YOHABLO]

130. I think it's important to look at her record. What has she done for Californians or Am citizens?

[Willie Pep]

148. I am not from California.

But I don't understand the hate that older politicians like Feinstein get these days. Experience matters in politics just like in other jobs. You need to know how to work the system to get stuff done and building relationships and trust is important. New faces are good but you need some older, experienced people too, especially to serve as mentors for younger politicians. I think age discrimination is becoming a really big problem in this country.

[NBachers]

153. Feinstein's been our Senator while California has evolved into it's current "progressive" status.

I live here, and I'm enthusiastically supporting Diane Feinstein, and voting for her.

Does she deserve at least a smidgen of credit for her long political career which has seen the collapse of the republican party in California? Can it be possible that the two have any connection?

[Hortensis]

172. +1000, NBachers. From the LA Times "...and I'm no rabble rouser."

... She also has allies, including prominent figures on the party’s left. Sen. Kamala Harris, who is far more popular than Feinstein among liberals, swiftly endorsed her after the announcement Monday, as did Rep. Adam B. Schiff of Burbank, who has emerged as one of Trump’s main antagonists in Congress.

“We are better off with her leadership,” Harris wrote.

While opponents see Feinstein’s style and longevity as a negative, her backers see it otherwise.

Her longtime campaign strategist, Bill Carrick, ticked off a string of issues — guns, abortion rights, desert protection, environmental issues, torture, LGBT rights — on which Feinstein’s record is closely aligned with the most liberal elements of the party.

“She’s in good shape, and the Democratic base is her strength,” he said. “Anybody who thinks they’re going to run to the left of her with Democrats, good luck.”

Ultimately, the race may center on what Californians expect of their politicians. Feinstein, a former San Francisco mayor, is a believer in the school of compromise, of both sides working together to achieve an end that fully satisfies neither but moves the issue along.

“I can work across the aisle. I can work with other people. I know how to make judgments that can make bills passable,” she said in a brief interview after her announcement.

That is a style that has gone broadly out of fashion in recent years. If a challenger with enough money and manpower arrives, the Senate race could foretell whether California voters still want it — or prefer a more antagonistic tone. Feinstein is betting that’s not the case.

“I’m not a rabble-rouser; it’s not what I intend to do,” she said after a frequently testy town hall in mid-April at Los Angeles’ First African Methodist Episcopal Church. “I want to try to dim the cry and to fashion it into something constructive.… I think people want me to be constructive.”

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-feinstein-analysis-20171009-story.html

+10,000, Sen. Feinstein! Those who imagine trying to rebuild the critical working center means Feinstein isn't left enough should swonder why the extremely diverse California electorate keeps reelecting her. Before they helped elect her to national office, San Francisco voters elected her mayor for 10 years and to the San Francisco board of supervisors for 8 years before that. She's among a handful of the most powerful and experienced, strong liberals we have, and those hopeful opportunists who claim otherwise are lying.