Feinstein won't be beaten in the primary...but there's a good chance THIS could happen:

[Ken Burch]

Kevin De Leon, the more progressive Dem, could end up finishing second to Feinstein in the "top two" primary California has and end up facing her on the fall ballot (as Kamala Harris faced another Loretta Sanchez on the fall ballot)

(it's also possible that Alison Hartman, another progressive candidate who has just entered the race, could manage that as well).

If that happened, and it was guaranteed that a Dem would win the seat no matter what, would those here who are upset about the idea of another Dem challenging Feinstein still see the idea of supporting the other Dem in the fall as anathema, or would you say "ok, we get a Dem either way, so no harm, no foul!"?

[Wwcd]

1. Not sure what the point is.

3 people running.
Good.

[Ken Burch]

2. The point is to elect a U.S, Senator.

In California, it appears that a lot of rank and file Dems want a senator who is more progressive than Dianne Feinstein. And it also appears that in California, things are set up so that that can be done without risking the election of a Rethug.

As to what the point of the third Dem entering the race, I don't know enough about California Dem politics to speak to that.

[msongs]

3. if the choice is two dems you vote for the best available according to your views nt

[Ken Burch]

4. Fair response.

n/t.

[Demsrule86]

25. One of them is a powerful Senator who can help us fight Trump ...the other will be a useless newbie.

so no...they are not equally matched.

[rufus dog]

44. Really,..proceed Demsrule

And explain to me how Harris is a useless newbie.

[Cal Carpenter]

68. Well, it's a good thing people live forever

so we never have to worry about 'useless newbies' in government.

(wtf?!)

[loyalsister]

5. I hope one of the other 2 pulls it off

It's important to think about protecting the seats we have for the next 20 + yrs rather than someone getting one last hurrah election in their twilight yrs.

[NurseJackie]

6. "No harm no foul" LOL!!

but there's a good chance THIS could happen:

As a party, we will be in a much stronger position with someone who's experienced and respected... someone who knows who's-who and what's-what... someone who has built relationships... someone who's earned plum committee appointments/chairs... someone who can make a difference.

Change for it's own sake isn't always a good thing, and that's basically what you're arguing if your argument boils down to a very simplistic "we get a Dem either way". Not all Dems are created equally, and personally speaking, I think the "we get a Dem either way" attitude is a very naive way to view things.

[Ken Burch]

7. I'm not in California, and it isn't up to me.

But are you going to argue that any challenge to any sitting Dem, even in a situation like this where we wouldn't lose anything(this would be Feinstein's last term anyway) is intolerable?

California is not West Virginia.

BTW, at this stage we're in the minority and it's not likely that we'll be in the majority after 2018(it's possible, but we're defending two-thirds of the seats)

Again, not sure why it's so important for you to resort to snark. People don't deserved to be heckled just because they disagree with you on a small number of things.

[NurseJackie]

8. I have no idea what you're going on about.

Again, not sure why it's so important for you to resort to snark. People don't deserved to be heckled just because they disagree with you on a small number of things.

I have no idea what you're going on about. Nobody is heckling you.

But are you going to argue that any challenge to any sitting Dem, even in a situation like this where we wouldn't lose anything(this would be Feinstein's last term anyway) is intolerable?

My response was very clear. Please read it again if you're having trouble understanding it. It won't change simply because you re-word the question and ask again, over and over. And if you continue to do so, I'll simply refer you to my previous post/s.

I'm not in California, and it isn't up to me.

I know!

[Ken Burch]

9. You aren't entitled to talk down to anyone here.

It makes you sound like a far worse person than you must be in real life.

[NurseJackie]

12. LOL! Nobody is doing that.

And the waving emoji is passive-aggressive and insulting and dismissive, right?

[Ken Burch]

13. That's why you do it.

It's a sign of a "go away, small child!" attitude.

I've asked you over and over again what your issue is with me.

I don't damage the party.

I don't attack Democratic politicians.

I loyally and enthusiastically campaigned for the ticket.

What do you want from me?

[NurseJackie]

33. I've told you repeatedly that you're wrong...

13. That's why you do it.

No it's not. It's only how you happen to incorrectly interpret it. I've told you repeatedly that you're wrong, but you refuse to listen. It's just a friendly wave. It saddens me that you can't accept my friendly gesture at face value. But, that's your choice. It's now all on you. Not my fault. No longer my problem.

It's a sign of a "go away, small child!" attitude.

It's a sign of something, but it ain't that.

I've asked you over and over again what your issue is with me.

I've answered your question over and over again. You just don't like the answer, so you keep asking in the hopes that I'll say something different.

My own children used to play that game with me as well... but they quickly learned that I was smarter than they were giving me credit for... they grew tired of the game and they stopped trying. I strongly urge you to cease as well.

I don't damage the party.

Who said you did?

I don't attack Democratic politicians.

LOL! Really? Two words: Kamala Harris.

I loyally and enthusiastically campaigned for the ticket.

So what? Who said you didn't? It's irrelevant. That's not what we're talking about. What good purpose does it serve to keep saying that... completely out of the blue... apropos of nothing?

It's the same as if I were to mention to you, for no particular reason, every time I replied to you: "I can recite the alphabet backwards from Z to A." --- Why would you care? Why would I mention it if that wasn't the subject matter at hand? Why would I bring it up EVERY DAY, EVERY SINGLE MESSAGE? Who cares?

What do you want from me?

Well, that's a bit presumptuous, isn't it? What makes you think I want anything at all from you? Rest assured that there's nothing I want from you. Don't worry.

[Ken Burch]

35. I made a small number of comments about her during the presidential primaries.

And I later apologized for them. I denounced the idiots who started the online hate groups targeting her as soon as I heard of those groups. I can't believe you're still bearing a grudge over something I said ages ago and have renounced. And more recently I've praised Senator Harris for supporting single-payer and for her stance on the criminal justice system.

Is THAT why you feel compelled to follow me from thread to thread? Is that what all of this is about? I said something SIXTEEN MONTHS AGO or more about someone you supported and you still can't let it go?

As to your kids...they're your kids and they were trying to get away with something. I'm a grownup and I'm not trying to get away with anything. I'm just a loyal Democrat you happen to disagree with on something. I don't deserve to be treated like a disobedient child and neither does anybody else here that you respond to in that way.

Why isn't it enough for you to just argue against whatever views I or other people hold that you take issue with? Is there some reason you can't just deal with other Dems on the level of ideas

[NurseJackie]

36. That doesn't mean it never happened. You can't erase the past. You can't ignore facts...

... and you can't go around using phrases like "I never did such-and-such" or "I don't do such-and-such" when it's a demonstrable fact that you actually did.

I can't believe you're still bearing a grudge over something I said ages ago and have renounced.

Nobody is "bearing a grudge". Your apology has been accepted. But, by the same token, just because an apology has been accepted... that doesn't give you free reign to pretend as though it never happened by using absolute statements as you've done.

Just so that we're clear about this: every time anyone does something like that, I'll correct the misstatements and remind everyone of the FACTS. Every time I see that someone not being completely truthful, you can count on me being there to set the record straight.

Is THAT why you feel compelled to follow me from thread to thread?

Oh brother! Stop it with the "stalker" accusations already! I don't follow you from thread to thread. That's just silly. We happen to participate in the same forums. We happen to have the same interests in the same topics.

As to your kids...they're your kids and they were trying to get away with something.

I never said that. It's your interpretation and imagination.

I don't deserve to be treated like a disobedient child and neither does anybody else here that you respond to in that way.

Nobody is treating you like that. But I can tell you that when someone repeatedly asks the same question over and over again (apparently hoping for a different answer) the response they get from me will always be the same. Even my young children figured that one out early on. I can only suggest that you take a moment to examine your own behavior to see if there's anything that you could change, or if there's a specific cause-and-effect.

Why isn't it enough for you to just argue against whatever views I or other people hold that you take issue with?

I do. You just don't like my responses, so you resort to attacking me with false accusations about "stalking" you. Or accusing me of being "dismissive" because I use the friendly waving "hi" emoji gif. (I guess there's just no pleasing some people, huh?)

[Ken Burch]

40. What matters is that I don't say anything about Democratic politicians

that could be taken as an attack NOW. I've made a clear break from anything along that line.

I completely changed my approach on that after Philly, and did so voluntarily.

It's been fourteen months since Philly. The things I said that you can't let go of are in the dead past.

I had actually forgotten I'd even mentioned Kamala Harris when that was brought up. I shouldn't have said those things(we're talking about a tiny handful of comments, for Goddess' sakes), in hindsight, but it was in the heat of the moment, in the kind of situation where people often say heated things and it did no actual harm. I didn't lie about saying it-it honestly just slipped my mind that I had. Does anybody else remember every single word they ever posted here?

Can you just accept that we're done with that one?

As to "asking the same question over and over", as you call it:

The question I'm really asking is...what is it about what I post that makes you feel that you have to try to disparage and discredit me and others on a personal level? And why do you do that to other people here whose only crime is to disagree with you on ideas?

Why don't you work on the assumption that everybody posting here, so long as they aren't abusive, confrontational douchegeysers, is entitled to a least a baseline level of human respect?

In essentially every exchange I've seen you get into with anyone you disagree with, you've gone for the jugular with people, not on the ideas those people were discussion, but on a personal level.

It doesn't sound like you're interested in discussion; instead, you just want to browbeat everybody into deferring to you, to the particular candidates you prefer, and to your notion of the limits of what is politically possible and permissible as discussion.

I would welcome an actual debate on the merits of the issues with you, but that involves the participants treating each other with civility and accept that each honest and transparent and of honorable intent.

It sounds as if you feel that agreeing to treat people like that here would be an intolerable burden.

If nothing else, could you please accept that it isn't YOUR place to try to shut down any discussion that happens to move to even minutely to the left of what you support? It's not as though it harms anything for ideas more liberal or even radical than the ones you support to simply be posted here.

[NurseJackie]

41. But that's not what you said.

40. What matters is that I don't say anything about Democratic politicians
that could be taken as an attack NOW. I've made a clear break from anything along that line.

But that's not what you said, is it? Based on the documented history of your previous behavior, I have to be honest with you and remind you that you have permanently and forever given up the ability to truthfully make blanket and broad-brush statements such as "I never did such-and-such". (You did.)

Can you just accept that we're done with that one?

Cant YOU just accept that your pretending it didn't happen won't change the past. It did happen. Sure, you apologized, but... IT... DID... HAPPEN. Stop pretending to be a paragon of virtue and a saint. (That's okay. I'm no saint either. But it really serves no good purpose for you to pretend that you are. As they say... "nobody's perfect!'')

Look... here's an example you might be able to understand. When I was younger, I got a ticket for speeding. I deserved it, I was speeding. I apologized and paid my fine. End of story... everyone moves on. BUT... for the REST OF MY LIFE.... forever and ever... I'll never be able to claim "I never got a speeding ticket". Why? Because it would be a lie if I said that. (Therefore, I don't make false statements like that.)

If the subject comes up, I'll be honest and say "I haven't received a speeding ticket since I graduated from college" ... but I don't go around falsely BRAGGING about my perfect driving record. I can't change the actual past by telling a FALSE story that I wish were true.

Get it? Stop telling false stories. Please. We all know the truth anyway. Why would anyone want to debase themselves in such a manner? What good purpose does it serve?

The question I'm really asking is...what is it about what I post that makes you feel that you have to try to disparage and discredit me and others on a personal level?

I don't do that. Please stop with the false accusations and insults.

You don't sound like you're interested in discussion, you sound like you just want to browbeat everybody into deferring to you, to the particular candidates you prefer, and to your notion of the limits of what is politically possible and permissible as discussion.

Why are you trying to make this about me? Why the personal attacks? Please stop.

It sounds as if you feel that agreeing to treat people like that here would be an intolerable burden.

Well, you'd be wrong. Surprise, surprise. Yet another accusation and personal attack about me and whatever you believe my "evil intentions" are. Stop it, please. No good can come of that.

If nothing else, could you please accept that it isn't YOUR place to try to shut down any discussion that happens to move to even minutely to the left of what you support?

That's untrue. Why are you attacking me? This isn't a productive thing to do. What good comes of it?

It's not as though it harms anything for ideas more liberal or even radical than the ones you support to simply be posted here.

Nobody said that. Why are you accusing me of that? Please stop. What are you trying to accomplish with all these attacks on me?

I don't deserve to be treated this way.

[Ken Burch]

43. What I actually said in the exchange just there was "I DON'T attack Democratic politicians"

I wasn't saying I never said anything that anybody could take as an "attack".

I made the distinction.

[NurseJackie]

45. Word games. Hair-splitting. I'm smarter than you think I am.

My children used to play word games with me too. I always won.

I made the distinction.

No you didn't. I see what you're doing, and you're not fooling me.

Oh, that reminds me... did I ever tell you about the time my youngest thought he could baffle me with synonyms to try and characterize his bad behavior as something OTHER than what it was? It went like this: "No. I didn't actually EAT all the cookies... I just nibbled them until they were gone."

[Ken Burch]

46. I'm telling the truth, I've never ever tried to deceive you. I'm about the truth.

There's a difference between saying "I never did" and "I don't".

It's enough that I stopped doing anything anyone could call an attack over fourteen months ago.

Nothing in what I said all that time ago justifies what you're doing now.

[NurseJackie]

47. I'll just remind you again that I'm smarter than you think I am...

... I'm a mother. I've seen it all and heard it all. Word games, hair splitting, euphemisms, half-truths, you name it and I've seen it. I'm not easily deceived, and I recognize the type of behavior I'm seeing now.

There's a difference between saying "I never did" and "I don't".

And there's a difference between "gobbled up" and "nibbled until gone".

It's enough that I stopped doing anything anyone could call an attack over fourteen months ago.

Good for you! That's fine... just fine! That's admirable. But honestly, Ken... it's really not such a grand accomplishment that we need to be CONGRATULATING you every day for either, is it?

I do think it's a wonderful thing that you've stopped attacking and smearing Democrats for the past 14 months. That doesn't mean you get the privilege of pretending that it never happened. It doesn't mean you get to play word games with ambiguous phrasing that makes it sound as if you're a paragon of virtue.

Nothing in what I said all that time ago justifies what you're doing now.

Only what you're doing now justifies it. Cease the "I never blah-blah-blah" claims (and other ambiguous phrasing) and I'll stop correcting you and correcting the record.

[Ken Burch]

48. No, you don't need to be congratulating me. But it is time to let it go and move on.

It is time to admit that it's been put to rest.

I said some heated things in an election campaign and admitted I was wrong to say them.

I own that and apologize for it.

I didn't say I'd never ever said anything like that.

At one point, I'd actually forgotten I had said them because it had been such a long time and I've posted a lot of things here.

People do that.

It's one thing to disagree with a person...but obsessing on trying to prove someone is a liar when they don't lie is out of line.

And fixating on me as if I'm a mortal threat to the Democratic Party's very existence simply makes no sense. I don't say anything that unusual and frankly I'm not that important. Little if anything in this world depends on you following me and others from thread to thread to try and discredit people personally.

I said what I said. I've apologized and don't say that anymore. It's not deception to say I don't say things like that now.

[tonedevil]

50. Why continue..

the argument will never be done shitty people will be shitty to you it is an unfortunate fact. The waving emojis are pure condesending bullshit that will never be admited or explained. Sometimes it is better to avoid someone determined to be toxic. You seem a thoughtful person who wants to help get us out of the crap hole we have fallen into, I admire that. Face it you are dealing with people who want to impeach Susan Sarandon. Stay focused and serious and thanks for keeping up the good fight

[Ken Burch]

54. You are right.

I've now put that person on ignore.

[tonedevil]

56. For the best. /nt

[NurseJackie]

59. Advantage: Me.

For the record, I'll continue to reply and debunk whenever appropriate... and since you won't be able to offer any corrections or clarifications or alternate point-of-view... that means I'll "win" the argument by default.

[tonedevil]

64. You will be doing so much...

winning you will get sick of winning.

[NurseJackie]

65. Highly unlikely.

The truth is important to me. I'll never tire of exposing lies and half-truths. It's important to challenging ambiguous boasts of anyone who denies reality.

Thanks for checking in!

[fleur-de-lisa]

63. Good answer. I'm surprised you continued for so long.

Some people aren't worth the harassment.

I mean this in the most sincere way:

[Ken Burch]

69. I take your meaning.

It's just hard to not respond to bullying and abuse, to character assassination and derision.

Unless they're defending Trump's policies, or campaigning for Stein, or denying Harvey Weinstein, no one who posts here ever deserves such treatment.

[NurseJackie]

70. How do you feel about people who deny the truth about things that acutally happened?

[NurseJackie]

51. Certainly... but I think I should let you know...

48. No, you don't need to be congratulating me. But it is time to let it go and move on.

Certainly... but I think I should let you know that "moving on" does NOT mean the same thing as "pretending it never happened".

I said some heated things in an election campaign and admitted I was wrong to say them.

Congratulations!

I didn't say I'd never ever said anything like that.

Uh-huh, right. I know what you said. You know what you said. I encourage you to cease your attempts at playing these ambiguous "I never actually said such-and-such" word-games with me. I'll beat you every time. I can see right through it.

I'd truly forgotten I had said them because it had been such a long time. People do that.

Just because you "forgot" that something happened, doesn't change the fact that it did happen, does it? Maybe now that you've been reminded, you won't forget in the future.

It's one thing to disagree with a person...but obsessing on trying to prove someone is a liar when they don't lie is out of line.

I've done no such thing and you know it. I'm correcting your mistake and clarifying your ambiguous statements.

It's one thing to make a mistake... but obsessing on trying to prove that no mistakes were made is out of line.

[Ken Burch]

53. I'm now putting you on ignore.

I've done all I could to address what I said about Senator Harris.

You have no reason to belabor this, yet you will never stop.

[NurseJackie]

57. I respond. I never bring it up unless you do.

Stop bringing it up yourself and stop pretending that it never happened and the problem will be solved.

Simple.

[Codeine]

37. "You aren't entitled to talk down to anyone here."

Whoa!! Unintentional irony OVERLOAD!!

[NurseJackie]

38. I know! Right?

Sometimes I can't help but to laugh OUT LOUD!!

[Ken Burch]

42. I've never knowingly talked down to you or to anyone else.

When have I ever treated you with anything other than full respect as a human being?

I've argued for things I supported, but to the best of my knowledge I never demeaned you or anyone else.

[NurseJackie]

71. Ahem! Hello-o-o-o?

I've argued for things I supported, but to the best of my knowledge I never demeaned you or anyone else.

Falsely accusing me of "stalking" someone who hangs out in the same forums together is demeaning. How do you feel about things like that?

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

32. Snark is the rule, not the exception....gonna have to get used to it, sorry to say.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

10. And surely the Dodgers would have won the World Series if Fernando Valenzuela was pitching

Blind deference to the house and senate leadership that has ushered us into the permanent minority is insane. New blood at this point qualifies as somebody in their mid-sixties.

[NurseJackie]

11. LOL!

Nope... that's not what's insane. Something else is, but not that.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

15. Lets chat after the midterms

And see if we're delivering a more effective pair of delegations or not.

Leaving these individuals in place in blue state house and senate seats is just foregoing the opportunity to develop future leaders.

[Demsrule86]

26. If we don't it will be on those that insist on purity and are attacking Democrats instead of

Republicans.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

34. It isn't about purity or attacking democrats

It is about the fact that politics isn't a nostalgia act and we have suffocated an entire generation of potential leaders by allowing people to squat in their seats for decades, meanwhile the people we're being deferential to haven't exactly presided over a whole lot of success.

Maybe somebody in Branson Missouri can open a dinner theater venue where the politicians of the sixties through nineties can give their old stump speeches and hold mock debates or something.

[tonedevil]

62. The Branson...

Theater idea is golden.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

66. I ran it by my dad this morning

He thought inaugurations that never were would be popular too. Every Monday night could be the Mitt Romney inauguration, Tuesday could be the John Kerry inauguration, Wednesday could be the Al Gore inauguration and so forth.

[tonedevil]

67. I'm more on board...

than ever.

[Bettie]

22. So, are you going on record

as being against primaries?

[NurseJackie]

23. LOL! Nice try.

[Demsrule86]

27. I will go against primaries in 2017 and 18...all resources should be used to unseat Republicans...it

is beyond foolish to have primaries in our current situation.

[lapucelle]

14. I so admire a candidate who has the courage of his convictions.

"Kevin de Leon has refused to provide voters with positions on key issues covered by the 2014 Political Courage Test, despite repeated requests."

https://votesmart.org/candidate/political-courage-test/59926/kevin-de-leon/#.Wfz6EIgpDIU

[sheshe2]

16. So what exactly makes Kevin more progressive?

I hope it does not have anything to do with age or sex.

[pnwmom]

17. I'd still rather have Feinstein and her experience and her SENIORITY on committees, thanks.

But it will be up to the voters of California to decide if that's important to them.

[Ken Burch]

18. And you have a right to your opinion.

Seniority only matters when you're in the majority though.

[pnwmom]

19. No, it still matters. She's the ranking Democrat on her committees,

and that wouldn't be the case with a newbie.

[Demsrule86]

30. Untrue...it matters tremendously to have experienced Senators like Feinstien who

understand how things work and the best way to fight Trump...Dems have been amazing in fighting him...including Feinstein.

[NurseJackie]

39. WRONG!

Seniority only matters when you're in the majority though.

WRONG! Wrong-wrong-wrong. You couldn't be MORE wrong if you tried.

Actually, Ken, seniority and experience matter even MORE when a party is in the minority! The majority party has the biggest advantage of all, therefore the Democrats need EVERY advantage we can get.

Experience and seniority ARE INDEED advantageous to the party that's out of power. In what alternate reality would such a thing be true? Why would any mature and rational person think otherwise?

Care to explain? Can you elaborate on how you arrived at that conclusion? Or will you just ignore us and pretend it never happened?

[sheshe2]

20. crickets.

[Takket]

21. there is nothing wrong with healthy competition. our elected officals should have to

fight and make their case to the electorate if they want the job

[Demsrule86]

31. In the age of Trump and total GOP control primaries are foolish and useless.

Every dollar needs to be spent in an attempt to unseat Republicans...and the fact that progressive groups ( who are now dead to me) think this is a good idea show they have learned nothing from 16. Move on is primarying Tim Ryan in Ohio and there is a serious chance they could help elect a GOP in a time when we need more Democrats not less...needless to say Move On has gotten their last dollar ever from me.

[tonedevil]

55. You want Senator Feinstein...

to face a Republican in the general? I don't and I dont think my fellow Californians do either.

[Demsrule86]

24. There no such guarantee...and if a Gop is on the ballot with a weakened Feinstein, we could lose

this seat...inexcusable to take the risk. We should use our money and our time to unseat Republicans-not primary sitting Democrats...the house is on fire with Trump and the GOP and this is how some think we should proceed-unbelievable...any involved in this nonsense are dead to me in terms of voting in the future (say a presidential run at some point) and any group involved never receives backing again. I do not donate to or support quasi progressive groups so they can fuck over Democrats and help Republicans.

[RhodeIslandOne]

28. The highest Republican in the jungle primary in 2016 got 7 percent.

I think we'll be okay with a little competition.

The Republican brand statewide is dead in California.

[tonedevil]

61. Here in California...

we don't want a Republican in the general election. If the parties were involved in a primary where it would result in one from their side and one from ours I would agree with you even if I hated Senator Feinstein. This is all comers top two go to the general. Me and those I know in the state agree you don't get a Republican Senator if no Republicans are running for the Senate.

[RandySF]

29. Her voting record is better than her remarks suggest.

On the other hand, it might be time for younger blood. I'll vote for her in the primary and see who the alternative is after.

[Ken Burch]

58. She will make it through the primary. And no Republican will.

n/t.

[L. Coyote]

49. Republicans will gang up against Feinstein because her power is such a threat to them.

The top two primary system can result is diminished power to the majority party at the national level because of the threat it poses to powerful incumbents when the opposition gets to decide the Dem winner.

[Codeine]

60. You don't even live in California.

And stop bashing Dems. We have rules here.

[DanTex]

72. I don't know Kevin De Leon, but I've felt for a while that California should have

a more progressive senator than Feinstein, so in this situation, if I lived in California, I would probably vote for him. I think its a bad idea to primary people like McCaskill or Manchin because they have been able to win in red states, whereas someone further left probably wouldn't be able to. But the situation in CA is totally different.