Texas Dem attacked by DCCC makes primary runoff for Culberson's seat

[laserhaas]

Source: The HILL

The Texas Democrat who was targeted by the House Democrats’ campaign arm is projected to advance to a primary runoff in the race to unseat Rep. John Culberson (R-Texas).

Laura Moser, a journalist and activist, will run against lawyer Lizzie Pannill Fletcher in the May 22 runoff, since none of the seven Democratic candidates was able to get a majority of the vote. Fletcher came in first but failed to win enough votes to avert a runoff, while Moser came in second.

The Associated Press projected Fletcher to finish in the top spot Tuesday evening, while it waited to make the call on Moser until past midnight. As of 1:30 a.m. Wednesday, Fletcher had 29 percent of the vote to Moser's 24 percent.

Read more: http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/377058-texas-dem-attacked-by-dccc-makes-primary-runoff-for-culbersons-seat

---

Link to tweet

[nocalflea]

1. Oh goody. Another "dems are divided " story which is meant to divide dems further and then suppress the dem vote.

The Hill must be worried about the midterms.

[Hortensis]

92. Lol. EXACTLY.

Slow-drip poison for those who aren't looking for it.

[GaryCnf]

2. I have a feeling that the division

didn't come from "The Hill" but from the DCCC hanging a "Only Centrists Need Apply" sign in the front window of Party headquarters.

[George II]

4. Shouldn't we ALL want the best Democrat for the district to run?

[GaryCnf]

6. As you continue posting the opposition research

Let me just mention that maybe, just maybe, the "run to the center" strategy which has cost us everything and gained us nothing in ANY state doesn't produce "the best Democrat."

[George II]

9. We're talking about Texas, and replacing a conservative republican. A "Center" Democrat....

....is more likely to win in November than the other Democrat. It's not a "run to the center" strategy, it's choosing a candidate that is more appealing to the electorate in the district

I've asked this on this site countless times, never get an answer.

If a republican defeated a Democrat to the left of him, does it make sense to choose a Democrat that is even further to the left?

Yes, I quoted what you claim is "opposition research", but then I would never have posted the article in the first place, if I wanted to "report" on the results I would have chosen a less subjective one.

[GaryCnf]

25. The answer to the question you asked

is "no."

Believe it or not, not only do most people want a candidate who runs as something other than "same values as the other guy, just not insane about it," (which, btw, also forces us into running negative campaigns) but we are leaving liberals, people of color, and other oppressed people at home to get them. Do we have to get to 2000 lost seats to get this through people's heads?

[George II]

29. But the candidate you're saying "most people want" didn't even finish first in the primary

Obviously more people wanted Fletcher than wanted Moser.

Did I miss something?

[GaryCnf]

33. Apparently you missed my post

because that quote didn't come from me. I never said Moser was the candidate most people want. I said most people want "a candidate who runs as something other than "same values as the other guy, just not insane about it." So, are you saying I'm wrong because that's what the current leader ran on?

I'm not sure if it's just projection, or if it's denial, or what, but my point is that BOSSES, like the DCC, have been backing centrists, and starving liberals, when it comes to not just primaries, but also to advancing through the party hierarchy since 1992. They then try to declare their 2000 seats-lost political philosophy a "winner" because they get a better outcome in Texas primary. Meanwhile they go on merrily living in abject denial of their miserable failure rate in general elections.

[George II]

35. Well, as we've seen since November 2016, "centrist" Democrats have been doing quite well....

....while candidates to their left have been defeated almost universally. What does that tell you?

Once again, if a "centrist" is defeated by a republican to his/her right, how can we expect a candidate even further left do any better? Recent experience tells us that he/she doesn't.

People keep dwelling on that "2000 seats lost" idea, fully ignoring all the seats that have been won in the last year or more. Why is that?

Do you consider Our Revolution "bosses"?

[GaryCnf]

59. So you're claiming that only centrist have been winning?

Try again, paying special attention to Virginia, but also many others.

WE have been winning.

[George II]

60. Holy cow, another person claiming that I said something that I never said. WHEN did I say:

"only centrist(s) have been winning"?

By the way, I don't categorize Democrats as "centrist", when I use that term it's to put it in the terms that the person I'm responding to uses. To me Democrats are Democrats, and I'm happy when ANY Democrat wins. I don't have this scale where only some Democrats are good and others aren't.

[GaryCnf]

61. Hmmm

Well, as we've seen since November 2016, "centrist" Democrats have been doing quite well....while candidates to their left have been defeated almost universally.

Btw, We're not talking about whether any candidate is "good" or "bad," just whether YOU are right about who can win.

Have a nice day.

[George II]

62. And where does that say that "ONLY centrist Democrats have been winning"? BTW, I don't refer....

....to just one segment (large or small) of Democrats as "we".

[Hortensis]

96. Trump--Business Fascism--White Supremacy--National Decline anyone?

The BEST candidates ares the strongest candidates we can field against the Republicans.

Period.

COMMIT TO TAKING CONGRESS IN THE MIDTERMS: 243 days to election day

[George II]

117. The DCCC doesn't "run" candidates, the Democrats in the districts in which candidates are running.

The important thing to remember is that in order to do anything a candidate has to win.

I've asked this in other discussions - which is preferred, a Democrat who will agree with our policies 80% of the time that can win, or a candidate who will agree with our policies 100% of the time but will have no chance of winning?

The election last night is a perfect example (if he ultimately remains the winner) He has some unpopular positions among Democrats, but he also has many positions that are very popular with Democrats. His opponent has unpopular positions on ALL issues.

Lamb just squeaked by. A candidate further left of him most likely would have lost miserably. Which is preferable?

Finally, since many are upset with the DCCC's action in this primary, how do you feel about what Our Revolution did to Sri Preston Kulkarni in Texas' 22nd District?

[Gothmog]

71. I remember Lizzie from the Houston Planned Parenthood protests

[GaryCnf]

82. Not that you need my approval

BUT this is exactly how Democrats should be battling . . . in the marketplace of ideas . . . not in the sewer of smears.

I compliment you for your positive support of the candidate you prefer.

[Gothmog]

86. I used to live in this district and have some friends who got me to go to town hall

My son is friends with one of the candidates from high school who is also the son of a good friend who I used to practice law with. Alex came in fourth despite raising nearly $1 million. BTW, the top four Democratic candidates in this race all attended the same high school as my son.

As I noted I attended one town hall. I was not impressed with Moser and liked the cancer doctor and Lizzie best at the town hall. I had to agree with my friend who got me to go to the townhall that Alex comes off as too young. The Houston paper endorsed both the cancer doctor (who came in third) and Lizzie.

I will probably donate to Lizzie for the runoff. My son is at one of the big downtown firms and many of his friends are supporting Lizzie.

[GaryCnf]

94. I really appreciate seeing this type of support

For any Democrat. It's the way we should be campaigning in the primaries. Building up, not tearing down.

Once again, I know it may not count for much, but imho you are an example for all of us, and especially me.

Thanks

[Gothmog]

97. I am active along with a large group of Texas Democrats in trying to turn Texas blue

I spent the afternoon yesterday in the Harris County Democratic Party voter protection war room. It was in the war room where I learned yesterday that four of the top Democratic candidates in this race were all from the same high school that my son and older daughter graduated from.

I will warn you that I have had issues with the Our Revolution people. I know the candidate in Texas CD 22 who was attacked by a candidate backed by Our Revolution. That attack backfired and that candidate did not make the run off after having a couple of groups decline to endorse him including an association of African American ministers who were upset about this attack.

I am active with the county Democratic Lawyers Association and both Lupe Valdez and Andrew White have spoken at our meetings. Lizzie, Alex T, Jim Cargas (the candidate who finished sixth) and Moser have all spoken to our group. I am impressed with Lizzie and have worked with members of her firm on voter protection issues in the past.

This seat will not be easy to win but I truly believe that Lizzie has a decent chance.

I believe that the DCCC may have cost the cancer doctor who finished third a chance to be in the run off with Lizzie. I have heard him speak and he is very impressive.

[GaryCnf]

99. I have zero problem with any of that

I don't expect Democrats to agree. I just expect real debates.

I was born and went through high school in Houston back in the late 60s. I think Lizzie can take this seat too, but this preaching from D.C. has pissed off a bunch of people, as you correctly noted, and we need some serious repair work now.

I still have great hope. In Alabama, I went down to Montgomery 3 weeks out and people were pissed that our campaign was talking about nothing but Moore being a sexual predator. Overnight, it switched gears, brought in respected voices in the community and by the election, we were fired up. That enthusiasm can happen in Tex-7 too.

[Hortensis]

114. That last is a shame. It's good to hear that this district

already has some experience with disruptive spoiler candidacies, though.

[Cary]

90. Is this your district?

If not, why would you have any say?

[lapucelle]

65. The details of someone's basic biography are not oppo research.

Moser's Wiki page was edited today to remove the following:

"In 2017, she moved back to Texas's 7th congressional district to run for Congress in 2018.[9]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Laura_Moser&oldid=829219537

[9] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/democrats-are-fielding-a-glut-of-house-candidates-in-2018-but-remain-divided-on-how-to-win/2017/06/25/35679f14-55bc-11e7-b38e-35fd8e0c288f_story.html?utm_term=.a36b5283a5b1

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Laura_Moser&action=history

If she is going to challenge a Republican in November, her team is going to need a better strategy than simply disappearing personal history. The WaPo story is part of the public record, and she needs to be prepared to address it.

While Moser's current political strategy team specializes in what they call "digital storytelling", they need to be ready to answer questions about her residency in Texas if they hope to be competitive in November.

[Gothmog]

81. Agreed

[Gothmog]

70. Lizzie Pannill Fletcher was endorsed over Moser by the Houston paper

Moser is not that strong and I suspect that Lizzie will win the runoff

[LBM20]

5. Only the best candidate for a given district should win and represent the party. Purity is DEATH.

If you put a candidate that is too far to the left in a moderate district, say goodbye to the seat. The R wins. Enough of insane purity.

Look at PA 18. We are ahead there right now and may well flip it because, and only because, we have a moderate running. And he is also a damn good candidate and progressive/populist on the economic issues (while more moderate to conservative on social issues).
This is how you WIN elections EVERYWHERE.

[GaryCnf]

8. We won't win PA-18 because Connor Lamb is a "moderate"

But because he, and whomever is running his campaign, are political geniuses.

During his entire campaign, even out there in blood red southwest Pennsylvania, NOT ONCE has he taken a swipe at "leftists," at Philly (a euphemism for, well, you know) or any of the other groups that so many are still wanting to blame for 2016.

You are right that purity is political death . . . the post-1992 CENTRIST PURITY has cost us everything. Except for Obama's social liberal campaign, we have failed to get a majority of the popular vote in ANY presidential election since we "moved to the middle" and we won in 1992 and 1996 ONLY because a strong right wing third party candidate was in the race. In the meantime, we have lost control of one state legislature after another (and with them control of representative district lines) as our "moderate" candidates run as conservative light (and come off as just that . . . "light" ) and get beat. If anyone thinks "running to the middle" is working, they need to consider a refresher course in math.

[George II]

10. "NOT ONCE has he taken a swipe at "leftists," "

Yes, but it seems for the Texas district, which this discussion is about, you have no qualms about taking a swipe at "centrists".

[GaryCnf]

27. Hmmm

Have I OR ANYONE HERE said one word about the moderate in the race

[George II]

30. You claim the DCCC is "centrist" and have taken at least one swipe at them.

[padfun]

22. Popular vote?

Except for Obama's social liberal campaign, we have failed to get a majority of the popular vote in ANY presidential election since we "moved to the middle"

Um, I think Dems have won the popular vote in all elections since 1992, except for 2004. Gore won it in 2000 and Hillary in 2016. It's the electoral vote that the Repugs keep winning.

[GaryCnf]

26. MAJORITY

Try again.

[George II]

3. From the article: "her husbands company unfairly benefited from her campaign."

Hmmmm.

More, which makes LOTS of sense:

"a more moderate candidate raises Democrats’ prospects in toppling Culberson".

Isn't that the objective, get a Democrat in the office?

[melman]

12. "some argue"

You must have missed that part.

[George II]

13. No I didn't

But that just shows how subjective (and NOT "Latest Breaking News" ) the article from The Hill really is.

Not surprising that "Revolution Messaging" has their fingers in this, too.

[melman]

14. You didn't what

Miss it? So then you're saying you deliberately misrepresented what the article says.

[George II]

16. Ah, I see you're playing that li'l one-liner game with me again, answering your "question" yourself.

Ain't gonna work, sir.

[melman]

17. I'm not playing any kind of game

You took a line of the article out of context in order to misrepresent what it said.

[George II]

18. No I didn't.

[Gothmog]

73. I attended some of the protests described in this ad

One of my friends was the lead litigator in the lawsuits back during these protests

[vi5]

46. I thought the purpose of a primary...

..was to let the Democratic voters decide?

If this person gets the majority of the Democratic primary votes and wins according to the rules....doesn't that settle it?

I seem to recall that being the position on it during the presidential primary and election, right? Hillary won the Democratic primary because more Democratic voters chose her than the other candidate, right?

Or does that rule only apply in cases when the DNC or DCCC gets the results that they want?

Bottom line is that other than running the actual mechanics of the Democratic primaries, those groups should stay out of it and let Democratic voters choose.

[George II]

47. The voice of reason. Thank you. That is precisely the point of primaries. The fact is.....

....Lizzie Pannill Fletcher received more votes than any of her other six opponents. Sadly the backers of only one of them is complaining this morning.

[vi5]

48. But the rules in this case....

...call for a runoff. So what is the problem?

[George II]

51. The DFA/Our Revolution/Revolution Messaging candidate didn't finish first, or with 50%

Apparently the will of the Democratic voters in the district is secondary.

[vi5]

52. What is the rule in the primary?

If the rule is that if no candidate finishes with 50% of the vote then there is a runoff, then that is the rule. If the Democratic party in Texas didn't want that to be the rule then they could have changed it before this primary, right?

My original point is that 1) The DCCC and the DNC need to stay out of primary fights. My understanding is that they were attacking their non preferred candidate even before the runoff. 2) If the rules going in said that without 50% of the vote for any one candidate there is a runoff, then that is the rule. We don't get to change them just because we don't like the results.

[George II]

54. Exactly. The rules are established BEFORE the primary, not after it..

..when the results aren't popular to a small fraction of the voters. And if what we're seeing this morning is any indication, it may be a bitter run-off.

[vi5]

57. Doesn't answer my question......

...was this 50% rule in effect before the primary? I don't know. If it wasn't then I agree with you that it shouldn't be established now. But if it was in place before then, then it should play out.

My point still stands about the DCCC and DNC needing to shut the hell up before a primary. After the primary they should full throatedly put all their weight behind the winner. But before that any involvement with a particular candidate is tipping the scales and shouldn't be done.

[Gothmog]

83. Fletcher and the candidate who came in third were both endorsed by the Houston paper

According to my sources, Moser was a distant fourth or fifth in the opinion of the editorial board. I have heard all of the candidates speak and Moser is not impressive at all. I agreed with the rankings of the Houston paper.

I strongly suspect that the Houston paper will renew its endorsement of Fletcher for the runoff.

[padah513]

7. The DCCC did it because of her

"rather have my teeth pulled out without anesthesia than live in Paris, Texas" comment. I don't live in Texas, but I know the pugs will eat her alive for that one if she is the candidate and especially if she migrated to Texas from another state. As for the DCCC, people are headstrong. When you start trying to dictate how people vote in a primary, it looks like your putting your thumb on the scale trying to pick winners and losers. That will usually turn around and bite you in the butt just like it did last night.

[melman]

11. You've got that backwords

They dug up that comment and used it (totally out of context) in order to smear her. And btw, she she's a native Texan.

[George II]

19. How is that "totally out of context"? Did she not say it?

[melman]

20. Look it up

And learn something. It's easy to do if you're really interested in the truth.

[George II]

21. I know quite a bit about this already. You're the one...

...passing judgement and as I say, playing your little game again.

You have now twice made the claim that something has been "taken out of context" (one by me, one by someone else), yet you're unwilling to present YOUR idea of the true context of the two statements that you've accused of being "out of context". Yet you tell me to go find your "context" by "looking it up".

So, what IS the "context" of the two statements you've assailed?

[melman]

28. I absolutely am not playing any game

So weird that you keep saying that.

And my 'idea of the true context'? That is absolutely bizarre. My 'ideas' don't enter into it.

You omitted the words 'some argue' from the quote you used. Do I have to explain how that makes it different? No I don't. Because if you didn't know the difference you wouldn't have done it in the first place.


And if you know so much about this then you already know that they deliberately omitted the word 'Paris' in order to make it seem like she was talking about the whole state, rather than what she was really talking about which was her grandparents' farm.

And I don't know if you realize this, but Texas is a very large state. Paris, Texas is not the whole state.


And Laura Moser's comment on her feelings about living on a farm in Paris, Texas. was not meant as a slam on Texas.


(that's the context!)

[George II]

32. Do you know where she lived prior to announcing her candidacy?

I find it quite interesting that there were six candidates in the Primary, and of the five who didn't finish first only one has people finding excuses for her not winning. And that candidate is the one endorsed by Democracy for America and Our Revolution, and also associated with Revolution Messaging.

Could it possibly be that the Democrats in that district preferred the candidate that finished first?

Speaking of context, here is EXACTLY what she said:

“On my pathetic writer's salary, I could live large in Paris, Texas, where my grandparents' plantationstyle
house recently sold for $129,000. Oh, but wait-my income would be a fraction of what it is here and I'd have
very few opportunities to increase it. (Plus I'd sooner have my teeth pulled out without anesthesia, but that's a story
for another day.)”

THAT is context. And "here" is the answer to my opening question.

[melman]

34. Yes I do

So what? She's a native Texan. So what if she lived in Washington?

Did you have a problem with Hillary Clinton moving to NY to run for Senate? Rhetorical question of course. We both know you did not.


And yes, that is the full quote. As you can see she does not trash the state of Texas.

[George II]

36. Hillary Clinton did not move to New York a few months before becoming a candidate, and...

....being a native New Yorker I was happy to see her run for the Senate. I was even happier when Bobby Kennedy ran for the Senate back in the 1960s.

Tax and real estate records show that Laura Moser was still a resident of Washington DC in January 2018, several weeks ago.

[melman]

39. So you don't object

unless you dislike the candidate. Understood.

[George II]

41. There you go again. Sorry, if that's your take on what I said, NOT "understood".

[melman]

42. It's not my take

It's what you said. It's okay with you if you like someone, and it's not okay if you don't

[George II]

43. You didn't read everything I said, or chose to ignore part of it. Or should I say....

....you "took it out of context"?

[melman]

45. I read it all

ignored none of it, and took nothing out of context.


You said it was okay for HRC and RFK to move to New York in order to run for office. I happen to agree.

However, you don't think it's okay for Laura Moser to return to her home state. This I disagree with.

But, I'm not making that up. You have clearly indicated that you don't think it's okay for her to do that.

[George II]

49. That's NOT even close to what I said. You're doing exactly what you're complaining the DCCC did.

[melman]

50. No I'm not

It is what you said. It is 100% what you said. Anyone can see that it is.

[George II]

53. Here we go again.

I never said "it was okay for HRC and RFK to move to New York in order to run for office." Nor did I say that I "don't think it's okay for Laura Moser to return to her home state.", never even implied that.

I suggest you objectively re-read what I said.

[melman]

55. You absolutely did

You absolutely 100% did say both those things.

[George II]

56. Well, sir, why not copy and paste "absolutely 100%" of both those things. Can you?

[melman]

58. You're playing word games now

I'm not interested in your word games. Anyone can see what you said.

[Hortensis]

98. Whatever! Moser's a weak candidate in an era when

all that matters is that DEMOCRATS TAKE CONTROL OF CONGRESS.

Democrats aren't trumpsters, we're Lincoln and Jefferson, Obama and Hillary.

Democrats aren't right-wing fascists, we're the protectors of democracy.

Democrats aren't right-wing Kochsters, we're protecting America from those hyenas.

Democrats aren't corrupting and dismantling our institutions, we're fighting to save progressivism.

Democrats aren't trying to destroy the EPA, we're trying to save our planet from climate destruction.

Democrats aren't international criminals, we secured 70 years of peace between world wars.

Democrats aren't right-wing, white supremacists, we're the party of America.

Imo, YOU are playing appallingly dangerous partisan games, Melman. Defeat the best efforts of the Democratic Party to take Congress at your peril, your family's, your nation's, and your planet's. Indulgence in intraparty squabbles is for another, much safer era.

[melman]

104. This is such utter horse shit I don't even know where to begin

So I'm not going to. If I said what I want to say the post would be hidden anyway. I'll just say you have some fucking nerve accusing me of what you're accusing me of here and I'll leave it at that.

[Jamaal510]

106. +1

[George II]

108. The Democrats in that district voted and, considering that there were 7 candidates, chose....

.....Fletcher by quite a wide margin over her next closest opponent (~9700 - 8000) . It's now up to them to choose OUR (Democratic) candidate to run in November. As of now, they prefer Fletcher, who has been living among them almost her entire life.

[ehrnst]

112. +1000 (nt)

[brer cat]

113. *This*

[George II]

107. These aren't "word games" - you said "You absolutely 100% did say both those things."...

...that's a pretty definitive statement of your. All I'm asking is that if I "absolutely 100% did say both those things" why not simply show me where I did so. Can't you do that?

The fact is I didn't say anything even close to either of those things.

[melman]

109. Yeah it actually is a word game

and you did it elsewhere in the thread as well. You're saying if you didn't use those exact words in that exact order then you didn't say it. But you did say it. Quite clearly. It's a game and a really ridiculous one at that. And I'm not playing it.

[George II]

110. Quite simply, you said that I "100% absolutely" said those things, but now you can't....

....show me where. "100% absolutely" isn't equivocal, it's quite specific.

But you can't, because I didn't "100% absolutely" say them, I didn't say them "quite clearly", I didn't say anything even close to what you accused me of saying. THAT is "100% absolute".

And since you can't, you go on and further accuse me of playing "word games" and "a really ridiculous one at that". Why not just take a deep breath and admit you screwed up. That wouldn't be too difficult to do, would it?

[lapucelle]

91. It appears from the context

that while the author could live large in Paris, Texas on her present salary, she would not have the same potential for increasing her salary there.

Oh, and besides that, she would rather have her teeth pulled without anesthesia than live in Paris, Texas.

Moser needs to address this issue well before November. Because her political consulting firm specializes in "digital storytelling", spinning this statement to a mere insult of Paris, Texas (as opposed to an insult directed at the whole state) will at least narrow the scope of the potential problem.

[lapucelle]

89. Here it is:

"On my pathetic writer's salary, I could live large in Paris, Texas, where my grandparents' plantation-style house recently sold for $129,000.

Oh, but wait-my income would be a fraction of what it is here and I'd have very few opportunities to increase it. (Plus I'd sooner have my teeth pulled out without anesthesia, but that's a story for another day.)

Living in a city, especially one with as many big-money job possibilities as this one, comes with a heavy surcharge-that's just the way it goes."

[Gothmog]

74. I attended one of the programs where the candidates for this seat were present

I really liked Lizzie, the cancer doctor and Alex T (he is the son of a friend) over Moser. Moser was really weak at this event and most of the people who attended were not impressed.

Lizzie is a good litigator and many of my fellow lawyer friends are supporting her. My son is at a big downtown firm and Lizzie is being supported by a number of the attorneys at that firm

[Hortensis]

111. Nice affirmation that Democrats have a good candidate.

This is so frustrating, though. What matters is getting a majority in the house so we can stop the Republicans. Doesn't matter which candidate won, only that our strongest head into the general.
And now that one's going to be weakened by an opponent badmouthing her to the electorate in a runoff. Oh, well. Politics is not for the weak, just wish virtue were rewarded more consistently.

[lapucelle]

88. Here's the context:

"On my pathetic writer's salary, I could live large in Paris, Texas, where my grandparents' plantation-style house recently sold for $129,000.

Oh, but wait-my income would be a fraction of what it is here and I'd have very few opportunities to increase it. (Plus I'd sooner have my teeth pulled out without anesthesia, but that's a story for another day.)

Living in a city, especially one with as many big-money job possibilities as this one, comes with a heavy surcharge-that's just the way it goes."

Washingtonian Magazine; November 2014.

[David__77]

15. Stupid DCCC decision.

I think there will be a high cost.

[Gothmog]

75. Agreed-there are two other candidates who I saw at a townhall who were stronger than Moser

[watoos]

23. So why doesn't the

"you have to run a moderate in Texas" not seem to be applying with the Senate race?

Republicans are already calling O'Rourke "Bernie Sanders" yet he is neck and neck with Cruz.

O'Rourke is a good candidate because he is being himself and because he is introducing himself to people all across Texas. Anyone who says that O'Rourke is too far left or that Moser is too far left is simply repeating right wing talking points.

[democrank]

24. Same old, same old isn't going to cut it anymore.

Once again, Democrats have lost about 1,000 state and federal seats in the last 12 or so years.

Repeat....1,000

We need some fresh faces, some new ideas, a giant spine stiffening, and a move away from business as usual.

[George II]

37. How many have we gained back in the last 12-15 months?

As for "fresh faces", what do you call Lizzie Pannill Fletcher? What's wrong with her?

[riversedge]

31. I think Fletcher has a better chance

in this district. But I hope there is a spirited run-off and we do not end up bitter. We need all Dems on deck to beat the Republican.



......Fletcher, a long-time volunteer for Planned Parenthood, was backed by the Houston Chronicle editorial board, which referred to her as one of the party’s best shots at winning the general election.

The episode has infuriated progressive groups that believe the DCCC targeted Moser to stymie a progressive candidate, reopening the national divide between the two wings of the Democratic Party.

Even some national party leaders have questioned the DCCC’s move. Democratic National Committee chairman Tom Perez said that he “wouldn’t have” attacked Moser and the party should instead focus on the issues.

But some argue that a more moderate candidate raises Democrats’ prospects in toppling Culberson. And when the Houston Chronicle endorsed two other candidates in the race, the editorial board cautioned that while Moser has an energetic base, “even Democrats who like her question whether she's too liberal to win this historically Republican district.”

The DCCC has left the door open to getting involved in other crowded primaries, particularly in California. But Moser’s ability to score a runoff spot and the backlash from progressives could send a warning sign to the campaign committee about future involvement in primaries.

[George II]

38. Thanks for a sensible, reasoned response. I too hope it's not a divisive run-off, although....

....unfortunately just hours after the primary we're starting to see that it may not be.

[riversedge]

40. growl!!

Have a nice day. I am off to work for a bit.

[Eliot Rosewater]

64. I have to admit, I am a bit confused. I thought we all agreed that NOTHING ELSE MATTERS

EXCEPT getting the nazis out of power first, then worrying about purity.

To do that dont we have to support the most electable person with a D after their name PERIOD?

How is there ONE discussion IN AMERICA among alleged liberals/progressives/Democrats about anything other than getting ONE more seat than the other party no matter what?

Now I know why people NOT interested in the Democratic Party having power would support situations resulting in more GOP power, but not democrats, progressives or liberals. Not if they have any idea how our system works, anyway.

[SunSeeker]

69. +1

[Gothmog]

84. I have met all of the candidates and I think that Fletcher is the stronger candidate

[Paladin]

44. Glad she made the cut. Fuck you, DCCC. (nt)

[George II]

66. How do you feel about Democratic candidate Steve Brown...

...(endorsed by Our Revolution), running a smear campaign against Democrat Sri Preston Kulkarni in Texas' 22nd District?

Footnote: Kulkarni finished first and will face a runoff against Letitia Plummer.

Can I get a "fuck you, Our Revolution"?

[SunSeeker]

67. Ooops.

[Eliot Rosewater]

72. Yes, you can FUCK YOU to them!

Either they work for putin or the support taking back power NO MATTER WHAT, no in-between.

You can work for putin and not get paid, never meet him, not even know who he is, if you get my drift.

[Gothmog]

79. The attack on Sri Preston Kulkarni by Brown and the Our Revolution people backfired

I know Steve Brown and I voted for Kulkarni. Brown lost some important endorsements due to being an asshole. The endorsement of the Our Revolution people did not carry much weight.

Brown evidently loaned his campaign $44,000 and has nothing to show for these efforts.

[George II]

85. An Our Revolution endorsement is almost like the kiss of death - in 2017 and 2018 ....

....they've endorsed 118 candidates, only 45 (38%) have won. And many of the the winners were in local elections (city/town councils, school boards)

[ehrnst]

93. Indeed. (nt)

[lapucelle]

101. I wasn't aware of the attack on Sri Kulkarni

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Kulkarni-s-teen-drug-arrest-puts-Fort-Bend-12628608.php

[Gothmog]

103. A pastors group ended up not endorsing Steve Brown due to this crap

This stunt by the Our Revolution idiots hurt Steve Brown. I really do not like the idiots who are affiliated with this particular chapter of Our Revolution.

[Hortensis]

100. Coincidentally, that is what the Republicans and Russia

Last edited Wed Mar 7, 2018, 08:27 PM - Edit history (1)

want from you. You've clearly lost track of the big picture. All that matters on November 6 is that DEMOCRATS TAKE CONTROL OF CONGRESS.

Democrats aren't trumpsters, we're Lincoln and Jefferson, Obama and Hillary.

How could you forget that?

Democrats aren't right-wing fascists, we're the protectors of democracy.

Democrats aren't right-wing Kochsters, we're protecting America from those hyenas.

Democrats aren't corrupting and dismantling our institutions, we're fighting to save progressivism.

Democrats aren't trying to destroy the EPA, we're trying to save our planet from climate destruction.

Democrats aren't international criminals, we secured 70 years of peace between world wars.

Democrats aren't right-wing, white supremacists, we're the party of America.

IMO, you've wandered dangerously off track, Paladin. Defeat the best efforts of the Democratic Party to take Congress at your peril, your family's, your nation's, and your planet's. Indulgence in intraparty squabbles is for another, much safer era.

[IronLionZion]

63. With Democrats fighting each other, who needs Republicans?

I get why the DCCC would want to discredit someone who has lived in DC and has written a lot of offensive things. They would probably do the same to me if I moved to a red state and ran for office. The irony is the rebellious nature of many Texan liberals who support her mainly to spite the DCCC. Her foul mouth and insurgent nature is exactly what appeals to many on the left.

This could have best been left to the voters in that district to sort out for themselves without a lot of outside influence.

[Gothmog]

68. Lizzie Pannill Fletcher is a really strong attorney and should beat Moser in the primary

I have met most of the candidates who were in the primary and I am most impressed by Lizzie Pannill Fletcherwho is a good litigator. Moser is not that strong and I suspect that Moser will not do well in the primary

The Houston paper endorsed Lizzie Pannill Fletcher in the first round and I am pretty sure that the Houston paper will endorse Lizzie Pannill Fletcher for the runoff

[zipplewrath]

77. Fine

But I think the overwhelming point is, let the Texas voters decide, not the DCCC. Especially for non-incumbents, the DCCC, or the DNC should not be involved at all in these kinds of primaries.

[Gothmog]

78. Without the DCCC involvement, the second strongest candidate would be in the runoff

The Houston paper endorsed Lizzie Fletcher and a cancer doctor. The cancer doctor was far stronger candidate than Moser and should have been in the run off instead of Moser.

I attended a townhall with all of the top candidates with a friend who lives in this district. Neither one of us were impressed with Moser

[tammywammy]

80. Im not in the district but would have voted for Fletcher if I was. n/t

[ehrnst]

95. But the job of the DCCC is to get local Dems elected

And when they fail, Pelosi seems to get blamed for the lack of Dem victories.

[TexasTowelie]

105. Would you feel this way if it had been a LaRouche Democrat running?

I had one of those running in my district in 2012 and it was the state party that spoke out against her because they knew it would result in an embarrassing loss. However, if the state party hadn't of said something then I hope that some other arm of the Democratic Party would.

[zipplewrath]

115. Roughly speaking, yes

I was speaking of national party participation, that includes the DNC and the DCCC, and goes for the DSCC as well. State parties are a slightly different situation, although there too one ought to be careful in being involved in "local" politics. Incumbents and front runners don't have a "right" to the office, they must earn them like anyone else.

[saidsimplesimon]

76. Competition in the Democratic Party,

I am delighted. Democracy is not defined by any parties selection of the chosen. imo

[dembotoz]

87. so texas has strange rules..all knew that going in

no use crying over spilled milk

[Docreed2003]

102. This infighting is infuriating

Should the DCCC have made the statement they did? No they shouldn’t have, regardless of however strongly they felt their position to be, because all that did was to serve up to the “Our Revolution” crowd a healthy dose of their paranoia for them to say: “See!! These centrists corporatists are trying to tip the scales again!!”

That being said, Moser’s comment, even in context that so many are screaming about, is extraordinarily dumb. There’s no way you can spin that comment where the average voter isn’t going to see that and think she’s coming across as a “elitist” or “acting better than us”. Having grown up in a rural area in the outskirts of a southern metropolis similar to Paris and Houston, I can assure you the people here wouldn’t be receptive to that type of comment, even if it’s passed off as a joke. If Moser is serious about winning this seat, then she will come out and actually take responsibility for what she said, rather than allowing folks to simply point fingers at the “mean ole DCCC.” The voters in that district will have to decide.