538: What the rise of Kamala Harris tells us about the Democratic Party

[Jim Lane]

113. Criticism of Joe Manchin is not refuted by yet another blast at Jill Stein.

You're welcome to vent about the Greens all you want, although it's kind of pointless to do it here, where none of Stein's supporters are allowed to disagree with you. I voted for Clinton in November. In fact, I've never voted for any Green Party candidate in any election in my life, so I'm the wrong person with whom you should have this discussion.

The actual topic I addressed was the comparative importance of formal party identification. Joe Manchin formally identifies as a Democrat but voted to let Trump fill the stolen seat. Angus King and Bernie Sanders do not formally identify as Democrats but both of them voted against confirming Gorsuch. To my mind, both King and Sanders are better Senators than Manchin. That's because I don't consider formal party identification to be the "[m]ost important thing" about a Senator, as you do per your #3. I give more weight to the Senator's record on key votes. (There are of course other votes in which the D-after-his-name "Democrat" Joe Manchin has gone wrong. I mention Gorsuch only as one example.)

Incidentally, although your excursion into the 2016 election is irrelevant to the point I addressed, I'll take the time to correct one factual error in your post. You write, "EVERY DEMOCRAT RUNNING for Senate in those critical swing states lost to the establishment, incumbent, republican...." Obviously, many Republican incumbents defeated challengers, but that was not true in every swing state. New Hampshire, which Clinton carried by less than half a percent, must be considered a swing state. In the Senate race, Democrat Maggie Hassan won a squeaker to oust the incumbent Republican, Kelly Ayotte.