Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: McCaskill warns Democratic donors of pitfalls of blocking Trump nominee for high court [View all]NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)91. If only she was as smart and politically savvy as you are. (Sigh.)
Hey, I've got an idea... as punishment, why not "primary her" to make ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that a Republican Senator takes her place. The hard left is demonizing the wrong person. This is not McCaskill's fault. I know there's a certain element that will always "hate" her because she's "not-Bernie-enough" for them, and because she's a "convenient" target... but seriously, they are wasting time and effort. She does represent Missouri and that's just reality. People like that should learn to accept reality.
let me ask this (blah-blah-blah)
I'm not a mind reader. It's impossible for me to determine what her motivations were. Maybe it was because she wanted to signal to the people who'd be harassing her and suggesting that she's a "traitor" or a "saboteur" that they would be smarter to focus their efforts elsewhere, instead of wasting their hate and venom on her. But if that was actually her motivation, it would certainly be aimed at someone who was actually smart enough to take-the-hint rather than obsessing over one person.
Has anyone thought about obsessing over Senator Manchin? He seems vulnerable. Maybe he could be harassed and primaried and replaced. I wonder what kind of Republican those West Virginians would choose in his place?
Throw all the venom and sarcasm you want (blah-blah)
Venom? No. Sarcasm? Yes! I've not attacked you personally. I've sarcastically questioned methods and wording and characterization and obsession with/of her. I've ridiculed an apparent unwillingness to accept the reality of her state's historic and traditional redness. I've questioned the wisdom of trying to oust an actual Democrat who caucuses with us (an who'd likely be replaced by a Republican if the obsessive desire to "get-her-outta-there" and "throw-the-bums-out" were to become reality) but I haven't spewed venom at you or personally attacked you. That's an unfair and untrue accusation. I've been barbed and pointed, but I haven't attacked you.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
96 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
McCaskill warns Democratic donors of pitfalls of blocking Trump nominee for high court [View all]
pstokely
Mar 2017
OP
Aides say Schumer has 41 votes without her and other Dems in red states. What good does her losing
KittyWampus
Mar 2017
#36
+1 It's a nonsense argument from her. Where in the last decade have the Republicans been moderate ?
OnDoutside
Mar 2017
#12
She does what she has to. Remember, she barely won last time thanks to that lunatic
question everything
Mar 2017
#5
what about the pitfalls of voting for a Supremo nominated by a guy under criminal investigation
Achilleaze
Mar 2017
#9
He's a raging misogynist as well- hates working women. I'm guessing he's got
bettyellen
Mar 2017
#26
She's better off politically voting with her heart and proudly defending it
FenwayDonkey
Mar 2017
#85
and what would those consequences be? Would they be the same as what they did to Garland?
still_one
Mar 2017
#27
probably that's part of it... and admittedly Dem senators in red states are in a tough spot
Fast Walker 52
Mar 2017
#89
Schumer has the votes he needs without her. So she should lose her seat and Dems are further
KittyWampus
Mar 2017
#38
Sorry my post was unclear. She's in a red state. Anyone running to her left will get help
KittyWampus
Mar 2017
#45
So should we just do away with the primaries and let those who know better choose our candidate?
jalan48
Mar 2017
#49
Pure? What politician is pure? How do you know another candidate will lose? We've lost practically
jalan48
Mar 2017
#42
I guess we'll just have to trust the Missouri Democratic Party to use their best judgement ...
NurseJackie
Mar 2017
#69
What a pity that McCaskill doesn't have someone as smart as you to advise her.
NurseJackie
Mar 2017
#68
Schumer reportedly already has the 41 votes he needs without red state Dems.
KittyWampus
Mar 2017
#37
I disagree with her. The Repugnants opposed Obamas nominee for truly absurd reasons and he was a
cstanleytech
Mar 2017
#55
it is one thing to chant the "we need to allow for red state dems to be conservative"
DonCoquixote
Mar 2017
#61
Obviously she wants to overturn Roe. Isn't she awful? What nerve! Blame Claire. It's all her fault.
NurseJackie
Mar 2017
#80
I am so sick of this woman. She really needs to go. Oh yeah, worse than Gorsuch lol.
YOHABLO
Mar 2017
#82
not to mention the treason... it's obscene Trump should have have any power at this point
Fast Walker 52
Mar 2017
#90