LOL Washington examiner quoting Obama in 2014 calling the border a humanitarian crisis when tons of unaccompanied minors were crossing. They cite it as evidence of the media not raising a stink of the designation. Literally no conservative can come up with an honest or even credible argument for this border wall. Can’t wait to designate climate as an emergency per scientists and the DOD and also to pack the SCOTUS!
Wait until there is another bridge collapse and a Dem wants a huge construction bill that the R's won't give on. National emergency.
I heard someone say "if this really were an emergency, like the President says it is, it's basically like building a firehouse instead of putting out the fire" and I thought that was a pretty good analogy.
While we have your attention, the Virginia delegation would like to lose the UMBC scarlet letter. Thanks
I know the Chapo bros in here have a hardon for the pod save america guys, but Dan Pfeiffer pretty much summed up the whole Russia conspiracy in about ten minutes at the 31 minute mark today.
They hate a ton of centrist Democrats and feel like the Pod save guys perpetuate a lot of the neo-liberalism/centrist that dominates the party still (given that the Pod Save guys worked for Obama).
SIAP. Guess it was only a matter of time. Politicians are vain and jealous of newcomers. Both sides have their points. DNC is a big tent. But we need infighting right now about as much as we need a hole in the head. https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/11/poli...ez-house-democrats-split-in-caucus/index.html
Now is exactly the right time for infighting. It’s the time to shape the future of the party and figure this stuff out. Infighting 18 months from now is bad. Infighting now is good for America.
She represents her district and what they want. She is doing exactly what they elected her to do. She owes the corporatist Dems absolutely nothing
I agree it’s a good thing the newcomers are pulling the party into a more progressive direction. That said, not all dems are in districts as safe as hers. Some wins last November were damn close. And having members of your staff opening talk about purging those reps that may not agree w your position is not productive infighting. In politics, that’s basically agree with me or die. Those wounds sometimes never fully heal.
My bad I was out having a life when that POS was having his meltdown. I am sorry but obviously someone got it done. Now he can start another thread about me.
I’m sure the right loves this, but they’re stupid so that’s not saying much. Who the fuck cares about a squabble in the first two weeks of her congressional career.
I think we all know this, the party leadership however has been very invested in corporate interests and they especially need to be pushed out.
Maybe those wins were narrow because there isn’t a progressive there that can provide the proper messaging?
Absolutely. But just because someone’s a moderate Dem doesn’t mean they are a corporate stooge. However, if those same seats are won back by the GOP then we know for damn sure corporate interests will be served.
I mean, I guess it depends on the district and what dynamics are in play. But as a general rule if a district is barely won by someone like Conor Lamb then we probably aren’t gonna win if we send in an AOC clone. And that’s basically the heart of the debate. Do you only want to run candidates that share your views or ones who have the greatest chance at winning?
I think you're misunderstanding me. A lot of us know that the same blanket policies won't win in every district, that's understandable and quite literally why the House is supposed to exist. These candidates can appeal to their constituents however they want, but it would be awesome to see the more progressive ones win out. What AOC is doing now though is applying pressure on the party leadership, those who aren't directly elected by us and who, in the past, have been in-bed with wealthy donors, corporate, and pharmaceutical interests instead of really seeing what the majority of us middle-class people really want. There is a growing appetite to see progressive policies being pushed by the party leadership and they've often be resistant to such pressure.
Every progressive wants to believe that we can win any close district if we just commit to unabashed progressivism. Sure, run in a primary. Acting like being a Lib is an all or nothing (according to the agenda they define) proposition is asinine.
What evidence are you using to argue the converse? Lamb won a long held GOP district running a very moderate, but pro labor campaign, and he had a weak opponent.
I should be able to correct the police report stating the fake news that I dump human waste in public tranportation
Here’s the ugly truth tho: powerful interests will always exist and have a say in a capitalist system. We can minimize it over time, but there’s no permanently defeating that monster. And again “applying pressure” can go both ways. Moderates can revolt by saying their constituents want little to do with an unabashed progressive platform. The safe progressives will then have to choose whether to be understanding or continue to insist on complete fealty to the progressive platform, which could produce losses like in ‘10. There were dozens of one-term dems who basically destroyed their careers to push the ACA over the line.
Can rules be “shadowbanned” where he is free to post but the content is automatically ignored by everyone?
Is that true? For a long time the GOP won districts that leaned R by beating centrist candidates. Centrist candidates were chosen because they were less likely to offend people and the thought was they might have a chance. The reality is that in many areas, with the high percentage of registered voters who abstain from voting regularly, that those people are easier to inspire and motivate. They’re also more likely to be converted than those in the middle. So I’m not sure I buy the old arguments and strategies. Especially when data allows micro-targeting at such an effective level.