Just now, The Beast said:

You still think they wouldn’t try and screw Trump over?

Why would they? He's their party. They support him. 

3 hours ago, Reddy said:

Mainstream moderate Dems are winning throughout middle America at the moment, and that's the only REAL way to fight Trump - at the ballot box. 

I’m surprised the DNC isn’t running more mainstream moderates, especially with the success in Alabama and Pennsylvania.

Just now, Balta1701 said:

Why would they? He's their party. They support him. 

Murkowski and Collins? Not always.

Just now, The Beast said:

Murkowski and Collins? Not always.

They showed up for Trump's tax cut, they showed up for the last justice, they'll show up for this one.

2 minutes ago, The Beast said:

I’m surprised the DNC isn’t running more mainstream moderates, especially with the success in Alabama and Pennsylvania.

Do we actually know that they are not?

4 hours ago, Balta1701 said:

They showed up for Trump's tax cut, they showed up for the last justice, they'll show up for this one.

That is true on the tax cut, although Murkowski doesn’t want Roe v Wade overturned, voted against the ACA repeal, against DeVos’s nomination, against Trump’s immigration policies and the FCC’s net neutrality rules. She and Collins also voted against defunding planned parenthood, called on republicans to vote on Garland and has introduced an immigration solution. 

 

It’s a long shot, but we will see what happens. I’m just glad there are moderates like them to reject bad policy instead of voting along party lines all of the time. It’s too bad McCain probably can’t make it to vote against the nomination and buck Trump one more time.

 

4 hours ago, Balta1701 said:

Do we actually know that they are not?

Not necessarily, but it seems like I hear about more progressives than moderates. I guess it depends on the area of the country though as some candidates may do better in another area as moderates than progressives and vice versa.

7 hours ago, StrangeSox said:

But how do good candidates winning in the coasts make it harder for centrist candidates to win in Iowa? How do DSA orgs make it harder?

1

Because those fringe elements exist in the activist class in the midwest as well, and they're just as loud in trashing our Dem candidates on social media as they were in 2016. They haven't learned, and it's maddening.

2 hours ago, Reddy said:

Because those fringe elements exist in the activist class in the midwest as well, and they're just as loud in trashing our Dem candidates on social media as they were in 2016. They haven't learned, and it's maddening.

Maybe it's not they who need to learn.

8 hours ago, The Beast said:

That is true on the tax cut, although Murkowski doesn’t want Roe v Wade overturned, voted against the ACA repeal, against DeVos’s nomination, against Trump’s immigration policies and the FCC’s net neutrality rules. She and Collins also voted against defunding planned parenthood, called on republicans to vote on Garland and has introduced an immigration solution. 

 

It’s a long shot, but we will see what happens. I’m just glad there are moderates like them to reject bad policy instead of voting along party lines all of the time. It’s too bad McCain probably can’t make it to vote against the nomination and buck Trump one more time.

 

But they both also voted to confirm Gorsuch.

On 6/29/2018 at 9:41 PM, Reddy said:

Am I bitter that groups like the DSA are part of the reason we are where we are today? Absolutely. Do they make life really fucking difficult for people like me trying to get someone elected in Iowa - where you can't go full progressive and win? Yup. So hey. I'm not a big fan, personally. That's allowed.

I still think it's great she won for other reasons, and I'm all for pushing the party left in areas where you aren't making it easier for a Republican to win. I'm Team Blue. That's it. That's my litmus test. I'm also a progressive and would love to see her policies enacted on a national scale. I just realize that's not a viable platform anywhere but the coasts at this moment in time.

How is DSA a reason for where we are today?  They only started to be active organization backing candidates since after the 2016 election. 

I also think the idea they can't win anywhere but the coasts is ridiculous and is a narrative being sold by people who have struggled in the Midwest as of recent. 

1 hour ago, Balta1701 said:

But they both also voted to confirm Gorsuch.

True, but did they have a reason not to? I guess the margin was so slim between all of those who voted that he was going to get confirmed. Three democrats also voted for Gorsuch and would have had to vote Nay for Murkowski and Collins to have a shot at voting down Gorsuch. 

It seems unprobable that they’ll all vote against Trump’s nominee, but I guess it depends on the candidate he brings forth. We just better hope that there’s not another retirement or death before Trump leaves office or there will be a 6-3 conservative advantage, unless he gets a swing vote in there without knowing.

Democrats need to be ready to expand and reform scotus to do away with this lottery ticket style system or we're doomed to a lifetime of reactionary rulings anyway. 

Won't matter how big of a blue wave ever comes in if Roberts and the Federalist Society crew will just continue inventing legal principles and ignoring the Constitution.

Edited July 2, 20187 yr by StrangeSox

1 hour ago, GoSox05 said:

How is DSA a reason for where we are today?  They only started to be active organization backing candidates since after the 2016 election. 

I also think the idea they can't win anywhere but the coasts is ridiculous and is a narrative being sold by people who have struggled in the Midwest as of recent. 

I'm literally basing that narrative off election results. What better metric is there?

 

 
Well this was fun while it lasted.

You don't tweet back at war hero and Senator Tammy Duckworth about how you know more than she does about the Midwest when you haven't even won your general election yet. Wow. (Also, comparing caucuses to general elections is very basic stuff that she should understand better)

4 minutes ago, Reddy said:

 

 
Well this was fun while it lasted.

You don't tweet back at war hero and Senator Tammy Duckworth about how you know more than she does about the Midwest when you haven't even won your general election yet. Wow. (Also, comparing caucuses to general elections is very basic stuff that she should understand better)

She should know that it is illegal to disagree with a WAR HERO!!!! Ma'am have you no respect for the law! 

You sound like a Republican.

Also, saying she doesn't understand something.  Is this some sort of sexist attack?  Typical for Crowley-bros.

 

 

1 hour ago, GoSox05 said:

She should know that it is illegal to disagree with a WAR HERO!!!! Ma'am have you no respect for the law! 

You sound like a Republican.

Also, saying she doesn't understand something.  Is this some sort of sexist attack?  Typical for Crowley-bros.

 

You've gone off the deep end. A woman who grew up in the Bronx telling a sitting Senator - and VERY respected one at that - that she doesn't understand her own part of the country and her home state? And doing so before Ocasio has even been seated as a Congresswoman? You see nothing at all wrong with that? It's hubris of epic proportions, and it's pretty badly informed hubris at that.

People like you are why I don't respect the DSA and the Bernie wing. Somehow it's sexist to attack Ocasio for her Bernie-bro-splaining attack on an incredibly respected sitting female Senator. Like, y'all just don't even live in the real world anymore.

Edited July 2, 20187 yr by Reddy

6 minutes ago, Reddy said:

You've gone off the deep end. A woman who grew up in the Bronx telling a sitting Senator - and VERY respected one at that - that she doesn't understand her own part of the country and her home state? And doing so before Ocasio has even been seated as a Congresswoman? You see nothing at all wrong with that? It's hubris of epic proportions, and it's pretty badly informed hubris at that.

People like you are why I don't respect the DSA and the Bernie wing. Somehow it's sexist to attack Ocasio for her Bernie-bro-splaining attack on an incredibly respected sitting female Senator. Like, y'all just don't even live in the real world anymore.

Christ, she was just disagreeing with her.  Also, she was right.  You can downplay caucus all you want, but Sanders did well in those states.

Her "Bernie-bro splaining attack".  Yeah, I'm the one not living in the real world.

 

Ron Paul posted this and then quickly deleted it.  Seems like a normal nice guy.

 

2 minutes ago, GoSox05 said:

Christ, she was just disagreeing with her.  Also, she was right.  You can downplay caucus all you want, but Sanders did well in those states.

Her "Bernie-bro splaining attack".  Yeah, I'm the one not living in the real world.

 

You realize caucuses have absolutely ZERO reflection on the general election electorate right? Caucuses are insanely non-Democratic, though they're fun as hell to participate in. There's a reason that in states where there were BOTH caucuses and primaries, that Hillary lost the former and won the latter. Caucuses are all activists, primaries include EVERYONE. There are more everyones than activists.

2 minutes ago, Reddy said:

You realize caucuses have absolutely ZERO reflection on the general election electorate right? Caucuses are insanely non-Democratic, though they're fun as hell to participate in. There's a reason that in states where there were BOTH caucuses and primaries, that Hillary lost the former and won the latter. Caucuses are all activists, primaries include EVERYONE. There are more everyones than activists.

Bernie would have won them if they were primaries too. 

The problem is she has a really good point there.

 

59 minutes ago, Reddy said:

You've gone off the deep end. A woman who grew up in the Bronx telling a sitting Senator - and VERY respected one at that - that she doesn't understand her own part of the country and her home state? And doing so before Ocasio has even been seated as a Congresswoman? You see nothing at all wrong with that? It's hubris of epic proportions, and it's pretty badly informed hubris at that.

People like you are why I don't respect the DSA and the Bernie wing. Somehow it's sexist to attack Ocasio for her Bernie-bro-splaining attack on an incredibly respected sitting female Senator. Like, y'all just don't even live in the real world anymore.

You did realize he was poking fun at your tendency to take anything that someone you've labeled a "Bernie-bro" that you disagree with and label it racist or sexist because it doesn't fit with your narrative, right?

2 hours ago, southsider2k5 said:

The problem is she has a really good point there.

 

It's a fucking awful point. Caucuses =/= General Electorate. PERIOD. Jesus y'all. Go take one Poly Sci class.

Also, I just roared in my office. This is the work my team, along with a bunch of others, has been doing over the past month. Holy. Crap.

https://iowastartingline.com/2018/07/02/registered-democrat-numbers-surge-in-iowa-after-primary/ 
 

Quote

There’s a lot more registered Democrats in Iowa following last month’s high-profile, competitive primaries for governor and three congressional districts. Updated voter registration numbers from the Secretary of State’s office today shows 24,189 new registered Democrats over last month’s pre-primary numbers. They’re up 28,352 voters if you compare to the May numbers, before early voting started. Republicans grew their voter registration totals by 3,479 in the last month.