General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsCalifornia Democrats, stop being stupid
Feinstein is going to win the Democratic primary... by failing to endorse her, California Democrats are making the same mistake the Bernie Bros made. They are going to help give this seat to a Republican by splitting up the Democrats.
We are our own worst enemies sometimes.
Feinstein is right on 95% of issues, but the purity police are going to cause havoc because of the 5% she is wrong on.
She is one of the good guys. Stop shooting ourselves in the foot, Democrats!
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
MBS
(9,688 posts)I sighed when I first read this news this morning.
But you put it into words for me. Thanks.
Sophia4
(3,515 posts)MBS
(9,688 posts)And, yes, I am a second-generation Californian.
Sophia4
(3,515 posts)We are mostly a state of Democrats. So you want two Democrats to go on to compete in the general election. Thus, no Republican has a chance to win.
Remember. Hillary won by over four million votes in our state, three million in the entire country because of the wide margin by which she won in California.
We are a super blue state at this point.
MBS
(9,688 posts)is oversimplifying the situation. (I am well acquainted with the inland and far-north counties. Complacency and/or foolhardy choices on the part of Democrats - in California or anywhere else - could lead to unwelcome outcomes. If there is to be any chance of taking back Congress in 2018, we cannot afford to take a single state or congressional district or demographic for granted.
Sophia4
(3,515 posts)Let's just say that allowing only one candidate in a primary, regardless of the party is the policy of authoritarian nations and parties.
I am for democracy. Let the best candidate in the primary go on to the general election and win.
It is very undemocratic to limit the candidates in the primary to those chosen by the elite of the party regardless which party it is. That also encourages the development of third parties which would change our system drastically -- whether for the worse or for the better, I do not know. But the decision as to which Democrat to run in the general election should be made by all Democratic voters, not just the top officers and hirelings of the Democratic Party. And that decision gets made in the primary. That is why we have primaries.
What is the point of a primary if only one "chosen" candidate runs in it?
Why would anyone bother to vote in such a primary?
Demsrule86
(71,542 posts)Make you go hmmm.
MBS
(9,688 posts)
Eliot Rosewater
(34,285 posts)Now I know what their goal is, but I cant say it.
There are people here pretending to be American citizens of different states saying this and that, all designed to WEAKEN the D party.
Demsrule86
(71,542 posts)
NoMoreRepugs
(12,075 posts)nauseous.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)That's because the top two candidates in the primaries go on to the general regardless of party.
Senator Kamala Harris won her general election against another Democrat because the Republicans were closed out that year.
Not that we need help keeping this senate seat in Democratic hands. This year so far no Republican for senate has broken single digits.
SleeplessinSoCal
(10,412 posts)There are 6 strong Dems running. And Rohrabacher has a primary challenger in a known OCGOP name in Scott Baugh. The candidates know this too. But none is willing to endorse the other - yet.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)Its voters' choices for the top two will be Republicans. Let's hope they at least send a signal to the GOP leadership by tossing him out. Too bad we don't actually know the code name the Kremlin assigned him.
SleeplessinSoCal
(10,412 posts)Rohrabacher doesn't normally have a primary challenger. The OF GOP choice in waiting - Scott Baugh. He could split GOP vote. But 6 Dems could splinter the Dem choice. They know it too. People are engaged.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)split and only a minority elected a Democrat. We need all we can get, though it's regrettable when reps don't represent. Far more desirable would be many of that district's Republicans rejecting what the GOP has become, like their counterparts in Alabama.
Pachamama
(17,564 posts)Completely Agree....
And I was never much of a DIFI fan in past....
But we are at war and she is a battlehardened soldier and General who whether we take the Senate back or not will be fighting hard for California, the Nation, the truth and to BAN ASSAULT WEAPONS and GET TO THE BOTTOM OF RUSSIA'S AND TRUMPS CRIMES!!!
TheSmarterDog
(794 posts)Tom Rinaldo
(23,187 posts)This is not a cross sample of primary voters, or of registered Democrats inside California. The people who have votes at Democratic Conventions are official elected Democratic Committee members. That is the Democratic Party, the people who work in the trenches year in and year out keeping the Democratic Party functioning.
And it is there State. I might make a different choice if I was in their shoes but I am not.
kchamberlin25
(84 posts)(Sorry) Grammar Nazis HOOOO!
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)Or, more specifically, don't let sensationalist press womp twist normal events into fake controversy.
Parties are supposed to produce more than one candidate for a position. This is as it should be. Can you imagine if we didn't?! (Russia comes to mind.) Plus, what happened with Feinstein isn't particularly new, just a bit more of the same.
From the Sacramento Bee:
Feinstein, nevertheless, leads handily in fundraising and polling. ...
A poll released earlier this month by the Public Policy Institute of California found Feinstein leading among likely voters by nearly 30 points — 46 percent to 17 percent — while nearly two-thirds of respondents had never heard of de León or didn’t know enough about him to form an opinion.
(Note the sloppy terminology. Feinstein is of course a liberal also, but one who's always leaned more moderate on some positions.)
As for Kevin de Leon's challenge from farther left, he's NOT exactly one of the rule-or-ruin types hostile to the Democratic Party's ruling coalition. Far from it. His left-wing creds are good but he works for his issues from within and is one of our party leaders, merely seeking to move up in the party, not claiming it has to be dismantled and rebuilt.
Speaking of, note that the cap-P Progressives in the party have been trying and failing to field a viable candidate of their own.
That last's a good thing, of course, because the Democratic coalition of factions that currently controls California state politics is hugely dependent especially on the continued support of Hispanics. Many are naturally liberals and will be with us, but probably more than half are conservatives. That goes for many others. Our coalition is as large, diverse and united as it is because of external pressures from the GOP.
HOWEVER, if California Democrats were to move too far to the left, that could this coalition. And then we'd see some real infighting that's wasn't just media hyperbole.
Sophia4
(3,515 posts)She is very conservative compared to California.
Demsrule86
(71,542 posts)sure that Feinstein is so evil she had to go (sarcasm) oh wait, she is a great Senator and doing a great job fighting Trump...yeah...good move to waste money and risk the seat...again sarcasm.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)California has a "top-two" primary...the top two vote getters end up on the general election ballot, as opposed to the winners of a party primary.
It's exceedingly unlikely a Republican would even come close to finishing second in the primary.
If one somehow did, the party would unite behind whoever the leading Dem was.
The "top two" arrangement takes the accidentally-electing-a-GOP senator possibility almost totally out of the equation.
Demsrule86
(71,542 posts)lose the seat. However, I was heartened to look at polls which show she has an overwhelming lead.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Do you have any reason, at this point, to suspect De Leon is compromised in some way?
Again, under the top two, the only way it would lead to a Dem v. GOP contest would be if the GOP candidate somehow managed to finish second in the popular vote-in California that doesn't happen.
So if the "compromised" scenario were to happen, Feinstein would likely still be in the contest(if she were to decide not to seek another term, it's likely another Dem would run and the general election contest would be between De Leon and this other Dem), and would simply be re-elected as a result of the compromising situation occurring.
Given that Feinstein has always defined herself as being a bit to the right of most Dems in her state, it was inevitable that, at some point, a strong progressive challenger would emerge. I'm not sure at this point if De Leon himself is a strong challenger-looked at his website early on and saw very little detail of what he supports and how he is different than Feinstein other than being young, Latinx and, least important, male.
Demsrule86
(71,542 posts)or making it up. Feinstein is a known quantity thus less risky.
C Moon
(13,642 posts)into this election by the GOP. Russian money as well.
Demsrule86
(71,542 posts)and perhaps want De Leon many be vulnerable in some way not yet disclosed. Thankfully, it seems were onto their tricks and I think she wins easily.
Sophia4
(3,515 posts)Either is electable. Feinstein is more likely to need to be replaced, that is to be unable to finish another term, than De Leon.
DeLeon is from Southern California.
Sophia4
(3,515 posts)president of our state Senate.
http://sd24.senate.ca.gov/
I have met him. He will be a good candidate.
The Democratic Party is hopefully not so conservative that we only support those candidates who think they have some sort of "right" to a certain office.
Primaries are important to our democracy.
Voters have the right to choice. Incumbents do not own their offices, and challengers have the same right to run that incumbents and other candidates do.
I'm from California, not Russia.
We should all try to get the facts before posting on Democratic Underground.
Demsrule86
(71,542 posts)fill her shoes period. He simply will be a junior nothing Senator for sometime...we need her to remain until Trump is out of office.
Sophia4
(3,515 posts)But right now, both of our senators (for a state with a population of over 39 million) are from Northern California. De Leon is from Southern California. We need representation in the Senate. The rest of the country has it. We need it too.
We have issues like water, protection of our coastal areas, the need to subsidize solar energy (we could have so much of it), our view on immigration and healthcare, and our unique Southern California view on many issues that we would like representation in the US Senate.
Is that too much to ask?
Sophia4
(3,515 posts)Dianne Feinstein has to show that she has the stamina to fill the position. She has name recognition on her side.
This is Kevin DeLeon's chance to introduce all voters in California to himself. I wish him good luck.
Sophia4
(3,515 posts)De Leon is from Southern California. We here in the South would like some representation in the Senate.
This is more complex than people in other states understand.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)compared to California Democrats, much less "most Californians." Of whom I am one, btw, even if we currently live in the deep south.
Sen. Feinstein is among the more moderate Democrats in our senate, but this is her 6th run and California Democrats know her quite well after all these years. Note that she's currently polling quite well. If De Leon were to come from behind to win, she would be displaced by another party liberal who is only somewhat farther left.
A fact-based reality in my post that you may have missed is that capital-P Progressives in California aren't doing so well this year. They couldn't even get more than minor support for their candidate in this assembly, which itself tends to be farther left than Democratic voters. Backlash after 2016 perhaps.
R B Garr
(17,984 posts)not have single payer, free tuition or $15/hr minimum wage. I’m so glad smart California voters saw through this manipulation two years ago.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)She keeps being re-elected.
And a whole lot of people thought that her releasing the GPS testimony was a good thing, if DU is any indication.
Response to Tom Rinaldo (Reply #13)
Post removed
Tom Rinaldo
(23,187 posts)That's amazing that in today's political climate that a group made up only of "brothers" would attempt to represent a co-ed group of followers.
Well whoever they are, in order to have participated as delegates at the Democratic Convention they have stayed active inside the Democratic Party since that mob scene (as you call it) last Summer. Who gave them a right to be Democrats anyway?
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)In some cases, it can HELP the party...there have been places where it led to a discredited incumbent being replaced by a much better successor.
In New York, Elizabeth Holtzman, who was a heroic figure on the House Judiciary Committee during Watergate, entered Congress defeating an old-line Dem who had refused to co-sponsor the Equal Rights Amendment. Charles Rangel began his political career by defeating Adam Clayton Powell in a Dem primary.
In the NYC mayor's race in 1987, David Dinkins ended the nightmare of the Ed Koch era by defeating him in a primary.
In 1968, Robert Kennedy's challenge to Lyndon Johnson would have ended the Vietnam War four years earlier and save the country from Nixon had he not been assassinated. His campaign, and that of Eugene McCarthy, had to happen.
It's not something that should happen in other than extreme circumstances, but there are circumstances where it can play positive role.
TheSmarterDog
(794 posts)That's what helped put Trump in the WH.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)If he was, he wouldn't have campaigned for her at all after the convention.
Bernie accepted that Hillary was nominated.
The forces that gave us Trump were a combination of Russia, voter suppression, AND failure to connect with at least some working-class voters(a connection we could have made without compromising our anti-oppression commitment at all).
And the people who identified as Sanders supporters but kept attacking, people Bernie had no means of controlling once the convention was over, were probably the Russian trolls.
Bernie has his flaws, and should not run for president again, but it's bullshit to imply that he'd ever have wanted T___p or ever not have cared if T___p was elected.
The flaws were never in the ideas, and it would only hurt us to anathemize the ideas and the vast majority of his supporters.
TheSmarterDog
(794 posts)All of the shit those less-informed "working-class voters" & others believed about Clinton was created by the RW. None of it was true. Whether they used that misinformation to vote against Clinton on the Right, or against Clinton on the Left doesn't really matter. Refusing to recognize that doesn't help.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)We all know that.
I was one of the people fighting AGAINST those people on social media, when I wasn't out campaigning heavily for the ticket in "the real world".
And yes, there was misinformation, from various sources, the vast majority of which was totally out of the control of anybody on the Democratic side of the spectrum.
A lot of people who had backed Bernie in the primaries were trying to counteract the misinformation and help elect Hillary.
Some of us were arguing that the way to combat the misinformation was to center the platform in our television ads. If we'd made a point of letting everybody know how progressive the platform actually was, and how the work of the young people who supported Sanders helped improve it for the better, rather than essentially hiding the platform on the false assumption that most people wouldn't like it, it would have been much harder for the misinformation to be effective.
The thing is, it is now 2018. There's nothing anybody can do about 2016 now. There's no way to reverse it and have Hillary end up being sworn-in after all. Can we please focus on the future, and can we please work towards finding common ground with everyody we need to find it with rather than raging about the past?
What matters are the things we CAN do something about.
It's a waste of time to focus on placing blame.
TheSmarterDog
(794 posts)But, isn't that exactly what the people cheering the California Dems decision not to endorse Feinstein are doing? Presenting it as an opening salvo in a revolution instead of a normal event that everyone expected?
These people think of Clinton's loss as a victory. They are not our allies.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)
chwaliszewski
(1,528 posts)
slingsam
(423 posts)Its so bad......that Pubbies stick together......even when their politicians are wrong...even criminal.....while we demand purity of ours...like we did of Franken
Docreed2003
(18,714 posts)I genuinely like Feinstein, but I’m not from California. Why does her rival have such support? What positions does her rival hold that are different from Sen Feinstein? Just curious, because her rival apparently came somewhat close to gaining state Dem endorsement.
Ccarmona
(1,180 posts)Kevin de Leon. California is more Progressive than most other states and Sen Feinstein has not endorsed single payer or legal marijuana. That has rankled the younger demographic. She has also voted for some of Trump’s judicial appointees. Many of the more progressive party activists want big money out of politics, and feel Sen Feinstein embodies what’s wrong with big money politics.
David__77
(24,727 posts)She’s representative of an old era in California politics, when the conventional wisdom was that Democrats had to be “centrist” to win.
Personally, I do hold it against her that she opposed domestic partnership benefits whole mayor of An Francisco.
Demsrule86
(71,542 posts)shanny
(6,709 posts)change is not a bad thing.
Stinky The Clown
(68,952 posts)CalExit anyone?
I am starting to smell a rat here.
padfun
(1,897 posts)Which will also go nowhere.
I believe in California exceptionalism but not where we leave this country. At least not yet.
Stinky The Clown
(68,952 posts)My point was simply that they had already made some attempts. Now that the troll farms have figured out how to do it nothing is immune including a democratic jungle primary.
BeyondGeography
(41,101 posts)I wouldn’t worry. I also wouldn’t call primarying an 85-year old incumbent stupid. It might even be smart, since she has stopped handing Trump sound bites ever since she had some competition.
padfun
(1,897 posts)In fact, if you take California out of the equation, then Trump won the rest of America by 1.5 million votes. So you can see why us Californians are weary about the other States. We question your sanity. (joking)
left-of-center2012
(34,195 posts)In her defense, she'll only be 91 at the end of the next six year term.
Oh wait, I see your point.
BeyondGeography
(41,101 posts)The only reason Harris is a rising star is because Boxer retired. But for every Boxer there are 3-4 octogenarians who won’t move on. And you’re tearing up the party apparently if you dare to oppose them. 
left-of-center2012
(34,195 posts)If you suggest passing the torch to a younger generation.
I have not heard of the term "Senator for Life".
edhopper
(37,367 posts)so they are letting the Dem Party voters decide. Good for them.
Let it play out and let her know she has been a little too easy on Trump.
She will probably win the Primary and then the election.
David__77
(24,727 posts)Elections don’t work that way in California. The top two candidates in the primary move to the general election, regardless of party.
edhopper
(37,367 posts)De Leon in the General?
David__77
(24,727 posts)Kamala Harris faced a Democrat in the general election, and no Republican.
Demsrule86
(71,542 posts)Feinstein has done a good job and a new Senator would be pretty much useless when we are in the fight of our lives.
David__77
(24,727 posts)And I’ll vote for the one that I want to win.
Demsrule86
(71,542 posts)Who knows if he will even be on the ballot.
David__77
(24,727 posts)I do think that De Leon is more aligned with the mainstream of California Democrats today. That's my opinion, obviously. As a life-long California, I've observed the changes over the years.
Demsrule86
(71,542 posts)David__77
(24,727 posts)And I do think it would be optimal for intra-Democratic struggle to not create opportunities for Republicans. That said, I don’t see any obligation to support Feinstein, with whom a disagree on a number of issues. I see no danger of a Tepiblican winning this seat.
Demsrule86
(71,542 posts)the minority leader of that committee in fact... a junior Senator won't be worth a damn for a number of years...and we seriously do not have the luxury of waiting for him to evolve...not with Trump in office.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)you seem to be driven purely by fear.
Demsrule86
(71,542 posts)worth having purity test...this sort of thing is why despite the fact I believe people tend to agree with us more we have lost consistently very important elections. I remember the 'message' vote and so will those who are being persecuted under Trump.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)Demsrule86
(71,542 posts)of the moderate and the progressive. It is the only way we have any hope of getting a majority...your idea of purification...has cost us many elections...2000,2004,2010,2014 and 2016. When was the last time we had majorities? Why that would be when we had a range of ideologies in the Senate and the House. And then Clinton attempted healthcare and was destroy because of it...had we been loyal to Clinton and to Obama, we would have advanced progressive policy...but the take my ball and go home gang had their way and we got very little.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)which was followed by the year when the Dems ran scared from him and lost the entire thing. Fear of standing up for the ACA killed our majority.
When we stand for our issues the public follows when we are afraid to stand up we lose time after time.
The people in California can make up their minds quite well on who they want to represent themselves and the idea Dianne is the best they can do is nonsense.
She has never represented California as the progressive state it is. Her list of betrayals is long.
For Iraq war
For designating the Iranian troops terrorists.
For warrant less FISA warrants
Against marriage equality
Against impossing sanctions on russia
the list goes on and on
She does not represent the state of California well and has not for decades now.
it will either be the two Dems against each other, in which case there is a Dem Senator.
Or one of the Dems against a GOPer, in which case the Dem wins.
Demsrule86
(71,542 posts)That is the problem.
Mad_Mongol
(86 posts)In CA, we have a "Jungle" primary; the top two vote getters proceed onto the November election.
The top 2 finishers will be Feinstein and De Leon. Both Democrats.
shanny
(6,709 posts)their major party status in CA (to "independent"
I for one don't have any worries about a republican--any republican--beating out a Democrat--any Democrat--for CA Senate.
LBM20
(1,580 posts)KPN
(17,376 posts)adequately represented, defended, supported over time. Expecting loyalty in those circumstances is equally stupid and has already been part of the formula for losing party members over the past 40 years, but especially since 1980/Reagan.
"Purity" is an overly simplistic descriptor and really only serves to demonize.
padfun
(1,897 posts)de Leon is a good Democrat and would be good for California. And the way our elections are, they cant sneak in a Republican. We could and have had two Democrats running against each other in the main election.
There just aren't enough Republicans here to take a Senate seat.
Demsrule86
(71,542 posts)when we are in the fight of our lives.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)Every indication so far points to us winning damn near any seat we choose to run for and still you seem to cower in fear. There will never be a better time to run Democrats.
Demsrule86
(71,542 posts)quite a bit. This guy could not do what she can do...he has neither the knowledge nor the experience. We must take Trump on for the next two years. This is not the year for primaries.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)Look to shrubs admin to see how she really votes.
SHRED
(28,136 posts)This isn't even close to being a red state.
If we can't trend progressive here then where can we in this country?
I agree "purity tests" can be dangerous in purple and red States.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)god forbid anyone has a primary now? Representatives are appointed for life now? Fuck that.
Feinstein has never been a great fit for California she has always been far more conservative than the area she represents. She is better than a Republican but there is literally no chance a republican will win her seat.
Pepsidog
(6,365 posts)former9thward
(33,424 posts)CA no longer has a partisan primary system. Everyone is on the same ballot. If someone doesn't get 50% in the non-partisan primary then the top two are placed on the General election ballot. Feinstein is likely to win the non-partisan primary and if she doesn't get 50%, will then go against whoever was number 2, whether a Democrat or Republican. There is zero danger of a Republican Senator. A Republican can't win one on one in a state wide race in CA.
David__77
(24,727 posts)Even if a candidate got 99% of the vote in the primary, the second place candidate from primary goes on the ballot in November.
former9thward
(33,424 posts)But it is still one on one and no R has a chance whether against Feinstein or anyone else.
David__77
(24,727 posts)Someone could argue that this “wastes Democratic resources.” I disagree with that idea. Feinstein should lose.
mcar
(46,055 posts)I read it here somewhere. If so, that is reprehensible and de Leon needs to repudiate them.
denbot
(9,950 posts)We will have the two top vote getters running for the Senate seat, and the two top candidates will be members of the Democratic Party.
David__77
(24,727 posts)If De Leon makes it to the November ballot along with her, I am pretty sure I’ll vote for De Leon.
California elections do not have partisan primaries.
yurbud
(39,405 posts)She is right on social issues, but where she is wrong, it's deadly like our foreign policy, and single payer.
Frankly, her egregious lie about why she opposed single payer that a staffer repeated to me on the phone killed my trust.
She says she opposed it because of the possible cost.
But the cost for who?
Employers and workers are being bled to death by insurance companies.
Single payer would dramatically reduce costs and cover more people.
The only "cost" she could be worried about is to insurance companies and possibly pharma if we start negotiating or regulating prices with them.
George II
(67,782 posts)....in all the polls, and they're not even close. Two have her up 49-27 and 46-17.
Democrats aren't going to lose the seat, there probably won't even be a republican in the General Election, the first two finishers in the primary go up against each other.
Here's how the primary went in 2016:
Democratic Kamala Harris 3,000,689 39.9%
Democratic Loretta Sanchez 1,416,203 18.9%
Republican Duf Sundheim 584,251 7.8%
Republican Phil Wyman 352,821 4.7%
Republican Tom Del Beccaro 323,614 4.3%
Then Harris beat Sanchez by 23%.
Eliot Rosewater
(34,285 posts)Is this opponent a CalExit person?
Alison Hartson?
First paragraph or second I saw both Cenk Uyger and Bernie name, this is intended to split the party and elect republicans.
Dear god I hope people arent stupid
Sophia4
(3,515 posts)goes into the November election.
R B Garr
(17,984 posts)be no hypocrisy about aging candidates. This contradicts your previous point about DiFi.
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)that are just so incensed, and attributing the Democrat establishment to Trump sitting in the WH, we needed a stronger progressive etc.. The problem is no matter how much we wish, progressive California is not America, I don't think Clinton lost because she was'nt progressive enough, she lost because the election hijacked and stolen by the cretin in the WH who is probably happy this happened to Feinstein. I live in Kentucky, the corrolary is that republicans here don't like the Turtle but keep electing him because of his powerful positions. Just my opinion of course, so yeah, I think people can be that stupid, on any side.
Eliot Rosewater
(34,285 posts)but I would also be attacked.
Sophia4
(3,515 posts)It's just a matter of time until the rest of the country follows California's lead.
Both candidates running as Democrats can win enough votes to go on to the general election.
The California Democratic Party tends to be more conservative than a lot of the Democrats in our state.
We had years of Republican governors and rule, and they just about drove our state into bankruptcy. We are a very, very blue state, and we will stay that way.
No harm in two good candidates getting the Democratic message out, and Feinstein is way beyond the age of good health and vigor. Sorry, but we Democrats have a lot of oldsters in Congress who should sponsor younger candidates.
Neither De Leon nor Harris are all that liberal. They are just middle of the road Californians.
R B Garr
(17,984 posts)Democrats is part of a defeated political movement from two years ago. You can’t credibly claim that a defeated candidates talking points make California more liberal when that is not true. That is just hypocrisy since Vermont politicians are not being attacked for not having single payer, free college tuition or single payer.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)the rest of the country wont put up with it?
I find this thread incredible. Is there any doubt why dems are mocked as being weak. Just the idea of a progressive running against a pretty conservative democrat in the most progressive state in the union sends people into convulsions.
At a time when democrats are winning seats they have never in the past be seen as having a shot at so many are afraid of running a more progressive candidate in the most progressive state in the union.
Lack of intestinal fortitude does not even begin to express this level of cowardice.
Iliyah
(25,111 posts)Nothing wrong with rivalry as long as in the end we come together.
I personally will vote for Feinstein.
Thekaspervote
(35,820 posts)She does a great job
Sophia4
(3,515 posts)The two top candidates, regardless of party affiliation, will compete in the general election. Both Feinstein and Harris can compete in the November election. Opinions are worth more if the person expressing them knows the facts.
Dopers_Greed
(2,647 posts)
Auggie
(33,147 posts)
karynnj
(60,965 posts)I would hope that Democrats, involved in partisan politics, many for decades are NOT the type of people who can be influenced by bots. I would assume that almost all of them have personally met both candidates.
Dopers_Greed
(2,647 posts)
outinleftfield2
(13 posts)I'm not voting for her because she's now 84 YEARS OLD. That means she'll be in her early nineties at the end of the next term. I have a parent who is 87 and he's doing pretty good mentally but I sure as hell wouldn't want him representing me in Congress. What is it about being a Senator that is so frigging important to her that she can't let it go even at 84? Doesn't she want to rest a bit and let a new era of Democratic representation make their mark in Washington? I couldn't believe it when she announced she was running again and I think the party was correct to not endorse her. For me, it's not so much about her decisions on issues as it is her age. Go spend some time around octogenarians and then come tell me you're completely comfortable with her running again. I'm not an "ageist," merely being realistic...
haydukelives
(1,237 posts)She just can't give up power.
Scruffy1
(3,533 posts)I'm a lot younger than Feinstein and yet I know I wouldn't be as capable as I was when I was sixty. Mostly it's about energy. The energy it takes to run a campaign is enormous if you are a challenger, but for the incumbant that people already know and has a huge bankroll maybe not as much. I don't understanding why so many are opposed to challengers to incumbants. This is part of Democracy. I don't think automatically choosing incumbaants is healthy for democracy. I'm opposed to term limits because they take away a voters right to choose. Maybe being challenged willl move Diane a little fsrther to the left.
All in all, this is no big deal becvause I can't think of any sitting Democrat on the national stage has lost a primary to a challenger. I think it's a great way for DeLeon to get national press and people lioke him are the future.
Eliot Rosewater
(34,285 posts)Some against her are well meaning but uninformed folks, but many are actively
engaged in taking down the party and we know what that means.
I am not sure what I can say here. I know what is going on, who is doing it and why, but not sure I can talk about it here.
Sophia4
(3,515 posts)The candidates that win the most votes in the primary, regardless of party, face off in the final election. We could have a primary in which both Feinstein and Harris win enough votes to face off in the general election in which the two top candidates in the primary, regardless of party, will compete.
R B Garr
(17,984 posts)Talking down the party is done to gain an advantage.
Sophia4
(3,515 posts)against another or no election at all. So it is normal here to have a Democrat challenge another Democrat -- at least in my area of Southern California.
We have a lot of hysteria now in the Party since Hillary lost the 2016 election. But it does not apply in California.
Remember, our state is not the racist horror that some others are. We are slightly less than half white. Some population studies show up to 56% white, but most show less than 50% white. Certainly, in Southern California, we are less than 50% white.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/306026/california-population-ethnicity-race/
I think DeLeon will do well in the election.
R B Garr
(17,984 posts)It’s more the complete opposite of hysteria. The hysteria (your word) is more from the losing talking points from 2016. They keep hypocritically trying to force a candidate who did not prevail here. Soundly defeated in California, so the hysteria (your word) is more about that...? Seems to be anyway.
What you are probably noticing is a necessary focus on reality. The opposite of hysteria (your word).
Regardless, the main point was about badmouthing the party and weakening the candidates. No need to endlessly trash Democrats. That didn’t work.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)Let the dumbasses eat their own.
TeamPooka
(25,577 posts)
Binkie The Clown
(7,911 posts)Sophia4
(3,515 posts)Both Feinstein and Kamala Harris will compete in the final election most likely. The Republican won't make it because he won't have as many votes as either Harris or Feinstein.
Retrograde
(11,419 posts)She has nothing to do with this year's coming race. It's possible that both Feinstein and de Leon will be on the November ballot, especially since the GOP doesn't seem to have found a viable candidate yet. We had two Democratic candidates for senator in 2016: I won't be surprised to see it happen again.
nolabels
(13,133 posts)if they were born in an earlier time at least. I remember when that initiative was passed, a lot of people in the upper echelons the Democratic party even thought it was a bad idea.
New data shows Republicans on verge of falling to third-party status in California
By James Lambert
Monday Feb 19, 2018
On Friday, the office of California Secretary of State Alex Padilla posted updated voter registration statistics in advance of the state’s June 5 primary, and the data shows a continuation of the same bleak trend line for Golden State Republicans that we’ve written about in prior cycles: The GOP is simply hemorrhaging voters, both in raw numbers and as a percentage of registered voters.
Overall, just over 4.8 million Californians are currently registered as Republicans, representing 25.4 percent of the total electorate. That’s a loss of almost half a million voters—and a huge drop from the party’s 36 percent share—since the end of 1997, the first year for which statistics are available. And that drop comes despite the fact that California’s population has jumped from 32.5 million to 39.3 million over the last two decades.
During that same 20-year time period, meanwhile, Democrats gained nearly 1.7 million new registered voters, bringing their tally to 8.5 million. Despite that growth, though, Democratic voter registration as a share of the electorate has mostly flatlined over that time period, settling from 46.8 percent in 1997 to 44.6 percent this year.
The reason? An explosion of voters—an increase of nearly 3 million—who have elected to register as independents (or what the state calls “no party preference”). Independents now make up an even 25.0 percent of all California voters. That’s more than double their 11.9 percent share in 1997, and just a hair behind where the GOP stands.
https://www.dailykos.com/story/2018/2/19/1742517/-New-data-shows-Republicans-on-verge-of-falling-to-third-party-status-in-California
R B Garr
(17,984 posts)crowd, for one. We’re already living with the disastrous consequences of badmouthing Democrats.
And Harris took Boxer’s seat....
Eliot Rosewater
(34,285 posts)I know what they are up to.
Good time to NOTICE on this board who is PUSHING the WEAKENING of our party.
Dammit I wish I knew how to get people to understand what is happening.
missingm
(89 posts)We have to stop treating political leaders as royalty. It seems like we should have been grooming someone for her seat for a while. It seems like a competent Dem candidate could win that seat easily.
BobTheSubgenius
(12,217 posts)...do you think they ever got a score of 95 in anything?
Sophia4
(3,515 posts)The two top primary candidates regardless of party go on to run in the general election.
Best scenario is to have two Democrats as the top two. So running two good Democrats for the Senate is a good idea.
Sophia4
(3,515 posts)Let's see who wins. Democrats win either way.
R B Garr
(17,984 posts)Vermont does not have single payer, free tuition or $15/hr minimum wage.
Hypocrisy and all...
demmiblue
(39,717 posts)It is time to support the future of our party.
peggysue2
(12,531 posts)What is this split reminiscent of, people? Might I conjure a suspicion? 2016 anyone? Where the Dem vote was deliberately split to fuel the Alt-right craziness. Are we all suffering from willful amnesia?
Yes, DiFi is old, past her prime. But she is a leading voice in the anti-Trump forces and until the Trump and his odious acolytes are removed, squashed, eradicated, Diane Feinstein and the rest of our leadership group needs to stay exactly where they are--to fight the fight, to bring their expertise and experience to the battle and give the GOP the shellacking they deserve. This noise is just another version of Get Rid of Nancy Pelosi garbage.
I don't give a shit if we have to wheel the woman in a wheelchair. You do not retire your Generals and Admirals in the middle of a war. And that's what we're facing--outright war in November and into the future until the last vestiges of Trumpism is defeated. We get to argue about definitions and direction of the party AFTER the frigging war is won.
Don't fall for the agitprop. Again. We have a war to win.
FarCenter
(19,429 posts)History shows that general officers promoted in peacetime are often ineffective in war. Progress is often made when they are removed and replaced by younger, more vigorous and innovative officers who can recognize changed circumstances and develop new strategies and tactics. E.g Joffre's replacement by Foch.
R B Garr
(17,984 posts)group wants to force their will even though they were voted down two years ago. That’s what that post is saying. The strategy is very transparent.
In the meantime, no one is attacking Vermont politicians for not having single payer, free college tuition or $15/hr minimum wage, so the hypocrisy is evident. Doesn’t San Francisco have $15/hr minimum wage?
hueymahl
(2,904 posts)R B Garr
(17,984 posts)of attacking Vermont Senators. Exactly.
peggysue2
(12,531 posts)Remember the Fusion GPS document release over the Republican outcry? We wouldn't know any of that without Feinstein's gutsy release.
Deconstructing our leadership base before a critical election is a Republican-driven meme. We do not have the luxury of making mistakes this time out. We hold together, we can defeat Trumpism. Then we can go back to yowling like barn cats over 'younger, more vigorous and innovative' memes. But first we clean out the barn, remove the toxic muck that is Trumpism.
Anything less is suicide.
R B Garr
(17,984 posts)to push her weight around, where a new Senator would not have the same advantage. She released that dossier when a junior Senator would not have had the guts to do that. Has anyone heard anything from Franken’s replacement?? We heard about Franken all the time.
Trump is the enemy. Getting a handle on that evil is the priority. Complaining that our elected officials are not Europeans or socialists are just vanity goals. First things first.
Wounded Bear
(64,323 posts)All politics are local.
I have faith that California will handle its business. I used to live there, back when it was a FAR more conservative state than most of the nation realized. The result was Repub overreach and total takeover by Dems a few elections ago. The state that gave the country Nixon and Reagan won't make that mistake again for quite some time.
This kind of criticism is not really very constructive. Having a challenger invigorates the party and helps it drift too far to the left, essentially mirroring what happened to the Repub party over the last generation or two.
Bottom line, Feinstein is not really in that much political trouble from the left.
Sophia4
(3,515 posts)be the top two candidates to go on to the general election unless one of them wins the majority of the votes in the primary.
Feinstein should leave gracefully. Californians are way more liberal than she is for the most part.
Demsrule86
(71,542 posts)seeks higher office and not fondly either.
edhopper
(37,367 posts)than worrying about split votes.
Demsrule86
(71,542 posts)edhopper
(37,367 posts)but I don't think we should stop anyone from seeking office. And the Dem delegates of California also aren't good with Feinstein either.
But it's California, a State with a marginalized GOP. I feel it is a safe Dem seat, whoever runs.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)democracy to me...
Demsrule86
(71,542 posts)no thought to actually winning and being able to advance policy. I am concerned with winning elections advancing progressive policy and saving democracy from Trump and other Republicans. Incumbents have an advantage so unless there is a really good reason ...no they shouldn't be challenged. We don't have to have 'perfect' candidates to govern, but we have to win the majority.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)this is California. Either 2 democrats will be in the GE or one Democrat and one Republican, at which point, of course we should vote for the Democrat.
In the mean-time, we should continue to challenge our candidates to be the best candidates for their constituents, and you don't do that by not demanding that they offer a better(or at least more popular to our voter base) vision than their competitors. No, I don't accept that we should preemptively hobble any progressive direction because of some imaginary belief that we lose by offering different visions under the democratic party umbrella. Yes, 3rd parties are tricky and while I support their value to force major parties to take note of their issues, they can absolutely play spoiler, but come on. We should never reevaluate our own candidates? they should just be our leaders for life?
R B Garr
(17,984 posts)answers to realistic questions, like why aren’t the politicians from the Revolution movement held to the standards.
Instead of bending over backwards to try and parrot popular but unrealistic promises, they should demand answers as to why Vermont doesn’t have free college tuition, $15/hr minimum wage or single payer. If feel-good promises are good for one, they should be good for another. No reason to put up with hypocrisy.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)That is as unrealistic as you can get! You can't force republicans to compromise to a middle point if you have nothing to scare them with. They have nothing to lose by holding out. Nothing at all. Either you get your weak sauce agenda passed or they stop it. Get the people to demand more and show them that you will fight with them for those things, and watch how fast people suddenly find a reason to come to the table.
You see, the thing that is making a truly progressive agenda unrealistic isnt' the republicans. We know what they stand for. We know they will continue to have 33 percent of the populace locked up with their hatemongering rhetoric. Its our own side refusing to declare for big things that is killing us. Its our own side not fighting for these things, not promoting these things, that keeps them out of reach, and frankly, keeps us justd shy of controlling all branches of government. You cool with that? I guess we should just keep on doing what we've been doing that has lost us a 1000 seats in a few decades.
R B Garr
(17,984 posts)Not everything is because people don’t promise free college tuition, legal pot, single payer or $15/minimum wage.
At some point, you have to point to successes as a measure of viability. Being realistic and down-to-earth never really goes out of style.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)WILL crumble in the face of his actions and actual reality. Present a message that gels with reality...ie if we fight for it and get it it will make things better...then when people and their representatives do in-fact fight for those things and those things do in fact come to fruition, there will be no prying them back away from us. There is nothing not viable about 15 dollars an hour. There is nothing not viable about free college tuition, and frankly, if we did this we would be a more efficient, more advanced nation, more on the cutting edge, not less. There is nothing not viable about universal health-care. There is only a failure of political will. Being a part of the resistance to that political will while saying it will never happen isn't simply prophesizing, it is self-fulfilling that prophecy. But...hey, when it doesn't happen, after standing in the way everybody can say they told us so.
Again though, just so that it doesn't get missed or turned into some false narrative about purity tests....you shoot for the big things on our side of the aisle so that we get the little things across the aisle. Compromise where we have to, not with ourselves before we even bring our proposal to the table. That is insanity. It fails us time and time again.
R B Garr
(17,984 posts)A failure of political will? Or realism about costs. Practicality and realism are not going to go away. Ignoring them doesn’t mean you have a revolution. It just means you haven’t planned for that conversation, so it’s just demagoguery.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)done. Point blank, should it be done? If you say no, then thank you for being clear. We aren't on the same page. We are only tangentially on the same side. But I know where you stand and have to respect your perspective on the world. If you say yes, and then blame people for advocating for it but not succeeding to get it on a smaller scale, AND THEN USE THAT as an excuse for why we shouldn't fight for it, then you are either self-defeating or not being entirely genuine, either with me, or with yourself as to whether or not you actually want said thing. And it is you and voices like yours that would stand in the way, not just on the national scale, but on the local scale in Vermont.
So if you want to blame Sanders and Vermont politics, then what's to prevent a smaller microcosm of your same argument..."if it couldn't happen in Montpelier, then what business have you of promoting this on a state-wide scale?" It is tragic. It is fucking tragic.
R B Garr
(17,984 posts)out practicalities, road blocks, costs, and other political realities. That’s the point of asking these rhetorical questions. It reduces things down to a practical nature. Think of it like a fast weight loss promo. They always have some testimonials about actual results like how much did they lose and how fast. (I apologize ahead for that rather superficial analogy. It is not meant to be dismissive, but I’m phone typing and going for quickness and that came to mind). Eventually people are going to weigh your words against your results. On jobs, in politics, in relationships, etc.
Basically, in your scenarios, a large portion of the pitch is to put Democrats down. That has been disastrous. I could expand, but if your appeal relies on putting others down, then eventually people will wonder what your own accomplishments actually are. That is what the Russians relied on. They undermined the Democratic nominee by relentlessly attacking her. All it took was 75,000 people nationally.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)be with you..."
the problem is there is a lot of pressure not to push for these big things. If all the risk comes from taking up the mantle of big ideas and none of it from abdicating on them, what do you think our democrats are going to look like? The succesful ones are going to be those who best avoid those risks. There HAS to be pressure from the left. There has to be a movement that gives democrats cover to act in our best interest and not in the interest of the most powerful special interests who mean to destroy those who cross them too completely. As it is now, bigt money to democrats is the fail-safe. It is the back-up plan. Fund the middle of the road democrats and keep upstarts far away from power, and then, if the 1st choice-- the bought and paid for republican candidate-- loses, at least there's no risk of class-war populism.
I for one am tired of our team being the alternates in a rigged system. I'm tired of us playing into it. If we refuse to call out that abdication on our side of the aisle where it happens(and that's even if its being expedient for some perceived greater good), then our words are hollow when we call out the selling out that happens on the other side of the aisle. When we refuse to challenge our own side, we aren't tending to our own garden, and we are not helping our own side to stand up to big financial influence.
They need the cover of public outcry because there will always be a need for those in power to hedge their bets, so whether the middle of the road is where it is today, or further to the left, it is ultimately still the insiders who will be the ones to make progress. It is ultimately the outsiders who will make that possible. So while I'd rather we didn't take any money( because it has led to this, it really has), if the left continues to push and enough people join in and demand a different political voice, then that money will still flow to the middle. Its just that the middle will have shifted in the correct direction.
I have no illusions about whether Sanders will ever be President. I have no illusions about what kind of forces will work against him(or the next face of democratic socialism) on both sides of the aisle to ensure that that never happens. But because of the energy of his campaign and evetrything that led up to it and all other changing bars of what we are willing to accept, from Occupy Wall-street to Black Lives Matter, our politicians have had to, and been allowed to, take note and respond accordingly with messaging that resonates with that whole new public expectation within the democratic and liberal base. 15 Senators on board a plan for medicare for all. 2 Senators(booker and Gillibrand) declaring that they will take no pac money. That is a fucking good thing. That is the right direction. We don't get there by shutting up and letting the "adults" run the show. We get there by letting our leaders in on the secret of what we care about and where we want them to stand.
R B Garr
(17,984 posts)and deeper and filled with all the familiar but false buzzwords: rigged system, insiders, etc.
Bill Clinton raised taxes on the rich decades ago. He left office with a surplus to hand off to Al Gore. But we all know what happened. We also can’t discuss Sanders’ treatment of Hillary’s universal healthcare decades ago, which remains his problem being he is exempt from the same vetting/transparency that Democrats are subjected to.
I did read through both posts, though. Still no attempts to address actual accomplishments or explain why nothing on the wish list was implemented in Vermont.
Not everything in politics has to be presented as all or nothing. But incrementalism was also scorned, so nothing it is. Anyway, I did read the posts, thanks.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)about, and don't tell me you can't talk about that, people criticize Sanders right and left for actions he's taken on these boards. That is entirely okay to talk about here, although I have no idea what you are referring to.
I explained why using failure as a reason not to try for something that you supposedly are in favor of on a bigger scale is bullshit, and that going back to the Vermont well over and over has only one purpose, and that is to hamstring progress of universal healthcare on a national level. Hell, if people are going to try to pass national gun legislation, shouldn't it happen in their individual states first? Otherwise why don't they just shut up about it and go home? Fucking crazy.
And let me just note, that line of argument is exactly what people fall back on when principle can't be argued. This is exactly what I was referring to in my other post. This is an example of using what has been allowed to happen and what will be allowed to happen versus what is capable of happening if we have the political will. If the idea is sound why not go forward with the idea? Why continue to get in the way of it by looking at examples of it not happening...not even failing in its mechanics but just not being allowed to happen? That is proof of nothing but that there are forces that do and will continue to stand in the way, and sadly, of the fact that you are part of those forces.
And fuck Garr, I laid out over and over why your approach to incrementalism is the failure. Real incrementalism comes from forcing the other side to negotiate out of fear of greater progress. The way we are doing it is enabling of total obstructionism. Who the fuck ever says "undershoot and you may just reach higher..." NO NO NO. Shoot for the fucking moon and when you come up short at least you cleared that canyon.
Under Clinton, Americans appeared to get wealthier across the board. I'll give him that. The rich got ridiculously richer though, and no, the pie is not something that expands. The earth has so many resources. The pie is the pie. We may get more efficient with those resources. We may extract more of those resources. We may add a dimension of intellectual property that is in itself limitless, but it still comes down to how much wealth the planet actually sustains. The rich got so much more of that pie, under Clinton, under Bush, under Obama. Consolidation has continued, and political influence has reached a fucking ridiculous height The rich have made monumental gains. The middle class and the poor? Not so much. Sorry, that's not all on Republicdans. They typically can't do that all by themselves.
As to take what we cdan get. YES. OF COURSE. Who are the purists you make up who don't at the end of the day vote for those positive steps in the right direction? This isn't about being wiling to compromise. Its about what we fight for in the first place so that we have more leverage when we get to the negotiating table. Its about not having to negotiate with ourselves before we negotiate with republicans. Unless you can actually present a good argument as to why we should always promote increments over big agendas, I don't think you have a case here.
By the way, why are those simply buzz words? Do you really believe democracy is alive and well and that money hasn't made a mockery of it? Do you really truly believe that the direction we've taken as a nation is entirely organic? The game IS rigged and democrats continue to lose by virtue of a stacked deck. I know you watch or listen or read the news. Maybe you stick to just those few people you trust, but if you ever poke your head out of those bubbles, do you see the ridiculous double standards of coverage just about everywhere? Do you think everybody just naturally leans Republican and that's why that's happening? No, that's not why that's happening. It's happening because every single major news outlet has its own financial interests, or a parent company with its own financial interests, and that has influenced who gets hired. That has influenced what gets covered and how it gets covered. Russian influence? Its got nothing on us. Trump should not have had a chance in hell. Had we a legitimate 4th estate, he wouldn't have.
R B Garr
(17,984 posts)the wish list items. Are they "just naturally" leaning Republican?? I figured it was just a matter of time before the accusations flew that if you do not tout socialist pipe dreams that somehow everyone is a Republican. That's why endless ruminations of a perfect society don't gain traction. The reality is that there is an actual process to enact ideas in politics. That is the reality.
You can look up Sanders' all or nothing approach to Clinton's universal health care. I'm not going to link.
All the glorious talk denigrating incrementalism really has no meaning. That's why reality and practicality are demonized now -- the notions that it's all or nothing. It never has been and never will be. That is all just demagoguery.
I brought up the facts about Clinton's record because your last posts insinuated that Sanders' ideas were all novel, when the actual facts show that raising taxes on the rich has not only been thought of before, it was actually implemented. Gore was not perfect enough, though, so we got George Bush's version of politics.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)Some things are being conflated. As to who sounds like a republican mouthpiece, I'm only talking about our corporate media, not you, and not democrats. In terms of who is responsible for the drastic explosion of wealth disparity, yes, that is owned in part by our democratic leadership, from a history of absent or lacking rhetoric on the matter, to the very moderate corrective measures we've taken when in power. Arguably though, as I've already said, that is the fault of national awareness. I can be mad at the leadership for not pushing that awareness but certainly that comes with risk. Again, there has to be risk to not promoting these ideas to balance the risk of pissing off powerful interests that will dump millions into the opposition.
In terms of your arguments against promoting universal health care, yes those are absolutely problematic to me. The same forces that have prevented this progress from happening at the federal level have prevented it at the state level. Your impressive willingness to assume that the legislation must just be flawed and that's why it hasn't been passed should certainly be reevaluated, and I'd be surprised if you made that argument regarding any other issue. Was Clinton's universal healthcare plan also flawed? Is that why that got destroyed? Or was it something else?
Either tell me why negotiating from the middle is better than negotiating from the left is a good idea, or admit that we're going about it wrong. The Republicans understand this. They go full hog and then democrats come back to us and say they have no choice but to compromise or risk far more draconian legislation.
Yes, we have raised taxes on the rich. I acknowledge that. Not near high enough and all the ways that the rich have distanced themselves even further from the rest of us through the decades indicates that pretty strongly.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)Sanders isn't the greatest, most meticulous and wonkish writer of legislation. That criticism though, is invalid to me. That is democrats focusing on the wrong thing. You want to impress me with wonkishness, tear down Sander's medicare for all plan and promote a better medicare for all plan that doesn't have whatever holes existed in his plan. There is no fucking way that our nation cannot afford this. There is no fucking way that our nation wouldn't be better off with this. Cutting into these bills and proposals and then hoping they bleed out on the operating table, only to be dug up every time we need a reminder of why not to try in the future, is not at all in favor of progress.
CAN BE DONE. That's the reality we should be operating from, because its the actual reality. Political reality is shaped in the course of a campaign. Today's line of possibility should never ever be where we draw what is politically possible. Working within Actual feasibility? Dealing with real facts and real figures? Totally! I agree with you. Bring the numbers. Be responsible. Do it right. Involve the best minds and present the most complete vision. But you can't tell me that there are mechanical limitations that prevent these big ideas from being implemented. You can't tell me that we can't afford it.. You can't tell me that we couldn't implement an appropriate tax on those with so much that could pay for this and make America so much greater for all Americans. I mean, if you'd like to try, feel free, but I've never heard an argument that doesn't ultimately fall back on what will be allowed to happen, rather than what is functional. and what will be allowed to happen is in nobody's hands but our own.
R B Garr
(17,984 posts)It was rejected just a couple years ago. Vermont politicians are not badgered for not having free college tuition, single payer or $15/hr minimum wage, Doesn’t San Francisco have $15/hr?
Sophia4
(3,515 posts)of single payer because I lived in Europe where everyone has it -- everyone but the Swiss -- and I loved it. Single payer makes sense.
For profit health insurance does not. In fact, I think for profit health insurance is creepy, ghoulish, a monster. Why do we put up with it?
Your money or your life. That's our system.
The cost of health insurance should cover the cost of medical care, and we should all pitch in to cover each other's cost.
There is no reason for people profiting from other people's bad health.
Let's have single payer, and let's better inform every American about how to have good health.
We have a high infant mortality rate and a low life expectancy compared to countries with single payer. Our system is not working, and it will get worse with the new tax bill and its effect on our health insurance system.
R B Garr
(17,984 posts)should have put the costs in the California single payer bill they submitted, but they didn’t. Vermont does not have single payer, but no one from Vermont is attacked. People see past this hypocrisy.
None of what you type has to do with the reality of the system we have. It doesn’t address why attacking Democrats which ultimately allows Republicans to be competitive is a really self/defeating practice.
Europe is pretty great for lots of reasons, but that is not what is at issue here. Bashing Democrats because they are not socialists or Europeans is self-defeating.
Sophia4
(3,515 posts)She may win this election, but we need Democrats ready for the next. And we don't know whether, if she is elected, she will be fit enough to complete her term.
Health is an issue for anyone over 80.
R B Garr
(17,984 posts)all Senators past a certain age should leave the Senate, not just the females. Eight-year-old President’s would be completely out of the question, then —by these standards.
Sophia4
(3,515 posts)R B Garr
(17,984 posts)position of age limits?? BTW, isn’t a long Senate career evidence of popularity and doing a good job? I don’t see Vermont pushing to get rid of older male Senators. What’s up with that hypocrisy...
Sophia4
(3,515 posts)Senators and presidents travel a lot. It's really, really stressful.
I want a senator who can serve a full 8-year term or at least is very likely to complete the term. There is no guarantee that a younger senator will complete the term, but a senator Feinstein's age is highly likely not to complete it.
Representatives don't have to travel quite so much and have slightly less pressure and responsibility. I also think that a president should be able to complete a term at under 80 years.
And a 2 or 4-year term results in less of a risk than a 6-year term for someone who will be over 80 when the term finishes.
We are younger physically now than our parents or grandparents were (in most cases, on the average), but still a 6-year term and a very stressful job. I prefer a younger person.
I think Obama was a great president in part because of his relatively youthful energy. Think about Ronald Reagan and the real problem his age caused for our nation even if we didn't know about it.
R B Garr
(17,984 posts)most stressful of all, and Bernie speaks out against ageism, but the standards are completely different for a female Senator from a California who doesn’t march in line with some very selective talking points.
Luckily people see through the double standards and hypocrisy.
Sophia4
(3,515 posts)will end after you are 80 is not a good idea.
Ageism is firing people in their 50s, 60s and maybe 70s.
R B Garr
(17,984 posts)advocating Bernie leave politics because he will be 80 in an upcoming term is just double standards. Luckily people see through these double standards.
Even Bernie speaks out against ageism relating to people questioning his age, so your narrow definition doesn’t really fit.
Sophia4
(3,515 posts)will be over 80 at the end of that term should not run.
I know lots of people over 80, and that is my opinion.
R B Garr
(17,984 posts)requirement, then it’s just double standards. One politician gets a pass, while others are crucified over the same circumstances.
But it’s not just for ageism. We’ve seen the same hypocrisy with all manner of so-called “issues”. That’s why exposing the hypocrisy is important. Berating politicians for something overlooked with another shows the shallowness behind these kinds of movements.
herding cats
(20,049 posts)The date for a candidate to file is I believe March 5th, and I don’t see anything changing at this point on the GOP front.
What you’re seeing is internal bickering, but we will still hold this seat either way.
elmac
(4,642 posts)and a voter for Hillary, I never called myself a Bernie bro and find the term to be something the putin bots thought up, wingnut talking points. Belittling Bernie supporters will guarantee a fascist run country past 2020.
R B Garr
(17,984 posts)but no one can complain, so the insults should even themselves out and become normalized since we shouldn’t be hypocrites.
Stop attacking dems.
R B Garr
(17,984 posts)LovingA2andMI
(7,006 posts)Russian Trolls "Bernie Bros" BS On DU. Shame...
potone
(1,701 posts)in California. And what is wrong with Democrats in California deciding for themselves who they want to support?
Ace Rothstein
(3,373 posts)This place is becoming cult-like.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)it's freaking ridiculous.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)Not all of us would be that charitable..
JCanete
(5,272 posts)the new California primary system works. Democrats are not in danger of splitting the vote. Come GE, it is far more likely that the more conservative dem will win though, which is my real beef with this stupid system since now the winning democrat will be determined by which democrat republicans throw their support behind...yay!...
but if Feinstein happens to be up against a Republican in the GE, of course she'll get my vote. If there's a better democratic candidate or hell, other party liberal candidate in the race, then of course that person will get my vote. There is no need to play defense here.
Mad_Mongol
(86 posts)The two top vote getters will move on to the November election.
THERE WILL BE NO REPUBLICAN SENATE CANDIDATE IN NOVEMBER IN CA.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)vs one republican. I think I suggested in my post that it could end up exactly like you describe.
karynnj
(60,965 posts)It is highly likely that these two Democrats will BOTH go into the general election -- with no Republicans.
johnpowdy
(116 posts)David__77
(24,727 posts)I think California can do better. I hope the campaign keeps focused on the issues.
Demsrule86
(71,542 posts)Response to Demsrule86 (Reply #243)
David__77 This message was self-deleted by its author.
FarCenter
(19,429 posts)Demsrule86
(71,542 posts)well I don't think it will happen...the Russians want her out because of Fusion. I make it a point to never be on the same side as Russian and GOP trolls.
Tatiana
(14,167 posts)I think this is actually a SMART thing to do -- it doesn't alienate Democratic supporters of either candidate and it just lets the voters decide.
If DiFi wins, she knows she's going to have to move a bit to the left and get tougher on Trump and his mobsters. It will also be a signal to de León supporters that experience and institutional knowledge is important to California voters.
If de León manages to win (which is highly unlikely), then we will know that California voters are tired of the status quo and want radical change.
Either way, I think we win. DiFi plays it too safe, at times. This may give her the courage to move a bit more leftward.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)... committee positions she holds. Change for its own sake isn't always the best or wisest strategy. The "status quo" isn't always a bad thing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dianne_Feinstein#Committees
peggysue2
(12,531 posts)The status quo is definitely not a bad thing when we're fighting the fight of our lives. Feinstein has years of intelligence experience to bring to the fore and we are in a intelligence/information/propaganda battle with the Trumpsters and their Alt-right cohorts.
We need to keep our eye on the prize, not get distracted by the next shiny object.
R B Garr
(17,984 posts)purity messaging is that handing the White House to Republicans looks to be a factor in DiFi’s decision to run again. The seniority absolutely matters. Had a Democrat been in office, she admitted she might have walked away.
With an absolute Trump disaster being the result of all the phony copycat populist campaign attacks against Hillary, the irony is that more people are just going to want the stable and familiar.
KPN
(17,376 posts)Congress persons who can do those jobs as well as her? That's basically what you've said. And I don't believe that. ... I'm quite sure she will retain her seat, but I also have absolutely no problem with other Dems throwing their hat in the ring for voters' consideration. They still have to beat her by getting CA voters' support. May the best person win. What's wrong with that especially in a hugely blue State?
Dark n Stormy Knight
(10,484 posts)in the time of Trump, any Dem is better than anyone else, as far as I can see.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)That is so ridiculous I can't believe anyone even seriously considers it.
only two states equaled or beat the Democratic advantage in California last election. Vermont and hawaii. The idea they will elect a republican to the senate because of a primary is just silly.
Dark n Stormy Knight
(10,484 posts)I don't think that. Nice chatting chatting with you, though.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)What you're saying is valid in other states, but it doesn't apply there.
RandySF
(84,260 posts)Most state parties do not even endorse.
Nailzberg
(4,610 posts)
jcmaine72
(1,843 posts)Californians have blessed themselves with a system that will ensure that NO reTHug racist criminal can win. That alone demonstrates their political IQ is far above that of the rest of the nation. Maybe Feinstein needs to start reading the political tea leaves better and move more to the left, as is clearly the will of the people. She should consider this a valuable life lesson and opportunity to change for the better.
Progressive dog
(7,602 posts)will help RW candidates. That is not how a democracy is supposed to work.
jcmaine72
(1,843 posts)The best thing we can do once we regain power is to encourage diversity in these backward pest holes by resettling as many refugees and migrants into these areas as possible. It's high time that rural America looks like the REAL America.
Progressive dog
(7,602 posts)and I resent your claim people who live in rural areas are not REAL Americans.
jcmaine72
(1,843 posts)...won rural America overwhelmingly. Rural America is obviously sick. The only viable cure is an infusion of new genes into areas where generations of inbreeding has obviously diminished the intellectual capacity of the local population. Sorry, but the rest of America can no longer afford to suffer their drool-dripping ignorance in national elections any longer. Our very survival as a nation depends on it.
Progressive dog
(7,602 posts)jcmaine72
(1,843 posts)Progressive dog
(7,602 posts)in the USA. You don't even seem to realize that rural places are where the food is grown to feed urban places or that food can't be grown where there are buildings and pavement.
Land doesn't vote anyway, but representation is distributed based on population. So, since only citizens can vote, your scheme would give the voters in rural areas more representation per voter and do the opposite of what you claim to want.
2left4u
(186 posts)This is why we lose...the fact that as a progressive somebody thinks where they are from makes them better or more entitled as an American isn't what the DNC is about.
The name calling is a cliche and that's where hate, racism, fascism and elitism comes from...wrong party we..we stand against all that.
Once upon a time we use to have their support too.
We are a party of inclusion not exclusion.
moondust
(21,286 posts)
Gothmog
(179,822 posts)alarimer
(17,146 posts)
DemocratSinceBirth
(101,847 posts)In 016 we got to choose between Kamala Harris and Loretta Sanchez.
Both Feinstein and DeLeon have their assets and liabilities.
samnsara
(18,767 posts)
pecosbob
(8,385 posts)Last time I looked California has two Democratic Senators...what state are you from? Then go take care of business in your state...California is doing fine without your assistance.
elleng
(141,926 posts)Win many arguments this way?
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)
underthematrix
(5,811 posts)Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)I know she said she didn't like that kind of talk, or something like that. And to give Trump a chance to change, because if he changes, he could be a good President. That was a pretty shocking thing to say. As if he COULD change his entire makeup and character and manner and behavior. But maybe later she said something about that she'd vote for impeachment if Mueller's report indicated certain things?
iluvtennis
(21,497 posts)hueymahl
(2,904 posts)Last edited Thu Mar 1, 2018, 03:53 PM - Edit history (1)
Feinstein's exit would be a good place to start. And it is not a purity issue. It is an issue of needing new leadership.
I put at less than 20% a republican could rise into the top two. Less than 1% a republican could somehow win.
bunt homer
(88 posts)
Mr.Bill
(24,906 posts)but she has the newest pacemaker in the Senate.
TDale313
(7,822 posts)California is solid blue. Not only that, it’s a semi-open Primary where the top two go on to the General, regardless of party. The Democratic Leadership here decided not to endorse Feinstein this time. Maybe they felt it was time for some new blood. But this will certainly not hand her seat to Republicans. Bitch and moan all ya want- Dems in California went for Hillary by 20 points. We’re doing truly good things here. We have the right to be as Progressive as we feel will be good for our State and People. I have actually been impressed with Sen Feinstein over the past year in a lot of ways, but we do have the luxury of pushing to elect solid Progressives. Just as Red State Dems need to do what they have to do. We’re gonna continue to push and to lead.
garybeck
(10,085 posts)you can blame bernie for Hillary's loss but i believe you are 100% wrong on that. I believe he helped Hillary.
i think you should stop blaming bernie. that is going to hurt the party. there is a whole new generation who was really excited about bernie. i still run into these people all the time. if you want to blame bernie you are going to lose these new young people.
bernie did everything right. when he "lost" the nomination, he conceded and endorsed Hillary.
blaming bernie is dividing the party.
Hillary lost because people are sick of the clintons. she had too many ties to the banks and other stuff.
The DNCC f'd everything up by stacking the deck against bernie and favoring hillary.
if you are looking for someone to blame, blame Wikileaks, Wasserman-Shultz, Twitter, the DNCC, and the Russians. if you take those out of the equation, hillary or bernie would have won.
the democratic needs to get more young and progressive. THAT is going to get more young people out to vote. not an 85 year old woman who is wrong on one of the most important issues in our country - universal health care
Upthevibe
(10,180 posts)"stupid." Really? She's been too conservative for CA for a long time. She needs to retire.
garybeck
(10,085 posts)still_one
(98,883 posts)Kevin die Leon and Dianne Feinstein, but I guess it makes people feel good to spew that nonsense no matter its validity or not.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Dianne_Feinstein.htm
As to your first point I agree, there is no need to for name calling.
Both Kevin de Leon and Dianne Feinstein are solid Democrats who would serve the state well, and those of us from California will decide in June and November who should represent us.
still_one
(98,883 posts)Feinstein, Pelosi, Hillary, etc. haters, with many I suspect not even from California, bashing Feinstein with the lies and distortions how there is "no difference between Feinstein and the republicans". It is bullshit.
On the issues there is very little difference between Kevin de Leon and Dianne Feinstein, but that doesn't cut it for the Feinstein haters.
Both Feinstein and de Leon were strong supporters of Hillary, with de Leon debating Gil Cedillo, a Sanders supporter on this.
They are both solid Democrats, who work within the Democratic party, and not just "temporary" Democrats for political opportunism
Currently Feinstein is ahead in the polls by a substantial margin, and the top two vote getters in June will confront each other in the general election in November.
Believe it or not, us Californians can choose our own Senators and Representatives without the help of outsiders from the peanut gallery
dembotoz
(16,922 posts)Basic state party politics...like duh
Old Crank
(7,073 posts)Feinstein if she makes it out of the primary and has a GOP opponent. This CA primary system could make it very interesting. Since it is everyone who wants to run can. Top 2 no matter which party go to the general. Last Senate race it was 2 Democrats.
Personally I wish she would have retired. I was disappointed in her decision. It is time that we get new blood into the party, State and nationally. She is chocking out potential challengers. She has access to more money and state name recognition. I feel that this would be a good time for her to step down for seniority reasons. If we can't get the Senate we can build seniority until we do. She is more conservative than I would like but she will get my vote if there is a GOP challenger who makes it to the general.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)
randr
(12,648 posts)They will replace the old guard with new progressive Democrats ahead of the rest of us.
JNelson6563
(28,151 posts)with a party staying neutral during a primary.
lillypaddle
(9,606 posts)lancelyons
(988 posts)Mean while conservatives are changing all the rules to favor them including the FCC pushing conservative Media outlets in Sinclair.
Democrats fighting stupid things like Gillibrand shoud be removed because she called for Franken to resign.
Democrats do some stupid things that dont help democrats.
FarCenter
(19,429 posts)SEIU in California backs Kevin de Leon in primary race against Sen. Dianne Feinstein
Kevin de Leon, leader of the California state Senate, has received the endorsement of the Service Employees International Union as he poses a primary challenge against incumbent Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.
The SEIU is a prominent labor union, particularly in California, and announced Tuesday it was backing de Leon due to his positions on a $15 minimum wage, immigration, and environmental activism.
...
The California Nurses Association, another prominent labor union in California, also announced it would support de Leon.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/seiu-in-california-backs-kevin-de-leon-in-primary-race-against-sen-dianne-feinstein/article/2649025
Caliman73
(11,767 posts)Thanks for the concern but we are okay. Kamala Harris took on Loretta Sanchez, a more conservative Democrat, for the seat left open by Boxer's retirement.
The seat is safely Democratic. de Leon is fairly popular in California, but will likely lose to Feinstein but it will be good to have the debate.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-california-democratic-party-convention-endorsements-20180225-story.html?outputType=amp