We won the House in 2018 with MODERATE candidates in swing districts...

[brooklynite]

We won the Presidency in 2020 by nominating a MODERATE rather than a progressive...

We won the Senate by electing both progressive in GA and MODERATES in AZ and CO....

But let’s DEFINITELY listen to armchair political experts telling us to “get tough” with moderate Senators who don’t always vote the way we want them to.

[samnsara]

1. i know.. i just hold my breath. I truely feel for those Dem senators in red areas...we DO

..owe them something as they..even if they are nothing more than irritating place holders..have given us the advantage and we cant screw it up.

[aocommunalpunch]

3. Their job is to represent their constituents.

They’ve decided to represent their donors. They’ve EARNED their criticism.

[pnwmom]

46. That's not true. Manchin, for one, comes from a state that chose Trump by a HUGE margin.

He has a fine line to walk between the Dems, and the WVA voters who chose both him and Trump.

[radius777]

83. WV constituents need/want money. Trump himself supported

another stimulus package w/the $2000 direct payments (for his own cynical reasons, to buy votes near an election) but McConnell blocked it. Even the WV Governor Jim Justice (R, was a Dem but switched) said 'we need to go big' and basically 'threw shade' at Manchin.

[pnwmom]

84. Manchin supported the payments, which, when added to the first 600,

equaled the 2,000 the Democrats and Trump initially supported.

[radius777]

85. True, but he was hemming and hawing

until Kamala went into the state to light a fire under his ass, and Gov Justice piled on, even going so far to say 'who cares if we waste some money... go big' - whereas Manchin has the mindset of squeezing off what people can get. It was Manchin we have to thank for the $300 unemployment assistance instead of $400, and for reducing the eligibility for the $1400 checks so less people will get it. These actions are not because he's in a red state (that we've established the residents and the Gov want the money) but because he's cares more about what the Chamber of Commerce types think.

[USAFRetired_Liberal]

5. Other than Manchin and lesser extent Tester

What Democratic Senator is from a red state? And please don’t say the senators from Georgia or Arizona because I classify those states as being purple

[Demsrule86]

16. Have you noticed that Arizona has a GOP governor and legislature. It is not purple yet. You won't

elect progressive there.

[USAFRetired_Liberal]

22. I am done with your crappy analysis

[Demsrule86]

27. Have a great day...no really.

[pnwmom]

47. And being purple means the state is more centrist, not progressive enough

to suit many people here.

[George II]

61. Warnock and Ossoff were victims of very negative campaigns using the words and policies....

....of Democrats in deep blue districts.

I'd post one door hanger that I saw on Twitter, but it wouldn't be very well received. They should have won easier than they did.

Some of our House incumbents lost because of similar negative campaigns. There were four very close races, one seat was lost by SIX votes.

We all have to realize that there are different issues and different constituencies in districts/states other than our own. We should remember the mid-west primaries of 2018 - "progressives" flooded the mid-west campaigning for a half dozen or more candidates against more moderate candidates. Not one of them won, but the moderate Democrats flipped a district or two AND the governor's house in Michigan.

Conor Lamb also proved that in SW Pennsylvania.

What wins in one area of the country doesn't win in other areas.

[The Magistrate]

2. A Couple Of Things To Remember, Sir

Persons of progressive inclination need to acknowledge that the election of a moderate Democrat to replace any Republican in a district or a state is a move to the left by its voters.

Persons (and politicians) of a moderate inclination need to recognize that moderates are elected as Democrats to see to enactment of legislation that Democrats all across the country support. When they do not act accordingly, they forfeit much of the support they receive from committed Democrats in their district or state, which is seldom outweighed by putative gains among 'moderate' Republicans.

It is right and necessary to castigate Republicans for putting party over country. It can be just as appropriate to criticize Democrats for putting holding office over country. That is the besetting sin of the moderate politician, just as insistence on purity is the abiding sin of the progressive activist.

The spectacle of politicians who actually campaigned on raising the minimum wage voting against a measure to do just that is repellent. While that decision may have taken in an effort to secure holding office by appeal to 'the center', it is certain to cost them support among people who voted for them in the hopes they would, as elected Democrats, support legislation widely popular among Democrats.


"Good policy is good politics."

[USAFRetired_Liberal]

4. This

Elections are won in purple/swing districts/states by turning out the base...that’s what happened in Georgia and Arizona....I am tired of this myth that moderate/center voters won us those elections....you govern like you are trying to win the center vote then you lose the next election because your depress your true voters....Rick Scott and Ron Desantis of Florida and Ron Johnson if Wisconsin get it, they barely won in these types of states but are ultra right wing...they know to live and die with their base and it has paid off; seems like the two new Georgia senators get it it, too

Now I am talking about swing:purple states and districts....this applies more to Sinema and not to Manchin who is a deep red state

Edit - for every 1 moderate/Republican voter you got to vote for you probably lost 100 base voters who decided not to even vote....especially with these new voter suppression laws, what’s the point of going through the hassle when no person represents them anyway

[The Magistrate]

7. True, Sir

Mr. Mancin is the best we can get out of that benighted place, and he will have to be lived with until we can turn seats in places like Wisconsin and Pennsylvania....

[Dem4Life1102]

9. Excellent analysis nt

[Demsrule86]

17. Nope moderate Democrats gave us both the House and Senate and that is a fact.

[USAFRetired_Liberal]

21. Rolling eyes

I am tired of this crappy analysis....the people who voted for these ‘moderates’ was the democratic base, you alienate the base to pick up a few independents and republicans, then you lose in swing districts and states....it’s all about base elections, having your side 110% behind you, exciting them...that’s a Fact....Republicans like Ron Johnson, Rick Scott, Desantis and others have figured that out...

[NewHendoLib]

6. This. Very well stated

[ibegurpard]

32. Just so

It's never as simple as some would like to believe.

[pnwmom]

48. Moderates may also be elected as Democrats because the voter,

while identifying as a centrist, leans somewhat toward the Democrats -- but also likes some parts of the Republican platform.

It's not easy to represent centrists, when both parties are so skewed to the extremes now, both there are millions of voters who identify as such.

[pnwmom]

49. Moderates may also be elected as Democrats because the voter,

while identifying as a centrist, leans somewhat toward the Democrats -- but also likes some parts of the Republican platform.

It's not easy to represent centrists, when both parties are so skewed to the extremes now, both there are millions of voters who identify as such.

[radius777]

81. +1. and Biden/Ossoff/Warnock are mainstream center-left liberal Democrats,

just as most Dems such as Pelosi and Schumer are. Of course they not as leftwing as our progressive Sanders wing - but neither are they 'moderates' if that term = Manchin/Sinema types, who center-right Blue Dog types who are critical of the Dem party and of liberalism in general.

Biden/Ossoff/Warnock all ran on a broad liberal Ted Kennedy-esque vision of 'jobs, justice and healthcare' - and won on that vision without apology.

[Wounded Bear]

8. All politics is local...the candidate must fit the district/state they're running in...

just taking an AOC type and plopping them down in East Texas is not gonna win us a seat.

[The Magistrate]

10. That Is Widely Understood, Sir

What does not seem well understood, and what is at times actively mis-represented, is just what constitutes 'an AOC type' vote on legislation. Support for raising the minimum wage is a mainstream view, widely held across the political spectrum, not some hobbyhorse exclusive to the lefter than thou. One may take for text in the matter last year's result in Florida, where a referendum to raise the minimum wage to fifteen dollars an hour out-performed 'the former guy' by a margin which could only be achieved by roughly a third of those voting for the wretch also voting for the referendum.

[Thekaspervote]

14. Exactly. The WV gov was asking for the $15 minimum wage. Manchin is protecting himself

[Demsrule86]

18. The Democrats could not vote for the bill because the parliamentarian said it could not be done in

reconciliation. We don't have 60 votes to do it outside of reconciliation. To even try would have delayed the bill and millions likely would have lost their unemployment benefits before we managed to pass the bill if we ever did.

[The Magistrate]

24. Two Points, Ma'am

The Parliamentarian can be over-ruled by the Presiding Officer, and that matter put to a vote, which does not require a supermajority.

The provision is in the House bill, so without it in the Senate version, the bill goes to conference, which may occasion delay.

Finally, I repeat that the spectacle of people who campaigned on increasing the minimum wage voting against this measure is repellent, and does them no good if holding office is their intent. Sen. Sinema's 'happy dance' while doing so has quite likely ended her political career. That is one of the most foolish things I have ever seen a politician do.

[Demsrule86]

25. First of all, the House is going to vote on the Senate bill or so I hear...no conference. There

isn't time. Secondly, we would cause delay if we overruled the parliamentarian and might end up with no Relief bill...certainly not in time to stave of the misery that would happen should extended unemployment end before the bill becomes law. Also, Manchin and Sinema won't vote for it, what is the point? We also promised to get a relief package out and that must be our priority ...Unfortunately the numbers are not there for minimum wage...we will have to try later. The Covid bill is a good one and with a 50 50 majority, I am thrilled we got that.

[The Magistrate]

33. I Agree, Ma'am, There Should Be Further Bills To Raise The Wage

And you are right that the House will vote on the Senate bill straight. I expect a good portion of the Progressive caucus will be unhappy about it, and I do not blame them. I am confident they will stand better with the Party than the ornaments of the moderate wing can be relied on to do.

Which is a damned shame.

[Elessar Zappa]

11. Voting down minimum wage is not moderate.

It’s Republican.

[dsc]

12. I have had problems with both Sinema and Manchin on this latest bill

In Manchin's case my problem is two fold. One, I fail to see what political benefit is derived for him from his position on the checks and it will likely hurt Warnock immensely. His latest gambit my problem is he apparently agreed to the bill in a meeting, there was a strategy discussed at the meeting that he apparently agreed to, only to go out and do the opposite. If he wanted those changes and thought them to be vital he should have said so at the meeting.

As to Sinema, my sole problem with her, is that whole escapee from the set of Hunger Games thumbs down. That was monumentally, politically stupid.

[bullwinkle428]

13. A $15 minimum wage passed in FLORIDA, a Trump state, by a 2 to 1 margin.

Not to mention, the Covid relief bill in its original form was ridiculously popular across the board, including 60% of Republicans across the country.

IOW, you can't use your anti-Medicare for All talking points on this one.

[mcar]

15. Sad that this needs repeating on a regular basis

All this talk about primarying moderate senators with progressives is self-defeating.

[Demsrule86]

19. We would lose our majority. Same old bullshit that cost us 08,10 and 16.

Progressives can't win in certain areas and all they do is cause us to lose...we need to tailor the candidate to the state or district. The most successful person to do this was Howard Dean who gave us a 60 vote majority.

[mcar]

20. Biden hasn't been in office for 2 months yet

and they are already claiming that we've lost the House in 2022. It makes me so angry.

[Demsrule86]

26. If we lose, it is on them that no Democratic policy is passed. You have to be realistic and do what

you can. We can get what we want but not all at once and you have to bring the country along...if progressive policy was popular and not branded 'socialism' which it is not, we would be able to win elections running on it. That is not what happened...moderates ran and won in areas Progressive would not win.

[mcar]

29. That's right

[treestar]

23. I know it is trying to one's patience

to hear about primarying them for every vote.

It is amazing to have D Senators from these states, so why demand they be anything other than moderate? Think of the voters of those states. They could easily send a Republican.

[Celerity]

28. I fully understand the need of horses for courses, but what Manchin and Sinema

are doing cannot be justified. They are so far out of bounds compared to Biden the rest of the party that it is ridiculous. What they are doing cannot even be defended as 'doing what they have to do to get re-elected'. Kelly, from the SAME state as Sinema is not over into centre RW-ville, so that excuse goes down the shitter. GA is a Red state and look at Warnock and Ossoff. No one yet has explained adequately how Manchin fucking over his voters (for but one example, 8000K usd less per year in FT wages, 11 usd versus 15 usd) aids him in re-election. Justice has outflanked him on the left to a point, and obviously, on the right as well.

I NEVER advocate primarying them, especially Manchin, but he doesn't run (nor does Sinema) for almsot FOUR more years. Meanwhile they are helping to kneecap us in 2022.

[Demsrule86]

30. The Covid bill which they both voted for is a good bill...so let's be happy about that.

[Celerity]

34. from what I see, Manchin singlehandedly chopped almost 2000 usd from millions of adults/voters in UE

alone. House bill was 400 usd pw until end of August (22 weeks between start of April to end of August, that is 8800 usd)

Senate bill now, because of him, is 23 weeks (its extended to September 6) but only 300 usd pw, thus only 6900 usd in toto

Even if it was extended through end of September, it is still 1000 usd less (26 weeks X 300 is 7800)

Plus Manchin, Sinema, and Shaheen forced a lower cut off for the aid cheques, so 17 million (12 million adults, 5 million children) who got two cheques under Trump get zero under us. Horrid optics.


Both those are big own goals, complexly unnecessary, and no one has told me to any remotely adequate level how Manchin is aided in re-election (and he is not up for mearly 4 years anyway) by screwing over his own voters. Sinema has even less of an excuse, as Kelly, from the same state, did not do what she did.

The Rethugs did not force them, Manchin did, with help from Sinema (and Shaheen on the aid cheques)

[wellst0nev0ter]

31. Funny you didn't mention the downticket races in 2020

How come moderates lost house seats during a trump pandemic?

Why did moderates lose winnable senate seats in Maine, Iowa and North Carolina, just to name a few?

The candidates in Georgia initially underperformed their goop rivals in November, and they only won after Biden promised "the $2,000 checks will go out the door" (don't try to lie about it, we got it on tape.)

That should tell you something, shouldn't it?

[NurseJackie]

35. It tells me that far-left candidates would have performed even worse.

It's better to focus on the future rather than continuing to stoke the flames of resentment over the past. It's time to move on... accept the reality that we live in, and do the best with what we have. It could be much worse, so count your blessings.

[Celerity]

36. there are no 'far-left' Dems currently in Congress, and none that even won a primary

Calling them 'far-left is a RW talking point based off an insanely artificially skewed-to-the-right American scale. It is so depressing to see so many adopting false and RW-in-origin framing.

In most any other advanced Western nation, even the furthest to the left Democrats would be middle of the road centre left. Almost all the things that the falsely-labelled 'far left' in the US pols are pushing for have been in place in most all other advanced Western nations for decades.

Many of the American 'centre-left' pols would be in the the centrist/centre right parties, and moderate conservative Dems (like Manchin and Sinema) would be on the rightward edge of the mainstream RW parties. Many of the Rethugs would be in ultra RW extremist parties, and in some cases, banned from even those.

The US is fucked in terms of political ideological scales and labelling. Massive outlier.

[NurseJackie]

37. No it's not. It's reality.

Calling them 'far-left is a RW talking point

No it's not. It's reality.

In most any other advanced Western nation, even the furthest to the left Democrats would be middle of the road centre left.

We're unique aren't we? Try to make the best of it.

Almost all the things that the falsely-labelled 'far left' in the US pols

No it's not false, it's all relative. For US politics it is, for other nations it's not. We're the US, not some other nation. That's the reality.

The US is fucked in terms of political ideological scales and labelling.

Fucked? Not really. It's not what you want it to be, but we're not "fucked".

[Celerity]

39. Wrong on all points, and your continuing to call them 'far left' hurts our party.

It feeds the Rethug disnfo machine that broad-brushes our party as a whole as radical lefties, and it encourages division within our party itself. It also is using false framing that causes many voters to dismiss mainstream (mainstream in almost every other advanced nation) initiatives as somehow far left, radical ideas, when they are absolutely anything but that.

[NurseJackie]

40. It's all relative.

Face facts. The good old USA isn't like other nations. Being realistic and truthful is not false framing. Calling Democrats things like "Coastal Elites" is false framing.

[Celerity]

41. You, by falsely labelling them as far left, are helping to perpetuate that warped reality. It is

feeding into a RW talking point/meme/framing that is incredible destructive at a multiplicity of levels. It hurts all the ideological cohorts in our party, as even people like Manchin and Sinema get tarred (ridiculously) with a 'radical lefty' label by the Rethugs and some indies. If you challenged them on that, they can just points to OTHER Dems (both elected members and then a shedload of supporters) and say 'Look! even your own party and voters/supporters say it!' It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

[NurseJackie]

42. LOL

It's all relative.

[Nixie]

75. Yup. There seems to be a huge rehab push here.

Lots of what voters rejected at the ballot box has to be whitewashed into something more palatable for those who were rejected.

[NurseJackie]

87. Oh, that's a great way to describe it. Perfect analysis!

Thank you!

[Hortensis]

66. Celerity, what's WRONG with "far left"? A lot of people here don't

like mainstream liberals on the moderate liberal to far-left liberal spectrum of the Democratic mainstream. And let's face it, all the denouncers on the "Democrats are corrupt corporatists" and "socialist" spectrum are farther left, often quite far left. And they're as proud of it as they are contemptuous of mainstream voters.

Most of those also tend IL-liberal, beyond liberals. Although leftists, they simply do not respect or share the characteristic liberal openness and acceptance of differences. They are appalled by the liberal belief in the need to accept that others have views valid for them and the need to cooperate to find common ground. Instead of seeing those as critical virtues to democracy as liberals do, the left-of-liberals, i.e., far left, see them as corruption of principles, and weakness. Again, why not stand proud on these beliefs instead of denying them and trying to hide among liberals as if it's not respectable?

And that leads to another identifying characteristic of many -- BUT NOT ALL! -- on the far left: a lack of commitment to democracy. The "fars" on both side are minorities, and for that reason, some feel democracy just doesn't work for them because they always lose to the liberal mainstream. And most on the far left believe so strongly in themselves that that confers a duty to do what they have to. Claiming that's "respectable" is more problematic in a democracy, but honest people will be honest with themselves.

Whatever. Bottom line is that to claim that millions on the far left are actually part of the mainstream spectrum they constantly reject and oppose is silly, and they'd be insulted by the very idea.

[NurseJackie]

88. That... was fantastic! Thank for your thoughts and analysis!

I like how you can keep things in perspective with a calm and thoughtful response. It's a good object lesson to many on the internet who are incapable of expressing the color of the sky without peppering it with so much contempt, hostility, paranoia and anger for every shadow that's wrongly perceived to be an enemy.

Bottom line is that to claim that millions on the far left are actually part of the mainstream spectrum they constantly reject and oppose is silly, and they'd be insulted by the very idea.

[The Magistrate]

89. Hear Hear, Ma'am

An excellent analysis.

[George II]

62. Let's say there are 100 people in a group. Of them 60 are in the middle....

10 are further to the left or right of those 60, and 10 are even further to the left or right of those 10 on each end.

The 10 at the two ends of the group are indeed the FAR left or FAR right.

If you have three friends, one lives a tenth of a mile away, one lives two tenths away, and one three tenths away. The last one is the FARTHEST away from you!

Quite honestly, I'm tired of the terms "moderate Democrat" or "centrist" - it's more logically a MAINSTREAM Democrat, inasmuch as a vast majority, or mainstream, of Democrats fall into that group.

[NurseJackie]

63. Yet nary a word or scorn is uttered when "Conservadem" or "DINO" is bandied about...

... as an ACTUAL INTENTIONAL insult, and which has no legitimate purpose for contrast and compare. It's just an insult.

Also, where's the outrage at other intentional insults like "Coastal Elites"? It's just silence. Crickets.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

73. I saw good Democratic candidates labeled as far left

There was a good number of down ballot candidates who were labeled as "far left" and accused of supporting policies such as a defund the police. Some good Democrats lost down ballot races due to be accused of being "far left" and compared to other Democrats who are considered to be "far left" and due to policies such as defund the police. None of the candidates who I donated to were far left but they were compared to the squad and accused of supporting defund the police. Such attack were affective in the real world

Whether you agree with these facts does not matter. I saw the repug disinfo machine in operation and we lost races that we should had won in 2020. The "defund the police" ads were very effective in a couple of races.

[Celerity]

79. yes, and fellow Democrats using that false label, like i said here and on other threads, enables

Rethugs to point and say 'Look! even some in their own party use the term, so it is obviously true.' (and then whip out that giant broad-brush for ALL of us, because... IT WORKS on million of Rethugs RW voters and also unfortunately on some conservative Dem voters.)

It is self-destructive and it is based off a massively/artificially skewed (to the right) and false (compared to the rest of the advanced world) ideological scale. It is self-defeating and extremely divisive as well. Even more ridiculous in when Democrat politicians start dropping S-bombs and even C-bombs (socialism and communism) about other Dem pols.

Ridiculous example of this was from Hickenlooper when he was running for POTUS ad went full commie baiting against others in our parry/caucus, ffs.

“You have to hand it to the GOP for achieving the near-impossible,” said Hickenlooper. “Just years after the collapse of the Soviet Union, their greedy mismanagement has revived the lure of socialism for a whole generation of Americans. Who would have imagined the Koch Brothers and Donald Trump could help resuscitate the discredited ideas of Karl Marx and Joseph Stalin?”

Now, thankfully he has cut this tosh out, and I think so far he has been a really good Senator, After he dropped out for POTUS, just to bring it full circle, I emailed him around 3 times (maybe 4?) urging his to run for Senate and also, when he changed his mind and did run, I sent him a nice donation. I am very pragmatic about my US politics. I truly believe in the big tent. I am a Buttigieg-style Dem (as you well know from the primary forum), yet i will defend the further left in our party from spurious attacks I all too often see here and elsewhere. If we alienate the left quarter to third of our coalition, we will get crushed by the vermin Rethugs, and the nation will turn into a bloody hellscape.

There is not a single actual socialist, let a one a communist (laughable) federally elected Democrat. One of my huge issues with Sanders and a handful of others is the utterly false self labelling as democratic socialists, when they are not remotely that, they are bog standard social democrats, which is a large large difference. Actual socialists laugh when you ask them if Sanders or AOC are democratic socialists. They need to knock that shit off as well. Some US Democrats of all stripes are often so poor at times at labelling each other and themselves, and it hurts our party, especially in reactionary, crazy skewed to the right America.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

80. Again, your analysis is simply wrong and misguided

Try working on a real campaign in someplace other than a deeply blue state. The Socialism attack was used to great effect in Florida and other states. The Texas party underperformed in the Rio Grande Valley in large part due to attacks using socialism and comparing normal moderate/mainstream candidates to the squad. This tactic was very effective in the real world. The statewide Democratic Lawyers Association will have a CLE tuesday night about what went wrong in Texas and there was another CLE event last January by the Harris County Democratic Lawyers Association. Labeling otherwise moderate Democrats as far left was a very effective tactic in the real world.

Again you are wrong in your analysis and have no idea as to what happens in campaigns in non-deep blue states Please note that ACO and sanders both called themselves democratic socialists and the Just Us Democrats brag about electing far left candidates to get rid of centralist/corporate Democrats. I am on the Just Us Democrats democrats mailing list and some of their emails are really sickening and sad. It is the goal of the Jus Us Democrats to remake the party into their image and in doing so will cause the party to be non-competitive

Again, your analysis is simply wrong.

[Celerity]

82. You miss the underlying points and are fixated only with your narrative. I AM talking about non deep

areas being affected by these false, self-destructive labels that some on here perpetuate on a daily basis. It (the false labelling of some of our elected caucus with this 'far left' and 'radical' nonsense) gives the Rethugs cover to make false charges, to broad-brush ALL Dems, as they can point to actual Dems doing the same false-labelling of other Dems (almost all thsi false framing is done by supporters and operatives, rarely actual elected Dems, but that does happen at times too, like I showed already with the Hickenlooper commie nonsense).

We all know that Rethugs roll with 'all Dems are the same', or 'even a moderate Dem still empowers the evil (insert scary sounds) monsters AOC or Pelosi, etc etc' bullshit framing. You are giving them ready-made ammo, via what are simply fundamentally untrue framings of many on our left side of the caucus.

Also, I already dealt with the handful of Dems who incorrectly self-label as dem socs in my reply to you, so no clue why your are repeating what I already said, other than to give yourself an opening to inject the small, non influential (to any systematic degree) JD idiots (and flog that dead horse for the 1000th time). You and others have a seemingly insatiable need with raising those clowns (JD) up to some uber-powerful bogeyman level (which is your right if that floats your boat) but then some here also try and slate some of our elected Dem caucus as being completely INTERCHANGEABLE with that group (some here do this by implication, some do it outright), which is not at all the case and really is divisive.

I stand up for the big tent concept. I shall not bend.

[wellst0nev0ter]

43. All 112 Democrats who supported M4A won in 2020

Moderates who distanced themselves from the progressive agenda lost during an easily winnable trump pandemic.

There's no arguing with that record.

[NurseJackie]

44. What a diverse country we have!

[wellst0nev0ter]

45. All M4A candidates winning isn't "diverse"

It's definitive that the progressive agenda wins in swing districts.

[NurseJackie]

50. This old canard has been debunked dozens of times. Vermont-style politicians...

This old canard has been debunked dozens of times. You know perfectly well that Vermont-style politicians and politics doesn't work throughout the entire US. When a Republican defeats a Democrat in a "swing-district" that means that the Democrat was too liberal and less appealing to those particular voters. It doesn't mean that they needed to be MORE liberal in order to win. Joe Manchin is the perfect example of that.

It's definitive that the progressive agenda wins in swing districts.

That's simply not true. We have a very diverse country with diverse cultures, backgrounds, priorities, beliefs. I simply cannot buy-into this very simplistic "one-size-fits-all" type of politics. That's just not realistic. It's a fantasy that will always lead to failure after failure... and one that will always benefit the GOP.

It's as ridiculous as the nonstop "all-or-nothing" philosophy that always leads to the continuance of the status quo. We need to be smart, not stubborn. We need to do as much as we can with what we have and spend less time looking back and bemoaning, wailing, and griping about all the things we don't have.

Work hard. Work harder. Work smarter. Do what's possible, NOW! Look to the future. Count your blessings.

[George II]

57. How many were in purple or red-leaning districts? My guess is very few if any, and "M4A" wasn't....

....the tipping issue.

[Demsrule86]

65. That is not really true...Biden did not run on the M4A and he won.

It was not a voting issue this year...I doubt it had anything to do with losing house seats...

[George II]

59. A number of moderates lost because the far left "agenda" was used against them in their campaigns...

Things like "defund the police", "cancel student debt", etc.

In districts where they're already hanging on by a thread those things can really scare off voters.

How many seats did we lose by only a few votes? Brindisi by 109 votes, Hart by SIX votes, Cox by 522 votes, Cisneros by 4,000 votes, Cunningham by less than 5,000 votes.

[Cha]

69. Not funny that you're Not Acknowledging

the Veracity of the title of the OP.

[Happy Hoosier]

38. There is nothing "moderate" about...

Refusing our one chance to raise the minimum wage.

[NurseJackie]

51. It violates the rules of reconciliation, and everyone knows it.

It was only seven Democrats and the Independent from Maine who voted against including it in the bill.

They didn't vote against the $15 minimum wage, because that wasn't nature of the vote, they rightfully voted for the integrity of Senate rules.

[Happy Hoosier]

52. Aw c'mon....

You think Mitch and the gang would play nice like that? They would not. They play hard and abuse the hell out of the rules when they are in charge. The use of the Filibuster as a 60 vote threshold is a prime example. So spare me the “it’s against the rules” stuff. We’re fighting for our lives here against a remorseless enemy.

[NurseJackie]

54. First, #FactsMatter

You think Mitch and the gang would play nice like that?

I didn't say anything about him.

They play hard and abuse the hell out of the rules when they are in charge.

We are not "in charge"... fact of the matter is this, we have a 50/50 "majority" with a tenuous power-sharing agreement. It makes no sense to pretend as though we now have the same ability to "play hard" and to abuse power as the GOP has done in the past. I live in the real world... and that's simply not going to happen here.

In fact, it did NOT happen. It will NOT happen. Let it go and move on. People need to stop shitting on Democrats for respecting the rules.

So spare me the “it’s against the rules” stuff.

What's more important? Making progress? Or showboating and grandstanding?

We’re fighting for our lives here against a remorseless enemy.

Yes they are... but it does not make good sense to pretend that people were voting on "raising the minimum wage" when it was actually a vote on whether or not to improperly include it in the reconciliation bill.

This gimmick would have doomed the Covid Relief Bill... and even the Bill had passed, it would be stayed because of legal challenges... and thus delayed for MONTHS and MONTHS. I understand that people are eager and angry... but people also need to be smart and avoid making mistakes for the sake of pride, anger, revenge, stubbornness.

Link to tweet

First, #FactsMatter
Three VPs (Barkley, Humphrey, Rockefeller) have ignored a Parliamentarian’s advice.
It. Failed. Every. Time.
Each time, the Senate voted to rebuke the VP and side with the Parliamentarian.
Every. Damn. Time.





https://www.senate.gov/about/officers-staff/vice-president/VP_Nelson_Rockefeller.htm

[Happy Hoosier]

55. Almost everything you listed there

Is a matter of tradition, and not in the Constitution. And I am tired of us fighting with one hand tied behind our back.

We DO control the Senate. The deference to party split is NOT a Constitutional principle.

We can either show the electorate that Democrats get shit done, or we can wring our hands and continue to allow the GQP to abuse the rules to exert power all out of proportion to their support.

[NurseJackie]

56. Lulz.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

64. You do realize that we lack the votes to over turn the filibuster in the real world

We lack the votes in the Senate. On the Last Word s couple of nights ago, it was explained how that overriding the parliamentarian is meaningless unless you have the votes. If VP Harris overruled the Parliamentarian, McConnell would propose an amendment to strike the minimum wage and this vote would pass 52 to 48. We do not have the votes to pass this amendment right now in the real world

[George II]

74. Not "tradition". Reconciliation bills fall under a set of rules, they're not customary bills...

...the Parliamentarian opined that the minimum wage provision did not comply with those rules.

I don't know how many times I've mentioned this in the last 2-3 days, but if by some chance that wound up IN the bill one of two things would have happened:

1. The bill would have failed outright, and as we saw on the vote for the amendment, probably by more than one or two votes - perhaps as many as eight votes.

2. If perchance it DID pass, it would have been in the courts first thing Monday morning, and it would be held up for weeks or probably months, and the vital aid that is needed by tens of millions of people would not get to them "this month" (as President Biden said earlier today).

Who would have been at fault if either of those scenarios came to pass? Certainly not Biden, Harris, Schumer, et. al.

[George II]

60. The republicans didn't need the filibuster to defeat adding the minimum wage to the bill....

It only got 42 votes, 18 short of the 60 needed, and 8 short of a 50/50 vote.

Simply stated - that provision did not belong in the reconciliation bill. If it did somehow find itself in the bill the entire bill would have failed - the $1400 checks, the extension of unemployment insurance, the additional support for families with children, the aid to schools, etc. etc. etc.

[Demsrule86]

53. Manchin said today he is open to getting rid of the filibuster for the voting bill...and other

kinds of unnamed legislation...he has always been there for us.

[George II]

58. Yes we did, and we maintained the majority last year with mostly moderate candidates....

...in swing districts, even though we lost about 10 seats.

Many of those that we lost were brought down by slogans and lack of support from fellow Democrats.

Max Rose is a perfect example. He was the first Democrat elected in his Staten Island (and small sliver of Brooklyn) district in decades. But he faced relentless criticism from some Democrats for two years - Democrats who sit in cushy D+30 or so districts. It's no surprise that he lost last year. A shame because he had a lot to offer the Democratic caucus.

[Dem4Life1102]

68. 8 years not decades

Michael McMahon, a democrat, held that seat until he lost re-election in 2010. And Rose depressed the democratic base in the district by not voting for Nancy Pelosi for speaker and doing campaign ads embracing Trump.

[George II]

70. Check who represented Staten Island, the predominant section of the CURRENT 11th District...

Previous to 2012 almost all of the 11th District was in Brooklyn. Staten Island was the 13th District prior to 2012 when it became the 11th.

It was republican from 1981 through 1993 (Guy Molinari) and then his daughter Susan Molinari from 1993 through 1997, and then republican Vito Fossella from 1997 through 2009. A Democrat won in 2008 but was defeated by Ryan Grimm in 2010, who served from 2011 through 2015, replaced by republican Dan Donovan when Grimm resigned, and served through 2019 when Max Rose defeated him.

So Staten Island was a republican district from at least 1981 through 2019 except for two years from 2009-2011. That's 36 years of the previous 38 before Max Rose won in 2019. I could go back further than 1981 but I made my point.

The numbers of the districts in NYC have changed several times over the last 40+ years.

[Dem4Life1102]

71. Yes a democrat won in 2008

but was defeated in 2010. So it was 8 years, not decades.

[George II]

72. Read my post again, it was republican from at least 1981 to 2011 (that's THIRTY years, "decades")...

...then Democratic for 2 years, then republican for 8 years, now back to republican after Rose was defeated in November.

So, in the 38 years prior to Rose winning in 2019 it was REPUBLICAN for 36 of those years. That's the point, the Staten Island district is very red and has been republican for 90% "most" (does that do?) of the last 4 decades, and probably most of several decades before that.

The REAL point is that Max Rose lost last year primarily because several of his "fellow" Democrats bashed him relentlessly for representing his district.

But I'll tell you this, Rose did more for HIS district than several of his critics did for their districts.

[Dem4Life1102]

77. I read both your posts

And your first post said of Max Rose:

He was the first Democrat elected in his Staten Island (and small sliver of Brooklyn) district in decades.

I pointed out that it wasn’t decades but only 8 years, which your second post confirmed:

A Democrat won in 2008 but was defeated by Ryan Grimm in 2010

[George II]

78. The point is that Staten Island is in a RED district that has been dominated by republicans....

....for at least four decades, perhaps more. That Rose won in 2019 was a huge accomplishment, yet you refuse to acknowledge that.

Whatev'.

[Dem4Life1102]

86. I wasn't commenting on your point

Just the factual error in your post.

[DTomlinson]

67. Manchin and Sinema are endangering the chances of other Democrats. Voters expect results.

nt

[George II]

76. Yesterday voters got results, without skirting the rules of reconciliation.

[DTomlinson]

90. "the rules of reconciliation."