In One Tweet Claire McCaskill shows us that she's in trouble in 2018

[VoicesAcrossAmerica]

Last edited Sat Jan 21, 2017, 03:53 AM - Edit history (1)

Claire McCaskill is one of our most vulnerable Senators. Missouri voted overwhelmingly for Trump and also for a Republican Governor and Senator. This tweet is designed to make Senator McCaskill appear strong and tough, but it actually has the opposite impact. It makes her look weak.

Martin Luther King Jr. refused to condemn rioters and said that "Riots are the language of the unheard."

Also, calling anyone UnAmerican is rather UnAmerican. Since she's from Missouri, home to Fergusen, I can guarantee you that her Republican opponents will use her own words to condemn BLM.

Finally, I have a question that is hard to answer but it comes down to this: Does Senator McCaskill actually believe that violent protestors are UnAmerican? OR Did she feel the need to CYA because she's afraid that this type of protest will be used against her?

My gut tells me she tweeted this due to political calculation and fear of the Koch Brothers tying her to these protesters. And I get that. Because there's little doubt that if they think it will help them, Republicans will do and say anything. Remember Senator Cleland.

I may be wrong. She may be this appalled. But here's the calculation vulnerable Democratic Senators need to make -- if you're going to be hung for a sheep, be the best damn sheep you can be.

Trump and the Republicans practice a politics of dominance. When you post out of fear of what your opponent is going to do or say, that is the politics of submission. And that rarely wins. We've already seen how Trump's horrible strategy proved successful. If we take one thing away from it, take that complete authenticity is the order of the day.

[Sunlei]

11. yes, the new trolls are starting to post on DU. probably kellyannes group.

[VoicesAcrossAmerica]

22. Wow --

The only reason I have a new account is because I could never get my old one to work after the shutdown. My old username was Dems2002. I joined during the 2000 election. I changed careers following that election and have worked in local politics ever since. These forums have gone down hill in recent years, but wow, this takes the cake.

[KittyWampus]

26. Maybe you should delete your OP and leave if this place has "gone so far downhill"

BTW, Cool Story, Bro!

[Blue_Roses]

69. This place wasn't here until 2001

Way after the election.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028500104

[Big Blue Marble]

2. She is correct.

These anarchists do more damage to our cause than good. They only justify suppression.

[TheDebbieDee]

54. Sen Claire "Both-sides-do-it" McCaskill...

Is high on my list of red state dems that are most likely to aid and abet the republiCANTs!

I stopped watching Morning Douche almost 3 years ago but at that time she was making weekly appearances. I'm in Missouri and can barely stand the thought of having to vote for that faux Dem again...

[CajunBlazer]

87. Have you not learned that Democrats that you don't like....

...are far better than the Republicans you hate.

[TheDebbieDee]

89. No, I have not learned that! I have learned that Dems that I don't like

piss me off just as much as the republiCANTs!

[CajunBlazer]

90. That was the same reason why some people voted against Hillary

She apparently wasn't liberal enough for them. And so we got Trump.

[kimbutgar]

3. She has a big target on her head - kochs are already running ads smearing her

The rethugs will take her seat. But who knows maybe by 2018 people will be so disgusted with rethugs it will be 2006 all over again.

I have a friend who moved to Missouri for a job, she hated it so much and said it was the worst state she ever lived in. This is a friend who I have known over 25 years who moves so much I can't keep up with her address changes in different states.

[Cattledog]

4. Fake tweet?

here's her account:

https://twitter.com/McCaskillOffice

[VoicesAcrossAmerica]

12. Nope

This is her personal account. I believe she types all tweets herself. It has the blue checkmark and everything.

https://twitter.com/clairecmc

[Sunlei]

21. yes fake tweet account and you can tell by who they 'follow', whose paid troll they are.

[VoicesAcrossAmerica]

74. Yet again -- here are the facts

Here's an article that discusses the Senator tweeting. It lists the account I shared. Please google before you make accusations.http://www.businessinsider.com/claire-mccaskill-hilariously-live-tweets-jury-duty-2016-1

[oasis]

5. Calling out bad behavior becomes a liability. Gimme a break.

[VoicesAcrossAmerica]

13. UnAmerican

She used the word UnAmerican. Which is what Republicans toss at BLM.

A bit softer language and it could be glossed over. I specialize in framing. And I tend to go at this from the George Lakoff rule although I do love me some polling.

[Sunlei]

23. take down the fake tweet. people from congress and senate are supposed to speak up!

[George II]

70. She used a number of words, you zeroed in on only one, and out of context.

[VoicesAcrossAmerica]

82. Since when does context matter to Republicans? N/T

[Truth321]

6. So arson vandalism and aggravated assault are now cool?

Is this now our calling card?

[Sunlei]

10. the violence was, 100% by some group of masked, totally dressed in black organized group.

don't use the word 'ours' speak for yourself unless you know who backed that group.

[dionysus]

48. Those are black bloc anarchists, the guys who protest all the free trade conferences, they

aren't provocatuers usually, just anarchists who make the real protesters look bad. They aren't our guys.

Sometimes they do have some provocateurs, but theybare rooted out pretty well, I remember seeing on DU one time they chased one down and took his mask off... i think he escaped to the police once his cover was blown...

[VoicesAcrossAmerica]

14. Not particularly

MLK said, "A riot is the language of the unheard." Is this true of anarchists? Ugh, I'm not big fans so I don't like to give them this much credit. I don't support violence. At the same time, why do white middle age republicans get to wave guns and get treated with respect? Sometimes the front line of radicals allows the back line of peaceful protestors to get a seat at the table.

[Sunlei]

25. nope you're wrong. I want all our Senators and Congress persons to speak up.

[Jim Beard]

93. I could see some of the masked people were white.

[blogslut]

7. That's not her.

You should self-delete this post for many reasons.

[VoicesAcrossAmerica]

15. It is her

Yes, it is really her account. Here's an article about her tweeting from it. She's one of the only Senators who actually has her own personal account that only she uses. http://www.businessinsider.com/claire-mccaskill-hilariously-live-tweets-jury-duty-2016-1

[blogslut]

17. I concede that is her personal account.

But I disagree with so very much of your original post ¬_¬

[Sunlei]

27. are you paid by the post?

[VoicesAcrossAmerica]

33. You have over 16,000 posts...

I'm beginning to think this is an issue of someone who calls someone else what they are. In the fifteen years I had an account, I think I logged in a few thousand posts at most. Dems2002 is my old username

[Sunlei]

38. I don't care how many posts you make. Do not attack Ds here.

[pintobean]

41. 502 posts in 14 years

If this is you.
http://upload.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=110765

[VoicesAcrossAmerica]

60. That's me

I'm not a huge poster by any stretch. I mostly lurk.

[George II]

72. 506 in 16 years. You've exceeded your ANNUAL average already in two days.

[VoicesAcrossAmerica]

75. lol

I actually intentionally rushed to 10 posts so I could start a thread. I wanted to share a link to some twibbons folks could use. Today I'm in mourning and have permission to post. And then the reaction to this thread, which I meant to be helpful information, has been so incredibly hostile it gave me a place to focus some arguments for a few minutes. Sigh. It's going to be a long four years.

[George II]

76. The fact is no one knows or can logically speculate if she's "in trouble" in 2018.

She won her seat in 2006 with less than a majority and by 2.3%. She won re-election in 2012 by more than 15%.

I would guess that for the most part she's popular in Missouri. One single word isn't going to sink her campaign in two years.

[VoicesAcrossAmerica]

78. 2012 was Presidential Year and Pre Trump

Obviously, I'm hoping that Trump is going to blow up the Republican Party. I actually do think this is a possibility. But 2012 was Pre-Trump AND a presidential election year AND pre voter ID. And I do think (as much as I hate this), that Joshua Micah Marshall has a point when he says that white working class are voting as if they are a minority. So in much larger percentages for Republicans.

My issue with this tweet is that the strategy makes me afraid for her future. If you're right and she's popular, awesome. That hasn't been my impression.

[OilemFirchen]

80. One post in the last ninety days.

Since time travel is one of our OP's fortes, perhaps he or she could wander back a few minutes and correct some of his or her abysmal grammar.

[George II]

71. 506 to be exact.

[CajunBlazer]

8. If true, let her do and say what she has to survive

Let's not continue to put down other Democrats; the "toughest" Democrat is hell of a lot better than the best Republican.

By the way, I am in favor "peaceful protests". Civil disobedience is fine, sometimes absolutely necessary, but throwing rocks and damaging property is not. Criminal activity hurts our cause and is totally unproductive. It lets our enemies concentrate their fire on criminal acts rather than the objective of the protest.

If you don't understand that, I don't want you consulting with my favorite candidates.

[VoicesAcrossAmerica]

19. Ignore this at your own peril

I'm telling you that her strategy is going to lose her the election and you're telling me that I should just shut up. Awesome advice. Let's see how that works out for us.

[pintobean]

35. Bullshit.

I live in Missouri. She's not hurting herself one bit.

2 day member and 24 posts and we should be taking your advise?

[VoicesAcrossAmerica]

42. Ugh -- I hate AOL

I've been here since 2000. Dems2002 is my old username. it isn't a very exciting account, but it was my name forever. Maybe I can see about getting it back to prove my bonafides. It was tied to an AOL account. I still have access to this account, but I could never receive the email with the code to re log in after the crash. I emailed support, never heard back, and so I finally gave up and created a new account to begin posting again. I don't mind disagreement. I hate that the accusations stem from the fact this account is new when I'm a super old timer.

[pintobean]

45. No one was here in 2000

[CajunBlazer]

47. Regardless, I have trouble understanding why a "political consultant" post what you posted

The only thing I can figure is that you work in dark blue state where a politician might be able get away following your advice.

If that is the case, please understand that you would starve to death in a red state or even a purple state.

I am also having problem understanding why coming out against violent protests would be a problem for a Democrat in even the bluest of states. No one should condone criminal activity. Most of those who do that shit are not protestors; they are criminal opportunist who don't give a rip if they make peaceful protestors look bad if they can get their jollies destroying property or stealing merchandise out of the businesses they attack.

I think you are full it.

[VoicesAcrossAmerica]

58. Wait and see

I am in the brightest blue state, and I'm sure that informs some of my opinions. However, my family is from Independence and I still have ties in the state. I also have a 90% record of winning elections, including in some of the reddest parts of my state. I also worked in Ag and with the Farm Bureau for several years. I'm nothing close to a limousine liberal.

Had the Senator's tweet avoided name calling it would have been innocuous. But she labeled protestors unAmerican and called them disgusting. Yes, she said "violent protestors." Sure. And she even followed up that she fully supports peaceful protestors.

But I ask you, when have we ever heard a Republican say anything remotely like this when their constituents are involved? There's a cottage industry designed to ignore the connections between mass shooters and alt-right/conservative conspiracy sites.

There is a huge reason they don't attack their base -- their base elects them. This is the base that they have and they don't want to piss it off even with a mild rebuke.

Am I saying violent protesters are the Dem Base? No. But who have been consistent protesters these past few years? BLM. Who does the right-wing hate? BLM. Who is the biggest core constituency for Democrats? African Americans.

I am not going to tell you that there's a one to one correlation that's going to take place. Republicans aren't going to come out and say Claire McCaskill condemned violent protesters, shame on her. I'm telling you that two things can happen to her:

1. If they think these violent protestors help elect Republicans by creating fear they will use these images against McCaskill regardless of her words.

2. Her own words will be used against ALL protestors, most particularly BLM. Why? Because Republicans' main goal is to lower turnout amongst Democratic constituencies. And so anytime there's an image they can use of BLM protesting, they can superimpose her words of Disgusting and UnAmerican.

[CajunBlazer]

86. Don't you realize:

- That Claire McCaskill's base is not near liberal as the base of the candidates you work for.

- That she needs more than the votes of her base to get elected.

- That her base knows this and understands that she needs to take more centrist stands than they might otherwise like to stay in the Senate.

- That her base will vote for her despite this because she is far preferable in their eyes than the Republican alternatives.

- That the people on DU are on the whole more liberal than average Democrats and yet most of the feedback you are getting on your OP disagrees with you on the points you have made.

Maybe it does work thas way in dark blue states - but where I live, and in much of the country, liberals are better educated and fairer in their assessments of politicians then their conservative contemporaries. This includes our understanding that just because people pretend to embrace our causes, we are not going to automatically defend them when their actions are out of bounds. Quite the opposite, we sometimes have to call them out.

As you have seen on this board, you don't have to be a conservative to recognize criminal activity for what it is. You have also seen on this board the understanding that when people who pretend to be in our ranks act in a manner that discredits our causes, we believe that we must disassociate ourselves from them. We don't want injured cops, smashed windows, looted stores, and/or burnt out buildings associated our party or its causes. That kind of thing plays right into our opponents' narratives.

I'm sure Barack Obama has good "political consultants' and I can't count the times he has publicly deplored protestor violence.

As I said earlier, don't venture to far from the state where you work. As a political consultant you would starve to death in a red or purple state.

And by the way, if Claire McCaskill loses her next election, it won't be because her Democratic base didn't vote for her. It will be because in that Red state staying in the Senate requires picking up a lot of Republican votes as well.

[VoicesAcrossAmerica]

92. Sigh

Have you ever run a political campaign in your life? Because if not, your condescension is pretty hilarious.

I work primarily in a deep blue state. I also work in North Carolina and Nevada.

I don't care about moderation in the context of this tweet. It's about character. And that is what this tweet shows she's lacking. And that's how our blue dogs often get crushed in elections.

I understand you and other people here clearly don't get it. That doesn't make you right.

Politics isn't about micromanaging issues. People vote based on how they feel about someone. It's why I voted Obama in 2008 vs Clinton and felt the Dems were crazy for clearing the field for her. Not because she's a bad person or incompetent. I have tremendous respect for her. But the avg person doesn't trust her. Trust is critical.

I care about GOTV. Since you are an activist, you likely understand that this stands for Get Out the Vote. 40% of the adult age voting population stayed home in November. That's why Clinton lost. The number is likely to be larger in 2018. McCaskill will not win with that demographic. She simply can't out republican a republican.

Missouri is 80% white. So it could have become a lost cause if ethnocentric voting amongst whites remains a thing. I do think McCaskill, as a moderate, can potentially appeal to some of this middle demo (Trump beat Hillary by 500,000, but Blunt won by less than 100,000. And she's an incumbent.)

But if they take this one tweet, superimpose it over black protesters, that's going to help lower black turnout. This is a demo that votes 90% dem. She needs every single one of them on her side. They are literally her only hope.

[CajunBlazer]

94. Don't "sigh" at me

The pot calling the kettle black. YOUR condescension is palpable.

I am a progressive who lives in Birmingham, AL, and let me tell you Mr. Know-it-al,l while you may not be able to out Republican and Republican, you damn sure can't out Democrat a Republican in this neck of the woods. A number our Democrats are more conservative than some of the Republicans where you live. I will guarantee you that exceedingly few Democrats here would hold a Tweet like that against an electable Democratic candidate, because around here they are as rare as hen's teeth.

I'll admit that that her approach would not work everywhere, but it is the height of arrogance to believe that your approach would work everywhere and you know damn well that there are other competent politician consultants who would disagree with you.

Cajun out!

[VoicesAcrossAmerica]

96. Are you white or black?

So, if you're black, I will happily concede the floor. If you're white, then you've entirely missed the point. Earlier, I absolutely checked in with a black female colleague from North Carolina to make sure I wasn't exaggerating what Republicans will do with this tweet. She had the same reaction I did.

Republicans will use her words against BLM. And that will drive down AA turnout. In North Carolina that's election over. In MO it may not be as crushing, but she's likely not to win by much, so every vote counts.

This forum is moderately liberal (not nearly what it used to be though), but it is also super white. I'm white.

Finally, in terms of moderation, MO passed a ballot measure for campaign finance reform. We can't ignore that Bernie and Trump were popular because both discussed the fact that government is in the pocket of the rich. And this message resonated with all working and poor demographics.

If I could wave a magic wand, I'd have the Dems search out 100 congressional candidates (give/take) who are "avg Americans" w/or w/o degrees and with jobs making less than six figures.

[CajunBlazer]

97. I'm purple

And apparently you didn't get the message when I signed off with "Cajun out!"

[VoicesAcrossAmerica]

98. Fair enough

Clearly I don't read well.

I am arrogant enough to stand by my professional opinion regarding McCaskill's tweet. But I am curious what a successful Dem candidate in Alabama looks like to you.

[Sunlei]

9. This OP shows how all Ds will be targeted and by next election RW will take their position.

[VoicesAcrossAmerica]

29. Targeted by whom?

Yes, it shows that they will be targeted...by Republicans. Fair or not. Because Republicans don't care if something is fair if they can use it against a Democrat.

I'm simply telling you that her strategy to fight back isn't going to help her win her election. It'll actually hurt her because her words will be used against BLM in order to drive down African American turnout in the upcoming election.

[roamer65]

16. Let's see after the Rethugs kill the ACA, and fuck up Medicaid and Medicare.

I think Rethugs are not even going to be able to have town halls if they do it.

It got so heated for Rep Justin Amash here in MI in a town hall he had to start bashing Dump to rescue it. He's in a very red part of west MI.

[Trust Buster]

18. Breaking the windows of businesses who did nothing to them is hurtful to the effort and classless.

[shenmue]

28. Yes

[George II]

20. How does that show she's in trouble in 2018?

[loyalsister]

59. Actually it was clear in November that she's got an uphill battle in 2018

The republicans swept the entire executive branch and has an ever growing supermajority in the general assembly. She is going to run as far to the right as she possibly can as a Democrat. Adopting republican language is the first step.

[VoicesAcrossAmerica]

77. Agreed

I think she has a major uphill battle. But the election actually showed her a potential path -- the campaign finance legislation that passed. Unfortunately, that path isn't a natural fit for her. The other thing that passed is the Voter ID legislation. So it's going to be harder for Democrats to vote. Hopefully she's working on this front.

[YOHABLO]

30. Nah, the Revolutionary War was not violent at all.

[Trust Buster]

36. Revolutionary War ? Hell, we can't even get Democrats to vote for God's sakes.

[Squinch]

31. Transparent bullshit. And really stupid, because you've tipped your hand and now we know who you are

"as a political consultant"

[VoicesAcrossAmerica]

34. What are you talking about?

I'm warning folks that her behavior is bad for her prospects of winning re-election and I'm somehow a troll? The ignorance here is profound.

[Squinch]

37. You'd like to think so.

[Fla Dem]

40. She's calling out anarchists. People who want nothing more than to disrupt with violence.

If not anarchists, then plants probably by Bannon and other alt-right agitators to make our dissent look bad. That is not good for progressives and liberals.

[Squinch]

50. I'd lay money they are plants. We already caught them trying to recruit people to do this.

And the self-righteous "political commentator" knows that.

[emulatorloo]

43. We're not as ignorant as you think we are

We're certainly not as gullible as you had hoped.

Nobody here buys your "up is down" marketing methods.

[erpowers]

32. Protest Peacefully

I am not against what Claire McCaskill wrote. Violently protesting hurts your cause instead of helping your cause. Yes, Dr. King said, "riots are the language of the unheard", but at the March on Washington and on many occasions he asked people to not turn violent. He asked them to continue to peacefully protest. King was another believer in the idea that unearned suffering bring later reward.

They may not be un-American, but I believe violent protests are wrong. There is no reason in America for a protest to turn violent. Also, the protest of the 60s were very different than the protest today. Those individuals were still dealing with large amounts of racism. They were treated as second class citizens. They were denied the right to vote, to live where they pleased, sit anywhere in a theater, ride buses as they chose, eat where they chose, go to the school of their choice, or stay at the hotel of their choice. The protesters today do not have those problems. There is no reason for their protests to turn violent.

[VoicesAcrossAmerica]

39. Thank you for a thoughtful reply

I'm a middle age white Democrat. Of course I favor peaceful protesting. I'm not advocating for anarchists. I do think that sometimes these individuals are agents provocateurs, designed to turn the majority away from the issues protestors are protesting. That said, I simply worry that McCaskill's strategy will hurt her.

1. I expect the Koch Brothers to use these images against Democrats where they think they can. So regardless that McCaskill spoke out against them, it won't matter. It never does.

2. BLM in particular has been ACCUSED of violent protest, even though the violence is more often being enacted against them than by them. They are going to be linked by Republicans fairly or unfairly.

3. Republican legislators want to make ALL protesting illegal. They want to create new categories for people that are blocking traffic, or passively resisting. Calling violent protestors UnAmerican is just one step on a slippery slope where we see our rights taken away by Democrats who think this makes them look strong.

[emulatorloo]

46. Yeah, coming out against violent anarchists is really going to damage McCaskill w her constituents

[VoicesAcrossAmerica]

52. Her words aren't going to be used against the anarchists -- they're going to be used against BLM n/t

[emulatorloo]

53. Uh huh

[brutus smith]

49. I agree. She should not have used the word "unAmerican".

And BTW people, we are Dems, not fall in line repubs. People do see things differently.

[erpowers]

100. You Are Welcome n/t

[TrekLuver]

51. At this point in time violence hurts the messaEge we are trying to convey. We don't want the focus

to be on the violence.

[VoicesAcrossAmerica]

73. It always will be

Here's the thing -- if violence happens the media will cover it. Violence is going to happen. Rather than shaking in our boots each time it does, our politicians need to brace themselves. Republicans support their protesters no matter what.

And guess what? So does the media.

Take for example what everyone has said: Had Trump received 3 million more votes than Clinton it is likely he would be the President. Because Republicans would have rioted and gone beserk. And doing so, they seem to get their way.

I'm not condoning violent protesters. I know that the majority are turned off and they can be used against us.

Democrats need to start standing up and saying we're the majority and when the other side keeps putting its thumbs on the levers to maintain power, the majority isn't going to keep going quietly.

[crazycatlady]

55. I see both sides of it

After the election (I was working on a race on the opposite side of the country), I attended a protest in a (very liberal) city (and state, I was working across the border) I've never been to before (I won't name the city, but there's two cities with the same name in this country, about 3000 miles apart). What started out as a peaceful protest turned into people writing FUCK TRUMP on every dumpster out there and a few anarchists took over them. Eventually the cops busted everything.

I love me a good protest. I'm going to a major one tomorrow. But allowing anarchists to take over an otherwise peaceful protest hurts the cause. I agree with the message of many liberal protest groups (Code Pink, Occupy, etc) but sometimes their tactics turns people (including myself) off.

Yes there will be protests in her state tomorrow. But she can't win if she only turns out the liberal base. This forum has to stop with the purity tests and realize that in order to take a majority, we need Democrats like her, Joe Manchin, etc. They're just trying to save their job.

[VoicesAcrossAmerica]

61. It's not a purity test

I'm not advocating she be primaried. I'm simply explaining that she's in trouble.

[Inkfreak]

56. Not condoning violence is commendable. You are wrong.

[VoicesAcrossAmerica]

62. Wait and see

One can condone violence w/o calling protesters unAmerican and disgusting.

[Stinky The Clown]

57. What the fuck are you talking about?

[nini]

66. I guess we have to 'wait and see'

[wildeyed]

67. Right?

On the eve of our destruction and we are going to have a purity tests for Dems in conservative states facing difficult races. Pretty sure we have other battles to fight right about now....

[nini]

63. she's right.. you lose you message when you do that crap

Protesting is American.. destroying someone else's property is not.

[wildeyed]

65. Politicians gonna do politics.

NC GOP nightmare Thom Tillis has been sucking up to moderates after the McCrory lost the governors mansion and Burr got a scare. He knows that NC voters are fed up with the GOP crazies. He is a Koch puppet and the architect of much of the crazy, but he is making nice because he thinks if he doesn't he will lose. It has not changed a single actual vote so far and I wager it will not in the future.

So I can tell you that the Reps in McCaskill's state DO like tweets like that. I doubt she believes what she tweeted or will change a single actual vote. She will caucus with Dems. She is just saying that to get some of the middle votes. Whateves.... It a conservative state. A Dem in there is a win. Period. Any Dem.

[MineralMan]

68. Uh-huh....

[LittleBlue]

79. I don't like her very much

But she's going about it the right way. Americans, hell most English-speaking cultures, hate that sort of disorder. We should oppose it while supporting peaceful protests.

I also don't agree often with BLM's protesting tactics, but they did really well today. I heard they chained themselves at checkpoints, which delayed Trump supporters making it to the ceremony. It allowed us to get a shot of the crowd that emphasized how little enthusiasm is felt for this president. That was a good move.

The moronic anarchists burning a limousine and busting Starbucks windows did us no favors.

[rumdude]

81. They should be peaceful

And what F would you have expected a Senator to say?

[book_worm]

83. She's right it hurts our cause--peaceful protests are fine, but not some of what happened

today. I'm sorry that you don't think that way. Martin Luther King, Jr. did.

[VoicesAcrossAmerica]

84. It hurts our cause because we condemn it

The evidence is clear: Republicans stand with white supremacists, argue against any accusation that mass shooters often have conservative ideology (to the point of forcing the change of a government brief), support the Tea Party and white men with guns occupying a federal building....and they win.

How can all of that happen and yet people suggest that violent protesters hurt our cause? I'm not saying I support them. I am saying that this idea that they hurt us seems to have been fully disproven by the most recent elections.

What hurts us is condemning our own. And in general, I don't claim anarchists. But they're going to be hung around our necks whether or not we want them. Because if you condemn your own, why in the world would I trust you to stand up for me? It's cowardly. And calculated. And voters don't like it. And the Republican Party are much better marketers than the Democrats so they are able to ram these issues home.

[CajunBlazer]

88. You miss one vital point - violent protestors are not "our own"

Not in a million years. And if we "adopt" them we might as well turn in our progressive identities.

Our causes been built from the start on the backs of civil protests, and when necessary civil disobedience. We are the descendants of Martin Luther King and Mahatma Gandhi, not the Black Panthers or the Weather Underground.

We certainly have nothing in common with criminal elements intent on using peaceful protests as cover to commit random acts of violence and/or are steal merchandise. Far too often these thugs are hurting those we do claim as "our own" and discrediting our causes.

[BlueStateLib]

85. Claire McCaskill is toast

Progressives hate her and wont vote for her

[SharonClark]

91. Progressives in the red state of Missouri will

[pstokely]

95. but many progressives might just stay home

nt

[oasis]

99. It wouldn't be the first time. nt

[HassleCat]

101. So what was her complaint?

Who was not peaceful?

[Barbara2423]

102. What is un-American is Donald Trump becoming president with Russian help.

Democrats just don't get it. We need another party with democratic principles and Maxine Waters strength.