Progressive Group That Helped Elect AOC Targets Joe Manchin, Kyrsten Sinema for Replacement
Source: Newsweek
A progressive group called the No Excuses PAC aims to replace West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin and Arizona Senator Kyrsten Sinema, claiming the Democrats "stand in the way of progress."
The co-founders of the No Excuses PAC are searching for candidates to run against the pair since both Manchin and Sinema are up for re-election in 2024.
Two of the PAC's co-founders, Saikat Chakrabarti and Corbin Trentare, are former aides to Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. In 2018, the PAC helped elect Ocasio-Cortez to Congress.
On its website, the PAC claims that Manchin and Sinema "stand in the way of progress" because they sided "with Republicans to shrink their own party's pandemic relief, climate, and economic investment plans."
Read more: https://www.newsweek.com/progressive-group-that-helped-elect-aoc-targets-joe-manchin-kyrsten-sinema-replacement-1566190
Not sure how they think a progressive can win in a state where Trump got almost 70% of the vote...
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The Velveteen Ocelot
(130,439 posts)How do they figure that anyone even slightly to the left of Manchin could be elected in WVA? I'm no fan of Manchin but it's spectacularly unrealistic to think a progressive could survive in that state. Way to lose a Senate seat...
TwilightZone
(28,836 posts)and someone who votes Dem 0% of the time.
Not a difficult choice.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(130,439 posts)The progressives need to stand down and figure that out. No version of AOC has a snowball's chance in Hell in WVA.
SamsDrink
(50 posts)By the majority of the Country, Progressives should just shut up. This is why the Democratic majority will be gone by 2022. Now I remember why I quit this Fourm before. It’s no place for Progressives. Good Bye
The Velveteen Ocelot
(130,439 posts)Not all states, or even the same districts within a state, vote the same way or support the same policies (a point that should be abundantly obvious by now). In my state, MN, we had a congressman in the 7th CD, Colin Peterson, who drove me nuts because he was so conservative - just barely a Democrat. But he added to the Dems' head count, and he voted with the party more than 50% of the time. Some in the party had wanted to primary him for years, but never did because they knew a progressive couldn't win in that district (the western part of the state adjacent to North Dakota). It's Trump country, very rural, and this time Peterson, as conservative as he was, was defeated by a Trumpist GOPer by 50,000 votes. Any progressive candidate running against any GOP candidate in WVA would suffer the same fate. You have to choose your battles, and that wouldn't be a winnable one.
treestar
(82,383 posts)But they are foolish if they think a progressive can beat Manchin and the Republican. Give the voters of WV a true progressive and they will pick the Republican.
Instead of doing dumb things, why not do a smart thing like reach out to WV voters to see if you can convince them they should favor progressive policies and candidates.
Boomer
(4,405 posts)I live in West Virginia, so I know first-hand that there is no such thing as a Democrat in this state.
The politicians who are elected as "Democrats" here are the people who would be considered more-or-less centre-Right Republicans in the rest of the country. The "Republican" politicians are the bat-shit-crazy-Right wing of the party.
Our governor, Jim Justice, was elected as a Democrat, then mere days after the election he switched party affiliation over to Republican. It's the only way a relatively sane Republican stands a chance of getting around the Republican primary of right-wing nutjobs.
There are no true Democrats in office here. As for the chances that a progressive Democrat would win....... hahahahahahhahahaha.
Unfortunately, voting for a progressive Democrat in the primaries just means the Republican nutjobs win in the general state election. Because West Virginia. Believe me, I hate that about this state and I've railed against it and cursed the heavens, but it's what we've got.
riversedge
(80,730 posts)
paleotn
(22,181 posts)
SharonAnn
(14,172 posts)
ouija
(465 posts)onetexan
(13,913 posts)there are conservative leaning members as well, and i know plenty who are more conservative leaning Dems. Ain't nothin' wrong w/ that.
obnoxiousdrunk
(3,114 posts)with that.
TwilightZone
(28,836 posts)One size fits all doesn't work. This is Politics 101 level stuff.
Demsrule86
(71,542 posts)red seat...but they never do. I suspect their motives when they do this...I believe some of these folks are OK with being in the minority as long as there is 'purity'. They help only the GOP...and sorry I don't consider them progressive.
rso
(2,670 posts)Ridiculous, these people lack any political awareness.
Indykatie
(3,868 posts)Sinema and Machin are the only types of Democrats that can win in places like WV and AZ. These folks need to grow up and accept the political reality of their limited appeal among folks in middle who decide state-wide and national elections.
jorgevlorgan
(11,098 posts)I imagine though if somebody has enough resources and support to beat out a decade long incumbent, they will have the resources and support to beat a non-incumbent. 
Targetting Sinema is just pretty stupid though unless just using it to sway her against the fillibuster.
IronLionZion
(51,209 posts)
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)Stunts like this only serve to bloody, damage, divide and weaken the Democratic party... and that ONLY BENEFITS THE GOP.
Jay25
(437 posts)As long as voters vote for the Democrat, in the general election.
pnwmom
(110,255 posts)do worse in the general than incumbents who are not. It removes most of the incumbent's advantage, pounding on them before the general.
George II
(67,782 posts)
ProfessorGAC
(76,635 posts)pnwmom
(110,255 posts)The Velveteen Ocelot
(130,439 posts)instead of risking the Senate by attacking Democrats they deem insufficiently pure?
groundloop
(13,821 posts)Sure, it would be NICE to have a more left leaning Senator in place of Manchin, but it's simply not going to happen. We have only two choices in West Virginia - Manchin or a super right wing GOPer.
Boomer
(4,405 posts)This is not a progressive-friendly state, and much as it sticks in my craw, Manchin is really as good as it possibly can get here.
George II
(67,782 posts)....we'll lose the seat.
Why do they continuously go after INCUMBENT Democrats instead of republicans?
I think I know the answer.
mcar
(46,000 posts)in a red state who votes with Democrats 50+ % of the time have to waste time and money in a primary battle. Then, the R opponent can run ads using the "progressive" slams against the incumbent.
Sure, nothing wrong with that. 
treestar
(82,383 posts)They will vote for Manchin. But they won't vote for the progressive. And so they will vote for the Republican.
The danger to the primary is the progressive winning.
The Repubs did this to themselves in Delaware - they ran an extremist against a moderate Republican. The extremist won the primary and lost the election. Republicans lost what would have been an easy win for them. No reason that could not happen to us.
brush
(61,033 posts)There are several republican senators up for re-election in 2022. Why not target them instead of two Dems in red states who don't come up for re-election until four years from now?
I'm so sick of these alleged Dems going after incumbent Dems. Manchin and Sinema are not my cup of tea either but if they've managed to get elected in deep red states, they apparently know something about who their constituents will vote for. I doubt this challenging group does.
appmanga
(1,485 posts)...the work that needs to be done is to increase the numbers of Dems in the House and Senate. These same folks went after Henry Cuellar and, naturally, they lost. They'd rather tilt at windmills than be effective.
MineralMan
(151,198 posts)"You! Kid! Go get me a left-handed Phillips screwdriver!"
BlueTsunami2018
(4,982 posts)You almost certainly can’t do any better than that there.
GeorgeGist
(25,570 posts)
Roisin Ni Fiachra
(2,574 posts)in his mission as Grim Reaper of all Democratic legislation is justified.
LiberalLovinLug
(14,680 posts)Even though every single Democrat that publicly backed M4A won. Even in swing States.
Even though Georgia showed we could win despite the "radical socialist" mantra of the Republican rivals.
Same for Arizona.
When we campaign as Democrats with something to offer citizens, rather than campaigning as a Republican with nothing to offer but voting with Rs, and stopping other Democrats from getting anything done.......we can win.
RW media is a big problem. But we can win with more communication. Use social media smarter. They should listen to AOC and her admonishments about working on their “core competencies” in campaigns. They absolutely CAN win with a real Democrat in Manchin's seat. Doesn't have to be a lefty "squad" member, just a competent moderate Democrat who will not work against us.
Voters need a real choice. And then need the Democratic establishment to relent and at least pretend to back them 100%. Not trying to primary them with conservative candidates. How confusing is it that for potential Democratic voters? Watching Pelosi, after scolding young progressives for daring to primary more conservative incumbents, she goes all in for Kennedy in Mass. to upset the more progressive incumbent Markey. And as we all know, Markey won that primary, and then went on to win the Senate seat. But those kinds of party machinations can put off new voters.
mezame
(295 posts)if we can do it in Georgia, like c'mon! Now is the time to Go Big. Public momentum is building strong on many fronts. Coal is over in WVA. Dems can offer real solutions there. You're correct, it doesn't need to be a Squad member, but the Blue Tsunami is here nonetheless.
LiberalLovinLug
(14,680 posts)
My Pet Orangutan
(12,597 posts)
LiberalLovinLug
(14,680 posts)If leadership keeps going on the offensive against their own candidates, that run for issues like M4A that the vast majority of Democrats support, and support is even growing with Republicans, they will lose long term. Pew Research, Sept. 2020 says:
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/09/29/increasing-share-of-americans-favor-a-single-government-program-to-provide-health-care-coverage/
Among the public overall, 63% of U.S. adults say the government has the responsibility to provide health care coverage for all, up slightly from 59% last year.
But lets work against the trend, and try and silence those who support it, and try and install conservatives to replace incumbents who reflect the increasing majority. Brilliant Pickett, carry on
George II
(67,782 posts)...groups who are NOT affiliated with the Democratic Party to announce they're "searching for candidates" to primary our incumbent Democrats? Tell us, what Democratic leadership is "going on the offensive against their own candidates", and what candidates are they going against? You shouldn't throw out an accusation like that without providing specifics and details.
On top of that, the graphic you provided is misleading, too. Note the careful wording - "Majority of Democrats favor a single national government program to provide health care coverage", not anyone in particular.
This has been misused in the past to make the incorrect claim that a majority of Democrats favor "Medicare for All", which is entirely false.
That majority are a conglomeration of Democrats who favor several different programs, not "Medicare for All". I.e., strengthening the ACA, or Warren's plan, or Harris' plan, or Klobuchar's plan. Those who put together that graphic have added ALL of those together and are falsely implying that they all, combined, want "Medicare for All".
In fact, as we saw earlier last year, just about a quarter of Democrats "preferred" M4A, three quarters preferred other plans, and more than HALF of preferred strengthening the ACA, which is Biden's plan.
That is why he's sitting in the White House today.
LiberalLovinLug
(14,680 posts)a "Majority of Democrats favor a single national government program to provide health care coverage"
key word, "single" payer.
Not sure what you mean by "not anyone in particular".
And a further 33% still want that government program, but that it be open to include some mix of private coverage ability too. Which is kind of the system a lot of single payer based countries use. ie. the base is a "single national government program to provide health care coverage". Paid through taxes. and covers everyone, without any kind of sighing up, or any other payment other than taxes.
But do, mostly conservative politicians in other countries, when they get in power, try and chip away at federal funding, and wanting to privatize as much as they can? Yes. It happens here in Canada whenever Conservatives are in charge. But they cannot change our constitution. They cannot get rid of our basic right to medical care. They can only add the ability for their wealthy donors to get in on the action by granting extra private paid services, and lab work etc.
As an aside, do you know how bizzare it is for me, from Canada, where nationalized healthcare is an established right, where we don't worry about hospital bills etc, and where even Conservatives would never win if they went after our Medicare system, to be arguing with a, I assume, US Democratic voter, on a liberal website about it?
edit to reply to your question: "Tell us, what Democratic leadership is "going on the offensive against their own candidates", and what candidates are they going against?
I gave an example of this in my first post in the thread. Last three lines.
George II
(67,782 posts)....in particular, i.e., no plan in particular, just one that is "a single national government program".
So let's say (these numbers are hypothetical, no one knows the actual numbers) perhaps 15% favor "Medicare for All", 25% favor the ACA, 14% favor some other program. All three combined equals that 54%, the number in that survey. It does NOT mean that 54% favor "Medicare for All".
Joe Biden favors strengthening the ACA, and as we saw in the first part of last year, Democrats (and Independents who voted in the Democratic primary) favored Biden by 51% to 49% for ALL others combined. One could safely conclude that a majority of Democrats favor strengthening the ACA.
LiberalLovinLug
(14,680 posts)I don't give a hoot about the name. It doesn't have to be called Medicare-For-All. But that is a popular tag. Democrats have a hard enough time finding good slogans. And they finally have one that polls well, But whatever. Call it what you want.
According to that Pew research, 87% of Democrats want either single full national service (54%) or combined with private (33%). That is the main point.
I don't care if they call it The Department of Silly Walks. But Democrats need to own it. Stop with the mixed messaging. Don't have to say it will happen over night. But just state in one voice, from moderates to muckrakers, that the end goal is a functioning guaranteed universally accessible medical system for all with those rights guaranteed by law, and enforced and administered by the federal government, even if States can implement it how they see fit, they must abide by federal guidelines.
And they win with this by hammering home all the benefits, that it will cost half as much, while creating a security that Americans have never felt before, like other countries have for a long time already. Its win win if they go all in. There's a slogan for ya!
George II
(67,782 posts)....and the question was worded in such a manner that ALL of those plans could be lumped together and those advocating for "Medicare for All" used it to push the false idea that "a majority of Americans want Medicare for All".
The fact is the "Medicare for All" plan has been resoundingly defeated.
I agree though, "stop with the mixed messaging", millions of people in the US now are on Medicare, Medicaid, or the now 10-year old ACA, and many have supplemental private insurance plans. THOSE are forms of "single full national service (54%) or combined with private (33%)" We do NOT need "Medicare for All" or a brand new program to replace all that. WE ALREADY HAVE IT, and Biden's plan (you know, that guy that actually DID win the nomination and the election) is to strengthen what we already have. No need to scrap it and replace it with something else. No need to ban private insurance, as the advocates of M4A are demanding.
Medicare for All as presented would take years to be implemented (assuming the impossible that it would be passed in the first place), and it would NOT "cost half as much". That's a false conclusion put out by whom? Those advocating for Medicare for All. Perhaps a certain aspect of it would "cost half as much", but that ignores all the peripheral costs and effects of it's implementation, how we handle all the people who would be put out of jobs, the loss of income tax, Medicare, and Medicaid revenue, etc.
From what has been presented, upon which we're expected to consider, very few of these details have been worked out, and probably not even considered yet.
Bottom line, we have in place what we need, we just have to strengthen it and modify it so that red state governors can't wriggle out of it, which is the biggest flaw of the ACA.
LiberalLovinLug
(14,680 posts)The only thing that will reduce those costs is getting rid of the middle men. Its common sense.
And the other poison pill is that private insurers make their money by DENYING service. That is the antithesis of what a healthcare system should be for citizens of a country. It is whack. And yes, in Canada we pay about half as much as you per capita. In some countries it is even less.
In Canada we have The Canada Health Act. It is not as "socialist" as some other countries like the UK. Hospitals and doctors are still private. But they must adhere to the standards of the CHA. That is the key. That the law of the land dictates it. Basically that health care is a right, not a privilege.
It seems that you are defining "Medicare for All" as complete flip to government run ie...the UK. What I see from reading about it in American media is that everyone has a different idea of what that is. That's why the name is unimportant. There are many different configurations of how governments run their universal medical services.
But the underlining and most important element of any affordable, not unsustainable like the ACA, is implementing something for America like the Canada Health Act. The whole idea of making money off of citizens misery HAS to go. In the same way public education is essential, and funded through taxes. It is guaranteed in your Constitution that all children have access to education. Their should be an amendment to include healthcare. For those who live in countries where healthcare is a right, its a no brainer.
Yes it will take time. and you'd have to have a plan to re-hire many of the displaced workers. Sucks that the US did not join the rest of the western world last century in transitioning over then. I realize that now, with entrenched private insurance, it is much more difficult. But eventually, I think the US will have to. Its not sustainable. And the Democrats should make it clear that they are working towards phasing out private insurers. (Biden is closing private prisons as we speak), and putting into law, even better an amendment, that health care is a right that the government guarantees, in law. With a national tax mandate to pay for it. No matter how long it takes, it will be worth it.
treestar
(82,383 posts)There are no federal elections; there are 50 state elections. The primaries are all in the states. It does not matter what nationally Democrats want. It matters what Democrats want by state. See if WV Democrats support this.
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)She lost to Shelley Moore Capito 70-27, including losing every county in WV.
George II
(67,782 posts)....incumbent knowing the chances of winning in the general election are virtually zero.
LiberalLovinLug
(14,680 posts)M4A supporters won in every swing State riding.
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)Democrats ran Paula Jean Swearengin, who was a Justice Democrat and supporter of M4A.
Guess how well she did?
She lost 70-27.
Why should anyone want that?
TwilightZone
(28,836 posts)We ran progressive candidates in some right-leaning districts, including districts that were thought to be very winnable.
They got thumped. Had we run candidates that better matched the districts, we very well could have picked up several seats.
LongtimeAZDem
(4,516 posts)candidate here, we would destroy everything we have fought so hard to gain.
And calling moderate Democrats "Republicans moles" is disgusting.
TwilightZone
(28,836 posts)The ignorance regarding regional politics around here is simply remarkable. I find it difficult to believe that *anyone* really believes that an AOC-style candidate is going to win in WV and yet, evidence abounds.
You're aware that the last time we tried that, our candidate lost 70-27, correct?
wryter2000
(47,940 posts)Because we don't need those two seats.
in case someone misses it.
SKKY
(12,799 posts)...in either of those states has no clue how politics works.
George II
(67,782 posts)....in anything other than a deep blue district. This No Excuses PAC was founded by the same people.
Funny thing though, they're making this grand announcement but are still "searching for candidates"!!
Two more things:
1. How could they have helped in 2018, No Excuses PAC, was only founded on January 8, 2021.
2. It's a SUPER PAC, what happened to candidates swearing off Super PACs?
Lonestarblue
(13,460 posts)WVreaper
(675 posts)Working against either of the two, will only give the Qeblicans a chance to grab their seats. Stupid with a capital Q.
paleotn
(22,181 posts)Lasher
(29,567 posts)And now this PAC announces they want to primary them 4 years from now. WTF, we have the slimmest majority possible. What if either of them decides to switch parties?
George II
(67,782 posts)....they were television interviews from her office.
Lasher
(29,567 posts)Harris promoted Biden’s COVID bill during these interviews, pressuring these 2 Senators to go along. I’m sure neither of them saw this as a trivial matter.
mcar
(46,000 posts)Did you notice that WV's R governor came out in support of Biden's plan?
Blindsided?
Lasher
(29,567 posts)He was
LongtimeAZDem
(4,516 posts)
marble falls
(71,872 posts)Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)So, I am not sure why anyone would be supportive of this.
Gore1FL
(22,949 posts)mcar
(46,000 posts)Run people against Republicans.
Salviati
(6,059 posts)Reduce their power by getting 52 or 55 Democrats in the Senate. But you can always count on a subset of Democrats to want to shoot themselves in the foot.
TwilightZone
(28,836 posts)I understand that a lot of these people are new to politics, but this is really entry-level stuff. Keep the seats ya got; try to get the ones you don't, especially with a close House and a 50/50 Senate.
grobertj
(240 posts)oasis
(53,646 posts)Grasshopper. 
JI7
(93,568 posts)and has decided to grift off of playing "progressive" revolutionary now . He wants Republicans in office while making money off of selling his bs to those angry over Republicans being in office.