One of our most vulnerable Senate seats appears to be safe

[BainsBane]

29. Cause voter disenfranchisement is so "left"

You have some pretty screwed up ideas of what constitutes left. Leftism is not defined by allegiance to a particular political tribe.
I mentioned voting rights, reproductive rights and my opposition to corporate tax cuts. THAT is what you call "anti-left."

I get you're greatly attached to your strawman argument, but it bears no relationship to anything I've ever said. In fact, I've argued the opposite to you. Economic self-interest and economic justice are not the same. I've argued that I do not for a second believe economic justice is limited to the upper 20%. I believe economic justice means equality, not more and more for the middle- to upper-middle class, which is precisely what we see advanced under the pretext of progressivism. You ignore that because it doesn't fit the one dimensional worldview. So spare me your persecution complex about "economic justice" voters.

What I referenced was very specific individuals who purport to be progressive or were backed by self-proclaimed progressives. You chose to distract from that by erecting your strawman, arguing something I have NEVER once argued. Mine was a comment on the truly bizarre ways in which power plays have been carried out in the name of progressivism, often resulting in backing conservatives over liberals. We saw Tim Ryan championed as the progressive choice over Pelosi. His anti-choice record wasn't a concern; that only impacts 75% of the population, no one who truly matters. And then when he proves himself the fucking right winger he always was by siding with the GOP on corporate tax cuts, they pretend they never supported him. Only we have the receipts that prove otherwise.

Economic justice does not mean more for those who already have more. It means addresses poverty and inequality, not worsening it. All evidence shows that restricting reproductive rights greatly increases poverty for women and children. It also leads to enormous spikes in mortality rates, as Texas demonstrates. Now, you may dismiss those lives as merely "social," but the fact is the effort to turn the clock back on reproductive rights does economic violence and increases poverty. That information is not new. The question arises then as to why we see men so anxious to undermine rights supported by the vast majority of the American electorate, and why they don't care about the devastating impact on poverty? It sure as hell isn't because of economic "justice." It's about restoring the social order to its mid-twentieth century standing.

What we have also seen VEHEMENT opposition to directed government resources for higher education to those with incomes under $250k a year. We've seen people insist that "free" education" for the upper-middle class is a higher priority that addressing the unconscionable inequality in k-12 that cements generations of poverty, including for those in Ferguson. People don't oppose needs based public education funding because they care about economic justice. They do it to benefit the upper 2-5%.
If McCaskill is courting the six figure incomes, she's in good company.

And not a word about the voter disenfranchisement effort, through replacing primaries with caucuses, championed under the guise of progressivism. Those efforts are targeted directly at communities like Ferguson. Rather than commenting on that, you attack me with your strawman. If you support restricting the franchise to white men of property then say so. If you oppose it, you ought to take your fight to Nomiki Konst and other self-proclaimed progressives working to make the Democratic primary electorate whiter and more affluent. After spending all last year asking why the majority of people of color weren't "smart enough" to vote as one percenters like Konst told them to, they now turn to making sure they can't vote at all by expanding the system with the single lowest voter turnout of any--caucuses. And it is my criticism of that which you called "anti-leftist."

And by the way, St. Louis county went to Clinton in both the GE and the primary. Your claim that McCaskill's endorsement of Clinton would lose her votes is not born out, unless you are more concerned about Republicans. There certainly is no indication that her having supporting someone else in a Democratic primary would have helped her in Ferguson. If McCaskill fucked up in Ferguson, voters have every right to express their displeasure with her, but your attempt to pass that off onto Hillary is unfounded.

If Missourians want to mount a primary challenge to McCaskill or any other representative there, that is entirely their right. As much as you think the party is a concierge service, that's not how it works. The party is made up of individuals, and if a serious candidate arises to challenge McCaskill, then there will be a contested primary. As someone who doesn't vote in that state, I don't imagine it's my place to tell them what to do. I'm not a person who believes what I want should supplant the votes of citizens who live in other districts and states. But that's just a function of my "anti-left" belief in equal voting rights. But I do know that I don't trust for the second the judgment of people who championed Tim Ryan and cover up for voter disenfranchisement efforts.