General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: So Sanders is going back to running as an Indy for his senate seat. [View all]hueymahl
(2,495 posts)What I don't understand is why you keep ascribing to me the worst interpretation/version of what I wrote. At no point did I ever say the Democratic Party was not made up of progressives. It is made up of progressives, traditional blue collar democrats, moderate democrats, blue dog democrats and yes, even some of the fringe, wacky greens everyone hates so much.
I agree that it is necessary to make compromises to advance the Democratic coalition. That requires, generally, taking a stance somewhere in the middle between blue dog democrats and progressives (if you don't like that term, lets just use the left part of the base).
I never mentioned Sanders for a reason. He is a lightning rod around here for unknown (to me at least) logic. Plus, he is not a Democrat, right?
The whole reason I responded in the first place was because you said, and I quote:
Seeing with gerrymandering, we will not get the house for sometime. It did not matter. As often as I stated that the courts were a matter of life and death, there was our left, "progressives", that were not concerned about loss of the court. It made no sense to me but I know today, it holds no water for them.
I responded by saying it is a pretty bold claim to assert that progressives were not concerned about loss of the court.
You can read the rest yourself, but after attacking progressives, you then claimed the "vast majority" of all Democrats are progressive. Surly you don't mean to assert that the vast majority of Democrats did not care about the court? So when you used the term "progressives" in your original post, to which group were you referring?