California Democrats decline to endorse Feinstein

[KPN]

164. Where? Patience -- been busy with other stuff. Ever happen to you?

68 and 72? I used those dates (the Humphrey/McGovern candidacies) as an example of the ebb and flow that happens in public opinion/support for political ideologies that ultimately determines what ideologies have power/control when. My point being that because "liberalism" was rejected in 68 and 72 doesn't mean economic progressivism will be rejected today. Did you not understand that?

Regarding your 2nd question, I already answered that in two ways. (1) I recognize and appreciate the value of compromise when it's actual compromise and not yielding way; and (2) it depends on the particular issue/circumstance. I would never dictate or favor total inflexibility -- that's a big part of what makes me a liberal.

Let me add though that you seem to want to paint me into a corner as opposed to respond to my broader premise. What's up with that? Do you think I am totally off base in my view that we (Democratic Party) has been weak on the economy when it comes to economic well-being of the working and middle class generally over the past 40 years? How about you address my points/answer my questions. Here's another one: how ell has neo-liberalism worked for the working/middle class generally over the past 25-30 years? (Please don't get hung up on 68-72, 40 vs 25-30 -- they are different timeframes representing distinctions).