General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHow the Bernie Wing Won the Democratic Primaries
Forget about Conor Lamb and Dan Lipinski. The progressive wing has already beaten the establishment in 2018.
By CHARLIE MAHTESIAN March 29, 2018
With his primary election victory last week, Illinois Congressman Dan Lipinskia Blue Dog and cultural conservativewon the first major 2018 battle between the Democratic Partys establishment and progressive wings. But dont be confused about what it means. The war is already over, and the establishment lost.
Even though only two states have actually voted so far this primary election seasonTexas, a red-state redoubt, and Illinois, a blue-state strongholdthe battle for supremacy this primary season is all but complete. In state after state, the left is proving to be the animating force in Democratic primaries, producing a surge of candidates who are forcefully driving the party toward a more liberal orientation on nearly every issue.
These candidates are running on an agenda that moves the party beyond its recent comfort zone and toward single-payer health care, stricter gun control, a $15 minimum wage, more expansive LGBT rights and greater protections for immigrants.
In the surest sign of the reoriented issue landscape, theyre joined by some of the most prominent prospects in the 2020 Democratic presidential fieldCory Booker, Kirsten Gillibrand and Kamala Harris among themwho are embracing the same agenda.
According to data compiled by the Brookings Institutions Primaries Project, the number of self-identified, nonincumbent progressive candidates in Texas spiked compared with the previous two election years. This year, there were nearly four times as many progressive candidates as in 2016. Meanwhile, the number of moderate and establishment candidates remained flat for the past three elections in Texas.
more
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/03/29/bernie-sanders-democrats-primaries-217719
BeyondGeography
(39,281 posts)When you lose by 74 EVs to Donald Trump, you lose.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)That loss happened while promoting one of the most progressive platforms of a major party in history.
Response to NCTraveler (Reply #12)
Post removed
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)I like how you moved to that after your first argument fell flat.
Response to NCTraveler (Reply #17)
Post removed
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Is this jealousy since Sanders only averages about six hundred dollars per paid speeches?
"It spoke to credibility/lack thereof"
I appreciate the transparency. You were one of the "speechers".
You are really desperate to fight the primaries.
BeyondGeography
(39,281 posts)I voted for HRC because I thought Sanders was a disaster in the making in the GE. We had a disaster anyway.
Sanders is still a problem as a national candidate for a lot of reasons, but his 13 million voters are up for grabs and you wont get a lot of them with Hillary 2.0 or 3.0 or whatever version it would be next time around.
The refusal of hard-core HRC supporters to acknowledge any substantial and positive impacts from Sanders 2016 is kind of pathetic really. From a style standpoint in particular, there remains a lot to learn from him. Smarter Dems will get it. Some already have.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)My point was spot on with respect to your original comment. You tried to make a failed point about the ideological difference and have now moved to speeches. Up next, emails.
There is no basis in reality for your original post. Its deceptive, at best.
Glad you got to bring up the speeches. Its so important today.
This is exactly what these ratfucking articles are designed to do.
BeyondGeography
(39,281 posts)to defend Bain Capital again. Those days are over, if he wants the nomination that is. Wonder why?
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)That keeps changing according to candidate, even when the candidate never admits they made a mistake.
And other times, with other candidates, especially when they admit that they made a mistake.
I get whiplash sometimes.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Its what these articles are designed to do.
George II
(67,782 posts)....the article one would see that he thought Obama shouldn't use Romney's career at Bain Capital as an issue.
Here's the article:
https://thinkprogress.org/newark-mayor-cory-booker-defends-bain-capital-attacks-obama-campaign-ddbfa660b397/
Cha
(295,903 posts)Democratic Platform.. she is an inspiration.
Not who you're tying to push.
brush
(53,470 posts)Putin, Interstate Crosscheck, Facebook data, Assange, DNC emails stolen and leaked, Mercer moneythe reality of the election result was way beyond who took any speaking fees, or Sanders' candidacy, or Clinton's.
We know better than any "Crooked Hillary" or "corporate whore" crap by now so why even regress back to arguments that have no validity in what we now know really happenedrepug treason and cheating?
So for the so-called Sanders wing to claim credit for recent Dem victories is just more divisivess when the fact of the matter really is is that repugs don't have the massive Putin/Cambridge Analytica/Mercer money/vote supression factors they had in the 2016 election.
And voters can also see that trump and the repugs can create chaos but can't govern for shit.
BeyondGeography
(39,281 posts)Sorry.
brush
(53,470 posts)Last edited Thu Mar 29, 2018, 02:52 PM - Edit history (1)
when the fact of the matter really is is that repugs don't have the massive Putin/Cambridge Analytica/Mercer money/vote supression factors they had in the 2016 election.
And voters can also see that trump and the repugs can create chaos but can't govern for shit.
murielm99
(30,656 posts)Candidates Sanders backs have a poor showing. Most of them lose their elections.
brush
(53,470 posts)Cha
(295,903 posts)reality do. Sorry.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)It speaks merely to interpretation of events. No more and no less.
George II
(67,782 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Cha
(295,903 posts)Democratic Platform.. she made sure of it.
And, trump was rigged in by colluding with the Russians. CA was mind fucking potential brainwashes with hate against her.. this all had nothing to do with reality.
You really do need to study up on what's been reported around here since "rigged in" night.
beachbum bob
(10,437 posts)for instance did bernie support Londrigan in Il-13th primary? I sure don't remember hearing that....
Blue_true
(31,261 posts)Bernie's picking and chosing and his supporters claiming credit for things Bernie nor them had anything to do with is annoying.
Me.
(35,454 posts)EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)Me.
(35,454 posts)who came up with the theory of relativity....
lunamagica
(9,967 posts)Me.
(35,454 posts)When he stormed the stage. What was she thinking? Women!
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Blue_true
(31,261 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)____________________
Me.
(35,454 posts)and became President
sheshe2
(83,336 posts)Me.
(35,454 posts)Adrahil
(13,340 posts)He might have invented gravity too, but I'll have to google that.
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)Once they're over, it will be possible to measure the impact of progressivism in them. Until then, not so much. Running in primaries is a good thing to do. Winning them is better, though. We'll get a look at the Democrats who will actually be on the ballots in November, but only after the primaries take place.
I'll wait and see what happens, I think.
George II
(67,782 posts)Certainly not consistent with Charlie Mahtesian's premise in the OP.
https://ourrevolution.com/results/
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)Ugh!
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)This is reaching an HA Goodman level of ignorance.
Great job highlighting yet another ratfucking hit piece.
FSogol
(45,357 posts)Gothmog
(143,999 posts)Eliot Rosewater
(31,097 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)Eliot Rosewater
(31,097 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)I find it to be deplorable.
left-of-center2012
(34,195 posts)stricter gun control,
a $15 minimum wage,
more expansive LGBT rights,
and greater protections for immigrants"
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)left-of-center2012
(34,195 posts)Gothmog
(143,999 posts)There are efforts being made to fight these voter suppression tactics.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)Blue_true
(31,261 posts)Renew Deal
(81,801 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Praise articles at redstate.com, and gushingly speak about Ryan and McConnell.
SharonClark
(10,005 posts)dawg
(10,610 posts)it'll really be *Bernie* that we're nominating. (We just won't realize it!)
Eliot Rosewater
(31,097 posts)LexVegas
(6,005 posts)lunamagica
(9,967 posts)Voted to give the gun industry immunity while voting to allow people to due McDonalds for causing obesity.
Voted for the Charleston loophole that resulted in the death of nine victims.
Voted to allow firearms on Amtrack trains.
Voted to allow guns in national parks and wildlife refuges.
Voted to reject funding to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for research on issues about firearms.
Response to DonViejo (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Gothmog
(143,999 posts)A couple of blue states will be adopting these laws before the primary season start and no one can get on the ballot under these laws unless that candidate released tax returns. I think that these laws are valid but trump will challenge them.
Do you support such laws?
Response to Gothmog (Reply #37)
Name removed Message auto-removed
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)leftstreet
(36,078 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)Response to George II (Reply #38)
George II This message was self-deleted by its author.
Response to George II (Reply #38)
Name removed Message auto-removed
George II
(67,782 posts)Six of them have lost. Another finished a distant second in a primary in which the top two are in a run off in Texas.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)Are they actually interested in doing strategic things and making smart choices that have a longer term effect of driving change that leans toward liberal and progressive causes and philosophies?
If the question needs to be asked, then clearly... they're doing it wrong.
George II
(67,782 posts)Their record is 104 wins, 122 losses, and their recent record is worse:
2017 44 wins, 69 losses
2018 1 win, 6 losse
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)If I recall correctly, Turner also said that "OR" would also endorse Republicans over Democrats ... so clearly their objective isn't to help Democrats and/or to help the Democratic party get/keep the majority.
I'll stand by something I've said many times... it seems to me that the only purpose of "Our Revolution" is simply to exist, to be disruptive and get attention (look at me! look at me!) and, of course, to accept donations that pay for the salaries of individuals such as Nina Turner.
lapucelle
(18,037 posts)Cosmo: You've said before that Our Revolution is more interested in endorsing candidates based on beliefs, rather than endorsing along party lines. Does that mean Our Revolution could endorse a Republican?
Nina Turner: Our grassroots affiliate organizations nominate [candidates] up. I can give you real examples they have nominated Green Party members and we have endorsed Green Party members. But, for the sake of argument, if there is a progressive Republican out there that seeks their endorsement [from] Our Revolution, and they go through the local affiliate, there is a strong possibility that they could be endorsed.
Cosmo:But it hasn't happened yet that you've endorsed a Republican?
Nina Turner:Not yet. But listen, any day now. It could happen.
https://www.cosmopolitan.com/politics/a13107999/nina-turner-womens-convention/
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)lapucelle
(18,037 posts)NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)Me.
(35,454 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)If you're into that sort of thing.
murielm99
(30,656 posts)We don't have wings. We do have people trying to divide us.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)They had no trouble agreeing on the Democratic platform because their views were so close.
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)Our Revolution candidates lost 6-1. Not an outstanding showing.
still_one
(91,949 posts)Last edited Fri Mar 30, 2018, 12:20 AM - Edit history (1)
the progressive label. Progressive Democrats have always been a large part of the party, long before he decided to temporarily associate himself as a Democratic to fulfill his political ambitions, and then just as quickly disassociate himself from the Democratic party.
Not lost to anyone who has eyes, the Dan Lipinski win was because it was an open primary. In fact it a large number of those in the Sanders campaign screaming for open primaries, and it was the very reason why the progressive candidate LOST to Lipinski. That progressive candidate is a Democrat, but because it was an Open Primary, and because the republican candidate was a neo-Nazi, most of those republicans crossed over in that primary to vote for the conservative Democrat, and in fact caused the PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRAT to lose.
I find it also curious, but not surprising from Politico, whose publication is notorious for stirring division up, that the biggest upset which was the Doug Jones victory for the Alabama Senate is glossed over.
In fact all the local and state races where Democrats won is glossed over, and so the author of this piece attributes it to this nebulous "Sanders wing" of the party. Not the progressive wing of the Democratic party mind you, but they choose to characterize it with the tag of a person who doesn't wish to be identified with the Democratic party.
Typical coming from Politico
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)Clinton did better than Sanders in open primaries. Caucuses are the only reason the race seemed even remotely close, which is the only reason we are still seeing articles like the one in the OP. I'm a leftist who is often disappointed by mainstream Dems (and by Sanders) but denying reality is equally disappointing. And Sanders supporters have made denial an art form.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)We are in the middle of a giant battle for the future of our nation, and Politico is not neutral and never has been.
COUNTDOWN TO THE MIDTERMS: 221 days.
VOX
(22,976 posts)Youre absolutely correct about the battle for the future of the nation Ive been calling it a war over who gets the naming-rights for reality, since 45s boosters are severely deluded. They say hes doing a bang-up job. I say, in WHAT universe?
herding cats
(19,549 posts)Either we wise up or we lose, again. We're already being played with what should be easy to spot propaganda and we seem to be buying it wholesale... again. It's frustrating.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/democrats-vs-trump/democrats-beware-sanders-movement-turns-midterms-n735301
The establishment party line so vociferously defended in responses to this post simply emphasize that point. The party can move forward with the energy of the left, or it can continue to erode into redundancy. Whatever the direction, the party will evolve. The left isn't going away. The party can embrace the left and move forward stronger, or...not.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)How the Agamemnon Wing won the Trojan War . . .
How the Hirohito Wing won the battle of Iwo Jima . . .
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)A couple of days ago a relative in Oakland phoned and we eventually got around to politics. She's a big Bernie fan and casually mentioned that Bernie had won the California primary.
I changed the subject fast as we've been down that road before though not that particular byway and I've learned that facts don't matter to true believers
still_one
(91,949 posts)Garrett78
(10,721 posts)It's true that the Democratic Party has been getting its ass kicked (the GOP has the WH, the Senate, the House, a clear majority of governorships and a clear majority of state legislatures). And changes need to be made, including the need to make a much bigger stink about voter suppression and gerrymandering.
But that doesn't mean there's a "Bernie wing of the Democratic Party." Bernie and his supporters cling to several myths (about the 2016 primary being rigged, about open primaries, about the success of those endorsed by Our Revolution, etc.). The key constituency of the Democratic Party (persons of color) drove Clinton's victory over Sanders, Jones's victory over Moore, the Virginia success, etc.
radius777
(3,624 posts)who are socially libertarian/conservative and economically hard left, with a nostalgia for the FDR era's white proletariat conservative Dem party... basically they are a revival of the Old Left, whereas the modern liberal Dems are based more upon the social/racial/gender justice of the post-60s New Left.