General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: So Sanders is going back to running as an Indy for his senate seat. [View all]Mediumsizedhand
(531 posts)Right? Ok, he gets a 50/50 mark with free college and HC, but not putting social politics to the side.
See how unfair it is when taking the very definition. But ya, you went after the handful of bluedogs. You got me, except you didn't. That would be the SMALL group that I was referring to in my post.
Now, here is the ironic.
Oregons 5th District - red
Californias 46th Congressional District - very red
Jim Costa (CA-16), - red
I checked out the ones in states that are blue, yet they represent areas that are very red, or at least, red.
I read an Op and often, here, from our faction the failure of the Democrats with the 50 state strategy. Sanders himself being one. Demanding we get into all these areas. Guess..... who is going to be elected in these red areas? Did you guess? That is right..... someone smack in the center. Blue dogs.
So you, others and Sanders has a choice. You want a 50 state plan? Get off the purity. And Sanders himself that walks away from progressive in these areas knowing we cannot elect the progressive because they are advocating social issue. He himself says we have to put that to the side.
Now, I GET that. I am not griping about it. I get if I advocate a plan, I cannot cut out the legs and still cross the finish line.
My questions is, do you get it?
You cannot have both, representation in red areas and that liberal progressive.
Not the point though. You are the one that claimed the Democratic party was not made up of progressives while I argued the vast majority were.