Yes. This. Lamb knows he represents the people of his district and their needs. These are the types we need to be voting for. I will be rooting for him in his next election.
I hear people saying the democrats shouldn’t make it a referendum on Trump.
Fuck yeah they should, we hate the fucking traitorous piece of shit and every house or senate seat we flip takes a way that much more power from him.
The lesson is that Democrats need to actually try, and they may pull off some upsets. Too many Republicans have run unopposed over the years. That causes apathetic districts and unmotivated voters.
Also, the Green party is not your alternative to the Democrats - vote in primaries.
Jill Stein hobnobbed with Putin and Michael Flynn.
In Montana, it was revealed yesterday that the Green Party candidate is on the GOP payroll.
There are tons of good people in the Green Party, but the Party is not good.
Yeah, i don't understand the title of this article. He was not this "TRUMP is BAD" candidate. He spoke to the needs of his people.
Another lesson to take away from this are people who say their vote doesn't matter, or that their district is gerrymandered to hell, are wrong. If this district can go blue, then any district can.
Alabama/Pennsylvania is the one-two combo that will send the GOP reeling. If they can do it, anywhere can do it.
Your votes matter. Your voices matter. We are powerful when we band together - we can make a difference.
In the non political junkie world, people are just sick of hearing about Trump even if they hate him too. I think people responded to Lamb because he sidelined all of the bullshit personality drama and focused on explaining his policies and trying to hear everybody's point of view
And beyond that, he was notedly anti-Pelosi, so he's a really weird choice for a "don't criticize the party" message
Here is the skimmy of it:
Lamb is moderate on some things. He's not calling for sweeping gun bans or anything like that. I bet there are a few things I won't agree with him on.
But at the end of the day, he'd never vote for something like the GOP Tax Bill. He'd never vote for the GOP Healthcare plan. He won't slash the social safety net. He will stand up for unions. He's for sensible gun reform.
And he won a district that is 95% white, filled with steel and coal workers, that voted Trump by 20% in 2016 and historically has been a strong Republican seat (AND gerrymander) for a long time.
Conor Lamb is good for his district. He provides an alternative, non-far right voice (as most Republicans are) to a district that is heavily right-leaning. I support him along with progressives where they can win too.
yes. stop trying to make it a progressive litmus test, and make it about winning. Every district is different. In the more conservative ones, you need a middle of the road guy. You're not going to see Ms. Annie Liberal Pixie Dust winning in Kentucky, so stop crying when she doesn't become the nominee and get to WORK making the candidate with a D next to the name win, BITCH
Leadership doesn’t have to equal the party. The freedom caucus learned this years ago - a dedicated bloc can absolutely push a party in their preferred direction
The article is saying the liberal wing of the party needs to embrace centrist candidates like Lamb running in republican-leaning districts and not engage in purity tests.
Look guys, I'm as happy as anyone who wanted Lamb to win, but I think we need to talk about some very real, sobering things:
The Republicans WILL vote no matter what. Keep in mind this was a special election for a seat that will be gone next year, and it was still a fraction of a percent. They weren't deterred at all.
The swing was hard left BUT we need to get folks out to vote.
The Republicans will try every dirty trick in the book. By the time this is over we may see another few Florida 2000's.
Meaning right now we need to be constantly contacting our reps and demanding that proper oversight be in place for these upcoming elections.
What that one district did last night with the secretive count, expect more of that.
Folks right now, you need to be verifying your registration is in order today. Verify your polling place. Check again sometime this summer. Then again in October. If you are removed, contact a lawyer immediately.
This is a no fucking kidding war we are in right now. This is our last chance to peacefully implement checks and balances during a very dark time.
Find who you know who votes third party, and do your best to convince them to support your candidate. Last night could easily have swung toward Mr. "I eat the oreo before the frosting" if the third party folks swung right, which is what they have a tendency to do.
Last but not least, the Democrats are not going to have a unified message going into this. And that may sound bad, but it isn't. If we need to be an umbrella party, then right now so be it. A lot of heavy progressive ideals may deter folks in certain areas, and even if you live in a dark red Kansas district, and you personally are super liberal, your choice of democrat will probably be a lot different then you want. That is okay. They can have whatever beliefs they want, as long as they vote Democrat, and right now that is what matters right now.
Fundamentally yeah that seems to work. You have to give people something to vote for as the cliche goes. Seems like most of the Dems who won these special races knew their local issues and offered solutions while the Republican attempted to make it about national issues and Pelosi.
I agree. I wish the Democratic Party was more appreciative that we are a big tent party, and that can be one of our greatest strengths. Having various perspectives allows for healthier debates. You don’t want to have a single ideology party — that’s basically the current Trump Party and it’s extremely toxic.
On the other hand, Conor campaigned for:Universal healthcare Against Trump’s tax cuts For expanding background checks For stronger unions Against cuts to Social Security & Medicare For a woman’s right to choose For medical marijuana
I get confused when people claim he’s a “conservative Democrat”. Did you see the same candidate I did? And, he did all that in a Trump+20 district.
I was telling anyone that would listen during the last General Election something similar.
A lot of people who were complaining and making 3rd Party "protest" votes grew up on Obama. That was all they knew. Those of us who remember the Bush years were having none of it but I guess they had to learn the hard way...unfortunately.
Even in districts that are more one-sided, voting matters. There are local issues, state issues (which are not affected by gerrymandering), and the big unspoken factor: money. When races are closer even in "safe" districts, the incumbent party has to spend more time and money and that adds up quickly.
There is no reason to ever skip an election, no matter what. Can't get to the polling place? Vote absentee or vote early. Not enthused by your choices? Research a little deeper and pick the option that does the least harm.
Be educated in the issues, candidates, and the legal/political terminology used on the ballots and always vote. From now until forever.
Lamb's strategy is the road map for Democrats to compete in RURAL areas.
Democrats can represent rural areas. They just need to find the right candidates.
The DNC, however, needs to get over the fact that they aren't going to be PRO-left on ALL the issues.
From what I'm seeing, the real lesson of this election was that people across the board care about healthcare and and strengthening labor unions -- i.e. focus on real progressive policy. That's what I'm hoping other democrats are picking up on. If "embracing centrists" means more corporate lobbyists and deregulation of banks etc, no thanks.
...and keep every race local.
At this point I just want a competent government. I'd like a progressive but I'm not an ideologue, as long as we're working towards improving every metric a country can measured by, I'll take it. I'm really sick of perfect getting in the way of better.
What is their thing against Pelosi?
For long I have seen this irrational hate for Hillary or Pelosi. What is with these stupid ads, slogans, etc just maligning women with intelligence?
How can these insecure people be so tone deaf to keep targeting/blaming the same women again and again and again with no different results? It is like they are completely blind to the achievements of Hilary or Pelosi. Even Warren has been targeted, including the latest on Fox News- some expert challenging her native american roots. This is of importance to the news cycle at Fox news? Someone's native american heritage?
Edit: Just wanted to add that women should not automatically vote for women, cause they are women. But men/women should not automatically disqualify or malign women candidates cause they are 'wimin'. In the age of information technology, it is pure laziness or a disability to not research what your candidate does or does not stand for.
It is weird, isn’t it? Pelosi isn’t really policy person or a thought leader. She’s really just someone who’s great at rallying and organizing votes within the Democratic caucus. I don’t really think she herself has done anything particularly controversial...
I think the other lesson here (along with Doug Jones in AL) is that they need to run candidates that actually represent the constituency. Like, you can run a liberal-libertarian who doesn't fully support the DNC platform but still get better support for legislation from them than a fully conservative candidate, like how Lamb and Jones are both pro-gun but would still support legislation designed to help the middle class, fix healthcare, more fair taxes, etc.
Hopefully the DNC democratic party is finally figuring that out. It's disappointing here because I'd like nothing more than to see Cruz unseated, but I think O'Rourke is going to be too liberal to do so, especially since his recent pro-gun control statements in a race is currently very tight at best.
He sounds like a Conservative party member from Canada. More right wing than I am for sure but I don't actually fear for my future when/if the Conservative party takes over from the Liberals in Canada.
For all their bluster they generally run a fairly sane government except for climate policy.
Oh USA Today - you slay me.
A. Lamb is not a dyed in wool establishment Democrat, and you know that, so your article and title only leads me to believe you really want to shut down progressive dissent. Nice try.
B. We can be critical of those who run for office and still vote for them, if necessary. People are capable of having two thoughts in their head, such as, I don't like candidate X but I'll vote for candidate X because I fear candidate Y more.
NPR was trying to swing the "well isn't this a referendum on Nancy Pelosi?" bullshit this morning. Which I can understand how it's a question, but Detrow wasn't taking no for an answer, which pissed me off. Sure, Lamb used his opposition of Pelosi as a tactic, because its an easy win with some of the Obama-Trump voters, but its not a referendum on her. If anything its just showing that democrats can unite a message without having to all be buddy fucking buddy.
The shit that is constantly thrown at Pelosi is infuriating. Sure, she's not my favorite politician, but I don't care about her, she doesn't represent my district, she doesn't represent me. The democratic party as a whole represents me and shitting on Pelosi only divides the party more.
The title means that liberal bubble-dwellers in places like California should hold back their criticism of Conor Lamb for not reflecting their values 100%.
Let us be a big tent party that can effectively unify behind a wide range of candidates.
Lamb is against the Trump tax cut, supports the ACA, but is pro-gun/owns an AR-15 (he's a former Marine). He also stated he would not vote for Pelosi for Speaker, but he won't be voting for Paul Ryan or any Republicans for Speaker, either.
It's still a huge win for us and the kind of people who went to the DNC and booed our own candidate need to accept people like Conor Lamb into the party.
we should definitely encourage libertarians to run. they are basically republicans who like weed. helps to steal votes away
Especially when it’s women who are leading the resistance. Yet they keep doubling down on trashing female leaders and women’s rights.
Locally, they help him. It's every other representative that should think they are insane.
freedom caucus learned this years ago
They pushed out their Speaker, and made him retire.
....making her dangerous to the GOP, so they threw money at making people dislike her.
And then won some more elections
The libertarian candidate in PA 18 potentially cost saccone the race.
I was on the other side of the argument, because I was mostly sure HRC was going to win, and I legitimately believe that we need to push progressive politics within the Democratic party.
If the DNC is failing to do that, then I understand why someone would try to send a message by turning to the Green party or (in bafflingly stupid cases) the Libertarian party. Hindsight's 20/20, and while I didn't vote for Stein, and considered her a shitty candidate in most respects, I wish I'd actively tried to convince the folks I know that she wasn't the real deal. It's pretty crystal clear now who was pulling her strings.
All that said, this is an important question and honestly I'm not sure where I land right now.
When, and how should progressives and "lefties" as a whole speak up and try to make a change in how the Democratic party does business?
I'm all for a blue wave here - 100%. If we have a chance to unseat a GOP incumbent with any kind of Democratic candidate, progressive or blue dog or what have you, let's show some fucking solidarity.
That said, progressive policies are generally good and honestly I believe they're what we need in a lot of cases, and there has to be a reckoning from time to time to keep the overton window from stalling out or drifting back to the right within the Democratic party as a whole.
I'm totally on board with what you're saying, and if that means a ton of centrists in areas that would normally elect a GOP candidate, then boy-howdy let's do that -
But I don't think we should lionize any Democratic candidate that can win a seat to the point where they're above reproach from the left or somehow immune to being primaried, challenged by a third party, or criticized by people who want to see a more progressive party.
We need a big tent here, I get that, but within the tent let's not forget who the party is supposed to be for: Working class people, families, single moms, people of color, veterans, immigrants, neuro-divergent folks, people with disabilities, the lgbtq community, women, and all our varied populations of people who tend to be silenced, stomped on, and / or legislated against by religious zealots, bigots, and corporate forces with seemingly limitless cash reserves.
I know a lot of people can't stomach how the Democratic primary went down for a number of various reasons. Most Democrats have a bad taste in their mouth about that to this day, no matter who they supported or what the perceived slights against their preferred candidate were.
But something great that came out of that process was that the progressive wing of the party got active, talked about a lot of ideas for how we can improve our lives together, and a lot of those ideas were good enough that Hillary Clinton published and ran on one of the most progressive Democratic party platforms I've seen in three or four decades.
I don't think her loss had anything to do with her policies, and I don't think she would have come to the table with progressives and considered those policies if she wasn't under pressure from the left.
Anyway /rant. Vote for Democratic candidates please everybody - but let's figure out how we can have our cake and eat it too without turning the DNC into such a big tent that it encompasses every leftist, centrist/moderate, and right-of-center policy idea, because then we're just going to be the party of not-GOP, and I think we can do better than that for people who need a strong social safety net and a government that has the prosperity of all of us in mind.
This is how Danica Roem won in Virginia. Her opponent was a Republican demagogue who wanted to keep her out of the women's room. She went door to door and asked people what she could do to help and based her campaign around their real needs.
The best part about this strategy is that now people who'd never met someone who was transgender saw that she was a normal person who definitely did not belong in the men's room, undermining her opponent's argument and making him look like an idiot.
Pass laws to make sure president's can't run without releasing their tax returns. Or any federal elected office. Pretty much pass laws that we left to the good will and ethics of the parties, because Republicans don't give a single fuck.
Then? Keep winning elections until the Republican Party is no longer viable.
Point being, I think it's perfectly reasonable to be critical of people in your own party if you think an individual in said party supports a policy that will hurt a majority of people. Even if the tariffs somehow helped some people in his district, overall they probably hurt MORE people in the same district.
Being critical of your own party DOES NOT mean you are automatically NOT critical of the other party. Too much this day and age, people seem to think in "on or off terms." You can be angry at Trump and the GOP for their bad policies and still be upset with your candidates for not supporting an agenda representative of your party as a whole. Embracing a Democratic candidate who bends their beliefs to appear more moderate or conservative on issues hasn't proven successful. Why would people vote for someone who doesn't stand firmly for what they believe?
It's that kind of pressure that has pushed Democrats to support Medicare for All. Look at the pressure put on Cory Booker for his pharmaceutical company support; he comes out later to co-sign a bill he previously rejected because of the criticism and pressure. That's why it's perfectly reasonable to get angry at your own candidates. This is an irresponsible article.
Seems like the winning strategy for incorporating the president seems like ‘Trump and Republicans are fucking you over on local issues A, B, and C. I feel your pain, and will better represent your interests on these issues.”
I usually hate how the term ‘bubble’ gets thrown around, but it probably applies here. People frequenting this subreddit are usually more engaged with national and international politics than most voters. So yeah make it a referendum on Trump, but we’ve got to tie that into issues that directly impact voters more than money laundering and wikileaks.
He is also in favor of the tariffs. This headline doesn't make sense.
For those who don't vote because they feel there is nothing to vote for, we now know there is plenty to get out & vote against.
Also will fight for our "entitlements", SS & Medicare. Which BTW is something that should be rebranded, since the GOP has hijacked the term giving it a negative meaning. "Investment Returns"?
Would you rather have a centrist democrat, or the insanity of the GOP? Because that's often the question. If you attack those centrist democrats (note that is different from offering an alternative viewpoint), then you help the crazies in the other party. Please don't help the crazies.
We should be disgusted, and that outrage should lead to action. Ignoring the issues because you are either tired of hearing them or because you find them uncomfortable leads to ignorance, and ignorance leads to more Trumps.
I've been saying this since the 2016 election. Boo fucking hoo that Hillary Clinton wasn't as liberal as Bernie Sanders. So what?? In practice- politics is all about pragmatism and not necessarily ideology.
Keep in mind this was a special election for a seat that will be gone next year, and it was still a fraction of a percent. They weren't deterred at all.
This district won't exist next year and it won't be a fraction of a percent unless both candidates are really good. The point reason it was as close as it was is because of the gerrymandering
Those of us who remember the Reagan and Clinton years feel the kids will probably be ok. It’s honestly mostly the fault of the people in my generation and my parents’ generation.
The DNC has nothing to do with these races.
I know it became an all powerful shadow org around here because it's easier to buy into that then realize some hard truths, but in reality the DNC has virtually no power over congressional races and almost no power on primary races.
It's because she's an effective Speaker and they're terrified of her.
Boehner wasn't a good speaker. He was destroying his liver and just gave up eventually. Paul Ryan is the shittiest speaker of all time, even worse that convicted pedophile Dennis Hastert and odious slimeball Newt Gingrich, neither of whom were actually that good.
Pelosi was the only truly good Speaker of the House in the last two decades, which is why the Republicans love to vilify her. Their guys were shit, so they have to make our gal look awful.
Vote for Democratic candidates please everybody - but let's figure out how we can have our cake and eat it too without turning the DNC into such a big tent that it encompasses every leftist, centrist/moderate, and right-of-center policy idea, because then we're just going to be the party of not-GOP, and I think we can do better than that for people who need a strong social safety net and a government that has the prosperity of all of us in mind.
I'm honestly perfectly fine with Dems being that big fucking tent. For now. Because the GOP is an existential threat to the republic and every means that has enabled that 25% of authoritarians to control this country must be dismantled. They need to be beaten into irrelevance and every system which they used to gain power, like the electoral college, gerrymandered districts, propaganda using social media algorithms, and other such propaganda media need to be ended.
To achieve that I'm more than happy to have lefitsts, centrists and center-rightys join us.
GOP delenda est.
I mean, if 2016 had gone the way it should have:
The Dems would have the Senate (most important thing everyone overlooks)
We'd have the first liberal Supreme Court in 40 years.
Clinton would be President.
Sanders would be the most important and influential Senator in America. (We'd be working on bills he was introducing, instead of struggling to keep our heads above water)
Elections have consequences.
"If you vote for me I'll work to get the pot holes fixed" is a lot more compelling than "If you vote for me I'll find out if Russia stole our election."
It's the eight minutes of hate. Republicans and rightwingers need a boogieman to rally against.
Once Clinton was out, they so predictably and transparently turned to attacking Pelosi... taking along some of the more useful idiots on the fringe left as well
If only we could be so lucky that Republicans were more like lamb.
But also remember Danica Roem the transgender candidate that won a Virginia district that had previously gone (term after term after term ...) to Bob Marshall. Bob was obsessed with which bathroom people used. Danica focused on traffic and other local issues. Danica won.
TIL - when Clinton fought for healthcare in the 90s it didn’t count as progressive policy. It certainly didn’t stop her from being labeled a centrist.
I think the point is, don't demand ideological purity from people who are mostly on your side. The alt right / white nationalist faction is far too strong for us not to present a united front. I don't like Lamb's position on guns, but he would not have gotten elected otherwise
You need more of a campaign than "Fuck Trump". It's OK for that to be a major part of the campaign, but not the entire thing
Just to nitpick, he didn't overpromise. His platform was extremely ambitious, but he was clear that even if he were to be elected, he wouldn't have the power to do almost anything he was proposing. That's why we heard him talking about the need for a "Political Revolution" all the time.
He's not a dummy, and wasn't treating the public like dummies - as a veteran politician, he knows better than most that big changes don't generally just happen without broad coalitions, political will, and public support.
He's been talking about the need to organize, mobilize, and change the political winds for at least the 20 or so years I've been seeing him speak.
I feel like even a lot of Sanders supporters miss this, and it's kinda important.
The easy slur is to say he's promising free college and single payer on day 1, but that kind of thing has literally never come out of his mouth.
What he did that's great though, is introduce progressive ideas like that to a lot of people who'd never thought that way before.
And to be fair, I can see how folks who are used to political promises would misunderstand his platform, and just assume he was doing the "politician thing" of promising things they have no power to actually fulfill on.
Or that he's "Republican lite"
What is their thing against Pelosi?
She is a known name, was the majority leader during Obama and she is from San Francisco, California. All things most Republican tribes are programmed to hate.
There's so many people in here that want to primary Manchin...which is only gonna be conducive to a GOP win.
I'm going to continue to get angry at politicians who do shit they shouldn't do. No one is immune from that and they all deserve to be criticized when it happens.
I disagree. The article is about the Democratic party eschewing ideological purity tests and supporting candidates who can win in their districts despite not falling neatly in line.
Yeah I'd be Willing to bet a large portion of Clinton voters weren't exactly happy with voting for her but they still did.
Vote D, any Democrat, until Trump is impeached.
After we've purged the government of Russian traitors and corruption then we can go back to infighting.
Horseshit. Fuck Trump. We have better ideas. run on those
I agree, It’s extremely irresponsible.
We’re not supposed to be critical of our own party? We’re not playing for teams we’re fighting for policy. To say otherwise is moronic
And it's so bad that even fucking NPR falls for it.
To illustrate this, I like to look at the difference between a D and an R Senator in the same state. For example, Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV).
Manchin is the most conservative Democratic Senator. He votes with Donald Trump 59.1% of the time.
Shelley Moore Capito is pretty much a typical (maybe slightly right of median) Republican. She votes with Trump 95.4% of the time.
Sure, it'd be nice to have another Gillibrand instead of Manchin. Unfortunately, that's not really possible. If your options are Manchin or Moore Capito, you take the former 100 times out of 100.
I'd like both. I think a lot of people would. We can do both.... It's not that hard.
How long are they going to malign 50% of the population without consequences?
Yes. This is all it is. I was reading voter quotes from last night, people in line saying they liked Lamb but couldn't vote for him because of one word: "Pelosi". It's no wonder Lamb had to overtly distance himself from her; she is the new enemy du jour for the GOP.
I'm not convinced that a lot of the infighting against Hillary wasn't manufactured to Putin's delight.
Somehow people here feel that anyone right of Sanders is 'pretty much a Republican'. I've long told people to stop the purity test BS.
I think you answered it... women + intelligence are an existential crisis for the GOP.
Yeah yeah "don't criticize the party, vote unquestioningly for the Democrat, fall in line, do as we say, the Republicans are so bad we can be slightly less bad so you need to vote for us because we said so".
No. Criticize the party. Demand better. Back progressives. The Democrats are not entitled to your vote.
Please stop bringing CA into this. Believe it or not, CA has plenty of moderate democrats. The ultra progressive wing is people on, sorry to say, /sub/politics, who engage in purity test and label anyone right of Sanders 'pretty much a Republican'.
I was here during the election, and the amount of slander towards Clinton was unreal, calling her a Republican in disguise.
Fact is, the dems need a moderate wing, and not understanding that different districts require different type of candidate is a surefire way of not gaining the majority.
I'm really sick of perfect getting in the way of better.
amen to that
Maryland passed a tax return bill just last week!
I thought she'd be best at the things Trump is worst at--actually running the government from day to day and keeping it functional and coherent. I also figured her technocratic impulses (which are all liberal, but more institutionalized refinements than broad reforms) could be well complimented by a more left-leaning and activist congress. Would have loved to see Sanders, Warren, Booker, and Harris all debating our new Medicaid-for all bill, with Clinton's folks running around making sure the numbers worked out.
Another lesson: You can win the white working class if you actually try to represent them. We'll see if anyone pays attention to that.
How about "Public Safety Net"
In addition, don't fall for the bait. There are literally bots pushing that Lamb is a Republican-lite when he clearly is not. They know that Dem/progressive in-fighting is a winning strategy for Republicans - they did the same thing with Bernie Bros and with Hilary in general, trying to get Dems to stay home.
Actually work together to pass legislation that actually helps make life better for people?
Meanwhile, Pelosi's biggest scandal was to make a statement separating liberal democrats from socialists and communists. Shouldn't conservatives be happy that she's a capitalist?
Instead they want to talk about scandal without ever actually claiming what the scandal is.
So let me get this straight:
No Pac Money
Strong Union / workers rights
Criticized the final product of Obamacare - (which was a watered down lieberman/GOP sabotaged mess)
Personally doesn't approve of abortion - but doesn't let his beliefs get in the way of his constituents beliefs - so he votes Pro-Choice
and this makes him a moderate?
One of the candidate trying to take down our local R is running on "If you vote for me I'll fight to protect your healthcare."
“I’m running because people’s lives are at stake. Everyone is going to suffer under this [AHCA] health care bill that Jody has voted on,” Montgomery said. “He voted to pass the house version of the AHCA on a Thursday. My husband lost his job on a Friday. On that Saturday, my daughter emptied her piggy bank and offered to pay for her care herself. As a parent I can’t allow her to see that there is no one standing for her...I decided that person needed to be me.”
Dems will have to go against gerrymandering as well.
Good point. We will be way better off with a Republican winning the seat instead...
If that's the only way to win a majority which do you pick? Lose a few battles to win the war? How far do you go to remove the GOP from power? Which is worst, getting a few Dems that vote on SOME stuff that you don't like or keeping the GOP that will vote on EVERYTHING you don't like. If it has to be between those two, which will you choose?
"Lamb swore off corporate PAC money and has disparaged his opponent for relying heavily on “dark money.” 45Committee, a 501(c)(4) that does not have to disclose its donors, spent over $563,000 supporting Saccone.
But even conventional Democratic Party groups showed Lamb less support than conventional Republican groups did their candidate.
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), which has raised $114.8 million in the 2018 election cycle and was sending out fundraising emails on behalf of Lamb as late as Monday afternoon, reported just $312,500 in outside spending on the race, whereas the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) spent over $3.5 million". https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2018/03/pa-special-election18/
The thing that really annoys me about it, though, is how many Democrats are willing to buy into this bullshit propaganda against Pelosi, and Clinton too.
There's no other left politicians that the right has been so successful in convincing the left that they should hate. It's hard not to see rampant sexism in that.
This guy voted for the Green Party...
My parents taught me (and I assume everyone elses did too) "pick your battles".
You want to challenge a conservative Democrat in a solidly blue district? Have at it!!!
But you can't use the same approach in a red district like this one.
I think Gen Z is also gonna be very politically involved. Together, millennials and gen z are gonna be unstoppable
No, she can't because in addition to roads and schools (that will remove prayer and let males use the female bathroom) Annie Pixie Dust will also talk about guns and abortion.
The Democratic party can have these on their platform and that's fine, but if the Democrats make a race to the left like the Republicans did to the right, we will end up with extremist screaming about socialism and cannibalizing their intra-party colleagues.
Leftist litmus test is a strategy that might be ideologically pure (which is reason enough to avoid it) but also a strategy designed to fail.
Nothing has gotten my wife to use her phone less and check facebook less frequently than the last year of Trump news bullshit. She gets disgusted whenever I bring it up, so now we just talk about literally anything else. I kinda like it, we've made Trump sort of a bad word in our house.