who are you for?
Party leaders are not strategic geniuses, they just really like moderates, new research finds
- Thread starter Padawanbater2
- Start date
who are you for?
Unclebaldrick
Well-Known Member
Lol. You are smart and attractive.
srh88
Well-Known Member
People are still dying everyday. I know you don't care about brown people.. but they are a part of this country too. People of the United States are dying because of a lack of basic resources.
But yes, 2020 is more important right now.
srh88
Well-Known Member
Bullshit.
Unclebaldrick
Well-Known Member
Unclebaldrick
Well-Known Member
But she was in the military (mock horror)! Some say that parts of her still are. Tty says that's bad!
Besides, illinos just had a turn.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Sounds like somebody is pre-convicting political opponents without valid evidence or due process because they lack an actual substantive rebuttal
You should look up the FEC record Justice Democrats filed in 2017 and stop embarrassing yourself and others. Unless you have evidence to provide that JD was always just some scam designed to pay out every cent to the founders, or whatever conspiracy you've decided to concoct because actual progressives are actaully defeating establishment Democrats across the counrty...
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
The first response to an opponent they fear is to lie and smear...
Unclebaldrick
Well-Known Member
RIGGED!!!
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
So what did they do with the $1.8 million then
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
So, what happened to that 1.8 million dollars that weren't spent on campaigns? It's not as if Progressives(tm) are doing all that well.
Candidates endorsed by Our Revolution lose about 60% of the time. They are mainly successful in safely liberal districts running against against other progressives.
Is this where you pick the one or two Progressive (tm) candidates who actually did defeat a conservative Democrat? I read up on the one in Nebraska. She seems like a really good candidate who beat a really bad one for the Democratic party nomination. Well, the person she beat would be considered a bad candidate in Oregon. The good Progressive(tm) candidate who won in Nebraska is probably going to lose in the general election because she is too liberal for Nebraska. You may not have noticed but Nebraska isn't California or Oregon.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
So, what happened to that $1.8 million?Will you please stop copying Bucky then adding TLDR material?
It’s creepy..as if his comment isn’t enough..it’s actually a slam to him like he’s retarded and you have to explain- YOU don’t need to explain him- he does well on his own. You’ve done this several times in the last week and I find it annoying.
And wipe your mouth too, you have a little..you know
Is it that you don't care if Justice Democrats are corrupt because they are on your team?
Our Revolution hasn't updated it's "results" page. A cursory look at how well their candidates did in Tuesday's primaries shows why. I checked the first 6 listed for California candidates and Cult of Sanders candidates were 0 for 6.
Your so-called Progressive(tm) movement is failing.
Last edited:
Unclebaldrick
Well-Known Member
Last edited:
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
It was spent on campaigns. Read the FEC reports Justice Democrats filed, every cent is recorded because it matters where money comes from and goes to in that organization. The entire premise is based around campaign finance reform, that politicians can't be trusted to vote when they accept legal bribes from corporations and elites. People don't just give money to politicians for nothing. When I donate to a politicians campaign, I expect that politician to represent me, that's in fact why I donate to them, because they've already proven they in fact do represent me. The same policy works for anyone, including corporations. That's why the financial industry, the pharmaceutical and insurance industries, energy companies, etc. all donate to Democratic campaigns; Establishment Democrats support things like deregulation of banks, oppose importing cheaper medications from safer manufacturing countries than the US and universal healthcare coverage for all Americans, and are at best weak on climate change regulations and at worst, actively support Republican held beliefs.
In regards to each of these positions establishment Democrats support because they're legally bribed to support them, Americans suffer. Deregulation of banks leads to economic collapse, people lose their jobs, their homes, their livelihoods, everything. Numbers ranged in the millions in 2008-09 and not a single banking executive was held accountable for it by the Obama administration justice department. 14 sitting Democratic Senators just voted to roll back the already weak regulations administered in Dodd-Frank which will inevitably lead to another, much worse, economic crash in the future. A handful of Democratic Senators voted against a bill that would have allowed Americans a better chance at affording their medicine by importing drugs from countries with more stringent drug regulations than the US.
Sure, if your standard is 100% wins. Progressives are actually doing remarkably well, especially considering the amount of time groups have had to organize since the 2016 election. Progressives have won all across the US, in deep red districts that have been held by Republican incumbents for decades you previously claimed were impossible to change. It turns out pushing an actual progressive platform wins back seats.
Sanders won Nebraska by more than 14%
If she wins, you don't get to pretend like you supported her the whole time like you like to pretend you do with actual progressives when they win. You're not a progressive, you're a moderate. You can tell by the way you only support establishment candidates and toe the party line. Every time a progressive wins, your narrative gets a little bit weaker. You don't get to then come out and claim you supported the progressive the whole time.
Last edited:
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Justice Democrats only spent $18,000 on campaigns. This is based upon FEC reports. I have no idea what you are reading but Open Secrets clearly states FEC reports.
As in:
*Based on data released by the FEC on June 07, 2018 except for independent expenditure and communication cost, contributions to federal candidates, and contributions from individual donor data, which were released by the FEC on May 21, 2018.
https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00630665&cycle=2018
As far as Nebraska goes, it doesn't matter how liberal the small population of Democrats are. When it comes to the general election, the state is heavily Republican. Trump won the state by 30% margin. District 2 is one of the few districts where Clinton narrowly won a majority (1.2% margin for Clinton). It's not exactly California liberal paradise. Eastman might carry the district but it won't be an earthshaking defeat for Republicans if she does win. Personally, I don't think she's going to win. I think she's too liberal for Nebraska, even in toss-up District 2. That said, I'll be glad if she wins. We need as many Democrats in the House as possible. I'd vote for her.
Don't make me laugh when you brag about winning 40% of primaries that Our Revolution enters. Even when they game the system as best they can, they still come out behind.
Bernie's political movement is in disarray.
I'm a progressive. The Congressmen that I voted for are good progressives. I'm also realistic. Most of the country is more conservative than I am. Running California type liberals in most parts of the country is a dumb strategy. Even Our Revolution understands this as shown by where they place their endorsements. That you don't understand this says more about your naivete or lack of intelligence than anything else.
The objective is to win the House so that Trump's initiative will be stalled. California-type ideological purity, especially when it's reflected in half assed bills like Bernie's healthcare bill is an obstacle, not a help towards achieving this objective.
Last edited:
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
[QUOTE="Padawanbater2, post: 14291895, member: 232653"] Establishment Democrats support things like deregulation of banks, oppose importing cheaper medications from safer manufacturing countries than the US and universal healthcare coverage for all Americans, and are at best weak on climate change regulations and at worst, actively support Republican held beliefs.
[/QUOTE]
By your definition of an Establishment Democrat, only about 30% of Democrats fit that description. The rest -- about 70% -- are progressives.
[/QUOTE]
By your definition of an Establishment Democrat, only about 30% of Democrats fit that description. The rest -- about 70% -- are progressives.
Unclebaldrick
Well-Known Member
Stop! You are making him feel less special. Respect the green type!
he supports- the winner.
no but it makes me fight harder
on voter suppression issues.
i remember that day many were turned away including a millennial couple with baby stroller. the wife was blaming husband and said 'i hope our vote wasn't the one needed to put him over the top'..too bad that was already decided for us.
we the people are waiting to speak our voices- and we will roar.
