The Democratic establishment does not support progressives

Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
There's been a bit of discussion about which Democratic candidates the DCCC and the DNC support and why they're supporting them. Establishment rhetoric says they're supporting the candidates they believe can defeat Republicans, which means in traditionally red states/districts, they support the moderate Democratic candidate over the more progressive one. The argument being that voters in said states/districts will be more accepting of moderate ideals over progressive ones, despite polling

..But why does the DCCC/DNC put their support behind moderate candidates in progressive states/districts, like Dianne Feinstein? She's unarguably one of the most conservative Democratic Senators in congress who is supposed to represent one of the most progressive states in the union. She supports the illegal domestic NSA spying program on Americans, she supported the Iraq War, deregulating Wall Street, etc.

So why would the Democratic establishment push for corporate candidates in one of the most progressive states in the union instead of an actual progressive voters support?

Why try to slander an actual progressive in Texas, Laura Moser, before the Democratic primary?

Why does it appear as if the Democratic establishment is actively supporting/conducting campaigns that oppose actual progressives while propping up the candidates that hold more moderate positions on business?


If you disagree with this assessment, that's fine. But I doubt you can name a single actually progressive candidate who supports populist left positions like universal healthcare or debt free college the Democratic establishment supports over the establishment candidate the business community, billionaires, and the 1% support. If you can, please do, but you can't, because they don't, because they're supporting candidates that they know are unlikely to support any kind of change to the status quo that keeps them employed.
 
Last edited:
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
There's been a bit of discussion about which Democratic candidates the DCCC and the DNC support and why they're supporting them. Establishment rhetoric says they're supporting the candidates they believe can defeat Republicans, which means in traditionally red states/districts, they support the moderate Democratic candidate over the more progressive one. The argument being that voters in said states/districts will be more accepting of moderate ideals over progressive ones, despite polling

..But why does the DCCC/DNC put their support behind moderate candidates in progressive states/districts, like Dianne Feinstein? She's unarguably one of the most conservative Democratic Senators in congress who is supposed to represent one of the most progressive states in the union. She supports the illegal domestic NSA spying program on Americans, she supported the Iraq War, deregulating Wall Street, etc.

So why would the Democratic establishment push for corporate candidates in one of the most progressive states in the union instead of an actual progressive voters support?

Why try to slander an actual progressive in Texas, Laura Moser, before the Democratic primary?

Why does it appear as if the Democratic establishment is actively supporting/conducting campaigns that oppose actual progressives while propping up the candidates that hold more moderate positions on business?


If you disagree with this assessment, that's fine. But I doubt you can name a single actually progressive candidate who supports populist left positions like universal healthcare or debt free college the Democratic establishment supports over the establishment candidate the business community, billionaires, and the 1% support. If you can, please do, but you can't, because they don't, because they're supporting candidates that they know are unlikely to support any kind of change to the status quo that keeps them employed.
Click to expand...
You ask questions as if they are an assessment. You include strawman arguments in those questions too.

DID the DCCC slander Laura Moser or were they running a tough campaign that brought up information she would have faced in the fall election?

I've checked out a few articles on this, such as:

https://www.vox.com/2018/3/7/17084808/dccc-laura-moser-texas-democratic-primary-2018
https://www.vox.com/2018/4/30/17274992/laura-moser-texas-7th-congressional-district-houston-dccc-opposition-memo

I also read the opposition memo:
https://dccc.org/races/laura-moser/

The part of that memo that most aggravates so called progressives is:
Moser just moved to Texas from Washington, DC. (BACKUP)

In a November 2014 article, Moser said she’d rather have her “teeth pulled without anesthesia” than live in Texas. (BACKUP)

As of January 2018, Moser was still receiving the DC Homestead Exemption on her property in Washington, DC. (BACKUP)

In 2017, Moser paid over $50,000 in campaign money to her husband’s DC consulting firm. More than 1 of every 6 dollars spent by her campaign went straight into her husband’s DC company’s bank account. (BACKUP)

I've read many statements claiming outrage but not one word denying those statements as facts. If they are true, then she would have faced them in the fall. If they are true and she wins, then it's best that they come out now. If they are true then they aren't slander.

I like how she's fighting back. I'd like to see her address the facts rather than just cry foul. Political contests aren't about being nice and having tea together at the end of the day.
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
Address the other 95% of the post

Without the talking points

"There's been a bit of discussion about which Democratic candidates the DCCC and the DNC support and why they're supporting them. Establishment rhetoric says they're supporting the candidates they believe can defeat Republicans, which means in traditionally red states/districts, they support the moderate Democratic candidate over the more progressive one. The argument being that voters in said states/districts will be more accepting of moderate ideals over progressive ones, despite polling

..But why does the DCCC/DNC put their support behind moderate candidates in progressive states/districts, like Dianne Feinstein? She's unarguably one of the most conservative Democratic Senators in congress who is supposed to represent one of the most progressive states in the union. She supports the illegal domestic NSA spying program on Americans, she supported the Iraq War, deregulating Wall Street, etc.

So why would the Democratic establishment push for corporate candidates in one of the most progressive states in the union instead of an actual progressive voters support?

Why does it appear as if the Democratic establishment is actively supporting/conducting campaigns that oppose actual progressives while propping up the candidates that hold more moderate positions on business?

If you disagree with this assessment, that's fine. But I doubt you can name a single actually progressive candidate who supports populist left positions like universal healthcare or debt free college the Democratic establishment supports over the establishment candidate the business community, billionaires, and the 1% support. If you can, please do, but you can't, because they don't, because they're supporting candidates that they know are unlikely to support any kind of change to the status quo that keeps them employed."
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
Address the other 95% of the post

Without the talking points

"There's been a bit of discussion about which Democratic candidates the DCCC and the DNC support and why they're supporting them. Establishment rhetoric says they're supporting the candidates they believe can defeat Republicans, which means in traditionally red states/districts, they support the moderate Democratic candidate over the more progressive one. The argument being that voters in said states/districts will be more accepting of moderate ideals over progressive ones, despite polling

..But why does the DCCC/DNC put their support behind moderate candidates in progressive states/districts, like Dianne Feinstein? She's unarguably one of the most conservative Democratic Senators in congress who is supposed to represent one of the most progressive states in the union. She supports the illegal domestic NSA spying program on Americans, she supported the Iraq War, deregulating Wall Street, etc.

So why would the Democratic establishment push for corporate candidates in one of the most progressive states in the union instead of an actual progressive voters support?

Why does it appear as if the Democratic establishment is actively supporting/conducting campaigns that oppose actual progressives while propping up the candidates that hold more moderate positions on business?

If you disagree with this assessment, that's fine. But I doubt you can name a single actually progressive candidate who supports populist left positions like universal healthcare or debt free college the Democratic establishment supports over the establishment candidate the business community, billionaires, and the 1% support. If you can, please do, but you can't, because they don't, because they're supporting candidates that they know are unlikely to support any kind of change to the status quo that keeps them employed."
Click to expand...
Waaaaaasaaahhhhhhh
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
Address the other 95% of the post
Click to expand...
95% of the post was just leading questions and straw man arguments. If you want to be taken seriously learn how to form logical arguments.

I answered the only part that was interesting. The DCCC didn't slander Moser. They pointed out that, for Texas, she's not a good candidate to win in November and explained why.

Padawanbater2 said:
Address the other 95% of the post
..But why does the DCCC/DNC put their support behind moderate candidates in progressive states/districts, like Dianne Feinstein? She's unarguably one of the most conservative Democratic Senators in congress who is supposed to represent one of the most progressive states in the union. She supports the illegal domestic NSA spying program on Americans, she supported the Iraq War, deregulating Wall Street, etc.

So why would the Democratic establishment push for corporate candidates in one of the most progressive states in the union instead of an actual progressive voters support?

Why does it appear as if the Democratic establishment is actively supporting/conducting campaigns that oppose actual progressives while propping up the candidates that hold more moderate positions on business?

If you disagree with this assessment, that's fine. But I doubt you can name a single actually progressive candidate who supports populist left positions like universal healthcare or debt free college the Democratic establishment supports over the establishment candidate the business community, billionaires, and the 1% support. If you can, please do, but you can't, because they don't, because they're supporting candidates that they know are unlikely to support any kind of change to the status quo that keeps them employed."
Click to expand...
Your leading questions are straw man arguments. Dianne Feinstein isn't conservative. Who are the corporate candidates? Why are they corporate candidate? Why does it "appear"...? WTF?

I can't disagree with that. I can't agree with that. It wasn't an assessment. It was a set of leading questions and Strawman arguments.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
That's the excuse you use to avoid actually answering the questions posed
Click to expand...
Go back and look at the post, derp


Padawanbater2 said:
Address the other 95% of the post

Without the talking points

"There's been a bit of discussion about which Democratic candidates the DCCC and the DNC support and why they're supporting them. Establishment rhetoric says they're supporting the candidates they believe can defeat Republicans, which means in traditionally red states/districts, they support the moderate Democratic candidate over the more progressive one. The argument being that voters in said states/districts will be more accepting of moderate ideals over progressive ones, despite polling

..But why does the DCCC/DNC put their support behind moderate candidates in progressive states/districts, like Dianne Feinstein? She's unarguably one of the most conservative Democratic Senators in congress who is supposed to represent one of the most progressive states in the union. She supports the illegal domestic NSA spying program on Americans, she supported the Iraq War, deregulating Wall Street, etc.

So why would the Democratic establishment push for corporate candidates in one of the most progressive states in the union instead of an actual progressive voters support?

Why does it appear as if the Democratic establishment is actively supporting/conducting campaigns that oppose actual progressives while propping up the candidates that hold more moderate positions on business?

If you disagree with this assessment, that's fine. But I doubt you can name a single actually progressive candidate who supports populist left positions like universal healthcare or debt free college the Democratic establishment supports over the establishment candidate the business community, billionaires, and the 1% support. If you can, please do, but you can't, because they don't, because they're supporting candidates that they know are unlikely to support any kind of change to the status quo that keeps them employed."
Click to expand...
It was just a bunch of leading questions, every damn one of the were based upon false assumptions.

Which candidates are you whining about that DCCC support who are moderate? I'll be glad to talk with you about specific candidates. Recall the Colorado race you were whining about? The one where you didn't know anything about the progressive candidate or what made them so great? It's my guess you no idea what "moderates" you are whining about and what makes them so bad for the district they are running in. And Dianne Feinstein isn't a conservative. If she is no longer fit to stand for office in California, then why can't you whining babies then muster up a candidate and resources to defeat her? You have to win elections, not cry rigged. Not if you want to affect policy and legislation. Grow the fuck up.

What's a corporate candidate? Who is a corporate candidate and why do you call them that?
I'll be glad to talk with you about specific people and their opponents, not "why dems back corprte candudittes.". Jeez

"Why does it appear" How can I answer a question that only you can answer. You tell me why it appears and be specific.

If you want to be treated like a somebody worth talking to then try harder.

Look at my response to you regarding Mosbey. It was specific, clear and I defended my position. You can damn well do the same.
 
S

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
https://therealnews.com/stories/hot-picks-from-tuesdays-primaries-with-blogger-howie-klein-of-downwithtyranny

The DCCC is making a habit of picking anyone BUT a Progressive, to the point of ignoring any who won their primaries. They seem to much prefer Blue Dog Democrats.

So maybe we should call them the Blue Dog Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. You know, truth in advertising.
Click to expand...

I read the transcript. It was refreshingly free of the propaganda that you usually post.

Liberal idealists that you are so convinced can win anywhere are doing well in liberal areas. The Nebraska district where a liberal idealist won over the sitting conservative and accurately described as Blue Dog Democrat will be interesting to watch. DCCC doesn't think she can win. Prove them wrong. This is a good test of your theory. I think your theory just lost Democrats a seat in the House.

I've lived in Idaho. It's good that one of the first people won the Democratic Party's nomination. I would have voted for her if I lived there. As was said in the transcript, probably doesn't Democrats don't nave much of a chance in that state. Not saying zero but that's a very red state. It would take some really bad news for the Republican, ala Roy Moore-style in order a Democrat to win.
 
Last edited:
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top