Obviously, no should be surprised at Manchin voting to confirm Cannon because he hasn’t met a way to fuck Democrats that he hasn’t enjoyed, but I’m surprised at Chris Murphy. I would have thought he had more sense than to be duped by the Fed Soc.
If Biden does get another term, perhaps he could go with an AG who DOESN’T have their own Federalist Society fanpage, which would be just about anyone besides Garland.
I'm 63, and agree. He wants to do so much more, but needs a Democratic House, and more Dems in the Senate to help him. People upset that Biden hasn't done more need to understand that.
‘The far-less “fun” fact is that 12 Senate Democrats voted to confirm her: Chris Murphy, Tom Carper, Chris Coons, Maggie Hassan, Catherine Cortez Masto, Jackie Rosen, Tim Kaine, Mark Warner, Joe Manchin, Patrick Leahy, Dianne Feinstein, and Doug Jones, who’d just lost re-election so I’m not sure what he had to gain from his support for Trump’s nominee.‘
The centrists, or DINOs of the party. Although Feinstein was probably infirm and Republican-lite at the time, ‘wheeling’ in her performance.
Welp in the end whatever the misdeeds of President Klan Robe and co., there's always a Democrat at fault.
Given how headassed Cannon's ruling was, this was probably inevitable even if Garland had picked a U.S. Attorney. After all, Fani Willis brought her charges in a timely fashion and wouldn't you know it, some other Hail Mary came in and delayed the trial.
I still have a feeling we'd still be here; this is the same court. That said I am slightly more lenient about getting these cases right because if you rush that's also fucked.
Mind you I think Garland should be gone for a different reason, namely the appointment of Robert Hur, and the lack of oversight over the bad-faith end product. That was egregious.
I think the idea isn't so much that Trump would have been nailed to the wall if Democrats had played this better, but that Democrats should be playing this better to reduce the avenues for Republicans to do this shit.
There is no way for Democrats to play any of this "better" in that this problem is structural. If precedent/stare decisis no longer matters, you don't game that at all. It means everything is Calvinball. If there's suddenly an issue with the way a special counsel is appointed (and I want to note, Loose Cannon did a Bush v. Gore style carveout saying this doesn't impact any other cases) despite 150 years of history and precedent, you can't do anything about that.
Nobody would've seen what happened to Fani Willis coming especially because any supposed affair with Wade isn't even germane to the case! They're on the same side! But there is always something because not only is there the rightwing media human centipede but they also have a very deep farm team of political activists that masquerade as judges.
Who would've foreseen an immunity ruling for Presidents being taken seriously? That's insane and against the Constitution and throws checks and balances on its ear!
The reduction of avenues for Republicans to do this was 2016 but instead people were upset about speeches, e-mails and "she said it's her turn"/"She was coronated" yet wanted to then say "well she didn't campaign in Wisconsin." That was the ballgame. Voters have agency too. If they choose the carnival barker because the e-mail lady sounded too shrill and was warning them too much about abortion, well that's on them. And we all get the consequences.
Democrats have structural disadvantages but that is all the more reason they should--must--play smarter with the cards that are dealt. Yes, they don't have a Fox News, so they should exercise more leverage with the MSM that values "access" to Democrats (as well as Republicans). Use sharper, simpler messaging in interviews and public appearances, find ways to get more news attention (Trump doesn't just suck up media attention because they love Republicans--he does this better than Romney or McCain ever did--but because they thrive on spectacle. Why not offer them some from the Left, as well?).
Same goes for using Senate rules to delay and clog the works when we can. As Stephen noted, why not require Republicans to show up for a vote on Cannon during the lame duck period, rather than letting her sail through? We can't just use the excuse that the deck is stacked against us to justify not even playing the cards we got better than we do.
When Democrats whine about their structural disadvantages, it reminds me of the annoying friend who never plans ahead and we all have to deal with it. "Oh, you didn't think to bring a coat? We said we were going to an outdoor music show." "Oh, you wore stilettos to go hiking? WHY? OK, fine, we'll all turn back now."
Pretty much every structural disadvantage is KNOWN. Work around it. Figure out what is going wrong with your recruitment process when a Dem senator elected during the Blue Wave resistance to Trump is KYRSTEN SINEMA who wants to behave like a 1990s Jack Kemp Republican. The GOP somehow never elected anyone like Sinema during the Tea Party resistance to Obama (Rubio, Cruz, Cotton, etc).
Dems complain about the media while seeming to think you don't have to drive stories. The press hammers Biden about his age because 1) he's hella old -- a known issue, as well and 2) the GOP keeps making it an issue.
Exactly--and as for the structural disadvantages, some of them can be worked on! What's stopping liberals from creating alternative media organizations? Or adding states or SCOTUS seats when they do get the trifecta?
But they do that. Think about the Squad for example. Where are they nowadays? People talked about them as the best Dems when they were fighting (supposedly) against Nancy Pelosi and they got all the attention (And it fed Dems in disarray). Why are they not on the TV?
I do think using Senate rules against Republicans is a good move. Though also I did remember one point where this messed us up as I recall Reid took away filibuster for judicial nominees or something like that. Hindsight is always 20/20 though as it would seem if there was more knowledge of how bad Cannon would be, maybe someone like Murphy wouldn't have voted yes?
And now I am reminded of Andrew Cuomo and his way of using cards to get his way that screwed us in New York. Nevertheless, smarter strategy will definitely be a good thing. I am just curious who in the Senate will know the way to do that.
I think my point is that if Dems didn't realize that Federalist Society judges under 50 are pretty much all partisan operators they are pretty clueless. The FS didn't hide their goal.
But what Democrats fail to realize time and again is the Constitution has no mechanism to enforce its precepts. That falls to all of us agreeing that it should apply. We no longer have that egreement.
Does it work for Democrats in this media environment to do that? That's an interesting academic question. Because part of the problem is that Democratic legislation is built upon that as one of the stools. We want to do things involving legislation; Republicans just want to tear things down which is easy.
So I want to find out but I also DON'T want to find out what happens.
There really is no group of people more deserving to lose than the Democrats. Unfortunately their losing means disaster for all of us. It's a hell of a catch, that Catch-22.
If we survive this election, there needs to be some serious repercussions for the "civility Democrats" who still think it's 1996, and have not learned how to fight. Primary them, drive them out, get fighters--moderates, liberals, progressives, whatever works for the constituency, so long as they are fighters who understand that the Republicans are an existential threat and not just something to crow about in fundraising emails, but something that these pols will act on.
Republicans have their own built in enforcers--the Tea Party, now MAGA constituency, that would never tolerate a Republican adhering to "blue slips" or filibusters if they stood in the way of something they wanted. Democrats do not yet have such a thing--perhaps because they're conditioned to think that because the Tea Party was bad, their intraparty tactics were bad too--but they'd better get to it quick because the party is rotting from the inside out, and could be taking us into a long twilight as a country.
I wouldn't worry about there being repercussions for Democrats; there always are electorally. Though we tend to get the chop when they lose, of course.
Hillary Clinton got to pay for Bill Clinton's misdeeds, after all.
I still maintain the way Republicans "fight" is a lot more effective for them for several structural reasons:
1. Republicans are united in taking rights away, as that is a "no" vote. And "no" votes are the easiest ones for a politician to take.
2. Democrats, as the constructive party, need to pass legislation. Everything we want in life as liberal/progressives requires legislation. And for some of us, our freedoms come from statute and not the Constitution as originally devised. And as constituted, legislation requires cooperation, teamwork and initiative. When it comes to actual *legislation* the Democrats run circles around the Republicans. That's also why the Republicans ran through speakers like tissue paper.
3. Democrats have always been a loose coalition and just innately are very tough to unite. That's one reason they are easy to screw with rogue actors (such as Manchinenema. And Manchin himself is one of the last dregs of the Blue Dogs.) Mind you, the Blue Dogs virtually disappeared because the party has notably moved way left. This conveys another structural
disadvantage as now there's fewer "blue" states and it's tougher for us to have our further left members in "red" states. I know a number are wary of getting mopped like Swearingen did in West Virginia.
And 4. is arguably the most important. Republicans have their own rightwing media human centipede that disseminates their talking points, AND it has segments installed in the so-called MSM/"Liberal" media. So any sort of amplified FUD can be spread through news headlines, you name it. That's why they can also easily take advantage of Democrats' tendency to catastrophize and panic, and stoke that further with numerous stories. But also it's great for suppressing the salient arguments Democrats make.
Joe Biden is old (really, Kamala Harris is black) = Hillary's e-mails = Hillary is coronated and that's bad = Barack Obama had a bad debate = Barack Obama isn't American = John Kerry faked Vietnam = Dean Scream = Al Gore Invented the Internet LOL isn't he goofy.
They say "jump," Democrats say "how high."
Democrats are always on the back foot and it isn't due to fighting. It's due to who Democrats represent. Democrats represent those who did not have rights originally in America. And that means a structural disadvantage in America. It means we keep fighting because it's never going to be easy. And part of the fight is due to us.
Because here's another critical asymmetry: Democrats aren't really united yet they demand all the messaging come out of one person, the President. Republicans don't rely on President Klan Robe to convey all their initiatives; they can't because he's a gibbering demagogue. What they do have are numerous surrogates who can lie in the moment as the MSM and rightwing media centipede won't generally fact check them. It takes special circumstances for that, and all they have to do is just fall back on a catch phrase.
I wanna close with this: a lot of folks shit on Dick Durbin for keeping blue slips and those other Senate things that are essentially affordances to the other side. People always demanding, "Democrats need to do bold things in the Senate like get rid of the filibuster!"
Then I see a poll result that says 60% of Democrats want someone to replace Biden. And Biden went bold by and large. There's a lot of things Biden has done that reflect a wealth of experience and institutional knowledge. He and Kamala Harris have gotten more and better *progressive* legislation out of a numerically worse Congress than we've ever had.
That's the thanks he gets because he did all this while old and had a subpar debate.
What incentive is there for anyone with experience and competence and knowledge to take this shit job just to get knifed in the back?
This is where I think the people feeling froggy should jump. Let the 60% get their new candidate. Clooney hates Biden and shits on him? He's 'young' and telegenic. He should go step up then and do the floor fight, given that he supposedly has the big donors on his side. Honestly I can't do anything about that. But I'm sure not going to blame Biden for doing a great job as President yet people want to throw that away led by media who have an anti-Dem incentive and get lots of clicks from anti-Dem FUD.
That's a lot but...I feel really just...angry but more so at fellow Dems.
But for a lot of them there's really no electoral repercussions. If Durbin does his blue slip nonsense, or fails to hold hearings because "what's the use", he goes back to win his blue state seat easily because the idea of him getting toppled in a primary is far fetched. Feinstein also had nothing to worry about, right down to her last election, and even before she suffered cognitive decline she was giving Republicans way too much leeway.
So long as they know they have their seats for life, why would they ever change?
Yes, my podcast guest Gabe mentioned that, as well. The primary base -- not predominately leftists even in safe districts -- need to become more fearsome and less institutionalist. Durbin should be primaried and replaced but that has to come from the base of the party.
But I think part of the reason Illinois voters won’t is because of their experience with Mike Madigan as speaker of the IL House. Madigan was a complete piece of shit, behaved like the Republicans in Congress do when they have a majority, held pretty much all the power and got Democratic priorities done as well as his own corrupt bullshit. Madigan is gone now (corrupt pos that he was; every rep I ever interacted on any side of the aisle with openly hated him but only voters in his district could have voted him out and they weren’t about to let go of that power) and it is now much harder for groups that lean Dem to get their preferences through. We lost K-12 daily PE and other ed priorities of mine when he was losing power. I am glad he’s gone, cheaters shouldn’t prosper, but it was a loss for Dem policy in general.
So I write Durbin when I think he’s a shit, but I know he’s got a lot of power that my state might lose if he weren’t our senior senator. Duckworth is one of the best and I phone banked for her way back when she was getting started, but she’s not going to get the access to power Durbin has. Durbin’s behavior hasn’t been helpful in the last few years but primarying him wouldn’t really be a good choice if we want to play hardball in the Senate, imo.
Yep--it's not a "Left vs. Moderate" battle (that applies to policy choices, but not political battles) but rather "Civility vs. War". Democrats need "War Democrats" to take over.
Yep--it's not a "Left vs. Moderate" battle (that applies to policy choices, but not political battles) but rather "Civility vs. War". Democrats need "War Democrats" to take over.
Well it sounds like challengers have to step up. I do remember some statistic that for all of Congress, something like 97% of incumbents win their races.
Obviously, no should be surprised at Manchin voting to confirm Cannon because he hasn’t met a way to fuck Democrats that he hasn’t enjoyed, but I’m surprised at Chris Murphy. I would have thought he had more sense than to be duped by the Fed Soc.
If Biden does get another term, perhaps he could go with an AG who DOESN’T have their own Federalist Society fanpage, which would be just about anyone besides Garland.
https://fedsoc.org/contributors/merrick-garland
Cannon was... gasp!... a DEI hire??
The Emma Peel quote was gold. Also the hunting of baby unicorns by Thomas!!
I'm 66, Biden is the best president of my lifetime and it's not close. But, he could do so much more.
I'm 63, and agree. He wants to do so much more, but needs a Democratic House, and more Dems in the Senate to help him. People upset that Biden hasn't done more need to understand that.
"there could have been consequences for Barrett, but instead they chose to wear big “Kick Me Hard” signs on their backs."
Same shit, different day. I have no idea what is going to happen between now and election day in November but I'm pretty sure it ain't gonna be good.
The senate is the worst institution in DC, over $CROTUS. It's close but nevertheless.
‘The far-less “fun” fact is that 12 Senate Democrats voted to confirm her: Chris Murphy, Tom Carper, Chris Coons, Maggie Hassan, Catherine Cortez Masto, Jackie Rosen, Tim Kaine, Mark Warner, Joe Manchin, Patrick Leahy, Dianne Feinstein, and Doug Jones, who’d just lost re-election so I’m not sure what he had to gain from his support for Trump’s nominee.‘
The centrists, or DINOs of the party. Although Feinstein was probably infirm and Republican-lite at the time, ‘wheeling’ in her performance.
Feinstein has always been Republican-lite.
We might be virtually undefeated if we didn’t contribute so wholeheartedly to our own defeat.
Welp in the end whatever the misdeeds of President Klan Robe and co., there's always a Democrat at fault.
Given how headassed Cannon's ruling was, this was probably inevitable even if Garland had picked a U.S. Attorney. After all, Fani Willis brought her charges in a timely fashion and wouldn't you know it, some other Hail Mary came in and delayed the trial.
Had Garland not slow walked/no walked the entirety of the tangeranus cases, I would agree. This all should've been resolved years ago.
I still have a feeling we'd still be here; this is the same court. That said I am slightly more lenient about getting these cases right because if you rush that's also fucked.
Mind you I think Garland should be gone for a different reason, namely the appointment of Robert Hur, and the lack of oversight over the bad-faith end product. That was egregious.
I think the idea isn't so much that Trump would have been nailed to the wall if Democrats had played this better, but that Democrats should be playing this better to reduce the avenues for Republicans to do this shit.
There is no way for Democrats to play any of this "better" in that this problem is structural. If precedent/stare decisis no longer matters, you don't game that at all. It means everything is Calvinball. If there's suddenly an issue with the way a special counsel is appointed (and I want to note, Loose Cannon did a Bush v. Gore style carveout saying this doesn't impact any other cases) despite 150 years of history and precedent, you can't do anything about that.
Nobody would've seen what happened to Fani Willis coming especially because any supposed affair with Wade isn't even germane to the case! They're on the same side! But there is always something because not only is there the rightwing media human centipede but they also have a very deep farm team of political activists that masquerade as judges.
Who would've foreseen an immunity ruling for Presidents being taken seriously? That's insane and against the Constitution and throws checks and balances on its ear!
The reduction of avenues for Republicans to do this was 2016 but instead people were upset about speeches, e-mails and "she said it's her turn"/"She was coronated" yet wanted to then say "well she didn't campaign in Wisconsin." That was the ballgame. Voters have agency too. If they choose the carnival barker because the e-mail lady sounded too shrill and was warning them too much about abortion, well that's on them. And we all get the consequences.
Democrats have structural disadvantages but that is all the more reason they should--must--play smarter with the cards that are dealt. Yes, they don't have a Fox News, so they should exercise more leverage with the MSM that values "access" to Democrats (as well as Republicans). Use sharper, simpler messaging in interviews and public appearances, find ways to get more news attention (Trump doesn't just suck up media attention because they love Republicans--he does this better than Romney or McCain ever did--but because they thrive on spectacle. Why not offer them some from the Left, as well?).
Same goes for using Senate rules to delay and clog the works when we can. As Stephen noted, why not require Republicans to show up for a vote on Cannon during the lame duck period, rather than letting her sail through? We can't just use the excuse that the deck is stacked against us to justify not even playing the cards we got better than we do.
When Democrats whine about their structural disadvantages, it reminds me of the annoying friend who never plans ahead and we all have to deal with it. "Oh, you didn't think to bring a coat? We said we were going to an outdoor music show." "Oh, you wore stilettos to go hiking? WHY? OK, fine, we'll all turn back now."
Pretty much every structural disadvantage is KNOWN. Work around it. Figure out what is going wrong with your recruitment process when a Dem senator elected during the Blue Wave resistance to Trump is KYRSTEN SINEMA who wants to behave like a 1990s Jack Kemp Republican. The GOP somehow never elected anyone like Sinema during the Tea Party resistance to Obama (Rubio, Cruz, Cotton, etc).
Dems complain about the media while seeming to think you don't have to drive stories. The press hammers Biden about his age because 1) he's hella old -- a known issue, as well and 2) the GOP keeps making it an issue.
Exactly--and as for the structural disadvantages, some of them can be worked on! What's stopping liberals from creating alternative media organizations? Or adding states or SCOTUS seats when they do get the trifecta?
But they do that. Think about the Squad for example. Where are they nowadays? People talked about them as the best Dems when they were fighting (supposedly) against Nancy Pelosi and they got all the attention (And it fed Dems in disarray). Why are they not on the TV?
I do think using Senate rules against Republicans is a good move. Though also I did remember one point where this messed us up as I recall Reid took away filibuster for judicial nominees or something like that. Hindsight is always 20/20 though as it would seem if there was more knowledge of how bad Cannon would be, maybe someone like Murphy wouldn't have voted yes?
And now I am reminded of Andrew Cuomo and his way of using cards to get his way that screwed us in New York. Nevertheless, smarter strategy will definitely be a good thing. I am just curious who in the Senate will know the way to do that.
I think my point is that if Dems didn't realize that Federalist Society judges under 50 are pretty much all partisan operators they are pretty clueless. The FS didn't hide their goal.
But what Democrats fail to realize time and again is the Constitution has no mechanism to enforce its precepts. That falls to all of us agreeing that it should apply. We no longer have that egreement.
Does it work for Democrats in this media environment to do that? That's an interesting academic question. Because part of the problem is that Democratic legislation is built upon that as one of the stools. We want to do things involving legislation; Republicans just want to tear things down which is easy.
So I want to find out but I also DON'T want to find out what happens.
You buys the ticket you takes the ride I guess.
Feinstein, ugh. *shakes head*
There really is no group of people more deserving to lose than the Democrats. Unfortunately their losing means disaster for all of us. It's a hell of a catch, that Catch-22.
If we survive this election, there needs to be some serious repercussions for the "civility Democrats" who still think it's 1996, and have not learned how to fight. Primary them, drive them out, get fighters--moderates, liberals, progressives, whatever works for the constituency, so long as they are fighters who understand that the Republicans are an existential threat and not just something to crow about in fundraising emails, but something that these pols will act on.
Republicans have their own built in enforcers--the Tea Party, now MAGA constituency, that would never tolerate a Republican adhering to "blue slips" or filibusters if they stood in the way of something they wanted. Democrats do not yet have such a thing--perhaps because they're conditioned to think that because the Tea Party was bad, their intraparty tactics were bad too--but they'd better get to it quick because the party is rotting from the inside out, and could be taking us into a long twilight as a country.
Exactly. I’d be cheering for them to take the L they so richly deserve if it didn’t mean taking it with them.
Succinctly said!
I wouldn't worry about there being repercussions for Democrats; there always are electorally. Though we tend to get the chop when they lose, of course.
Hillary Clinton got to pay for Bill Clinton's misdeeds, after all.
I still maintain the way Republicans "fight" is a lot more effective for them for several structural reasons:
1. Republicans are united in taking rights away, as that is a "no" vote. And "no" votes are the easiest ones for a politician to take.
2. Democrats, as the constructive party, need to pass legislation. Everything we want in life as liberal/progressives requires legislation. And for some of us, our freedoms come from statute and not the Constitution as originally devised. And as constituted, legislation requires cooperation, teamwork and initiative. When it comes to actual *legislation* the Democrats run circles around the Republicans. That's also why the Republicans ran through speakers like tissue paper.
3. Democrats have always been a loose coalition and just innately are very tough to unite. That's one reason they are easy to screw with rogue actors (such as Manchinenema. And Manchin himself is one of the last dregs of the Blue Dogs.) Mind you, the Blue Dogs virtually disappeared because the party has notably moved way left. This conveys another structural
disadvantage as now there's fewer "blue" states and it's tougher for us to have our further left members in "red" states. I know a number are wary of getting mopped like Swearingen did in West Virginia.
And 4. is arguably the most important. Republicans have their own rightwing media human centipede that disseminates their talking points, AND it has segments installed in the so-called MSM/"Liberal" media. So any sort of amplified FUD can be spread through news headlines, you name it. That's why they can also easily take advantage of Democrats' tendency to catastrophize and panic, and stoke that further with numerous stories. But also it's great for suppressing the salient arguments Democrats make.
Joe Biden is old (really, Kamala Harris is black) = Hillary's e-mails = Hillary is coronated and that's bad = Barack Obama had a bad debate = Barack Obama isn't American = John Kerry faked Vietnam = Dean Scream = Al Gore Invented the Internet LOL isn't he goofy.
They say "jump," Democrats say "how high."
Democrats are always on the back foot and it isn't due to fighting. It's due to who Democrats represent. Democrats represent those who did not have rights originally in America. And that means a structural disadvantage in America. It means we keep fighting because it's never going to be easy. And part of the fight is due to us.
Because here's another critical asymmetry: Democrats aren't really united yet they demand all the messaging come out of one person, the President. Republicans don't rely on President Klan Robe to convey all their initiatives; they can't because he's a gibbering demagogue. What they do have are numerous surrogates who can lie in the moment as the MSM and rightwing media centipede won't generally fact check them. It takes special circumstances for that, and all they have to do is just fall back on a catch phrase.
I wanna close with this: a lot of folks shit on Dick Durbin for keeping blue slips and those other Senate things that are essentially affordances to the other side. People always demanding, "Democrats need to do bold things in the Senate like get rid of the filibuster!"
Then I see a poll result that says 60% of Democrats want someone to replace Biden. And Biden went bold by and large. There's a lot of things Biden has done that reflect a wealth of experience and institutional knowledge. He and Kamala Harris have gotten more and better *progressive* legislation out of a numerically worse Congress than we've ever had.
That's the thanks he gets because he did all this while old and had a subpar debate.
What incentive is there for anyone with experience and competence and knowledge to take this shit job just to get knifed in the back?
This is where I think the people feeling froggy should jump. Let the 60% get their new candidate. Clooney hates Biden and shits on him? He's 'young' and telegenic. He should go step up then and do the floor fight, given that he supposedly has the big donors on his side. Honestly I can't do anything about that. But I'm sure not going to blame Biden for doing a great job as President yet people want to throw that away led by media who have an anti-Dem incentive and get lots of clicks from anti-Dem FUD.
That's a lot but...I feel really just...angry but more so at fellow Dems.
But for a lot of them there's really no electoral repercussions. If Durbin does his blue slip nonsense, or fails to hold hearings because "what's the use", he goes back to win his blue state seat easily because the idea of him getting toppled in a primary is far fetched. Feinstein also had nothing to worry about, right down to her last election, and even before she suffered cognitive decline she was giving Republicans way too much leeway.
So long as they know they have their seats for life, why would they ever change?
Yes, my podcast guest Gabe mentioned that, as well. The primary base -- not predominately leftists even in safe districts -- need to become more fearsome and less institutionalist. Durbin should be primaried and replaced but that has to come from the base of the party.
But I think part of the reason Illinois voters won’t is because of their experience with Mike Madigan as speaker of the IL House. Madigan was a complete piece of shit, behaved like the Republicans in Congress do when they have a majority, held pretty much all the power and got Democratic priorities done as well as his own corrupt bullshit. Madigan is gone now (corrupt pos that he was; every rep I ever interacted on any side of the aisle with openly hated him but only voters in his district could have voted him out and they weren’t about to let go of that power) and it is now much harder for groups that lean Dem to get their preferences through. We lost K-12 daily PE and other ed priorities of mine when he was losing power. I am glad he’s gone, cheaters shouldn’t prosper, but it was a loss for Dem policy in general.
So I write Durbin when I think he’s a shit, but I know he’s got a lot of power that my state might lose if he weren’t our senior senator. Duckworth is one of the best and I phone banked for her way back when she was getting started, but she’s not going to get the access to power Durbin has. Durbin’s behavior hasn’t been helpful in the last few years but primarying him wouldn’t really be a good choice if we want to play hardball in the Senate, imo.
Yep--it's not a "Left vs. Moderate" battle (that applies to policy choices, but not political battles) but rather "Civility vs. War". Democrats need "War Democrats" to take over.
Yep--it's not a "Left vs. Moderate" battle (that applies to policy choices, but not political battles) but rather "Civility vs. War". Democrats need "War Democrats" to take over.
Well it sounds like challengers have to step up. I do remember some statistic that for all of Congress, something like 97% of incumbents win their races.
Indeed.
Preach!