against Sen Ben Cardin. While I don't know a lot about Cardin, and no matter how one might feel about Manning, I just don't see the point. It would be really hard for me to imagine why she would think that a wise race to start with.

Why doesn't she challenge a Con instead of that of a seated, valuable Senator? Perhaps as she has never held office she should start with local gov. first. I find it ironic that a person convicted of handing over docs to Wikileaks would challenge one of the few senators who is trying to stop cyber crimes.

“Democrats on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee are calling on the Trump administration to vastly expand the U.S. response to Russian interference in elections, with increased sanctions and a new inter-agency body to coordinate government policies.

In a 200-page report commissioned by Sen. Ben Cardin of Maryland and released Wednesday, Democratic committee staff describe efforts by Russia to influence elections throughout Europe for years and say many of those countries have made aggressive moves to push back.

With months to go before this year’s midterm elections, the Democrats contend that Washington does not yet have a coherent plan to confront Russian cyber campaigns aimed at disrupting U.S. democracy. Cardin — a longtime critic of Russian President Vladimir Putin — said it was time to develop one”.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/politics/bs-md-cardin-russian-20180109-story.html

That tells us what we need to know about Chelsea.

In this political climate, the only reason to primary a sitting Democrat is if that person is completely unfit for office and I don't see that we have anyone like that.

Our Democrats have been speaking quite clearly about what we stand for. If people want a say, there are many avenues to achieve that. I've helped to form a Democratic Women's Club of Florida chapter in my red county. Yesterday, we hosted a Democratic candidate for Congress. Over the next several months, we'll be hosting other candidates and working with other Democratic clubs in the county to hold forums, etc. That's me having a real say.

...if we make this party a debate-free zone, or if we bar new ideas and take a "you need to just shut up and do what we tell you" attitude towards new people who might be drawn to working with us as a way to work for what they support?

Look, we ALL want to win and we're all going to work to win. Nobody is saying winning doesn't matter.

I'm just asking if it's really necessary to shut down internal debate and discussion in order to do that, because it seems like there's a lot of argument for that idea, for the notion that we can't talk about anything UNTIL we regain Congress.

so why do you keep on intimating that's what's happening. What is not going to be non-debatable/acceptable is constant criticism of the Dems and identity politics.

Sometimes there needs to be discussion of what is and isn't working, and that's the case in any part in a situation like we're in.

It should be expressed respectfully and the party shouldn't be vilified, but people need to be able to propose new ideas and new strategies without being treated as the enemy.

BTW, I'm with you on the "identity politics" thing-and I think most people in this party whoever they supported in the past, are.

Contrary to popular belief, there are virtually NO rank-and-file people arguing that Dems should stop being antiracist, or stop defending choice or stop opposing misogyny or xenophobia-instead, it's mainly an argument for strengthening our economic justice posistion and standing up to corporate power ALONGSIDE those things, for finding a more visceral way of being a party of the poor and a party of people harmed by the post-1981 economy. My own model for this was the platforms Jesse Jackson ran on in the Eighties-the man had his flaws and his limitations, as does anybody who would ever run to some degree, but the agenda of his campaigns remains compelling and could be a model for where we go in the future.

The justice movements don't have to be in conflict-they agree on about 95% of the agenda, and these issues can be taken up without associating them with any particular candidate.

We will all see how mistaken that notion is. The recent Oprah for president talk has them having a hissy fit. All that over-reaction from just one speech. Can you just imagine how they will react if someone is chosen who is not left enough for them...already some are talking down Kamala Harris and Corey Booker as being too centrist.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/01/why-bernie-sanders-democrats-are-raining-on-the-oprah-parade

She is being praised for her support of single-payer and I think if her supporters spend more time talking about her criminal justice position, she may well catch on. These days, the people who are being hostile to the idea of Kamala running are Al Franken loyalists, not the "purity" crowd.

Are you going to argue that it's unacceptable to make any critical comments about any potential Democratic presidential candidate? Or to expect things from the person we might nominate?

I agree that people shouldn't nitpick candidates...but it's not as though any comment on any potential Dem presidential candidate is an unfair attack on that person or on the party. There needs to be some space for asking questions about what the people we would consider as nominees would be about if elected.

As to Oprah-a lot of people in this party, not just those you refer to as "the purity police", have raised questions about the idea of nominating Oprah. I'm keeping an open mind, but, as would be the case with anyone else, it's reasonable to expect her to flesh out some ideas and proposals if she does run.

regarding Senator Harris

As for Oprah, why should she provide a platform. She gave a speech and it wasn't an I'm running one. People need to step off the ledge.

The response we saw in the last week was largely about the utter surprise all sorts of people felt about the power of Oprah's speech AND about the idea-an idea which hadn't been in anyone's minds a week before-that she might be a candidate.

It wasn't an ideological thing as much as sheer astonishment that an Oprah candidacy was suddenly a possibility.

She then came out for single-payer and the dynamic changed. Personally, I think she'd be a great candidate.

Not sure why it bothers you that people raised questions about Cory Booker. He'd be qualified, but why should we treat it as unimportant that he is allied with a lot of big corporations and

As to Oprah(remember, a lot of "pragmatic" Dems made posts this week simply asking if she was prepared for the job, which is a fair question to ask of anybody who would run-it was asked a lot about Sanders in '16, and people had a right to ask it as they have the right to ask it of anybody else), it's been a week. The response Sanders Dems had that was quoted in that article was that they'd be open to her candidacy if she came out for single-payer, and they raised the point that she has enough personal wealth to run a totally uncompromised progressive campaign if she chooses to do so. They weren't demonizing her, they were just asking the sort of questions that get asked about anybody pondering a presidential race.

Are you saying we shouldn't ask anything of the people who seek our presidential nomination? That all of them should be given nothing but unqualified, unquestioning praise? How, exactly, would that help? How would it be a healthy form of politics?

If you're saying that we should never have the toxicity of the Carter-Kennedy primaries in '80, I agree with you. But it sounds like(and if I've got your take on this wrong, please clarify, because I would like to understand where you are coming from on this) as if you are saying that no Democratic public figure should ever be questioned, ever be challenged on problematic points, ever be pushed to change. Is that what you are arguing for her? If now, what are the bounds you would like to see observed?

is Jan. 12, 2018.

As to Corey...it isn't a matter of him being qualified, it is him being pigeonholed as too centrist.

What is it that you and others don't understand about Oprah saying she's not running.

And frankly, I 'm not the one making assumptions.

Why, in your view, is it unacceptable to say that of him?

Are we simply to say "it's enough that she/he is a Dem-that's all that matters" about ANY possible candidate for our nomination?

Aren't any candidate's views on the issues fair game for discussion?

BTW, I haven't actually expressed any opinions about the idea of an Oprah candidacy-personally, I don't know WHAT I think about the concept-I was simply describing what others had said. I don't think we should even be talking presidential politics yet...OR trying to declare anybody at all a 'presumptive nominee".

It's way too early.

The article was just published, but the anti-Kamala stuff on the left is largely in the past now. Some of it was inappropriate, and I had nothing to do with any of the anti-Kamala sites or anything. I did say a couple of things during the primaries, but have apologized for them repeatedly and they should be considered put to rest.

and make this about something I did not claim

You do accept that I had nothing to do with that?

As to the idea of her running...that was the press talking it up more than anything else.

I did not and assume you are not

The term is offensive to me-it implies that it's unfair and somehow childish to hold any Dem candidate to anything.

But I've never been about "purity", whatever that means.

I've been involved in compromise politics my entire life. I'll most likely continue to do so.

But I simply don't accept that it's somehow evil for people to expect our candidates to listen to them and to stand for as much as possible of what they care about.

It took "Purity Police"-type people to get the Democratic Party to support the end of Jim Crow, after all-it took that kind of pressure to make the politicians do what had to be done. Same with reproductive rights, same with choice, same with marriage equality, same with the efforts to end mass incarceration. You need the unsatisfied and at times even the unreasonable to make anything happen.

Without them, change never occurs.

WE all expect our reps to be responsible...what I do not accept those to whom only their vision of perfect is acceptable and I agree with what Nurse Jackie said below that some compromise may be necessary if we want to move forward (though I'm paraphrasing)

It's not "attack" simply to raise questions about the views of candidates-EVERY party in electoral politics throughout the world does that.

If the response the left has had isn't acceptable to you...what possible response from them WOULD be?

Are you saying that there's an obligation to fawn over everyone who's considering a presidential campaign?

It's not as though we'd gain any votes if our approach was to treat any possible Dem presidential candidate as infallible, and to say we'd be happy with all of them no questions asked.

I don't care about presidential candidates...but yeah the attacks against Kamala Harris concerning the death penalty will bleed into the general. That is what you want to avoid. Obviously,we will have a primary. We don't have a Democratic presidential incumbent. But primarying Sen. Feinstein and Senator Cardin is completely stupid...a waste of resources that could be more effective trying to take house seats away from Republicans.

Cory Booker is personally charismatic, but why should the fact that he'd be one of the least progressive candidates in a Dem presidential primary not matter?

Was there any way you could have accepted discussion of what these politicians stood for? Anything you would not have labeled "attack"?

I agree with you that excessively harsh rhetoric should be avoided.

I just want someone who can win. And as soon as someone as chosen, the weeping and complaints will begin anew. I am sick of it. We have move center right...I doubt a progressive candidate can win the presidency which makes me very sad. Had Clinton been elected, it would be different I think.

It's just that I don't think it's possible to fight the right by MOVING right. It's not as though there's this huge block of voters who want there to be FEWER differences between the GOP and us...and we'd cease to have any reason to exist if we ever again went back as far to the right as we did in '92 and '96.

Most of the ideas associated with(though not originated by)the Sanders campaign are quite popular in the polls. Tie those to the ideas Hillary's campaign was associated with(though also did not originate)on standing up to racism, sexism, and other forms of social oppression-ideas most Sanders supporters always agreed with and still do-and we could put together a compelling campaign in '18 and '20.

We can't win as a second party of the haves, and a "moderate" party can't do anything that matters for the working and kept-from-working-by-greed poor.

Elections can't be won solely by saying "stop THEM"-a clear alternative to what they are doing matters too.

is not criticism, it is an attack. Criticisms usually add some facts and context.

Please don't work on the assumption that I was one of the verbal hooligans. I occasionally, early on, said some things I'm not proud of, apologized for them and admitted error, and given that we left Philly twelve points ahead, I can sa for certain nothing I said played any significant role in the outcome.

That said, I don't want any ruble-funded Dems going unopposed.

It was more "why should we nominate a talk show host for president?"

And it was people from all wings of the party raising that question.

The assumption is as a billionaire she wouldn't suit the far left goals such as single payer. In fact, Senator Sanders is talking about wrenching back the gov. from billionaires.

that a billionaire running for the Dems should feel obligated to run the most left campaign possible, since that billionaire wouldn't need large donors to run a campaign?

I took that as an attempt to engage with her on this, to call on her to use her unique status to run a unique campaign. Isn't that a fairly positive approach?

I agree with you that it's early to even talk about the idea of Oprah running...but since there was a huge response to her speech and this suddenly became a public thing, how would you say Dems SHOULD respond to the possibility?

What they reacted to - quite understandably - was the overhype about her as a candidate after giving that speech. The posts questioning that hype were based on her total lack of experience and very questionable judgment in bringing anti-science magical thinking to the masses. Solid points both and certainly not emblematic of any "purity" test. It had nothing to do with her politics, which except for her outfront support of Obama and mild support of Hillary really aren't evidence as to any specific bent along the political spectrum other than Democratic. Her past embrace of anti-science crusaders and materialism are much more telling.

She was expected to give an acceptance speech for an award and she did. Did I miss the part where she said she is running? If not, what does her inexperience for office or personal beliefs matter? As for her so-called magical thinking...damn her for exploring the benefits of positive thinking and other esoteric beliefs. What fools she, doctors and scientists are for wondering if there anything to it. But now I think about it, if it got her to where she is, ...lead me to it.

Anyone in the public arena is open to being questioned. I would think that's obvious but the reaction to substantive questions about her on here has led me to think the kind of non-critical, emotion based, celeb worship that helped elect dump are also possible on the Democratic side. No one has announced they are running for the Dem nomination yet we discuss them. She apparently is not allowed to be discussed in a critical way but others are.

As to magical thinking, it goes far beyond "exploring". It is the same kind of snake oil techniques that have been used for thousands of years to push BS like The Secret and miracle cures and it is all done to make money. Science is an antidote to that. So you're ok with conning people out of their money and wish you could too? That puts you in the same company with other people I know. They are all supporters of our current POtuS.

and everyone knows it. As to her being questioned, I think there's little about Oprah we don't know except for her platform for president. How exactly has she conned people out of money? Or is that an allegation you can't substantially prove? And as I don't know you I can't say if your little insults are beneath you or not.

Winners have to include losers -- at least enough to win.

But the only way we can have debates that allow new ideas and growth in our Democratic Party is if we allow challengers in primaries.

It's when Party loyalists pay attention.

What a horrible idea to bar challengers. It strikes me as corrupt.

from the ? of primarying Dems to the party is a "debate-free zone." Since no one is suggesting the latter, perhaps the discussion should return to the former.

The reasons for primary challenges aren't limited to actually denying incumbents renomination. Primary challenges can also be used to either persuade a challenged incumbent to change some problematic positions-Eugene McCarthy started out in 1968 simply believing that a relatively strong showing for a peace candidate against LBJ could induce Johnson into ending the war against Vietnam, without actually denying him renomination-or to raise issues that otherwise weren't being dealt with.

There is a lot of pressure in the party right now to prevent or at least significantly limit discussion on the issues and the efforts to discourage the idea of primary challenges are at least part OF that pressure.

The question of primary challenges and the question of internal debate and democracy are related.

elections that we can't afford to lose or their literally will be nothing left to talk about...as the progressive movement will dead in the water. Vote Democratic...work for change in a bottom up sort of way.

Often, "holding them accountable" means deciding to primary someone who's not as far left as you are -- and losing the general election as a result.

In any case, you're conflating two different things.

are no longer held accountable by the electorate. This fosters corruption among other things.

... are there any Democrats that you feel NEED to be held accountable? Are there any you feel are just skating along on thin ice and ought to be replaced?

That's what this is all about you know. No need in trying to sugar-coat the intent of the OP. No need to beat-around-the-bush. Even though the OP purports to understand the reasons why it's unwise to primary Democrats... it continues on to try and justify the reasons why it's "necessary" (complete with smears and insinuations and hints about how incompetent and/or corrupt and/or uninspired or vision-less Democrats supposedly are.)

We just need to think long and hard before elected officials have a guaranteed job.
Human nature is human no matter the party.

"Yes, I understand the intent, but we lose our democracy when elected officials

are no longer held accountable by the electorate. This fosters corruption among other things."

You avoid saying which Democratic elected officials you are referring to, since you didn't specify Republicans being the ones doing this.

Are you going to keep dancing around being accountable for what you said?

An interesting attempt on your part to completely reframe the post.

Perhaps it would be better to respond to the actual post.

So, how is that statement pertinent to this discussion?

Are you in the wrong thread?

Primaries serve a purpose, we need to think long and hard before we do away with them.

We have no power and should use our limited resources to take out the GOP trash...not attack our own. I live in Ohio where Tim Ryan is facing a primary. If he loses the primary, we will lose that seat. That is a bad bad outcome...There is no need to take such a risk.

I don't like Ryan. But, I'd far rather have his reliable D vote and the chance to retake the House then see it, and lots of money, wasted on a primary battle for purity that could lose us the seat.

Said money, BTW, that could be used to help a D take a seat from an R.

I do not get why this is so hard to understand.

and this year to regain some power. Primaries only weaken general candidates.

by folks who refused to vote for Hillary Clinton (sarcasm). The Democrats have no power.

Which Democrats are you talking about, when you talk about politicians not being accountable?

I said nothing about the primaries, I was addressing this statement:

"we lose our democracy when elected officials

are no longer held accountable by the electorate. This fosters corruption among other things."

I think you misunderstood the OP.

The OP is talking about not challenging INCUMBENT Dems this year, not doing away with primaries.

That is the general protocol.

Did you support Bernie Sanders when he talked about primarying Obama in 2012?

Do you think that gave Obama "absolute power?"

Is that clearer?

was a gift from George Bush as wer the wars...but but Gore just wasn't good enough (sarcasm). Vote Democratic and stop attacking our own people or we won't have anything left to lose.

activists for climate justice and against environmental racism, and the peace movement-all of which are significant groups in this country, all of whom want this party to advance a bold, unapologetic program of change and to stop imposing unneeded limits on ourselves by making a point of announcing we were "pro-business" (the party had never been "anti-business'-it had simply taken the view in the past that business was one part of life but not more important than everything else), or on being "tough on crime" (I don't think I need to remind you what "Law and Order" has been code for since Nixon) or on continuing military intervention in the Arab/Muslim world when we've all known since at least 2004 that it's a pointless waste of resources and caused a pointless loss of hundreds of thousands of lives.

We really, truly need to let ourselves out of all of those restraints as a party.

We can be for defending this country without insisting on getting into all these conflicts in other places where we can't have any positive effect.

We can be for a strong economy without accepting that everyone and everything has to be subservient to what the corporations want.

And we can deal with crime without mass incarceration and mandatory minimums and all the ruined lives those have cost.

That's some of what some of us are talking about.

Those ideas should be a legitimate part of our discussion as Democrats.

below what?

In any hierarchy, there are those at the top and those at the bottom.

In the Democratic Party hierarchy, at the moment, big donors, the party bureaucracy, those individuals in charge of official Dem campaign organizations, those on the DNC would be at the top and hold most of the power within the party.

The people I listed in the previous post often make up most of the people who go out and do the grunt work in Democratic campaign(I'd argue that you and I are among those people I listed), yet are generally disregarded by those I listed in the sentence before this.

The term "voices from below" doesn't refer to anyone's worth as a human being.

and does, whether meant or not, intimate them as being less than.... as a description of those on the bottom often does

That those NOT in power are the only real source of change.

Those on the bottom of the power structure are heroes-their status is a badge of honor, not an insult.

And, as an activist, I ally myself with the powerless and support their efforts to empower themselves.

What phraseology would you accept?

We can't pretend this is a party in which all are equal, after all

used to denote servants. I would suggest not using bottom, as in bottom feeders, when describing the base.

We can't just say "the base", though. That term has no meaning.

Are you saying there's no way to use the term "below" or "the bottom" without somehow sounding racially insensitive?

What other term can convey the large number of people who do the work in this party and live in this world but have no say?

It's denigrating

at the lower end of the power structure.

We can't just call people like that "the base"-that term is meaningless.

There needs to be a term that conveys those seeking change and not in power.

You want anything good than do everything you can to win elections.

because there are still some conservative Democrats who normally vote Republican on national issues and electoral offices.

Not this time! We should be proud of them for that.

We need to make sure that Dems we add to their number won't be in a "blocking third"-won't define their political identity as people who vote to limit and prevent change.

... and it's a complete waste of time to pursue that. Each state is different, Ken. That's why a Vermont-style candidate could NEVER win as a Democrat in West Virginia.

you, Jackie. Good advice to the OP.

Liberals and centrists alike. Yet many of those centrists Dems were primaried from the left because they were not pure.

This whole "debate-free zone" smear is just silly. We're Democrats, we debate everything!

more DU'ers could see the "concern" for what it really is.

Anyone that requires all fall in step behind him, and tolerates no dissent from supporters or colleagues is never going to get a Dem nomination.

But they need to be issue-based and positive. They do not need to devolve into calling the incumbents corporatists and sell-outs.

A primary should be a contest between allies. The general election is war.

And the response of the incumbent who is challenged should always be based on accepting the validity and legitimacy of the challenger's presence in the race.

of money and time...and attacking our own when we have nothing...are you fucking kidding me...I don't understand folks who want to do that Nurse... why why why.

It allows the voters to choose.
Otherwise party bosses decide for you.

Is that what you want?

To clarify:

There's an argument being made that, in the current political situation, we should strongly discourage anyone from challenging any incumbent Dem in a primary.

What I was trying to address was the question of how a real debate about policy, strategy, and tactics could still be had if, at least as a short-term measure, we were to try to discourage anybody from challenging an incumbent Dem for renomination.

I want my voice heard and counted.

happen if you waste time and money primarying sitting Democrats...doesn't the GOP and their plans for this country concern you just a bit more than Democrats?

Saying once someone is elected, they get to stay without being primaried isn't American.

members is a foolish waste of money. The country has lurched right and all the primarying in the world won't fix that but it could help the GOP.

Horrible idea. Terribly undemocratic.

Winners need to reach out to the losers in primaries and be a lot more than cordial.

It's up to the winner of a primary to unite all parties in the Party after the primary.

unseat a sitting Democrat who has an advantage by being an incumbent...instead of using that money to go after Republicans...This year primarying sitting Democrats is completely stupid. We have nothing to stop them...so no primaries for sitting Democrats...not this year.

If a Democrat is doing a good job, he or she will win. And then it is his or her responsibility to reunite the party.

I do not vote for candidates, regardless of party, who do not support medicare for all.

That is the most important issue for me at this time. My Representative does support it. My senators???? We shall see.

cost us the general. I am against wasting money on primaries at the moment when every dime is needed to defeat the GOP.

us to lose massively...the left left held Pres. Obama accountable and we lost everything ...the states and the House and that ended any opportunity to pass progressive policy. We got a god damned gerrymander...that showed him for sure (sarcasm). Holding the party accountable in 16 led to a right wing SCOTUS that will have an impact for decades and we now risk all progressive policy since Roosevelt...and if you look at the past... Clinton and Gore were held accountable-Clinton in 94 and Gore in 2000 and look what happened. We couldn't get progressive policy enacted during Clinton's time and we got Bush in 2000 thanks to our lefty friends who just couldn't support Gore and the God damned Greens. It is about time that you and other folks realized this feet to the fire, hold them accountable meme only helps Republicans. Change must happen from the bottom up. You start at state levels ...school boards and the legislature...local mayor races. You don't primary sitting house member and Senators when we desperately need win in order for progressivism to even survive. It is a waste of time and money. The so called left (and I wonder how many are really left) needs to understand that any Democrat is better than any Republican period. We need a majority to to anything.

Turn your sights on the GOP- not your own party. We must take 18 and 20...in order to stop the right wing from destroying this country. I am out of patience with those who attack the only vehicle to stop Trump and his merry band of GOP marauders...the Democratic Party. Time to support your party or it really won't matter...you can talk, talk and talk...rearrange the chairs on the Titanic really...and watch the GOP destroy policy dating back to Roosevelt. And talk about pie in the sky plans that have no way to pass at the moment like Medicare for or you can role up you sleeves and get to work. The left has to begin to look at things in a realistic manner. The country took a hard right. We need to win GOP seats this year and that requires moderates for statewide elections and for most of the house seats. As Virginia showed, we have some leeway at the legislature level...the house is on fire...we don't have time for the bullshit. What we need is party loyalty and without it, we are seriously doomed and the country is doomed. Vote Democratic as if your life depended on it because it probably does.

We can't do that with moderates in the races that matter and progressives only in the trivlal races.

We BOTH want to win.

I would argue that the base supports Democrats every year. I am the base..those you call the base are not the base...are they even Democrats? It seems many have many more issues with Democrats than Republicans. We need a big tent with candidates that are recruited for their specific seats...some will be liberal and some will be moderate. We cannot hold a majority any other way. This year we need to take seats in GOP areas this will require time and money...and primarying Tim Ryan and others is just stupid . We could lose the seat. This is why Move On gets not money from me anymore (Tim Ryan). I supported them for years.

Do you really think we are not fired up? Did you see Virginia? Alabama? The Base is ready to go!

The phrase "the base" does not mean the "left fringe" or the "hard left". Also, "the base" does not mean "independents" or "never voted before" or "rarely vote" or "not even registered". I'm sorry to be the one to let you know that "the base" are not the whiners and moaners and groaners who need to be "inspired" by a candidate otherwise they won't vote... or will vote Third Party to "send a message". No, Ken... sorry... that's definitely NOT "the base".

The actual BASE are the loyal and reliable voters who support the Democratic Party and it's Democratic candidates and it's Democratic officials. The actual BASE are the ones who actually vote. The actual BASE are the ones who donate their time and money to the Democratic party and to Democratic causes.

candidate for the state. consider Perriello who was viewed as a liberal and endorsed by Sen. Sanders lost the Virginia primary. He worked tirelessly to elect Northam. I think he has a future...he should run for a house seat and kick out a shitty GOP member. We are defending multiple seats in the Senate...the Gop is defending 8. We simply don't need primaries and God forbid unknown candidates this year. We are going after red states...and the legislature is where we should start with more progressive seats...not for fuck's sake primary Dianne Feinstein. The House is gerrymandered and we need to win red states to take the majority...this is not the year to cater to the left left.

when it was the Republicans who caused the loss of whatever it was!

That’s doesn’t mean they are always a net positive.

Change happens from the bottom up...all these folks want to start at the top and that just means losses for us.

Repeating the idea that Dems have no economic message, are pro-corporation, pro-rich, needz moar street level, etc.