General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forumsspanone
(135,873 posts)kstewart33
(6,551 posts)Okay, then. Let's take a look at her record. For example, the last Congress, the 114th (2015 - 2016).
[link:https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=114th-congress|
It's quite a read.
greeny2323
(590 posts)I've said this before but in CA we shouldn't settle for anything but the very most progressive candidates. I hope some young progressive runs in the primary to give voters a choice. And if Feinstein wins the primary then of course I support her in the general.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)BadgerMom
(2,771 posts)No 2016 redux, please. We have a great candidate. Im not looking for a perfect one.
DarthDem
(5,256 posts)If I've never thanked you for your tireless efforts against the (Russian-stoked) "perfect is the enemy of the good" divisions, THANK YOU.
Alice11111
(5,730 posts)NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)Love it!
Alice11111
(5,730 posts)She was in an important hearing one morning. She had to miss the afternoon to be in the hospital, for a stent and heart monitor, I believe. After having her chest opened, she was back in attendance at the hearing the next morning. How many men could do that? How many people? Stress much. She handles it with preparedness and competency. Talk about dedication. Plus, she has knowledge, experience, connections, common sense & she knows which battles to pick. Not to reelect her would be idiocy.
Dems put your money against Repubs, not our best Dems, who the Repubs would help you beat.
DarthDem
(5,256 posts)Me.
(35,454 posts)First woman to be top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee
First woman to chair the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
First woman president of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors
First woman mayor of San Francisco
First woman elected Senator of California
First woman to serve as ranking member on the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Authored the first major cybersecurity bill to be signed into law in years.
In addition to her committee assignments, Senator Feinstein is co-chairman of the Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control, co-chairman of the Senate Cancer Coalition and co-chairman of the Senate Womens Caucus on Burma. She is also a member of the Anti-Meth Caucus, the Congressional Dairy Caucus and the Congressional Former Mayors Caucus. She has served as a member of the Aspen Strategy Group since 1997.
Among Senator Feinsteins many legislative accomplishments:
Environment & Natural Resources
Fuel Economy Standards - Increasing fleetwide fuel economy standards for cars, trucks and SUVs by at least 10 miles per gallon over 10 years or from 25 mpg to 35 mpg by Model Year 2020 the largest increase in more than two decades, and the first Congressional action on global warming. Her bipartisan legislation ultimately led the Obama administration to put in place a mandate for a fleetwide 54.5 miles-per-gallon requirement by model year 2020.
California Desert Protection - Protecting more than 7 million acres of pristine California desert, the largest such designation in the history of the continental United States. She was also a vocal champion for the creation of three new national monuments, safeguarding millions of additional acres.
Lake Tahoe Restoration - Passed two bills to preserve and restore this treasured natural resource, a total of $715 million in federal funds to match investments by California, Nevada and local authorities.
CALFED - Authorizing $395 million for a balanced program to increase Californias water supply, reliability and quality and help restore sensitive water ecosystems.
Healthy Forests - Reducing the risk of catastrophic fire in our forests by expediting the thinning of hazardous fuels and providing the first legal protection for old-growth forests in our nations history.
Headwaters Forest Agreement - Obtaining funding and brokering agreement to save the Headwaters Forest, a 7,500-acre national treasure and the largest privately held stand of uncut old-growth redwoods.
San Francisco Bay Wetlands Restoration - Negotiating public-private purchase of 16,500 acres of salt ponds along the San Francisco Bay - the largest such wetlands restoration project in California history.
https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/biography
"National Security
Revitalizing the Senate Intelligence Committee - After becoming chairman of the committee in 2009, Senator Feinstein oversaw the enactment of seven consecutive intelligence authorization bills following a six-year drought. The committee also released a bipartisan review of the Benghazi attacks.
Reviewing CIA Use of Torture - Senator Feinstein oversaw a six-year review of the CIAs detention and interrogation program, culminating in the December 2014 release of the reports executive summary.
FISA reform - Requiring the federal government to follow the requirements of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) when conducting electronic surveillance of American citizens for foreign intelligence purposes.
Border Security and Visa Entry Reform - Helping prevent terrorists from entering the United States through loopholes in our immigration system.
Criminalization of Border Tunnels - Closed a loophole in federal law by criminalizing the act of constructing or financing a tunnel or subterranean passage across an international border into the United States.
Protecting Americas Seaports - Securing our nations 361 seaports from terrorism and organized crime through the creation of new criminal offenses.
Health Care
Phthalate Ban - Protecting children from harmful phthalates chemicals in toys using the precautionary principle.
Internet Pharmacies - Banning rogue Internet pharmacies from selling drugs without prescriptions.
Breast Cancer Research Stamp - Raising more than $85 million for breast cancer research.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)... there are still those who smear her. There are those who think a "true progressive" (whatever the hell that's supposed to mean) could just swoop-in and replace her and automatically claim all of Feinstein's committee positions... instantly ... *snap* ... just like that. (These are typically the same people who believe that a "true progressive" challenger to Pelosi would automatically become the House Minority Leader.
I suppose I should be accustomed to it by now, but it always amazes me that there are still those who think that THEY know better what Californians want than do actual California voters. They often believe that a "Vermont-style" politician will be accepted by voters in all 50 states... but we can easily see that's NOT the case.
Me.
(35,454 posts)No response. Also, we need to get past the ageism being spouted constantly these days. When is the cut-off date and should we then shove seniors into a closet as useless? Such nonsense when you have someone who actually gets things done as opposed to those in the Senate that are better at posturing. What has Manchin done lately?
(to make up for lack of size)...
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)... especially when the phrase "true progressive" (as was being used in this thread) is just another way to give a passive-aggressive backhanded insult to Feinstein.
That's a type of "know it all" and subtle bullying behavior that makes me sick! Feinstein doesn't deserve to be denigrated with those types of stealthy smears and veiled attacks.
Me.
(35,454 posts)good being the enemy of the perfect and purity nonsense. It doesn't get any more done than the Con Congress has nor does it move us forward as a good progressive should wish.
NBachers
(17,136 posts)Let the "progressive disruptor" primari-ers start with local involvement and work their way up over the decades, learning the system and developing relationships and experience.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)For a long time voters have had a choice, and they've chosen Dianne Feinstein.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)on the fall ballot-a result of their "top two" primary system.
California is one state where Dems don't have to water it down for statewide campaigns. They can be true progressives in those races.
Feinstein is certain to be re-elected, but why shouldn't people who want the Democratic Party to be progressive have a chance to vote for what they want?
If there isn't a real contest of ideas there this year, there never will be.
George II
(67,782 posts)Me.
(35,454 posts)and who gets to judge or are we getting into one of those purity things where the races are actually lost
NastyRiffraff
(12,448 posts)is a term that's flung around freely, but with no viable definition. What, as opposed to "false progressives"? California is a strongly DEMOCRATIC and LIBERAL state, that supports DEMOCRATS. California's has elected Diane Feinstein multiple times for a reason. She's a very effective and powerful DEMOCRAT with DEMOCRATIC values.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)... that certain individuals here have used the same type of attack on Feinstein as well as other Democrats.
I'm sick of it!
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)It's not as though there is no legitimate reason ever to disagree with what particular Dem politicians do.
Dianne Feinstein has been a good senator, and she's in no danger of losing re-election. She's had primary challenges in most past campaigns and has no serious GOP challengers-there essentially aren't any figures of stature in the CA Republican party.
California is not one of the states in which Dems can only hold their ground if no public criticism of Democratic incumbents can be tolerated.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)It's not as though there is no legitimate reason ever to disagree with what particular Dem politicians do.
The truth is that there was no "critique"...since a critique, by its very definition, suggests a detailed review or evaluation. There was NO such "critique" ... just a cleverly-worded accusation and smear that she's not a "true progressive".
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)Demsrule86
(68,667 posts)The most progressive candidates can't always win...even in California. It is a waste of time and money to primary Democrats when we have no power...go after the GOP... we don't need to hurt our own candidates who have the best chance of winning...and Feinstein is great a 'young' person would have no power whatsoever. You comment about settling was uncalled for.
Chipper Chat
(9,687 posts)when the wacky right primaried a respected (even by democrats) Senator Richard Lugar and BEAT HIM with some nut job.
The nut job then lost to Joe Donnelly in the general.
RhodeIslandOne
(5,042 posts)The general elections for Senate usually end up as a runoff between two Democrats. They did with Kamala Harris and Loretta Sanchez.
Under California's nonpartisan blanket primary law, all candidates appear on the same ballot, regardless of party. In the primary, voters may vote for any candidate, regardless of their party affiliation. In the California system, the top two finishers regardless of party advance to the general election in November, even if a candidate manages to receive a majority of the votes cast in the primary election. Washington and Louisiana have similar "jungle primary" style processes for Senators.
The Republican brand in California is dead statewide.
Demsrule86
(68,667 posts)could lose that seat.
tonedevil
(3,022 posts)is run in California is open to all in the primary. All the candidates regardless of party affiliation are presented to all the voters regardless of party affiliation. The top two vote getters run against each other in the general election. Last cycle we had two Democrats on the ballot in the general. I wouldn't be surprised to see that again this year.
Demsrule86
(68,667 posts)running for a Democratic incumbent's seat at a time when the GOP owns it all...wasting all that time and money...is madness. If we lose our opportunity to take the House and maybe with all the GOP retirements...the senate, it will be because of this nonsense. Move on who is now dead to me is primarying Tim Ryan here in Ohio. I cancelled my monthly support.This is beyond stupid.
tonedevil
(3,022 posts)in the general it can have the effect of diminishing Democratic turn out and hurt Democrats running for Congress. Senator Feinstein has been a decent Senator, but there are those who dislike her. There are going to be Democrats running in the primary even if you hold your breath and stomp your feet. If there is another Democrat on the ballot in the general even Democrats who aren't on team Feinstein will be motivated to get out and vote. That results in more votes for Democratic Congressional candidates.
Demsrule86
(68,667 posts)We are talking money and time...name someone who would be endangered by low turnout. It is the excuse used by those who hate the Democratic Party and their leaders and senior members...not buying it. Spend the time to go after Republicans.
tonedevil
(3,022 posts)voter? You don't seem to understand us very well.
DBoon
(22,397 posts)Until the outsized red state majorities are removed, it won't matter who wins the CA senate
Steven Maurer
(476 posts)Please forgive me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the good Senator Feinstein is running for the Green nomination.
Hekate
(90,793 posts)I see that you are a Green, or at least greeny, and that you are practically brand new to DU. We support Democrats, according to the TOS, and we make every effort to get them in office and keep them there.
California is an enormous and enormously diverse state, and not just ethnically. We are politically diverse as well. Take a look at the conservatives that various districts keep sending to the House. You want one of them to replace DiFi? We've sent both Reagan and Nixon to the White House.
We have a lot of good Dem politicians out here, and when Feinstein does retire, they will primary each other and not a sitting Senator who is one of the most powerful in the Senate.
Thank you.
Weekend Warrior
(1,301 posts)NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)democratisphere
(17,235 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)IF she faces no primary opposition. the state party will stay stuck in the exact status quo(and the state Assembly will keep killing single-payer, the only progressive measure that mattered in those chambers this year)for the rest of eternity.
If it's status quo this year, it will never ever not be status quo.
We're going to hold the CA senate seat no matter what. There's no GOP candidate there with any traction.
George II
(67,782 posts)Last edited Tue Oct 10, 2017, 10:00 AM - Edit history (1)
Also, since there is a Senator who is pushing "single payer" yet his/her state doesn't have "single payer" and the story has repeatedly been "He/she has no influence in what the state does", how is it that a Federal Senator from California has more influence on state legislation?
Have you gone past the headlines to research exactly why "single payer" didn't come up for a vote? (hint: it's the same reason why it isn't law in that other Senator's state, either)
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)... then demand it from (or find fault with) someone in another instance. Thanks for pointing it out. I always value your contributions to the conversation and the debate George II.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)n/t.
Gothmog
(145,554 posts)There are no primaries and in many cases this system results in no GOP candidate making it to the general election ballot. In 2016, it was Senator Harris against another Democratic candidate
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)If anything, it's likely that the result of that in '18 would be Feinstein facing another Dem in the fall, with the other Dem running to her left.
Gothmog
(145,554 posts)The top two system does not really allow one to primary Feinstein. That is not how the system really works
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)If it weren't a primary, they wouldn't also have a general election ballot.
While it is effectively nonpartisan-btw, I OPPOSE top two primaries, which are also held in Washington state for all offices and in Nebraska-for seats in the unicameral legislature-it does fulfil the function of a primary-it reduces the field for each office to two major candidates, who then face off against each other on the general election ballot.
https://ballotpedia.org/Top-two_primary
As I said, I hate the idea.
Gothmog
(145,554 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)So essentially, it can't happen-there's no way she could piss off THAT many people between now and primary day.
I didn't invent "top two", nor do I even support it. I'm just explaining that it is a thing and telling you how it works. OK?
Gothmog
(145,554 posts)NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)... you're limiting it to the real world.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)I was simply telling you what would need to happen for it to occur in a "top two" primary.
And in the post you responded to there, I agreed that it was unlikely to say the least.
Under "top two", an incumbent would have to insist on staying in the race despite becoming catastrophically unpopular, and not just one but TWO other candidates would have to gain enough support to finish ahead of the incumbent.
I'm not in California politics and it's not up to me as to whether Senator Feinstein would face such a challenge.
Please stop using the phrase "in the real world". It's not cool to imply that people are delusional just because they hold different views and a different sense of the possible than you do-and nobody who posts on this board deserves to be accused of being out of touch with reality simply because they disagree with you and don't defer to you. Using that phrase, over and over again, as you do against lots of people here, reduces the effectiveness of all of your posts-it makes it look as though you can't defend your positions on the merits of the issue in play and therefore have no alternative but to bully, badger and namecall your opponents into silence. I'm sure you're a better person than that in real life, I'm equally sure that no one who disagrees with you here lives on any world other than the real one we ALL share, and I'm surest of all that your use of that phrase has never won an argument for you here OR silenced any one you disagreed with.
Move on. Be the better person you truly are. "Be like Keith", as Nurse Jackie says.
Your use of that phrase will never make anyone to your left on DU stop posting here OR discredit anything any of us have to say.
It's a real world, it's a BIG real world, and your way of looking at this big, beautiful really real world has never been the only real way.
Gothmog
(145,554 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)We both live in the real world.
Stop already.
George II
(67,782 posts)....all candidates from both (or all?) parties run in the primary and the top two face each other in the General Election.
For example, last year there were a number of candidates running, with Kamala Harris and Loretta Sanchez (both Democrats) facing each other in the General Election. Harris won that by about 2-1.
Would individual primaries have changed the result?
Here are the 2016 Senate Primary results. Which of them pass the "true progressive" sniff test?
(sorry for the format)
Party Candidate Votes %
Democratic Kamala Harris 3,000,689 39.9%
Democratic Loretta Sanchez 1,416,203 18.9%
Republican Duf Sundheim 584,251 7.8%
Republican Phil Wyman 352,821 4.7%
Republican Tom Del Beccaro 323,614 4.3%
Republican Greg Conlon 230,944 3.1%
Democratic Steve Stokes 168,805 2.2%
Republican George C. Yang 112,055 1.5%
Republican Karen Roseberry 110,557 1.5%
Libertarian Gail K. Lightfoot 99,761 1.3%
Democratic Massie Munroe 98,150 1.3%
Green Pamela Elizondo 95,677 1.3%
Republican Tom Palzer 93,263 1.2%
Republican Ron Unz 92,325 1.2%
Republican Don Krampe 69,635 0.9%
No party pref. Eleanor García 65,084 0.9%
Republican Jarrell Williamson 64,120 0.9%
Republican Von Hougo 63,609 0.8%
Democratic President Cristina Grappo 63,330 0.8%
No party pref. Jerry J. Laws 53,023 0.7%
Libertarian Mark Matthew Herd 41,344 0.6%
Peace/Freedom John Thompson Parker 35,998 0.5%
No party pref. Ling Ling Shi 35,196 0.5%
Democratic Herbert G. Peters 32,638 0.4%
Democratic Emory Peretz Rodgers 31,485 0.4%
No party pref. Mike Beitiks 31,450 0.4%
No party pref. Clive Grey 29,418 0.4%
No party pref. Jason Hanania 27,715 0.4%
No party pref. Paul Merritt 24,031 0.3%
No party pref. Jason Kraus 19,318 0.3%
No party pref. Don J. Grundmann 15,317 0.2%
No party pref. Scott A. Vineberg 11,843 0.2%
No party pref. Tim Gildersleeve 9,798 0.1%
No party pref. Gar Myers 8,726 0.1%
Write-in Billy Falling 87 0.0%
Write-in Ric M. Llewellyn 32 0.0%
Write-in Alexis Stuart 10 0.0%
Total votes 7,512,322 100.0%
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)I said that it had a primary that can produce situations where two candidates of the same party face each other on the general election ballot.
And the results you posted illustrated my point...there's no possible way that a primary challenge in California can lead to a Republican winning a statewide race in the fall.
George II
(67,782 posts)....who was best qualified to win the election last year, and who could be in the list for next year, including Dianne Feinstein?
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Don't know enough about anyone with less support than them to speak to their qualifications.
Side question as I look at that...what the heck was the story with the one person who was running as "President Cristina Grappo"? Did her parents name her "President"?
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)JHan
(10,173 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)There's been this fixation with limiting which races progressives are nominated in.
JHan
(10,173 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)We all know it.
There's nobody there waiting in the wings...there's no Reagan or Schwarzenegger figure on standby.
JHan
(10,173 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)The mere fact of seeking office doesn't subject a person to oppression.
I was talking about the fact that it seems to be ok in Cali for progressives to be in small-town local government or state Assembly seats, or SOME U.S. House seats, maybe occasionally one of the U.S. Senate seats...
but there always seems to be some sort of unspoken rule winnowing them out of the governorship and at least one U.S. Senate seats, and the mayoralities of the larger cities.
Those positions seem to be reserved for "centrists", for some reason.
JHan
(10,173 posts)This sounds like a litmus test Ken. I'll just end up repeating things I've said to you in dozens of other exchanges.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)When the phrase "no litmus test" is invoked, what else can it mean but that we have no right to hold the people we elect to anything?
What, as you see, do we have the right to expect of Democratic officeholders and what do we NOT have the right to expect?
As to Brown...he's progressive on balance, and I'd have always voted for him in the fall.
But there were tons of rightward tacks he made that I don't think he ever had to make.
He was absurdly "law and order" as governor and especially as Oakland mayor, he appeased the Prop 13. crowd,and achieved nothing in doing so, since none of them were even going to consider voting for hi, he ran as the "flat tax/balanced budget amendment" candidate for president, and he spent way too much time joining the right in trying to delegitimize progressive activists. He was also a hard-line drug warrior decades past the time when there was any pragmatic reason for any California Dem to take that stance.
And what do you think it says about him that he inspired that Dead Kennedys song?
And it looks as though he often used his influence in the state party to push for the nomination of the least progressive candidates possible, which made little sense in an era when California has moved further and further to the Left.
He's been better in his last two terms on policy and rhetoric and I commend him for that.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)But when you say "some reason" in that context, it's highly unlikely that you're actually referring to the ACTUAL and LEGITIMATE reasons... instead you're employing a rhetorical device that's used to cleverly suggest some sort of oppressive conspiracy.
Those positions seem to be reserved for "centrists", for some reason.
"some reason" (= reasons other than the actual ones) ... "Unspoken rule" (= conspiracy) ... "winnowing them out" (= oppression) ... "reserved for centrists" (= exclusionary conspiracy) ... "small-town government" (= oppression through isolation).
Give me a break! We can read, you know. The meaning is clear, Ken. We're not stupid.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)I have never posted here with nefarious intent, Jackie, or with hidden intent or with coded meaning.
"unspoken rule" is not the same as "conspiracy".
And nothing I said equated to claiming that progressives were oppressed within the California Democracy. My actual description would be that the party puts limits on how far they can go, which is pointless in California because there aren't any significant blocs of voters there anymore who will vote for a Dem but only it the Dem was a "moderate". California isn't Missouri.
You have no reason to assume that everything I say here an attack on the party or a part of a plot against the party. None of it is. I simply feel, as I've always felt, that it's not healthy to give anyone an unchallenged re-nomination for ANY office.
I didn't smear Dianne Feinstein...it would have been a smear to call her a reactionary. She's not a reactionary, she's a centrist, and has presented herself as such throughout her career, starting when she was the least progressive Dem on the SF Board of Supervisors.
She has done a lot of good as senator, but it's not a slur against her to point out that she's particularly progressive. And given that she's unbeatable, what difference does it make what I say about her?
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)Yeah right.
lapucelle
(18,319 posts)Where have we all heard that before?
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)It's so very tiresome.
Response to Ken Burch (Reply #120)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Didn't know it was a slur. My bad.
brer cat
(24,605 posts)Did CA "never ever" change after electing Richard Nixon? Further, if you really want to do some good, why not suggest spending our resources against republicans or conservative Democrats? It's a waste to go after a good, liberal Democrat who is sure to win reelection.
skylucy
(3,743 posts)oasis
(49,407 posts)awesomerwb1
(4,268 posts)FYI Californian here.
She's 84, and will be 85 by November 2018.
Sometimes she does not look in the moment to me. Personal opinion and nothing personal.
I just believe the party needs new blood but if she wins again, it goes without saying we'll all get behind her.
More than anything we need to UNITE AGAINST THE COMMON ENEMY. If we fail to win back the house next year despite all the negatives in the GOP, it will be one of the biggest fuck ups in political history in my opinion. And I wouldn't put it past the Dems + Bernie to do just that.
oasis
(49,407 posts)she'll possibly step down before the end of her term. I sense Feinstein believes her experience and influence can best serve the party.
awesomerwb1
(4,268 posts)and of course seniority.
I was unaware of her pacemaker procedure. Glad she's doing ok.
Weekend Warrior
(1,301 posts)"Sometimes she does not look in the moment to me."
Hekate
(90,793 posts)Ruth Bader Ginsberg looks as fragile as a pile of bird-bones, but she is still as sharp as a tack.
Thank the Goddess for both of them.
sheshe2
(83,898 posts)Thank the Goddess for both of them.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)the White House.
awesomerwb1
(4,268 posts)Weekend Warrior
(1,301 posts)Hekate
(90,793 posts)Thanks for clearing that up.
Demsrule86
(68,667 posts)And if we fail to win the House it will be because of the Our revolution and Move On bullshit move of primarying Democrats...fight Republicans.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)Cicada
(4,533 posts)Like LA mayor Garcetti. Who has Mexican, Italian and Jewish roots and who is super appealing.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)Once in power, after all, they actually have to produce, and too many politicians can neither produce nor get reelected without selling their power to whoever will keep them in office.
Unlike most elected officials these days, weaklings who must satisfy the requirements of their financial "backers," Diane Feinstein is extremely experienced, is very powerful within her party, has decades of broad and deep web of connections to state- and nationwide power centers that she can call on to help get things done, is effectively financially independent, and depends only on the voters for reelection.
Cicada, kick out and replace LOWER LEVEL people, the weaklings who aren't coming through. Don't go after those whose names are known because they have what it takes to rise to the top.
George II
(67,782 posts)...you'll see relatively few Senators who are elected President.
Before Barack Obama you have to go back to Lyndon Johnson/John Kennedy and then Harry Truman and then Warren Harding.
That's in 100 years.
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)Even Obama was "barely" a senator. It can be hard to win from a senate seat. Truth be known, governor is a better place from which to run. In this day and age a cabinet secretary might do well, but you always have the "Washington insider" issue.
BeyondGeography
(39,379 posts)Whats funny about DiFis most ardent defenders here is many also happened to be the most vocal supporters for Harris for President back when that was a thing. And Harris was only on their radar for that conversation because Boxer retired. Whatever your views on Harris, she definitely adds to the Partys overall bench strength. When incumbents hang on until theyre 90, otoh, the Party is deprived of new faces and voices, just like Harris. Yay, DiFi!
George II
(67,782 posts)BeyondGeography
(39,379 posts)If not, then we have a legitimate presidential candidate because an older Senator made way for a younger replacement by retiring. Maybe argue that point instead of hiding behind context.
George II
(67,782 posts)....for a candidate to run for Senate in California based primarily if he/she would make a viable Presidential candidate in 2020.
I don't think that was the primary reason that Californians voted for Kamala Harris in the primary or the General Election. Their priority was electing a capable Senator. And they did.
BeyondGeography
(39,379 posts)And their enablers do the Party no favors.
George II
(67,782 posts)...."lifetime tenure".
So, who should replace her, if anyone?
BeyondGeography
(39,379 posts)who can surely point to a qualified alternative in a state that is 2/3 Democratic at the governance level and has been deep blue for many years. Unless youre saying resistance is futile.
George II
(67,782 posts)....who is "best" for them.
DBoon
(22,397 posts)Nt
delisen
(6,044 posts)service-oriented or foreign policy-oriented non profit and head it for the next few years.
Weekend Warrior
(1,301 posts)Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)than for a Senator to get into the White House.
The Senate is not the track to the White House. Governorship is. Although there have been exceptions (JFK, Obama), it is rare. And they are exceptional. They also didn't have a long stint in the Senate.
The more Senate votes you have under your belt, the more there is to attack.
It takes Senate newbies a while to get their sea legs, and they don't have any power. It's best if the ones with years there and some clout get re-elected, generally speaking. Feinstein is very powerful in the Senate, brilliant, tough, all while being respectful and knowledgeable. People listen to her. That sounds like a good Senator to me.
Not Ruth
(3,613 posts)Stand up to ageism
crazycatlady
(4,492 posts)My state re-elected a senator at the age of 84. He did not live to see the end of his term and the process to replace him was a clusterfuck (caused by the governor).
Hell we have a 71 yo in the White House who is so senile he has no business being in any public office.
MyOwnPeace
(16,937 posts)There needs to be better long-range planning on the part of leadership - but, what has been done since President Obama won in 2008?
Really, is there ANY "planning" being done by the Democratic Party - or do we just sit back and let the in-fighting take place?
crazycatlady
(4,492 posts)Right now a group called Run for Something is training and developing millennials to run for office. Other groups (Emerge America, Emily's List) are developing women. I believe there's similar for Latinos and LGBT.
delisen
(6,044 posts)NewJeffCT
(56,829 posts)$3.6 million is nice, but not a huge amount.
Hekate
(90,793 posts)MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)Of course I will support the Democrat, but I do hope she is a little more outspoken about the Moron in Chief.
iluvtennis
(19,871 posts)Orrex
(63,224 posts)I'd love to see her in the White House.
iluvtennis
(19,871 posts)Lunabell
(6,105 posts)leftofcool
(19,460 posts)Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)BadGimp
(4,018 posts)time to hand off the mantle of leadership imo
hueymahl
(2,510 posts)Under her leadership, we have seen our party decimated in every possible category, losses in the executive branch, losses in the house, losses in the senate, losses in governorships and losses in state houses.
Yes, I know she is not directly responsible for all the losses. But she remains one of our party's primary leaders. I think it is time for a change in leadership. I wish she would not run.
Weekend Warrior
(1,301 posts)Under her leadership, we have seen our party grow and contract, we have won and lost the executive branch, gained and lost seats in the house, gained and lost seats in the senate, etc..
Hekate
(90,793 posts)...in the Senate.
Good lord.
JHan
(10,173 posts)Hekate
(90,793 posts)There's another thread with an even stupider argument about Columbus.
JHan
(10,173 posts)roody
(10,849 posts)hueymahl
(2,510 posts)I did not say she was THE leader.
She is influential in setting party policy and spending priorities. She speaks on behalf of other candidates. She fights against Trump and his minions.
She has done A LOT of good for the party. Unfortunately, the strategy she and the rest of the leaders of the party (little p) have advocated has utterly failed since Obama was elected.
There is plenty of blame to go around. I appreciate everything she has done over an illustrious career. But it is now time to step aside.
maxsolomon
(33,400 posts)It's time to pass the torch.
She won't end Gun Violence in America if she lived to 200.
Brother Buzz
(36,463 posts)maxsolomon
(33,400 posts)Madam45for2923
(7,178 posts)pnwmom
(108,994 posts)and continued till he was 102.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)"Too old..."
What then do you believe is the allowable maximum age to be effective, and on what objective measure is that number based on?
Or is simply another "too old, but I can't support my allegation" post?
maxsolomon
(33,400 posts)That's the age where I'd put the cut-off.
Anyway, congrats; you've exposed me as an Ageist again. Nothing excites young voters to put down their phones and vote like their great-grandma running.
Hekate
(90,793 posts)Christ on a trailer hitch.
She gets to stay as long as Californians keep voting for her or until she retires. I'm a Californian.
maxsolomon
(33,400 posts)SHE brought up Gun Violence in her announcement. Not "many people".
SaschaHM
(2,897 posts)There's no reason that we can't have a 2 Dem General election for that Senate seat again. Hell, it would actually be beneficial down ballot for house races if we had a 2 Dem Senate race.
Demsrule86
(68,667 posts)SaschaHM
(2,897 posts)is the best way to use money against the Republicans. CA has a jungle primary. We guarantee a seat for a Dem and deny republicans a flashy top tier race for bring out their voters for lower tier races, which boosts our house races.
The worst case scenario for us here is a Dem v. Rep w/ a dissatisfied left. Feinstein would win, but our excess voters would stay home.
RhodeIslandOne
(5,042 posts)I would have preferred Boxer stayed on a couple years ago and Kamala had been able run for this seat.
Madam45for2923
(7,178 posts)Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)My only issue is that with her statistically unlikely to finish her term that means the CA voters don't get a voice in who replaces her, and then whomever gets appointed by the governor gets a huge boost toward winning the election to fill the seat by virtue of dropping into that seat and staff.
I think it is short changing the voters in that regard, and a play in part to ensure the person the party wants, not necessarily the people, gets to fill that seat and gets the biggest advantage come the election to fill it.
L. Coyote
(51,129 posts)Hekate
(90,793 posts)liskddksil
(2,753 posts)If 2 Democrats were able to get into the top 2 spots, not only would no Republicans be on the Senate ballot, but their enthusiasm and turnout would significantly diminish on Election-Day, helping us win in many down-ballot races.
SaschaHM
(2,897 posts)would cruise to victory anyway without them.
They can come, vote for their D senate candidate and then vote D for house/local races that aren't as flashy.
Nevernose
(13,081 posts)Its only a bad thing if me presupposes that Feinstein is entitled to the job because shes been elected before. There are, Im sure, man younger, more liberal people that could do the job as good or better.
Though clearly she is far better than any Republican would or could be.
Spy Car
(38 posts)She and Kamala Harris represent us well.
I am resigned to the idea that the Senate may not be Sen. Feinstein's springboard to the presidency.
RandySF
(59,221 posts)DarthDem
(5,256 posts)Mmm, not sure. But Feinstein will win regardless.
RandySF
(59,221 posts)They all run together in the primary and the top two face off regardless of party.
DarthDem
(5,256 posts)I live here.
I just wasn't sure what you were forecasting or if you were outside looking in and confused. My bad, I gotcha now.
Hopefully if Feinstein does have some purity challenger, s/he won't get much attention.
Tatiana
(14,167 posts)I think someone more progressive could be elected. But, if California likes her, I think they have the right to vote for her.
Hopefully the governorship remains in Democratic hands in case (Lord, forbid) something unfortunate happens.
Tavarious Jackson
(1,595 posts)I personally would prefer a younger person but if she wins, she has my full support
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)Im not really interested in replacing her just to replace her, but time marches on. Kevin De Leon expressed interest, and there are other very able CA folks. She has so much cash in hand, there isnt a credible opponent for her seat, and she does fine, and never claimed to be a radical. But it would be nice to have a plan for later...
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)We really need them to look ahead. Late in their careers, policymakers have a unique responsibility to help mentor successors. This isn't just keeping the family business going. People in government have a profound impact on the entire world.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)typical...
zentrum
(9,865 posts)We need some new faces. Especially from one of our most progressive states.
brooklynite
(94,727 posts)Or is that someone else's job?
BeyondGeography
(39,379 posts)Plus, this isn't Delaware. Boxer could have remained Senator as long as she wanted but she called it a day and we got a younger Senator with a very bright future out of the deal. Would that more septuagenarian and octogenarian Democrats would make the same choice.
If you want to know how our Party got old, this is how.
m-lekktor
(3,675 posts)YOHABLO
(7,358 posts)Willie Pep
(841 posts)But I don't understand the hate that older politicians like Feinstein get these days. Experience matters in politics just like in other jobs. You need to know how to work the system to get stuff done and building relationships and trust is important. New faces are good but you need some older, experienced people too, especially to serve as mentors for younger politicians. I think age discrimination is becoming a really big problem in this country.
NBachers
(17,136 posts)I live here, and I'm enthusiastically supporting Diane Feinstein, and voting for her.
Does she deserve at least a smidgen of credit for her long political career which has seen the collapse of the republican party in California? Can it be possible that the two have any connection?
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)We are better off with her leadership, Harris wrote.
While opponents see Feinsteins style and longevity as a negative, her backers see it otherwise.
Her longtime campaign strategist, Bill Carrick, ticked off a string of issues guns, abortion rights, desert protection, environmental issues, torture, LGBT rights on which Feinsteins record is closely aligned with the most liberal elements of the party.
Shes in good shape, and the Democratic base is her strength, he said. Anybody who thinks theyre going to run to the left of her with Democrats, good luck.
Ultimately, the race may center on what Californians expect of their politicians. Feinstein, a former San Francisco mayor, is a believer in the school of compromise, of both sides working together to achieve an end that fully satisfies neither but moves the issue along.
I can work across the aisle. I can work with other people. I know how to make judgments that can make bills passable, she said in a brief interview after her announcement.
That is a style that has gone broadly out of fashion in recent years. If a challenger with enough money and manpower arrives, the Senate race could foretell whether California voters still want it or prefer a more antagonistic tone. Feinstein is betting thats not the case.
Im not a rabble-rouser; its not what I intend to do, she said after a frequently testy town hall in mid-April at Los Angeles First African Methodist Episcopal Church. I want to try to dim the cry and to fashion it into something constructive. I think people want me to be constructive.
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-feinstein-analysis-20171009-story.html
+10,000, Sen. Feinstein! Those who imagine trying to rebuild the critical working center means Feinstein isn't left enough should swonder why the extremely diverse California electorate keeps reelecting her. Before they helped elect her to national office, San Francisco voters elected her mayor for 10 years and to the San Francisco board of supervisors for 8 years before that. She's among a handful of the most powerful and experienced, strong liberals we have, and those hopeful opportunists who claim otherwise are lying.