Way cool

Is this a way to make the Democrats divisive ??

Is somebody fucking with us?

This so called progressive movement is going to fuck over the D party big time, GOP will retain power probably.

the tired old "Dems in disarray!!11" meme. OTOH, the quotes and comments by some are discouraging.

It happens in other states, too.

And it's not uncommon that an endorsed candidate loses to a rival in the primary.

No doubt she'll win the primary.

to being bowled over by the teabaggers at the national level and noting their successes (which were mostly due to billions pumped into their campaigns nationwide by their wealthy benefactors over the past 10 years).

In "deep blue" states like California, the ability to even do this is perhaps commendable compared to those of us in red or purple states who have to struggle - and particularly when there is no fear of a GOP candidate usurping the intra-party squabbling.

Of course the danger of "purity" is playing out among the GOP right now, where they have gone so extreme that they cannot even function, let alone govern, and are only left with selfish lashing out at and harming anyone around them who they believe is NOT "them". And this has come at the expense and sanctity of the nation as a whole.

I could not agree more!

I think it's due to a lot of voters wanting to pass the torch to a younger generation.

It's about being progressive. Look at Bernie.

It's about time the Party faced the reform that has to come. Really thrilled the Democratic Party in doing this.

…..nice of you.

Yep,

Way to go California!

Remember everyone, the Democratics at their convention also "rebuked" De Leon and every other candidate. No candidate was endorses, and many times a candidate who gets endorsed by the party at their Convention doesn't wind up with the nomination anyway.

Currently Feinstein is ahead of everyone in the primary by double-digits.

…is about age. Hence, I mentioned Bernie as an example for how it is not about age, but policies.

The Democratic Party of CA voted against her because, they said, they wanted a candidate who will stand up more strongly to Trump.

Feinstein represents the neoliberal establishment which always goes the center, compromising way and the state wants to move on and have a stronger progressive presence.

I understand that she's ahead with the general populace. We'll see what happens as a result of the Party vote.

As someone says in this thread, "The times, they are a-changing."

Why is California being attacked in his name with endless divisiveness? This will not make sense with voters.

Feinstein’s seniority has already paid off with attacking Trump. She released the Fusion docs that a junior Senator might not have had the temerity to do. We need her seniority in the Russian investigations. We need to see now which Americans helped the Russians attack Hillary.

...."they wanted a candidate who will stand up more strongly to Trump"?

The Democratic Party should want a candidate who can win and get votes state-wide, not in a Convention atmosphere. So far Feinstein is ahead of De Leon ~45-17 in the Primary - 3X the support of De Leon.

California as a whole makes the choice of who will represent them in Washington as Senator.

met the standards there that are being imposed on California:

No single payer
No $15/hr minimum wage
No free college tuition

If it can’t be done in his own state, then causing more divisiveness in mine looks hypocritical. We deserve better than this endless divisiveness.

…divisive in Ca?

Talk to the California Democratic Party if you're upset with their vote against Di. Bernie didn't make them do that.

I support them but fully assume she'll be the candidate in the general against a Repug.

….she'll win the primary and win against the Repug in the general election.

I wish it was De Leon, but I assume the same old order will prevail.

....what's wrong with that?

There's a very very very slight chance that a republican will be facing off against Feinstein in the general election.

So that is the divisive set-up to contrast with a California Democrat, Dianne Feinstein, the subject of this thread. It's also well-known that the revolution tactics are supposed to take California by storm and cause this huge reform, at least that is the divisive rhetoric. Why ask about something that you wrote about yourself. We know what is going on.

I still find it interesting none of the "reformers" care to answer why California Democrats are being targeted and attacked while Vermont gets a pass.

And the so-called "vote" of the California Democrats, so what, really. They are preaching to their choir, not the voters who decide. If you read other articles about it, de Leon failed to reach the 60% threshold, too, so a yuuuge failure there, if this is just about appearances....

……about Bernie was limited to the issue of age. The post just above mine was about it's being time for young blood. I simply said I thought it wasn't about age—but progressive policies. Bernie is old in age but beloved by our young voters. That was my point. Age—got it?

I somehow think that metric won't be applied to Diane by those people....

Thought I might see you here responding.

I think that it's quite apparent in this thread, and in other threads.

can you be more specific before?

you saw many many many threads on it.

I won't quote you when I asked you to be more specific in another thread.

You?

relative to economic policy -- though I'm not actually sure. That's why I asked.

For many, that context may involve personalities, and litmus tests defined by those personalities.

Others are less tribal, and view effective strategy as being more important than personalities and manifestos, which they may consider dogma.

Many times progressives agree on many, maybe all basic principles, but differ on dogma or strategy.

Being a UU, I have little use for dogma or manifesto. I left "belief" behind in favor of putting my energy into actions rather than personality based spirituality or institutions.

I have very few institutions or leaders that I "identify" with. I support public education, the free press, honest elections, the social safety net, and the common good. I do need a community to optimize my activism and social justice work, a "machine" of sorts to manage the administrative organizing of many people to amplify the effort. No machine is perfect that is made up of humans, but it's more effective than going it alone. That's why I share my money and time to the UUs. Also, I need the community of others of a mind, because most humans need that.

I don't apply the metrics of a movement leader onto a politician, whose metrics and tools are different. I don't expect the same things of a politician that I would a SCOTUS judge, or the ACLU, or the Children's Defense Fund, or NARAL, or Union leaders, etc.

Paul Wellstone, who I had the privilege of working with, came the closest to having the smarts, the social skills, the savvy, the patience and ability to do the administrative minutiae that is 88% of politics, and the intellect to merge them with activism somewhat. However, I would never expect him to have the superhuman characteristics of being able to manage singlehandedly the wicked problem of reform in this country. He understood that it was indeed too complicated for one person. It requires a machine behind you, which is where Democrats come in to amplify the effort. No machine is perfect that is made up of humans, but it's more effective than going it alone.

by others -- and likely the specific others with whom you differ. I'm an example. I don't support Bernie because of his "personality" but because of his positions and proposals on issues that are important to me and have been for 40 plus years. I suspect most Bernie supporters would say the same (aside from the 40-plus years bit), yet you seem to view that relationship as tribal in nature. Similarly, strategies that I see as being effective and ones we should pursue as a party, perhaps strike you as ineffective. Two sides of the same mirror so to speak.

To be frank, when the dogma or strategy lead to continuing decline over 40 years in economic prosperity of the working and middle class as a whole, yeah, I see ineffectiveness pretty clearly. Strategies like "triangulation" strike me as grossly ineffective so I support change. If that change happens to involve exciting young people at rallies, why would I reject that?

is still dogma, be it on the right or the left.

The right has "getting rid of Planned Parenthood will end abortion," and the left has "Single Payer/Medicare for All is the only way to reform health care in the US."

Both are very exciting and unifying, very tribal, sound simple and logical, but both don't take into account the complexities of the issues they address. They also rely on misinformation, or lack of information from admired leaders who mean well.

Both camps accuse those who point out what the experts on health policy have to say of being "shills" and not having "vision," and not being part of the tribe.

Being pragmatic and evidence-based isn't always inspirational, and certainly gets you bounced from the tribe.

Again, that's why I'm a UU, and not a Baptist.

Some dogma have been shown to be ineffective (now for 40 years running). At some point it makes good sense to change.

in order to work, no matter how dull, uninspirational and "establishment" that evidence may be.

Changing everything for the sake of change isn't a reliable way to effect lasting progressive change. Throwing out the baby with the bathwater, and such. Just because someone says, "Things suck!" doesn't mean they have the answers on how to achieve progress. We hear that every election cycle. Try convincing any GOP hard liner that Obama actually moved things forward...

And there is lots of misinformation going around that needs to be fact checked, as we have seen in recent revelations. We need to be careful what and who gets scapegoated.

Also, I'd say that there has been some very evident progress that has been accomplished by the Democratic party in the last 40 years, if that's the "dogma" you're referring to.

Of course, one sees that progress far more clearly if one is not a white, straight, cis male. The social issues that are not solved by making more money are important as well, and progressives that dismiss those victories may want to re-visit their definition of progressive.

nor do I see others doing so here. As for evidence, there is plenty about what policy has not worked well economically for working Americans and Main Street. There are also plenty of rigorously defined and described proposals for correcting our economic ailments and disparity. Much of our income disparity is actually a result of misinformation influencing policy.

What were you talking about?

and am somewhat confused about "the dogma" too. Since you seem to be more knowledgable than I am, can you explain why more people in CA are leaning toward a third party recently?
https://sandiegofreepress.org/2018/02/why-should-i-be-a-democrat-part-one-the-2018-state-convention-comes-to-san-diego/

KPN.

Last edited Mon Feb 26, 2018, 12:00 AM - Edit history (1)

middle ground with Rs is an effective way forward and will build a stronger party for one; the notion that the best way to move forward is to triangulate to attract more moderates; the notion that we need to be "realistic" about big money involvement in financing campaigns; the notion that we all have to/had to sacrifice in order to recover from the 2008 housing/finance collapse; the idea that we need to look forward rather than dwell on the past (e.g., impeachment is off the table); the notion that the horse already left the barn regarding globalism/migration of American industry overseas without deliberate or real regard for impacted workers; that retraining is the way out of structural change -- caused by basically greed and helped by policy -- that afflicts the American workforce; that deregulation of finance and Wall Street is somehow acceptable; that the move from a progressive tax table with an upper tax rate of 90+ to one of 39% is acceptable; to name a few off the top of my head. That it's okay to shift financing of student loans to the private sector, that the rise in health care costs was basically okay until it reached 4 or 5 times the rate of inflation or more; that we couldn't accomplish things we wanted to accomplish because of the Rs. I can go on if you like.

Last edited Mon Feb 26, 2018, 11:00 AM - Edit history (7)

that Democratic 'dogma' is "The assumption that seeking a middle ground with the Rs is an effective way forward."

Do you define working in a bipartisan manner on an issue to be "ineffective?" Such as Dodd-Frank, the ADA, CHIP, McCain-Feingold, “Jumpstart Our Business Startups (JOBS) Act,” 21st Century Cures Act, The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, for instance?

Do you define siding with the GOP majority on any issue/law to be "ineffective," or just some? Such as: voting against sanctions on Russia, voting to fund the Iraq war, voting against the Brady Bill, against Victims of Rape Health Protection Act, voting to protect 'The Minuteman Project'?

Just trying to clarify.

Also, can you specify what happened starting in 1978 that you think instituted the "dogma" that you describe?

I think is your point: that without a willingness to compromise, we miss out on opportunities to achieve some gain, and that some gain is better than none. Where I have a problem with that (I'll grant you this is broader brush as opposed to specific) is we are dealing with a Party that has lived by the ideology that government (federal government in particular) is THE PROBLEM for 40 years now, not to mention a Party that deliberately established obstructionism as its principle strategy for dealing with Democratic control of the White House and Congress, i.e., filibuster everything. The Federal Government can't solve or make improvement on structural economic problems when it is viewed and treated as THE PROBLEM by the Party that is also willing to hold the nation hostage in order to get its way. Compromising with a GOP that is basically unwilling to compromise is actually more like yielding for the most part. Yeah, there may be some marginal gains, but the movement trend-wise continues to be right -- smaller government, less regulation, fewer worker protections, etc., -- and that's essentially what we've done. And in so doing, we as a party have been perceived by many voters as ineffective which only worsens the situation. Compromising with a Party driven strictly by ideology and unable to compromise on values results primarily in further erosion.

As for your 2nd question, most of those laws are marginal improvements relative to the overall decline in working/middle class prosperity. Dodd-Frank is not an improvement over Glass Steagall in my book (who signed the G-S Repeal?). I'm not sure I'd say that the ACA was bipartisan. The final vote certainly wasn't; not a single R voted in favor of it in either the H or the S. On the economic front, there have been marginal gains, but these are vastly overshadowed by policy movements to the right.

In answer to your 3rd question, it would depend on where the GOP is on a particular issue.

What happened in 78? The tax revolt and runaway inflation! That's what swept Reagan into office and the whole notion that government is the problem which we, as a party, have been relatively ineffectual in confronting.

Having said all that, I grant you that there is ebb and flow over time in public opinion and voting that ultimately influences who has and what doctrines have power when. I am only contending that we are out of power now in part because we swayed too far to the right economically. Yeah, liberalism got rejected in 68 and 72, but that doesn't mean we should be cautious with it now -- especially after the 2008/09 Wall Street bail-out/hold none of them accountable fiasco. We need to fight harder and more openly/visibly for economic progressivism that will work. I agree that Bernie's positions are probably too far to the left in some areas, but on Wall Street vs Main Street, they are not. We need to win back the trust of working class Americans while continuing the strong push for equal rights for all. Why can't we do that?

Not sure on why that's now part of the equasion.

Here's that question again:

68 and 72? I used those dates (the Humphrey/McGovern candidacies) as an example of the ebb and flow that happens in public opinion/support for political ideologies that ultimately determines what ideologies have power/control when. My point being that because "liberalism" was rejected in 68 and 72 doesn't mean economic progressivism will be rejected today. Did you not understand that?

Regarding your 2nd question, I already answered that in two ways. (1) I recognize and appreciate the value of compromise when it's actual compromise and not yielding way; and (2) it depends on the particular issue/circumstance. I would never dictate or favor total inflexibility -- that's a big part of what makes me a liberal.

Let me add though that you seem to want to paint me into a corner as opposed to respond to my broader premise. What's up with that? Do you think I am totally off base in my view that we (Democratic Party) has been weak on the economy when it comes to economic well-being of the working and middle class generally over the past 40 years? How about you address my points/answer my questions. Here's another one: how ell has neo-liberalism worked for the working/middle class generally over the past 25-30 years? (Please don't get hung up on 68-72, 40 vs 25-30 -- they are different timeframes representing distinctions).

Got it.

Any particular reason?

Or perhaps you genuinely missed it? I don't know, but it does seem that you are more interested in debate tactics than discussing substance. If that's the case, then there's probably no good reason for me to continue with this conversation.

To answer your first queston: Yes, generally. But I also get and appreciate what

I think is your point: that without a willingness to compromise, we miss out on opportunities to achieve some gain, and that some gain is better than none. Where I have a problem with that (I'll grant you this is broader brush as opposed to specific) is we are dealing with a Party that has lived by the ideology that government (federal government in particular) is THE PROBLEM for 40 years now, not to mention a Party that deliberately established obstructionism as its principle strategy for dealing with Democratic control of the White House and Congress, i.e., filibuster everything. The Federal Government can't solve or make improvement on structural economic problems when it is viewed and treated as THE PROBLEM by the Party that is also willing to hold the nation hostage in order to get its way. Compromising with a GOP that is basically unwilling to compromise is actually more like yielding for the most part. Yeah, there may be some marginal gains, but the movement trend-wise continues to be right -- smaller government, less regulation, fewer worker protections, etc., -- and that's essentially what we've done. And in so doing, we as a party have been perceived by many voters as ineffective which only worsens the situation. Compromising with a Party driven strictly by ideology and unable to compromise on values results primarily in further erosion.

As for your 2nd question, most of those laws are marginal improvements relative to the overall decline in working/middle class prosperity. Dodd-Frank is not an improvement over Glass Steagall in my book (who signed the G-S Repeal?). I'm not sure I'd say that the ACA was bipartisan. The final vote certainly wasn't; not a single R voted in favor of it in either the H or the S. On the economic front, there have been marginal gains, but these are vastly overshadowed by policy movements to the right.

In answer to your 3rd question, it would depend on where the GOP is on a particular issue.

I understand. Could get uncomfortable. Embarassing, probably.

Inconvenient truths, as Al Gore said, don't cease to exist because you ignore them, or deny their existence.

They remain, and they have a way of rising to the surface again and again when relevant.

I don't think they are inconvenient truths at all. Nor do I necessarily agree with how Hillary or Bernie or anyone else voted on them. My primary interest is in changing, correcting the Party's bearing when it comes to economic policy so that it better aligns with interests of the majority of Americans -- the working and middle class. Is that something you support and feel should be a priority?

I understand completely.

Before I go, I did want to say my curiosity was piqued by your mention of having worked with Paul Wellstone. He was a great progressive. That must have been an awesome experience. I hope that someday we have more Democrats like him in Congress. I always liked his line about being from the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party. The meaning of that line holds true today.

We view things differently obviously. I will continue to stay engaged and do whatever little bit I can to help move the progressive agenda forward (which is actually and frustratingly very little given my location in a deeply blue State). I'm sure you will to and I applaud you for that.

Here's to a successful 2018 and beyond.

I found it disappointing that so many on the Left viewed him as a compromised, career politician sellout towards the end, especially when he went back on his promise to only serve two terms, and was planning a third run. He saw just how complicated it is to get things done, and wanted to use his experience to move it along. He had hired more "inside the beltway" veterans as staffers, rather than activists who meant well, but didn't have the ability to do the administrative gear-greasing maintenance that is 85% of DC political office. As a former professor, he felt that was as important to being a good politician as keeping office hours, a good class syllabus and gradebook was to effective teaching. He also, after a lot of consulting with experts, had decided that single payer would not be as likely as to work as Hillary's concept (that at that time, was to the left of Obamacare). He worked across the aisle with Domenici on a bipartisan bill to require health insurance companies to cover mental health and substance abuse. He was a team player.

He was genuinely friendly, and easy to work with, and felt you could get more done with honey than vinegar, like his Minnesota residence taught him. I remember him once standing up on a chair at the Minneapolis airport, in a red union suit, jeans and suspenders, after being mobbed by constituents before boarding a flight to DC and telling everyone to come see him in the Hart Senate office building. My father-in-law was a Minnesota politician (what we would call a "Yankee Republican" - pro-gay rights, pro-environmental protections, pro-Planned Parenthood, who passed away in 2000 before he could be disgusted with what the GOP has become) who worked with Jim Ramstad and Paul as well. Jim Ramstad was the one who got Paul's legislation to a floor vote after Paul's death.

I doubt Paul would be considered a "progressive" by today's standards. Paul was not a gadfly. He has become this towering figure that he actually wasn't before his death. When Al Franken called Hillary a "Wellstone progressive," he was dead on.

But I know that everyone in the progressive community in DC was sobbing the day he died. And not just us.


http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/politics/264093-remembering-my-friend-senator-paul-wellstone-

He definitely stood for the working class. And like Bobby Kennedy, he inspired the young people in his time and place to get engaged. We need more like him. You are frtunate to have actually known ad worked with him.

As she left the stage, de León supporters in the crowd yelled back at the 84-year-old, “Time’s up! Time’s up!”

What are the odds that the hecklers misappropriating the Times Up Movement's anti-sexual harassment hash tag to harass one of the most successful, powerful and respected Democratic Senators, are "bros".

I get that the California Democrats want new leadership but why the viciousness?

Kevin de León needs to distance himself from the 'bros' or risk alienating women voters.

They better not try to appropriate that phrase.

So we know what this is about.

I wonder if Vermont politicians will also be badgered. Vermont does not have single payer, no free tuition, and no $15/hr. Doesn’t San Francisco have $15/hr?

Academy Awards... and she said "I guess my time is up" or something like that. Then some people jumped on that... so it was rude, but hopefully not with the implications you are fearing. (And it was a minority of De Leon supporters.)

De Leon isn't an anti-establishment type candidate, anyway, just more progressive than Feinstein. (The more bro-ish candidate was Harris, and he got 5 percent.) She almost decided not to run this time and I thought that would have been a better choice. On the other hand, her seniority, committee assignment and experience dealing with the Senate Republican loons at this chaotic and dangerous time are a plus. (One theory is she would have resigned if Clinton had won, but now felt compelled to try to keep an eye on things.)

Quite helpful.

Various versions of events like these add to my mid-term anxiety.

misunderstanding in these threads about how the CA top two system works.

We have a similar process in WA and i’ve tried to explain it before in threads speculating about WA candidates.

I am curious to know if there was any change in Democratic Party leadership or membership in CA.
We had an upsurge in younger people becoming more active in the state party and a change in leadership and recently (FINALLY) took back the state senate from a Republican coup that had been assisted by two conservative Democrats. Great to have the positive change.

so you're right about him not being anti-establishment. I would also ask how much the Russian Bot agenda against her influenced the vote.

I still question the "Time's Up" chants, although it's more understandable.

We need new, young, energetic representation, and we need a senator from Southern California. Barbara Boxer from Marin County (north of San Francisco), Dianne Feinstein (San Francisco) and Kamala Harris (Oakland and Berkeley) are all from Northern California.

We need for once a senator from Southern California. Ours is a huge state, and Southern California has not had a voice in the Senate for many, many years. A senator from Northern California has no idea about our problems.

De Leon was president of the California Senate. He is trusted. He deserves to at least run in the primary. We shall see who wins.

held to the same ageism standards. It’s not just for the women to step aside.

Feinstein provides seniority on all the committees. The Russia investigation is a huge priority to uncover which Americans helped the Russians attack Hillary. Her seniority matters at this point.

DeLeon's run will test Feinstein to see if she is fit enough to take the stress of serving another term.

“Those of us” Those of us like me. I live here. Sickened to see the divisive Southern California vs Northern California contrived divisiveness, but divisiveness has been the name of the game for revolution tactics, so this comes as no surprise.

48 of the states and has had no person from Southern California in the Senate since 1992. That's a problem. That's taxation and everything else without representation.

We are the stepchild of America. First, California voters are disenfranchised by the electoral college, so we Californians, all of us, have a diminished say in who becomes president.

And then, no one from Southern California has served in the Senate since 1992. That is 26, I repeat 26 years without anyone from Southern California in the Senate. No senator for 22 million, I repeat, 22 million people in 26 years.

No other Americans suffer that kind of lousy treatment. It's shocking. But no one ever talks about it. 22 million so-called Americans whose votes have diminished value when it comes to electing a president and NO MEMBER OF THE SENATE from their geographical area. Horrifying. That's what it is.

Do you think that any area of the country would accept this kind of treatment?

I don't think so.

seriously. This sounds like sour grapes. This just irrationally personalizes the electoral college and now California is a stepchild. Just the other day, you were insisting California is the leader of the nation, but now it has diminished value.

And you doubled down on the Southern California vs Northern California contrived divisiveness. I sure don’t want that fight brought among the good Democrats I know. This is as contrived as the empty attacks on Feinstein and just too arbitrary to take seriously. California has done quite well for decades under Boxer and Feinstein.

It's time we had a senator.

Considering Feinstein's age, it is time for her to allow someone younger, someone from Southern California, to take her place.

The math does not lie. Southern California is a leader, but also a step child or America.

This divisiveness is definitely a recognizable strategy. You can have it. The rest of the state will surely benefit from a good ol’ contrived regional contest. Never enough divisiveness. What a shame.

President is a more stressful job than Senator, so until the ageism standards are applied evenly, no need to send only the women away.

With over 22 million people, southern California contains roughly 60 percent of California's population.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_California

We who live in Southern California have unique problems like very, very little rain and other problems, yet no one from Southern California is in the Senate. It has been a long time since anyone from Southern California was in the Senate.

Of all the states in the Union, (not counting California of course) only Texas has a population larger than Southern California.

The third largest state in the Union, Florida has only around 20 million people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_population

So in Southern California, many of us will vote for De Leon -- depending on what happens during the primary campaign, of course.

The last time a senator was from Southern California was 1992, and he was a Republican from Anaheim -- John Seymour.

So De Leon would be able to represent the 22 million Southern Californians who are unrepresented in the Senate.

looks as phony as the promotion of de León...a Wiki link to Southern California’s population?? Is that supposed to mean something?? I live in Southern California, so a Wiki link about population is rather odd. Most people would know without a link that California is really big — millions of people.

This is the first attack on Boxer and Feinstein I’ve seen of regional biases. Sounds like an excuse. Feinstein has all the current issues tee’d up — assault rifle bill and her seniority on all the committees. Mueller is getting close to uncovering the Americans who helped the Russians attack Hillary. Stealing our democracy is a huge priority.

I guess we’ll see more divisiveness?? Southern California vs Northern California?? This divisiveness is truly unbelievable.

and as I asked down-thread how much the Russian Bot Agenda against her influenced that vote/decision.

very interested in DiFi.

Mahalo, Me

including political message boards.

Real people with multiple accounts all saying the same thing more or less and sometimes arguing with themselves to point something out they want pointed out.

Feinstein needs to go.

state thank-you

I think she has established the connections that help get things done. I think with Kamala Harris still being a junior member of the Senate, although a very good Senator, I think we need a Senator from CA with Feinstein's seniority, at least for now.
Just my opinion.

If you call out ALL such posts, then I'd disagree with you, but at least you'd have some credibility.

If you inveigh against the outside agitators only when they don't line up with your preferences, then it looks a lot like special pleading rather than principle.

light" Democrat, which is bullshit.

de Leon and Feinstein align on almost every issue, and by any standard they both are solid DEMOCRATS who would serve MY STATE well, and both supported Hillary enthusiastically in 2016, and in fact de Leon debated Los Angeles City Councilmember Gil Cedillo, a Sanders supporter, for Hillary.

This is just a cheap opportunity for the Feinstein haters to come and push the "our revolution" bullshit.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/State-Senate-leader-DeLe-n-picks-Clinton-6804611.php

If people disagree about how Feinstein voted on a particular bill, that concerns a question of fact. Someone who continued to misstate her vote, after having been given a link to the Senate clerk's record, would indeed be distorting and misrepresenting.

If, however, someone says that her votes, taken together make her "some kind of 'Republican light' Democrat," then that concerns a question of opinion. If you react with outrage every time someone expresses an opinion with which you disagree, then you just don't understand the political process.

It's interesting that you attribute the vote for de León to people affiliated with the Our Revolution group, even though, as you yourself point out, de León endorsed Clinton over Sanders. I guess that, in some quarters, merely intoning the magic phrase "Our Revolution" proves that anyone you apply it to is wrong.

You appear to have a similar attitude about New Jersey. Tell me, when you wrote your post, was there an electric light on?

Feinstein.

What I referenced about New Jersey was an uncalled for comment by myself, meant to take aim at New Jersey electing Christie twice for Governor. In reflection I removed it. Every state has had elected officials that did not serve their respective states admirably.

Senator Feinstein is NOT one of those elected representatives that I am referring to

She has done a lot of good for our state, and both her and Barbara Boxer were terrific Senators. Whether California re-elects Feinstein, or elects De Leon, either one will serve California well

Thank you.

California. Vermont politicians should be explaining to us all why they don’t have the policies in effect they demand of others. No hypocrisy.

I say that as a lifelong Californian!

and Feinstein will get my vote. Again.

...

each other almost every issue. The false memo that Feinstein is "republican like" is garbage. She is progressive by any standard, and either de Leon and Feinstein would serve our state well

At this moment in time she has a 30 point lead

To be quite honest, either candidate is fine with me, though I have my preferences.

Both Feinstein and DeLeon were very strong supporters of Hillary in both the primary and general election in 2016, and they are both good Democrats

We have to do some brush-clearing of the old guard.

Because the first thing I think of is .. how'd the russians do this?

LOL YES so tinfoil...

But remember Feinstein released the fusion gps testimony. She's on the judiciary and she's been a pretty big thorn in trump's side for that reason.

Why are people so sick of her that they want her out? I assume there are legitimate reasons.

But one has to wonder... if russia was still playing it's games (it is) then could people in california be hit with a whole bunch of highly targeted anti-feinstein stuff that the rest of us won't see until they steal another election?