Re-read the original post, slowly.

The people voting with the Russiapublicans have been the conservaDems.

is her right as an American.

Not sure why this thread is being hijaced by that Sarandon thingy which sounds more misogonist than anything else.

who called Hillary Clinton a "greater threat" and "greater danger" than Trump, and who may very well have helped swing the election to Trump, and who remains completely unrepentant and unremorseful despite all the relentless horrendous damage caused by the endless nightmare in the White House, is hardly misogyny just because that "someone" happens to be a woman.

...I think useful idiots best describes that lot (Sarandon, Stein, et al)

Almost all conservadems who refused to be more along the lines of FDR lost in last election. If the difference is between a Republican and a republican light guess who will win. Progressives have the largest caucus in the House and follow Pelosi but many sound like they resent that, like they resent progressives. Bernie Sanders made more campaign appearances for Hillary than any other legislator to get her elected and persuaded his followers to vote for her or their vote would just end up going for Trump so don't blame her loss on him or his supporters. Besides, she really did win anyway.

Progressives (in Congress, per the OP) were not the ones Nancy was allegedly complaining about.

Separate from the original topic, I understand you have a beef with some fringe people, and I share that beef. Those people are not (in my opinion) Democrats.

It is the PC way to make them sound, well, moderate. When they are clearly right of center.

Nice how you flip Nancy's admonition to those"moderates" to get in line and stop supporting the Republican agenda into some crazy diatribe on one woman, a Hollywood actress, single handedly losing the election for Hillary.

Well said.

I'm not sure you could even call Joe Manchin a "moderate" Democrat. He's more of a moderate Republican who is using the Democratic party to get elected, since he can't beat the more right-wing GOP candidates in the primary.

Every election I've held my nose and voted for Joe, the sometime-Democrat-when-it-doesn't-hurt-him-too-much. There aren't any palatable choices in WV, and I very much doubt the blue wave will reach our state border.

Whenever I see him, I think moderate republican. He is the poster child for DINO. Unfortunately, we probably couldn't do better in West Virginia, at least for now.

I keep hearing progressive Dems from outside WV say "we" need to primary Manchin.

To that, I point out that he WAS primaried last time (2018) by Paula Jean Swearengin, a social and environmental activist and member of Justice Democrats. You can't get much better progressive credentials than that.

Manchin won by a margin of 39.8 percent.

https://ballotpedia.org/Paula_Jean_Swearengin

We need to look at each state differently. A Democrat in Massachusetts is probably a lot different than a Democrat in West Virginia. One size does not fit all.

There aren't enough Dem votes in WV to elect anyone. Manchin is winning because he's a "moderate" Republican and he gets substantial cross-over: Dems, Independents and moderate Republicans.

A true Democratic candidate would lose because this is a deeply ugly red state.

Had they chose her instead, it would have been interesting. A justice Democrat winning in WV would have been damn near impossible. Manchin was the much safer option.

This is a state filled with poor people, but they're Evangelical poor people, which means they vote Trump.

If people without documentation are trying to buy guns? I fully agree if they are following the law they should be left alone and,we are doing the right thing by fighting to get them documentation but aren't people who aren't allowed to have guns trying to buy guns a red flag?

Why not call them conservative or batshit traitors?
This is a way that the corporate media always pull the center to the right.

Don't know if she could do much to Manchin as he's in the Senate since another poster brought him up, but she could definitely bring rain on anyone that crosses the divide in the House in the near future.

Completely

Why not just call them what they are:

CONDEMS

Around other Democrats and Progressives, they prevent meaningful legislation.

well played!!

the Repubs aren't, they're out for blood. Sure, vote on personal principles, but there are times you have to support the home team.

Numbers up.

And now Epstein is free while Acosta oversees Dept of Labor child sex trafficking! Thanks for voting with Trump Mr Nelson! It would have been better if you had gotten primaried!!!

https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ilab/our-work/child-forced-labor-trafficking

Can’t the House”colleagues” sign a letter saying they won’t work with them ala Al Franken?

This business of voting with a Repug motion appears to be a token rebellious move by Democrats that didn't quite get their way in the original writing of a bill.

So, they make a purely political move to demonstrate they were trying to follow their constituent's marching orders by voting for a Republican attempt to amend the bill.

If I'm understanding this in the right way, I think their doing this is flat wrong. They should just explain to their constituents they did try to get their way in the bill's original text but in the end had to go with the majority.

Am I interpreting this mess correctly?

The problem being, saying to their constituency, "I was for this, but I actually voted the other way" rings hollow. I personally am sick of politicians talking tough about (fill in the blank) but when it comes time to vote, not a bit of that tough talk on the follow through.

She is a treasure

Are our elected representatives supposed to vote the conscience of their constituency, or are they supposed to be Democrats first?

I'm relatively active in our Democratic Party machine, and I know "how things work". I am NOT disloyal to the Democratic Party, but those elected during the last election were NOT just elected by active Democrats. For example, the local Democrat for the 1st district (MN) barely lost because (partly) the SE constituency saw him as a "gun grabber". A "pro-gun" Democrat would have beaten in a landslide the Republican Hagedorn at the polls. Minnesota has a large, rural gun owning population, and I would guess that most are not members of either party.

Is it the duty of Democrats to turn their backs on their constituency once they get elected for the sake of political expediency? Because if it is, Democrats are cutting their throat for the sake of party purity.

to also consider national interests, and that they are sworn to defend the Constitution. However, that comes with an obligation to carefully explain any conflicts with constituent's wishes to them.

For me, the real elephant in the room is excessive external influences of wealth and power constantly tugging at our rep's thinking: lobbyists, powerful campaign contributors, corporate junkets and dinners, and a relentless corporate media.