have a GOP opponent. However it doesn't matter since dems have a 3 to 1 advantage here.

Don't care for them.
Not at all.

This win for Wasserman-Schultz was never in doubt.

nt

... or hoped it would be.

Congratulations to DWS! With her experience, connections and political savvy, she'll be a strong and formidable ally for Hillary.

state, and as many have said, we have a diverse electorate in the Democratic Party. You won't get everything you want ever...but we will get some of what we want...and that is a good thing...the all or nothing attitude costs us elections and the ability to enact needed progressive policy.

defined. An exclusionary definition that rejects most natural allies is extremely counterproductive, and foolish--many who think of themselves as the "true" progressives have won and are winning and have no idea. The fact is that for at least a century all non-conservative Democrats have believed in the need for and moral virtue of progressive action. In that respect, liberalism is virtually synonymous with progressivism.

Some of our Democratic conservatives are also progressive, even though conservatives overall tend to believe, both secularly and through religion, that government interference must fail. They there is a natural order that does a far better job of rewarding virtue, penalizing lack of, and achieving societal health and stability. These are the people who oppose progressive answers.

But, for all conservatives' dysfunctional and mistaken sincerity, "we" won and are winning: Because society evolves in the direction it must.

Very large, highly interdependent modern populations must have government involvement in solving large problems, including providing a strong, stable structure, to ensure survival. It's literally not only a good life issue, but a life and death issue.

Lifelong strong liberal here.

Last edited Fri Sep 2, 2016, 03:52 PM - Edit history (1)

What are you talking about? If you can't say it simply, you don't know.

doesn't know. Do you need words defined or something? I'm not seeing the reason for your confusion.

All answers are responses. Not all responses are answers. His was but a clever reponse, regardless of your inability to see reasons for the perceptions of others...

Many people believe one data point makes a measurement. Bless their little hearts. Others simply pretend one data point makes a measurement.

Bless your little heart.

Identify all of the House and Senate members that receive support from payday lenders. Put the eye on them so they recognize the folly of supporting them.

As are democratic constituents in CD23. Must be tough for an irrational mind to reconcile both, instead relegated to focusing on the one at the expense of the multiple.

Sorry, but his behavior upon losing revealed his character.

Hopefully he also destroyed any future he may have had in politics.

trump no doubt will do the same. Losing to a woman means not having to concede these days.

I imagine she's learned her lesson which is that no good deed goes unpunished.

What has happened to the Democratic Party? Elections have consequences for real people you know.

Very disheartening seeing some of the replies on this thread. Her reelection is not something to be celebrated. I'm not surprised though. Incredibly difficult to unseat someone in a primary with as much financial backing and name recognition as her.

and the seat. We all know this was a proxy fight...and a continuation of the primary. Most can't even name a congressional candidate in a different state. I have seen only one other congressional eletion followed here and that would be the Grayson and Murphy battle...a senate race. I have seen no other House races followed closely unless one lives in the state.

But it does show the political naivete - lack of political wisdom that is rampant here. More about celebrity than politics.

naive. The better Dem, the one the people in her district know, and who have lived with the "consequences" of her representation chose the "better Dem", and rejected the "political wisdom" of celebrities and "political wisdom" that seemed to lack any actual understanding of the realities in that district.

It would be nice if those that lacked any understanding of reality or policies or politics would pause a moment and learn some things before their offer their "wisdom" and their scorn upon those who know far better than they do. Insulting the people of that district because chose against the 'celebrity" who didn't bother to win their votes is naive and unwise at best.

that DWS would win the primary;it was a total waste of time and money to run Canova. Especially, since the gerrymandered map was tossed out and there are better opportunities for Democrats in Florida to make gains. I may be politically naive or unwise but to fight over a safe Democratic seat seems like a total waste when two congressional seats (Districts 10 and 13) Republican seats... are now very promising for Dems. Charlie Crist (yes, the former Republican) and Police Chief Val Demmings are the Democratic nominees and have a good shot at the seats...that would two gains for the good guys...this is way more important than primarying a Democrat incumbent like DWS. The money would have been better spent on these house races and others such as Murphy vs Rubio or the Garcia vs Curbelo rematch (Miami). The DWS thing is more about payback than electing strong progressives in my opinion. And we need to work on taking back the house and leave the petty politics of a bitter primary in the past.

Words have meaning and DWS is no strong progressive. If you are a strong progressive, it is paramount we support all true progressives and not give in to fear. Supporting canova certainly does not diminish support for other candidates.

And supporting compromised candidates who are clearly not prrogressives makes one wonder about your position as a progressive. Not all Democrats are progressives. Thatst okay. Just be true to yourself.

Regardless who won the Dem primary, Republicans are not taking this seat. Democrats have a significant numbers advantage here. It should be even greater this year with the higher turnout for a presidential election. DWS got over 60% of the vote in 2012, and 2014. To say Canova probably would have lost is a bit ridiculous.

I am sick of women being scapegoated. And I think that is what happened here. Debbie did not cause Bernie Sanders to lose...the primary is over and with her win...we can close this unpleasant chapter.

Next time learn to organize.

they won't. There are still lawsuit pending from the 2004 election and it amounts to a big '0' in real terms...all this money wasted and for what? The primary is over. The money would be better spent electing Democrats to get the stuff done that you say you want done...and to organize. Primaries are under state and party control...and we are selecting a candidate-not having an election...so the measly voting rights we have don't even apply.

going on.

Even Harry Reid admitted the DNC wasn't fair to Sanders.

And Canova was in the emails as well. Schultz used the DNC to help her campaign against him.

It's not the responsibility of the rest of us to do political organizing for you. If you think things should change, you need to put in the years and labor to make the case.

Did they violate the rules in your opinion?

I think Canova was a shitty candidate and he lost because of it. Deal.

I doubt he could have held the seat.

their strong beliefs that something nefarious happened, regardless of what evidence is presented. The lawsuits will fail and they will still rail about how that's proof of rigging! It's how the CONS work, after all.