CA-Sen: Feinstein gearing up for another run in 2018

[smoltchanov]

ONG, she's 83. EIGHTHY-THREE.

So what? "Old Strom" served until 100, Robert Byrd - until 92, IIRC. Both were not idiots, that sure...

Strom Thurmond was a racist old kook before he retired

Thurmond wasn't a racist since 1970th, when he began to hire Black assistants and help Blacks to be appointed to different posts. Thurmond of 1970th was different from Thurmond of 1948.. Conservative - of course, but no more racist.. History changes people just as vice versa..

OK, he had some black friends. He still never renounced his segregationist views as far as I know.

I think he could repeat Wallace words. In his case it would be "South Carolina changed and so did StromThurmond". And in 1948 (and even 1965) vast majority of South Carolina voters held the same views as he did then... I don't hold it against him as it was rather natural for him and his voters.

[Figueira]

ONG, she's 83. EIGHTHY-THREE.

So what? "Old Strom" served until 100, Robert Byrd - until 92, IIRC. Both were not idiots, that sure...

Strom Thurmond was a racist old kook before he retired

Thurmond wasn't a racist since 1970th, when he began to hire Black assistants and help Blacks to be appointed to different posts. Thurmond of 1970th was different from Thurmond of 1948.. Conservative - of course, but no more racist.. History changes people just as vice versa..

OK, he had some black friends. He still never renounced his segregationist views as far as I know.

I think he could repeat Wallace words. In his case it would be "South Carolina changed and so did StromThurmond". And in 1948 (and even 1965) vast majority of South Carolina voters held the same views as he did then... I don't hold it against him as it was rather natural for him and his voters.

Oh god.

No, supporting segregation does not become justified if it wins you political points.

[smoltchanov]

ONG, she's 83. EIGHTHY-THREE.

So what? "Old Strom" served until 100, Robert Byrd - until 92, IIRC. Both were not idiots, that sure...

Strom Thurmond was a racist old kook before he retired

Thurmond wasn't a racist since 1970th, when he began to hire Black assistants and help Blacks to be appointed to different posts. Thurmond of 1970th was different from Thurmond of 1948.. Conservative - of course, but no more racist.. History changes people just as vice versa..

OK, he had some black friends. He still never renounced his segregationist views as far as I know.

I think he could repeat Wallace words. In his case it would be "South Carolina changed and so did StromThurmond". And in 1948 (and even 1965) vast majority of South Carolina voters held the same views as he did then... I don't hold it against him as it was rather natural for him and his voters.

Oh god.

No, supporting segregation does not become justified if it wins you political points.

Opposing segregation meant almost sure defeat in 1950th-60th in most of the South. Look at 2 North Carolina congressmen, who refused to sign "Southern Manifesto" in mid 1950th - both were quicly defeated by segregationists. And no one likes or wants to be defeated. As i always said "district rules!". And most of the Southern congressional districts were thoroughly segregationist in those days, and would elect nobody, but segregationists. After all - George Wallace himself tried liberal approach in 1958, but, after being defeated by (then) ultrasegregationist Patterson he sweared that he will never be "outsegged" again. And this gave him a victories in 1960th and early 1970th. By 1982 segregation was a thing of the past, and Wallace changed accordingly.

You can't easily leap over history and tradition. This is a rather slow process

[henster]

I really hope someone steps up and seriously challenges her, look at Pete Stark and Mike Honda you can take out these dinosaurs!

Those were both defeated from the right. Top two is a problem for defeating a bad Democrat from the left.

Rs would salivate the thought of getting rid of Feinstein anyway they can with her views on guns. To many she is the face of the gun control movement very few are voting for her.

[smoltchanov]

To the point of this thread, idk why in the world Republicans would want her gone, even despite her gun views. She's one of the hawkiest Democrats in Congress, and is probably the best Democrat they can get out of California.

Absolutely. And she will have enough Democratic support for beating a "bold progressive". IMHO - the only thing that can prevent her from winning is illness (or, God forbid, death) or voluntarily retirement...

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I really hope someone steps up and seriously challenges her, look at Pete Stark and Mike Honda you can take out these dinosaurs!

Those were both defeated from the right. Top two is a problem for defeating a bad Democrat from the left.

Rs would salivate the thought of getting rid of Feinstein anyway they can with her views on guns. To many she is the face of the gun control movement very few are voting for her.

The same Republican party that nominated Arnold Schwarzenegger? Yeah, he might be to the left of her.

[MAINEiac4434]

At least this prevents the chaos that could lead to a potential R vs. R runoff.

Was never going to happen anyway.

[MAINEiac4434]

I really hope someone steps up and seriously challenges her, look at Pete Stark and Mike Honda you can take out these dinosaurs!

Those were both defeated from the right. Top two is a problem for defeating a bad Democrat from the left.

Honda losing was a personal disappointment to me. Brilliant progressive.

[heatcharger]

At least this prevents the chaos that could lead to a potential R vs. R runoff.

Was never going to happen anyway.

It would've been unlikely, but I'm not 100% confident that one (or two) clear frontrunners would've emerged from the vacuum that would've been left by her potential retirement.

I'm not happy that Feinstein is running again, and if she could be defeated via primary by a better Democrat I would be satisfied, but the reality is there are far, far more important races for Democrats to focus on in 2018.

[publicunofficial]

I really hope someone steps up and seriously challenges her, look at Pete Stark and Mike Honda you can take out these dinosaurs!

Those were both defeated from the right. Top two is a problem for defeating a bad Democrat from the left.

Honda losing was a personal disappointment to me. Brilliant progressive.

It's a shame but Khanna has been pretty solid so far. At least, better than I thought he was going to be.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I really hope someone steps up and seriously challenges her, look at Pete Stark and Mike Honda you can take out these dinosaurs!

Those were both defeated from the right. Top two is a problem for defeating a bad Democrat from the left.

Honda losing was a personal disappointment to me. Brilliant progressive.

It's a shame but Khanna has been pretty solid so far. At least, better than I thought he was going to be.

Has there been any progressive legislation up for a vote? Yeah, I don't think so. Anyone who isn't batsh**t crazy is voting the same way on Paul Ryan's crazy bills.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

This is why we need to call a constitutional convention to amend the constitution to add in congressional term limits.

There's no way to defeat Feinstein if she runs. But the powers that be should find somebody who will give her a mild scare so she stops being so hawkish. My endorsement is for Ashley Swearingin, but there's an array of candidates I'd be happy with, including some democrats (Scott Peters comes to mind)

[smoltchanov]

Honda losing was a personal disappointment to me. Brilliant progressive.

People of his district (very liberal, more then 70% for Obama) were of different opinion about him. Otherwise he would be reelected easily. Instead - he barely held first time and was soundly defeated - second.

[Trapsy]

These dinosaur Dems dont know when to give up eh?

[smoltchanov]

These dinosaur Dems dont know when to give up eh?

Why must they??? Name a reasons (from their point of view, not yours)

[Trapsy]

These dinosaur Dems dont know when to give up eh?

Why must they??? Name a reasons (from their point of view, not yours)

I don't know when you're like 83 years old and your voice in the senate has diminished. Maybe like give the younger generation a chance?

[SATW]

These dinosaur Dems dont know when to give up eh?

Why must they??? Name a reasons (from their point of view, not yours)

Spending time w/ grandchildren and other family is the only real thing I could think of. People like Boxer, who actually cared about their constituents, got tired of the gridlock and retired.

 but people like Feinstein who just care about staying in power don't care about gridlock or partisanship

[publicunofficial]

I really hope someone steps up and seriously challenges her, look at Pete Stark and Mike Honda you can take out these dinosaurs!

Those were both defeated from the right. Top two is a problem for defeating a bad Democrat from the left.

Honda losing was a personal disappointment to me. Brilliant progressive.

It's a shame but Khanna has been pretty solid so far. At least, better than I thought he was going to be.

Has there been any progressive legislation up for a vote? Yeah, I don't think so. Anyone who isn't batsh**t crazy is voting the same way on Paul Ryan's crazy bills.

He's been openly critical of Third Way leadership, at least.

[smoltchanov]

These dinosaur Dems dont know when to give up eh?

Why must they??? Name a reasons (from their point of view, not yours)

I don't know when you're like 83 years old and your voice in the senate has diminished. Maybe like give the younger generation a chance?

83 is NOT so much. As i said earlier - some people served until 100, and were more or less effective. John Conyers will be 89 in 2018, and i didn't heard neither about his desire to quit, nor very much demands for that. And why do you think her "voice in the Senate has diminished" Because Democrats are in minrority in Senate? They will be for at least some time, notwithstanding who will be elected Senator from California. She is very authentic Hillary Clinton-Democrat (somewhat hawkish on foreign policy, pragmatic liberal on econimy and solid liberal on social issues), and Hillary beat Bernie in California primary (including very liberal Bay area). So, again - why??? She achieved her position by many years of hard political work, why must she give up??? No one prevents anyone from trying (though he/she would need to raise 25-50 millions of dollars first), but i don't see any reasons why she must do it.

[smoltchanov]

These dinosaur Dems dont know when to give up eh?

Why must they??? Name a reasons (from their point of view, not yours)

Spending time w/ grandchildren and other family is the only real thing I could think of. People like Boxer, who actually cared about their constituents, got tired of the gridlock and retired.

 but people like Feinstein who just care about staying in power don't care about gridlock or partisanship

Absolutely. She is different from Boxer. And, probably, there are people in her family to look for grandchildren. So what?? There are people, who are justly called "political animals". Feinstein is, probably, one of them (just as Thurmond and Robert Byrd were). Usually such persons are lifers, and serve almost until death. I think we may have the same case here....

[SATW]

These dinosaur Dems dont know when to give up eh?

Why must they??? Name a reasons (from their point of view, not yours)

Spending time w/ grandchildren and other family is the only real thing I could think of. People like Boxer, who actually cared about their constituents, got tired of the gridlock and retired.

 but people like Feinstein who just care about staying in power don't care about gridlock or partisanship

Absolutely. She is different from Boxer. And, probably, there are people in her family to look for grandchildren. So what?? There are people, who are justly called "political animals". Feinstein is, probably, one of them (just as Thurmond and Robert Byrd were). Usually such persons are lifers, and serve almost until death. I think we may have the same case here....

Agreed, I think Feinstein is a lifer. Personally, I don't like Feinstein, but I don't care if she stays in office. Not like Republicans are going to win there.

Though, i'd prefer a Cali Dem like Brad Sherman to be Senator. He's fairly hawkish and has a reputation of working in a bipartisan manner.

[smoltchanov]

^ Sherman would have difficulties in the first round ("Primary"), IMHO. But i agree - Republicans have almost no chances in California now. Rapidly diversifying electorate, to which they still not adapted sufficiently, almost exterminated  (since 1980th at least) moderate faction, which could appeal to these new voters, and so on... As i already said - when i see people like Peter Behr to be a Republicans (and winning legislative office in Marin county) not so long ago (approximately at the time i began to study American politics) - i can only shake my head in disbelief... Partially they are replaced by "business Democrats" now, but - only partially