538: Liberals Would Be Foolish To Primary Joe Manchin

[SoLongAtlas]

Primarying him with a progressive would obviously be nonsensical, and I wouldn't support it anyways. But primarying him with someone with views similar to say, Nelson, would be a good move and I don't think it would totally ruin everything for Ds, and I would support it.

Even a candidate similar to Nelson would still lose to the GOP in WV. If any Democrat has a chance to defeat Moore-Capito in 2020, it's Tomblin or Justice.

Jay Rockefeller was definitely to Bill Nelson's left.

WV is far more Republican than it was when Rockefeller was in office. That kind of candidate couldn't win today.

Agree. Voted no because tbh, a more conservative Dem would be the only one that could win the primary AND the general. WV is one of the last holdouts for what used to be Dixiecrats and blue-collar Dems. It makes no sense to "win" with a progressive Dem only to lose the general election with that candidate.

[Fuzzy Bear]

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/liberals-would-be-foolish-to-target-joe-manchin/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Some folks really want to be an eternal minority.  "Fighting the Good Fight" and losing, time and time again, becomes somewhat irresponsible at some point, does it not?

[Virginiá]

Some folks really want to be an eternal minority.  "Fighting the Good Fight" and losing, time and time again, becomes somewhat irresponsible at some point, does it not?

In the end, most voters just want actual results. They aren't policy experts nor do they know all the factors going into these elections. After a certain point, the purists who have a seemingly impossible checklist of requirements become a hindrance to actual progress when their goals clash with reality. Having people overly focused on the perfect candidate can be good sometimes, but it can also cost a party a lot of chances to actually win seats. I can totally see rabidly anti-Trump liberals grab hold of WV's Senate race, manage to oust Manchin (ok maybe not right now but work with me here), lose the GE bigly, then just walk away from the wreckage and move on to the next race. I can see why they'd want to get rid of him, in fact I totally do myself, but only if we can hold it with another person. So far that seems doubtful. I just think the logic/judgement behind such is flawed.

Also, as with the TP, it seems like all of this purist stuff is less to do with policy and more to do with who is more anti-Trump. Being 100% anti-Trump no matter what, even when it conflicts with your own goals seems silly to me. We can't/shouldn't just bring everything to a halt for 4 years.

[Maxwell]

If voters wanted results then Joe Manchin wouldn't have won election over and over and over again

for a guy who is very popular there he has the scantest record of lifting a finger for any West Virginian.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Some folks really want to be an eternal minority.  "Fighting the Good Fight" and losing, time and time again, becomes somewhat irresponsible at some point, does it not?

In the end, most voters just want actual results. They aren't policy experts nor do they know all the factors going into these elections. After a certain point, the purists who have a seemingly impossible checklist of requirements become a hindrance to actual progress when their goals clash with reality. Having people overly focused on the perfect candidate can be good sometimes, but it can also cost a party a lot of chances to actually win seats. I can totally see rabidly anti-Trump liberals grab hold of WV's Senate race, manage to oust Manchin (ok maybe not right now but work with me here), lose the GE bigly, then just walk away from the wreckage and move on to the next race. I can see why they'd want to get rid of him, in fact I totally do myself, but only if we can hold it with another person. So far that seems doubtful. I just think the logic/judgement behind such is flawed.

Also, as with the TP, it seems like all of this purist stuff is less to do with policy and more to do with who is more anti-Trump. Being 100% anti-Trump no matter what, even when it conflicts with your own goals seems silly to me. We can't/shouldn't just bring everything to a halt for 4 years.

We keep hearing about those terrible liberal purists who will cost Democrats tons of elections, and yet they haven't. The only 2 Democratic Senators primaried for decades were Lieberman and Specter, and neither of them cost Democrats a seat. In Lieberman's case, he still won and Lamont would have won if Lieberman went away. In Specter's case, he would have done worse than Sestak.

[I’m not Stu]

Some folks really want to be an eternal minority.  "Fighting the Good Fight" and losing, time and time again, becomes somewhat irresponsible at some point, does it not?

In the end, most voters just want actual results. They aren't policy experts nor do they know all the factors going into these elections. After a certain point, the purists who have a seemingly impossible checklist of requirements become a hindrance to actual progress when their goals clash with reality. Having people overly focused on the perfect candidate can be good sometimes, but it can also cost a party a lot of chances to actually win seats. I can totally see rabidly anti-Trump liberals grab hold of WV's Senate race, manage to oust Manchin (ok maybe not right now but work with me here), lose the GE bigly, then just walk away from the wreckage and move on to the next race. I can see why they'd want to get rid of him, in fact I totally do myself, but only if we can hold it with another person. So far that seems doubtful. I just think the logic/judgement behind such is flawed.

Also, as with the TP, it seems like all of this purist stuff is less to do with policy and more to do with who is more anti-Trump. Being 100% anti-Trump no matter what, even when it conflicts with your own goals seems silly to me. We can't/shouldn't just bring everything to a halt for 4 years.

We keep hearing about those terrible liberal purists who will cost Democrats tons of elections, and yet they haven't. The only 2 Democratic Senators primaried for decades were Lieberman and Specter, and neither of them cost Democrats a seat. In Lieberman's case, he still won and Lamont would have won if Lieberman went away. In Specter's case, he would have done worse than Sestak.

PA has a closed primary that Sestak won the primary with 54%. Specter probably would have won an open primary. Specter likely would have done better than Sestak and defeated Toomey in the general.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Some folks really want to be an eternal minority.  "Fighting the Good Fight" and losing, time and time again, becomes somewhat irresponsible at some point, does it not?

In the end, most voters just want actual results. They aren't policy experts nor do they know all the factors going into these elections. After a certain point, the purists who have a seemingly impossible checklist of requirements become a hindrance to actual progress when their goals clash with reality. Having people overly focused on the perfect candidate can be good sometimes, but it can also cost a party a lot of chances to actually win seats. I can totally see rabidly anti-Trump liberals grab hold of WV's Senate race, manage to oust Manchin (ok maybe not right now but work with me here), lose the GE bigly, then just walk away from the wreckage and move on to the next race. I can see why they'd want to get rid of him, in fact I totally do myself, but only if we can hold it with another person. So far that seems doubtful. I just think the logic/judgement behind such is flawed.

Also, as with the TP, it seems like all of this purist stuff is less to do with policy and more to do with who is more anti-Trump. Being 100% anti-Trump no matter what, even when it conflicts with your own goals seems silly to me. We can't/shouldn't just bring everything to a halt for 4 years.

We keep hearing about those terrible liberal purists who will cost Democrats tons of elections, and yet they haven't. The only 2 Democratic Senators primaried for decades were Lieberman and Specter, and neither of them cost Democrats a seat. In Lieberman's case, he still won and Lamont would have won if Lieberman went away. In Specter's case, he would have done worse than Sestak.

PA has a closed primary that Sestak won the primary with 54%. Specter probably would have won an open primary. Specter likely would have done better than Sestak and defeated Toomey in the general.

The polling had Sestak doing slightly better than Specter in the general election. Sestak lost by 2 points in a Republican wave where Republicans picked up 5 House seats in Pennsylvania alone.

[Virginiá]

We keep hearing about those terrible liberal purists who will cost Democrats tons of elections, and yet they haven't. The only 2 Democratic Senators primaried for decades were Lieberman and Specter, and neither of them cost Democrats a seat. In Lieberman's case, he still won and Lamont would have won if Lieberman went away. In Specter's case, he would have done worse than Sestak.

That's a strawman. I never said they did. I simply stated that the potential is now here and the stage is certainly set for such purity primaries to happen.

We are already seeing a huge spike in this behavior from people demanding politicians resist Trump no matter what, and with that is also coming liberal purists, who have been around for a while. You should know, you're one of them. Nothing is ever good enough for you, and you spend most of your time on this forum complaining about some Democrat or liberal or how something isn't up to your standards. There are a lot of things to complain about, and a lot of things wrong with the Democratic Party, but it'd be nice to see you say more positive things instead of just a constant stream of grievances.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

We keep hearing about those terrible liberal purists who will cost Democrats tons of elections, and yet they haven't. The only 2 Democratic Senators primaried for decades were Lieberman and Specter, and neither of them cost Democrats a seat. In Lieberman's case, he still won and Lamont would have won if Lieberman went away. In Specter's case, he would have done worse than Sestak.

That's a strawman. I never said they did. I simply stated that the potential is now here and the stage is certainly set for such purity primaries to happen.

We are already seeing a huge spike in this behavior from people demanding politicians resist Trump no matter what, and with that is also coming liberal purists, who have been around for a while. You should know, you're one of them. Nothing is ever good enough for you, and you spend most of your time on this forum complaining about some Democrat or liberal or how something isn't up to your standards. There are a lot of things to complain about, and a lot of things wrong with the Democratic Party, but it'd be nice to see you say more positive things instead of just a constant stream of grievances.

The Democrats could try running candidates who talk about the issues, don't suck on the issues, don't take way too much Wall Street money, and don't rant about Russian conspiracy theories. And they could try not having the fewest state governments that they're in control of since reconstruction. Then I could have some positive things to say. But I guess that's too much to ask for. Really the idea that because I'm not happy with the dumpster fire that the Democratic party of 2017 is that I'd never be happy with anything is just the kind of pathetic lecturing I expect from those who supported Hillary in the primary.

[Virginiá]

I didn't say you should be happy with them. What I did say was that you're the type of purist I'm talking about, even outside those issues you just mentioned. I'm convinced you'd just find something new to complain about (maybe I'm wrong, but you've done nothing to convince me otherwise). It's all you do on here. It's the same reason why your moniker was practically "but Hillary" during 2016.

Anyway, I'm not interested in discussing this with you further. There is a reason I try and avoid your posts, especially when it comes to this topic.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I didn't say you should be happy with them. What I did say was that you're the type of purist I'm talking about, even outside those issues you just mentioned. I'm convinced you'd just find something new to complain about (maybe I'm wrong, but you've done nothing to convince me otherwise). It's all you do on here. It's the same reason why your moniker was practically "but Hillary" during 2016.

Anyway, I'm not interested in discussing this with you further. There is a reason I try and avoid your posts, especially when it comes to this topic.

I've had enough of Hillary primary supporters calling those who don't like her purity trolls. She got so many endorsements in the primary because people didn't want to be on her purity troll sh**t list. Tulsi Gabbard didn't go along with the establishment hawk position on Syria, so now purity trolls like Howard Dean called for her to primaried. Ed Rendell said he'd support Bloomberg over Bernie if Bernie was nominated. When you have purity troll DNC chairs, something went terribly wrong.

[Virginiá]

I've had enough of Hillary primary supporters calling those who don't like her purity trolls.

It has nothing to do with people I don't like. I'm not someone who just chronically makes things up and sticks them on people I dislike just to slander them. Your assumptions all stink, jfern.

(ok now I'm done. Promise)

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I've had enough of Hillary primary supporters calling those who don't like her purity trolls.

It has nothing to do with people I don't like. I'm not someone who just chronically makes things up and sticks them on people I dislike just to slander them. Your assumptions all stink, jfern.

(ok now I'm done. Promise)

You just implied I'm a purity troll. I guess everyone either support the dumpster fire that the Hillary campaign was or is a purity troll in your book? What a winning political message!

[Shadows]

Some folks really want to be an eternal minority.  "Fighting the Good Fight" and losing, time and time again, becomes somewhat irresponsible at some point, does it not?

In the end, most voters just want actual results. They aren't policy experts nor do they know all the factors going into these elections. After a certain point, the purists who have a seemingly impossible checklist of requirements become a hindrance to actual progress when their goals clash with reality. Having people overly focused on the perfect candidate can be good sometimes, but it can also cost a party a lot of chances to actually win seats. I can totally see rabidly anti-Trump liberals grab hold of WV's Senate race, manage to oust Manchin (ok maybe not right now but work with me here), lose the GE bigly, then just walk away from the wreckage and move on to the next race. I can see why they'd want to get rid of him, in fact I totally do myself, but only if we can hold it with another person. So far that seems doubtful. I just think the logic/judgement behind such is flawed.

Also, as with the TP, it seems like all of this purist stuff is less to do with policy and more to do with who is more anti-Trump. Being 100% anti-Trump no matter what, even when it conflicts with your own goals seems silly to me. We can't/shouldn't just bring everything to a halt for 4 years.

Most of the strong progressive left groups don't oppose for the sake of it & 1-2 groups don't reflect the majority. Sanders & many of his supporter groups have asked for Trump to work on common issues including Infra, Drug prices. But there's a different point here - "The getting stuff done" part - What did Obama get done with 60 Senators & the House? Not even a Public option! Democrats with their so-called incremental approach have got little done & have looked at the 40 year fall of the middle & working class & it is time to atleast demand a bold vision from people in Congress & not settle from crumbs. This is the result since Reagan -




Manchin has massive advantages in a primary (not only is he liked in WV, he will have the entire Dem Senate leadership, Gov Justice, local leaders, huge money, name recognition, as well as the whole GE electability argument) & is very unlikely to lose. As a matter of fact he is practically begging for a primary to pitch himself as a more centrist candidate in the GE campaign. And if a candidate actually manages to beat Joe Manchin, that candidate has to be a pretty good one & has a good shot in the GE! That is why primaries are there - To find the best candidate & let the voters decide, groups should be free to back whoever they want.

In General, history shows us to get stuff done, you have to show some of your party leaders who is Boss - From FDR to LBJ, almost everyone did, from publicly shaming them to threatening them to supporting a primary against them. That is almost a prerequisite for being a successful President & getting things done. But I would prefer that 3-4 Blue state Senators with a poor progressive record be taken down in a primary as an example for the others rather than wasting money on Manchin (when he is probably having a steak & enjoying the primary challenge).

[I’m not Stu]

Some folks really want to be an eternal minority.  "Fighting the Good Fight" and losing, time and time again, becomes somewhat irresponsible at some point, does it not?

In the end, most voters just want actual results. They aren't policy experts nor do they know all the factors going into these elections. After a certain point, the purists who have a seemingly impossible checklist of requirements become a hindrance to actual progress when their goals clash with reality. Having people overly focused on the perfect candidate can be good sometimes, but it can also cost a party a lot of chances to actually win seats. I can totally see rabidly anti-Trump liberals grab hold of WV's Senate race, manage to oust Manchin (ok maybe not right now but work with me here), lose the GE bigly, then just walk away from the wreckage and move on to the next race. I can see why they'd want to get rid of him, in fact I totally do myself, but only if we can hold it with another person. So far that seems doubtful. I just think the logic/judgement behind such is flawed.

Also, as with the TP, it seems like all of this purist stuff is less to do with policy and more to do with who is more anti-Trump. Being 100% anti-Trump no matter what, even when it conflicts with your own goals seems silly to me. We can't/shouldn't just bring everything to a halt for 4 years.

We keep hearing about those terrible liberal purists who will cost Democrats tons of elections, and yet they haven't. The only 2 Democratic Senators primaried for decades were Lieberman and Specter, and neither of them cost Democrats a seat. In Lieberman's case, he still won and Lamont would have won if Lieberman went away. In Specter's case, he would have done worse than Sestak.

PA has a closed primary that Sestak won the primary with 54%. Specter probably would have won an open primary. Specter likely would have done better than Sestak and defeated Toomey in the general.

The polling had Sestak doing slightly better than Specter in the general election. Sestak lost by 2 points in a Republican wave where Republicans picked up 5 House seats in Pennsylvania alone.

Toomey narrowly won. I think the more conservative Specter would have had far more GOP votes than Sestak, giving Specter enough votes to defeat Toomey. Polls can be flawed.

[Virginiá]

What did Obama get done with 60 Senators & the House? Not even a Public option!

Do you expect all Senators to vote uniform on issues even as big as that? That seems like a stretch. If you want to get things like that passed strictly party-line with a supermajority requirement, there better be a buffer - eg more than 60 Senators in your caucus.

This is exactly what I am saying though. The bigger the majority, the more members you will have that will vote against certain policies desired by other factions. It's the price paid to have majorities like that. You can't honestly expect huge majorities like back in 2009 to be strictly liberal and always vote for liberal policies. Only rarely do waves sweep enough people enough office that would be favorable to that kind of stuff, and given the composition of the party 8 years ago, it hardly seemed like the right time for that.

I'm perfectly fine with the public option being a litmus test in reliable Democratic states - places like California, New York, but in more conservative areas where we need to walk a more narrow line, I think it's wrong to assume they will be good with anything liberals want, and by no means do I think the demands stop at the public option. There is always something more.

[Terry the Fat Shark]