538: Liberals Would Be Foolish To Primary Joe Manchin

[Virginiá]

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.

[Virginiá]

Did you see Bernie's town hall in WV? The Democratic party's neoliberalism is what is killing it in WV.

"Neoliberalism" or "neoliberal" has lost all meaning at this point.

One of jfern's most liberal qualities is his very liberal use of the term "neoliberal."  It's basically how he brands any politician that doesn't adhere to all his policy preferences, or if he simply doesn't like the politician, at which point he'll most likely just invent some new reason for calling them a neoliberal.

[Virginiá]

You act like I'm some sort of purity troll. Nope. I vote for candidates I have plenty of disagreements with. But not ones I disagree with on most of the issues.

No, that's not true. You're definitely not a troll.

[Virginiá]

Gents -

Not that this argument about Gabbard isn't exhilarating, but one thing I might ask is if you guys could please trim down those quotes, especially to stop quoting the same images over and over again. I mean this quote chain is massive now and it's blowing up the entire page because of it.

If not, then please take this to another thread.

[Virginiá]

Only somewhat related, but I didn't want to make a new thread for this:

https://newrepublic.com/article/141821/democrats-wont-pay-opposing-neil-gorsuch

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As far as those Trump state Senators go, I still think the biggest problems they would have had would have been from primary challenges should they vote for Gorsuch, of which a few have chosen to do (including Manchin obviously). I suppose it is one thing if Manchin legitimately wanted to vote for Gorsuch, but to think that it would be a big issue for him to vote No seems misguided. Voters don't pay much attention to the Supreme Court, and while many recognize the importance of it, it doesn't seem to play out that way in their heads.

Not that there isn't a case to be made that it might hurt him, but the way things are going, 2018 might be toxic enough that Manchin would have cover to avoid pander votes like this.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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)

[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.