538: Liberals Would Be Foolish To Primary Joe Manchin

[Shadows]

This is 1 situation where you are damned if you & damned if you don't. For one Manchin, is ultra anti-environment guy which is not surprising given he is from WV, he will vote for no strong Environmental regulations. Secondly & what is worrying he is going against most major Dem issues, even Universal healthcare or college affordability. He was trashing the Canadian system with ignorant logic a Republican should be proud of or about the college plains - He had a vitriol & sharp dislike .

He is like 15-20 years behind & is still stuck in mid 90's. With him you can get nothing done in the Senate even with 60 Senate Votes & a Dem President .

But if the seat goes to a GOP guy, you would see a crazy hardliner doing much more damage & supporting Trump blindly. I personally think Manchin should be primaried for 2 reasons - 1) If a challenger actually beats him in WV, then that guy must be heck of a strong guy & can actually win the GE (Manchin is very favored to win). 2) The progressive base must insert more pressure on Manchin, even if a challenger takes 25-30% of the vote, that should be a message to Manchin.

I am not bothered about 2018 but from 2020 onwards with a Dem President because then Machin will have no election till 2024. There needs to be more pressure on him - He's literally belittling people & saying "Vote me out" if you don't like me & is not even receptive to the progressive base.

[Shadows]

The Manchin team is purposefully engineering a primary for the reasons that have been alluded to above, and "the Left" - in its classic incompetent and unorganized form - is playing right into their hands. It's like waving a red flag at a bull; they can't help themselves. His staff leaked that audio on purpose from a few weeks back where Manchin encouraged the left to primary him and I'm sure a whole lot more is going on right now too.

So here's how it plays out: some no-name (likely a non-WV native) will declare and make general overtures to progressives, maybe hire a couple of no-name staffers once donations begin flowing. The Green Web will whip itself into a frenzy and begin raising money - with practically none of it coming from WV - and before you know it, this person will have a million or two in small contributions. Manchin will happily go to every candidate forum, every debate and engage with the opponent at every turn. His opponent will have a better grassroots campaign structure than Manchin, more canvassers, and possibly more money on top of that. In the end, Manchin wins the primary by 40 points, and proceeds to the general election with most of his ad budget focused on replaying all of those Sister Soulja moments he had during the primary and talking about how he stands up to extremism no matter which side of the aisle it's on.

Then we'll get to hear how Manchin won 3-to-1 only because the system is rigged and MUH CLOSED PRIMARIES.



Those who are fond of labels like "True/Real/Bold Progressives" need to accept that their beliefs are not viable in every state of the country - nor even in every state's Democratic electorate. There are still heaps of Democrats who consciously, directly and overtly prefer moderate and even conservative Democrats: they just can't seem to accept this. To them, it must just be because they're "uninformed" or "need to do their research" or whatever.

They also need to learn how to pick their fights and not be baited so easily. It honestly wouldn't surprise me if more Democrats start engineering themselves to be primaried for brownie points in tougher districts/states. And these irate types will continue to fall for it hook, line and sinker, wasting their time, energy, money and anger on this rather than doing something productive to make left-of-center politics more viable in this country.

It also wouldn't hurt for them to not associate the word "progressive" with "someone who supported the candidate I supported in the primary". Really embarrassing to see people claim that Tulsi Gabbard and Jeff Merkley are True Progressives or whatever.

What exactly does qualify for progressiveness? Certification from the Clinton Campaign?

Tulsi Gabbard for one sponsored bills to decriminalize Marijuana, re-instate Glass steagal, has always opposed TPP, opposed Dakota Pipeline & so on. If you go by policies, then Gabbard or Merkley are absolutely strong progressives (you can never 100% agree on with candidates policies). What does she have to do - Shout from a roof?

I don't disagree with you on what you said - I think the base needs to focus on putting progressives on seats which are winnable, strong blue seats where Bernie won big in the primaries should be the 1st target rather than going after Manchin. Resource is scarce & has to be optimized & Manchin is going to be a lot better than any GOP candidate in WV.

But either ways, you can run a primary campaign & that is what democracy is & you shouldn't be demonized for running for office !

[Shadows]

What exactly does qualify for progressiveness? Certification from the Clinton Campaign?

I'll tell you disqualifies: supporting (literally, with money) far-right Indian political parties that advocate for ethnic cleansing because of your personal religious views, and attacking Obama's foreign policy from the right because it is too lax for your tastes because "I was a soldier blah blah blah".

If the bulk of establishment Democratic politicians can be rendered neoliberal shills or whatever because of positions on a handful of issues specific to their constituencies (or not), then people like Gabbard certainly are disqualified from being called "progressive" by anybody intellectually and ideologically consistent. Except that so many of the pious are anything but: their definition of "progressive" hinges solely on whether a person supported Bernie or not, or was a perceived ally or foe in that broader struggle. Actual policies don't matter; it's a cult of personality above all else.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is just another example of why "the Left" in America is a joke and a disorganized MESS and will never accomplish anything meaningful in its current incarnation. I pray for the day that that changes, I really do, considering that I am ideologically there 100%...but the broader movement in the present day is filled with low-information hypocrites, niche organizers who are so obsessed with their own little fiefdoms that they miss the bigger picture of political intersectionality, and a bunch of effete urban kids and worn-out hippies that eschew the power of institutional control.

The first one there isn't necessarily the problem (though annoying as hell and negates any legitimate sense of political/ideological superiority these people have about themselves), but the latter two are dynamics where the Right gets it and they rule because of it.

I would like to know more about this Ethnic Cleansing group which Gabbard supported because that's just a flat untrue statement used to to smear her. What exactly did she say & how did she support ethnic cleansing groups ? (No-one deserves to be called a supporter of ethnic cleansing untruly !)

[Shadows]

What exactly does qualify for progressiveness? Certification from the Clinton Campaign?

I'll tell you disqualifies: supporting (literally, with money) far-right Indian political parties that advocate for ethnic cleansing because of your personal religious views, and attacking Obama's foreign policy from the right because it is too lax for your tastes because "I was a soldier blah blah blah".

If the bulk of establishment Democratic politicians can be rendered neoliberal shills or whatever because of positions on a handful of issues specific to their constituencies (or not), then people like Gabbard certainly are disqualified from being called "progressive" by anybody intellectually and ideologically consistent. Except that so many of the pious are anything but: their definition of "progressive" hinges solely on whether a person supported Bernie or not, or was a perceived ally or foe in that broader struggle. Actual policies don't matter; it's a cult of personality above all else.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is just another example of why "the Left" in America is a joke and a disorganized MESS and will never accomplish anything meaningful in its current incarnation. I pray for the day that that changes, I really do, considering that I am ideologically there 100%...but the broader movement in the present day is filled with low-information hypocrites, niche organizers who are so obsessed with their own little fiefdoms that they miss the bigger picture of political intersectionality, and a bunch of effete urban kids and worn-out hippies that eschew the power of institutional control.

The first one there isn't necessarily the problem (though annoying as hell and negates any legitimate sense of political/ideological superiority these people have about themselves), but the latter two are dynamics where the Right gets it and they rule because of it.

I would like to know more about this Ethnic Cleansing group which Gabbard supported because that's just a flat untrue statement used to to smear her. What exactly did she say & how did she support ethnic cleansing groups ? (No-one deserves to be called a supporter of ethnic cleansing untruly !)

Here you go.

The BJP is known as a Center Right party & has some fringe religious nutjob elements but is a democratic political party (Ethnic Cleansing seriously ??) It is infact currently in power & had actually appointed a Muslim as the President years ago. If you go to the International Elections thread, you will see the BJP is winning the Muslim vote in recent state elections. Just to add the current PM who is known as a right wing guy took strong opposition to Trump's call for barring Muslims & said Islam shouldn't be directly linked to terrorism. If you want to pick a few fringe elements of a main-stream Center-Right party & paint the entire party as nutjobs, that is wrong.

Secondly, there is nothing wrong in Tulsi's stand - The House Bill was ridiculous & was introduced more than 10 years after some Indian riots in the PM's home state, suddenly before a country wide elections where the BJP was expected to win & there was no religious riots happening then (totally irrelevant issue to bring up & meant to influence votes). The PM was acquitted by multiple courts on any role in the religious riots which took place 10-12-15 years ago !What exactly is Gabbard's fault - Asking US to not try to influence foreign elections or receiving Individual campaign donations from people who maybe are religious non-violent nutjobs or posing for picture with some person who makes a stupid religious tweet months or years later?

Then there are so many inaccuracies in the entire post like saying the PM moving India closer to the "Zionist Evil Israel" ! Well the PM also moved India closer diplomatically to both Iran & Saudi Arabia & many other Muslim nations! Also about Tulsi vs Obama about cause of extremism, I think that Poverty alone is not the key factor (Radical religious outlook is there too) but poverty helps in recruiting foot soldiers. So I don't 100% agree with Tulsi there but that makes her not a progressive ?

But the campaign here against Tulsi is flat out smear !

[Shadows]

What exactly does qualify for progressiveness? Certification from the Clinton Campaign?

I'll tell you disqualifies: supporting (literally, with money) far-right Indian political parties that advocate for ethnic cleansing because of your personal religious views, and attacking Obama's foreign policy from the right because it is too lax for your tastes because "I was a soldier blah blah blah".

If the bulk of establishment Democratic politicians can be rendered neoliberal shills or whatever because of positions on a handful of issues specific to their constituencies (or not), then people like Gabbard certainly are disqualified from being called "progressive" by anybody intellectually and ideologically consistent. Except that so many of the pious are anything but: their definition of "progressive" hinges solely on whether a person supported Bernie or not, or was a perceived ally or foe in that broader struggle. Actual policies don't matter; it's a cult of personality above all else.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is just another example of why "the Left" in America is a joke and a disorganized MESS and will never accomplish anything meaningful in its current incarnation. I pray for the day that that changes, I really do, considering that I am ideologically there 100%...but the broader movement in the present day is filled with low-information hypocrites, niche organizers who are so obsessed with their own little fiefdoms that they miss the bigger picture of political intersectionality, and a bunch of effete urban kids and worn-out hippies that eschew the power of institutional control.

The first one there isn't necessarily the problem (though annoying as hell and negates any legitimate sense of political/ideological superiority these people have about themselves), but the latter two are dynamics where the Right gets it and they rule because of it.

I would like to know more about this Ethnic Cleansing group which Gabbard supported because that's just a flat untrue statement used to to smear her. What exactly did she say & how did she support ethnic cleansing groups ? (No-one deserves to be called a supporter of ethnic cleansing untruly !)

Here you go.

The BJP is known as a Center Right party & has some fringe religious nutjob elements but is a democratic political party (Ethnic Cleansing seriously ??) It is infact currently in power & had actually appointed a Muslim as the President years ago. If you go to the International Elections thread, you will see the BJP is winning the Muslim vote in recent state elections. Just to add the current PM who is known as a right wing guy took strong opposition to Trump's call for barring Muslims & said Islam shouldn't be directly linked to terrorism. If you want to pick a few fringe elements of a main-stream Center-Right party & paint the entire party as nutjobs, that is wrong.

Secondly, there is nothing wrong in Tulsi's stand - The House Bill was ridiculous & was introduced more than 10 years after some Indian riots in the PM's home state, suddenly before a country wide elections where the BJP was expected to win & there was no religious riots happening then (totally irrelevant issue to bring up & meant to influence votes). The PM was acquitted by multiple courts on any role in the religious riots which took place 10-12-15 years ago !What exactly is Gabbard's fault - Asking US to not try to influence foreign elections or receiving Individual campaign donations from people who maybe are religious non-violent nutjobs or posing for picture with some person who makes a stupid religious tweet months or years later?

Then there are so many inaccuracies in the entire post like saying the PM moving India closer to the "Zionist Evil Israel" ! Well the PM also moved India closer diplomatically to both Iran & Saudi Arabia & many other Muslim nations! Also about Tulsi vs Obama about cause of extremism, I think that Poverty alone is not the key factor (Radical religious outlook is there too) but poverty helps in recruiting foot soldiers. So I don't 100% agree with Tulsi there but that makes her not a progressive ?

But the campaign here against Tulsi is flat out smear !

Supporting Indian Imperialism and right-wing policies for the subjugation of other countries, minority communities, sad, sad , sad. The government of gujurat was complicit in the riots in Gujurat,

"Summarising academic views on the subject, Martha Nussbaum said: "There is by now a broad consensus that the Gujarat violence was a form of ethnic cleansing, that in many ways it was premeditated, and that it was carried out with the complicity of the state government and officers of the law." The Modi government imposed a curfew in 26 major cities, issued shoot-at-sight orders and called for the army to patrol the streets.

The president of the state unit of the BJP expressed support for the bandh, despite such actions being illegal at the time. State officials later prevented riot victims from leaving the refugee camps, and the camps were often unable to meet the needs of those living there. Muslim victims of the riots were subject to further discrimination when the state government announced that compensation for Muslim victims would be half of that offered to Hindus.

BUT THE SUPREME COURT ACQUITTED HIM, SO HE MUST BE FINE! Yes accepting donations from right-wing discriminatory violent nut jobs is a problem.



https://www.theatlantic.com/news/archive/2017/01/the-organization-that-sent-tulsi-gabbard-to-syria/514763/




Going to Assad, to shoot off talking point for the government, and meeting a leader that uses chemical warfare on it's citizens, without being president.

Going to Syria based upon anti-Semitic, dictatorial and fascist ba'thist party would be wrong yes.

Intel – I think the discussion  paints a completely ridiculous picture. The question isn’t if Modi or BJP is progressive, as I said they are center right party with some religious nutjobs. The question isn’t if progressives should look upon them favorably, there is nothing positive for progressives about right wing politics with a flair for ultra religious elements.

The riots were deplorable & I think there is data available in wiki too, but if anyone says it was used as ethnic cleansing, then it was a flat-out life. The riots started when 50-60 odd Hindu pilgrims were burned alive by a Muslim mob in a train, innocent Hindu pilgrims were burned alive. What followed was co-ordinated attacks against Muslim people by Hindu religious groups who massacred many Muslims. There was obviously some retaliation by Muslim group too against Hindus but they were outnumbered. In the end, as per wiki 790 Muslims & 254 Hindus died in religious clashes.

Modi was never accused of having any role in these riots as Chief Minister, instead the allegation was that he didn't involve the state apparatus to protect the vulnerable including Muslims, a charge turned down by many Courts. Did Modi do his best? No1 really knows. Could another CM do a better job? Probably Yes, there was big failure for the state if such large scale riots happen. Should progressives like such politics - Hell No !

But it was not ethnic cleansing because Muslim religious groups came 1st & burned Hindus & then Hindu religious groups came & (sadly) massacred even more Muslims (with some retaliation from outnumbered Muslims !).

Painting the entire BJP party as imperialistic & for ethnic cleansing is completely wrong. There are millions & millions of BJP members, BJP won Muslim votes, have Muslims ministers & appointed a Muslim President too - Just to say if you receive donation from anyone tied to BJP makes you for ethnic cleansing is flat out ridiculous.

Intel - You don't support imperialism etc if you make balanced criticism rather then exaggerated criticism. Just because I am not saying BJP is evil like you, doesn't mean I am condoning or supporting it.

Let me give you examples from what I could find - BJP currently under Modi increased maternity leave massively, imposed Carbon taxes, increased tax on wealthy etc - So let's say among many bad right wing policies & encouraging religious fringe, these were good measures.

You can be objective & blast bad stuff without painting in broad brush an entire political party as evil due to a few incidents involving some people !

[Shadows]

What exactly does qualify for progressiveness? Certification from the Clinton Campaign?

I'll tell you disqualifies: supporting (literally, with money) far-right Indian political parties that advocate for ethnic cleansing because of your personal religious views, and attacking Obama's foreign policy from the right because it is too lax for your tastes because "I was a soldier blah blah blah".

If the bulk of establishment Democratic politicians can be rendered neoliberal shills or whatever because of positions on a handful of issues specific to their constituencies (or not), then people like Gabbard certainly are disqualified from being called "progressive" by anybody intellectually and ideologically consistent. Except that so many of the pious are anything but: their definition of "progressive" hinges solely on whether a person supported Bernie or not, or was a perceived ally or foe in that broader struggle. Actual policies don't matter; it's a cult of personality above all else.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The first one there isn't necessarily the problem (though annoying as hell and negates any legitimate sense of political/ideological superiority these people have about themselves), but the latter two are dynamics where the Right gets it and they rule because of it.

I would like to know more about this Ethnic Cleansing group which Gabbard supported because that's just a flat untrue statement used to to smear her. What exactly did she say & how did she support ethnic cleansing groups ? (No-one deserves to be called a supporter of ethnic cleansing untruly !)

Here you go.

But the campaign here against Tulsi is flat out smear !

Supporting Indian Imperialism and right-wing policies for the subjugation of other countries, minority communities, sad, sad , sad. The government of gujurat was complicit in the riots in Gujurat,

"Summarising academic views on the subject, Martha Nussbaum said: "There is by now a broad consensus that the Gujarat violence was a form of ethnic cleansing, that in many ways it was premeditated, and that it was carried out with the complicity of the state government and officers of the law." The Modi government imposed a curfew in 26 major cities, issued shoot-at-sight orders and called for the army to patrol the streets.

The president of the state unit of the BJP expressed support for the bandh, despite such actions being illegal at the time. State officials later prevented riot victims from leaving the refugee camps, and the camps were often unable to meet the needs of those living there. Muslim victims of the riots were subject to further discrimination when the state government announced that compensation for Muslim victims would be half of that offered to Hindus.

BUT THE SUPREME COURT ACQUITTED HIM, SO HE MUST BE FINE! Yes accepting donations from right-wing discriminatory violent nut jobs is a problem.



https://www.theatlantic.com/news/archive/2017/01/the-organization-that-sent-tulsi-gabbard-to-syria/514763/




Going to Assad, to shoot off talking point for the government, and meeting a leader that uses chemical warfare on it's citizens, without being president.

Going to Syria based upon anti-Semitic, dictatorial and fascist ba'thist party would be wrong yes.

Intel – I think the discussion  paints a completely ridiculous picture. The question isn’t if Modi or BJP is progressive, as I said they are center right party with some religious nutjobs. The question isn’t if progressives should look upon them favorably, there is nothing positive for progressives about right wing politicis with a flair for religious elements.

The riots were deplorable & I think there is data available in wiki too, but if anyone says it was used as ethnic cleansing, then it was a flat-out life. The riots started when 50-60 odd Hindu pilgrims were burned alive by a Muslim mob in a train, innocent Hindu pilgrims were burned alive. What followed was co-ordinated attacks against Muslim people by Hindu religious groups who massacred many Muslims. There was obviously some retaliation by Muslim group too against Hindus but they were outnumbered. In the end, as per wiki 790 Muslims & 254 Hindus died in religious clashes.

Modi was never accused of having any role in these riots as Chief Minister, instead the allegation was that he didn't involve the state apparatus to protect the vulnerable including Muslims, a charge proven false through multiple investigations. And every political party calls illegal strikes in India. Did Modi do his best? Probably not. Could another CM do a better job? Probably Yes, there was big failure for the state if such large scale riots happen. Should progressives like such politics - Hell No !

But it was not ethnic cleansing because Muslim religious groups came 1st & burned Hindus & then Hindu religious groups came & (sadly) massacred even more Muslims (with some retaliation from outnumbered Muslims !).

Painting the entire BJP as imperialistic & for ethnic cleansing is completely. There are millions & millions of BJP members, BJP won Muslim votes, have Muslims ministers & appointed a Muslim President too - Just to say if you receive donation from anyone tied to BJP makes you for ethnic cleansing is flat out ridiculous.

Intel - You dont' support imperialism etc if you make balanced criticism rather then exaggerated criticism.

I guess the left is now giving off a blow job to Modi since their favorite leader is far-right, nice to now.

I guess Indian Imperialism in Nepal, that pushed hundreds of thousands of people in Nepal, doesn't count, but continue.

8% of Muslims voted for the BJP, very big, most be proportional to the thoughts of the wider Muslim population!.

The riots were complicit in allowing Hindu mobs to kill Muslim people, and government forces engage in shoot-to-kill policies in Muslim neighborhoods.

On the recent State elections in the International threads, BJP won a significant share of Muslims (much more than 8%) but I don't know exact stats & they did appoint Muslims to key positions including the President. They have too many religious nutjobs etc but Ethnic cleansers (of a party of millions of people & many pretty decent I think??) Really?

I already said how could 700 people die in riots (as per Wiki) if the government was competent? There are question marks over what the government did to stop the riots - You can surely blame the government for the riots happening. But the claim about government forces shooting Muslims here n there is flat out untrue, ridiculous & sensationalism.

Your statements are indeed very disappointing. I already said how can the left/progressives have any support for center-right politicians with religious nutjobs in them. But that doesn't mean you have to call them Nazis/Hitler/Ethnic Cleansers or otherwise you give 'em a BJ?

About Gabbard, attending any meeting/receiving donations etc from BJP Party people is not the ideal thing & you can criticize & that would be perfectly fair for progressives. But does that disqualify her for life from being a progressive? I thought Ellison was completely unfairly criticized for the Farrakhan thing. And if this disqualifies Gabbard from ever being a progressive, then frankly it is unfair !

[Shadows]

What exactly does qualify for progressiveness? Certification from the Clinton Campaign?

I'll tell you disqualifies: supporting (literally, with money) far-right Indian political parties that advocate for ethnic cleansing because of your personal religious views, and attacking Obama's foreign policy from the right because it is too lax for your tastes because "I was a soldier blah blah blah".

If the bulk of establishment Democratic politicians can be rendered neoliberal shills or whatever because of positions on a handful of issues specific to their constituencies (or not), then people like Gabbard certainly are disqualified from being called "progressive" by anybody intellectually and ideologically consistent. Except that so many of the pious are anything but: their definition of "progressive" hinges solely on whether a person supported Bernie or not, or was a perceived ally or foe in that broader struggle. Actual policies don't matter; it's a cult of personality above all else.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Here you go.

But the campaign here against Tulsi is flat out smear !

Supporting Indian Imperialism and right-wing policies for the subjugation of other countries, minority communities, sad, sad , sad. The government of gujurat was complicit in the riots in Gujurat,






https://www.theatlantic.com/news/archive/2017/01/the-organization-that-sent-tulsi-gabbard-to-syria/514763/




Going to Assad, to shoot off talking point for the government, and meeting a leader that uses chemical warfare on it's citizens, without being president.

Going to Syria based upon anti-Semitic, dictatorial and fascist ba'thist party would be wrong yes.

Intel - You dont' support imperialism etc if you make balanced criticism rather then exaggerated criticism.

I guess the left is now giving off a blow job to Modi since their favorite leader is far-right, nice to now.

I guess Indian Imperialism in Nepal, that pushed hundreds of thousands of people in Nepal, doesn't count, but continue.

8% of Muslims voted for the BJP, very big, most be proportional to the thoughts of the wider Muslim population!.

The riots were complicit in allowing Hindu mobs to kill Muslim people, and government forces engage in shoot-to-kill policies in Muslim neighborhoods.

Dude, I don't know about "Imperialism in Nepal" so I wont' comment. On the recent State elections in the International threads, BJP won a significant share of Muslims (much more than 8%) but I don't exact stats.

I already said how could 700 people die in riots (as per Wiki) if the government was competent? So there are question marks over what the government did to stop the riots - You can surely blame the government for the riots happening.

But the claim about government forces shooting Muslims here n there is flat out untrue, ridiculous & sensationalism.

Your statements are indeed very disappointing. I already said how can the left/progressives have any support for center-right politicians with religious nutjobs in them. But that doesn't mean you have to call them Nazis/Hitler/Ethnic Cleanser otherwise you give 'em a BJ?

About Gabbard, attending any meeting/receive donations etc from BJP Party people is not the correct thing. But does that disqualify her form being a progressive?

I thought Ellison was completely unfairly criticized for the Farrakhan thing. And if this disqualifies Gabbard from ever being a progressive, then frankly it is unfair !

Gabbard has a continual history of such a thing, and voted for a bill that cleansed Modi of his atrocious actions in Gujurat.

Gabbard has continual history of donations from BJP donors, meeting with his like of leaders, and excusing it.

"There is by now a broad consensus that the Gujarat violence was a form of ethnic cleansing, that in many ways it was premeditated, and that it was carried out with the complicity of the state government and officers of the law."

The police and government led rioters of muslim-majority neighbourhoods.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naroda_Patiya_massacre


Supported by various top officials.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulbarg_Society_massacre

Let us not forget that she went to Syria with the support based upon fascist and anti-Semitic party. She voted for bills that excused war crimes of the Assad Regime.

If such vile policies was carried out, it would not be excused, but now the left excuses her links to the far-right because she's become a godess, once she endorsed Sanders.

Final Post regarding this Gabbard thing which is derailing this thread & should end

Intel, I have read your links - In one of your links it said any allegations about government officials involvement were proven false through multiple Investigation teams not just in Gujrat but Federally & through Court & including teams teamed by the party opposing Modi. Fringe Hindu groups (some involved with the BJP & that's condemn-able) massacred many Muslims when Muslim mobs 1st burned many Hindus & Modi didn't do a good job protecting Muslims. There is no consensus about "Ethnic Cleansing" & that's IMO that's completely untrue (That doesn't mean you can't condemn killings of Muslims by Fringe Hindu groups some by lower level BJP workers).

I have already replied about the House bill where Gabbard IMO did 100% the right thing, a House bill revoking Gujrat & criticizing Modi/BJP indirectly/directly 10-20 days before country wide elections where the BJP was expected to come to power & 10-12 years after the Gujrat riots was flat out trying to influence foreign elections which everyone should condemn.

I have already criticized Gabbard that as progressives she shouldn't go near the center-right BJP people (or receive donations). i believe you can hold the BJP/Modi in overall as a negative right wing religious party without mis-characterizing them as Nazis/Ethnic cleansers etc !

I will end this Gabbard thing here agreeing to disagree with you - I don't think it disqualifies her as a progressive & neither did I like the Farrakhan criticism against Ellison. Cheers - Let's move on!

[Shadows]

BUMP! Looks like Manchin isn't rulling out voting for Gorsuch. Still want this guy in your party?

I sure hope they do.

They wont.

Well I for one am glad Atlas forum does not have the same demographics as the WV Dem primary.

WV Democrats voted for Bernie.

They didn't vote for Bernie because they were TRUE PROGRESSIVES: they voted for Bernie because of the opposite. The alternative was "that coal-hating, power-hungry bitch". Turns out you can learn a lot by looking at what the actual voters of WV said in their Democratic primary:

40% of Bernie voters in the primary said explicitly that they were voting for Trump in November, ffs.

That doesn't say a lot. IN many states, where people thought Dems should continue Obama's policies, Bernie got good votes too. In Oklahoma, the people who said it should be more liberal & more conservatives both went big for Bernie while people in the middle stayed.

40% would anyways go for Trump in WV. Trump got 9% of the total Dem vote. That number will have to be high among Bernie Sanders supporters (16% odd i read somewhere). There were many Bernie/Trump voters in many states.

Not everyone voted to stop Clinton, many did. Many did because they supported it. You continue to take straw examples & paint a whole picture which isn't fair. Issues are mostly complex & are influenced by a myriad of factors & it rarely is 1 thing only !

[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).