538: Liberals Would Be Foolish To Primary Joe Manchin

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Hey, Harry Enten, how'd Jim Webb do as the anti Hillary?

https://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/jim-webb-would-make-a-good-anti-clinton-in-2016/

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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.

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

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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.

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.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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.

Look at who seems to be close to the leader of that party.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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.

Look at who seems to be close to the leader of that party.

God forbid one head of state be seen or interact with another! What's Gabbard's excuse for associating with both him and the party?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://medium.com/@Harihar/rep-tulsi-gabbard-on-islam-vs-islamism-c87b1ceefb1#.1dbn8e6c2

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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

1.) His state voted for Trump by 40+ points.
2.) His vote won't be the deciding one anyway.
3.) Go primary him and see what happens.

Who cares? The only 2 Democrats to get primaried for decades didn't cost any seats. In the case of Lieberman, he won anyways as an independent, with the Republican getting only 10%, and in the case of Specter he never was elected as a Democrat, and Sestak didn't do any worse than he would have. That's it, the only 2 Democratic Senators to be primaried for a long time, both of whom were elected as non Democrats either before or after anyways.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

WV Democrats voted for Bernie.

Irrelevant.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

West Virginia also had a choice of Republican and Republican-lite in their gubernatorial election in 2016, and they chose the latter by a pretty decent margin.

Sounds like your proud to have a corporatist like Joe Manchin in office. Sadly for you he will not be in their for much longer.

Your way of thinking f-cked over the Republican Party and will do the same thing to the Democrats. Ha being 50+ votes is more important than ideological purity. Stop whining and targeting other progressives.

The Democratic party f-cked itself quite well without us. I think Democrats currently control the fewest state governments since the party was founded.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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.

[○∙◄☻¥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.

[○∙◄☻¥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.

[○∙◄☻¥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.

[○∙◄☻¥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.

[○∙◄☻¥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!