CPRM, Pt 3: LA 11/6

[Comrade Funk]

2018 is not the time for ideological purity tests.

[Zaybay]

Congrats to EmilysList for securing a Republican vs. Republican match-up in KS-03.

LMAO. You’re ridiculous if you think Davids isn’t progressive. At least she didn’t move into the district in April unlike Welder.

This is Tom Perez all over again. The establishment saw a progressive insurgent gaining momentum and unnecessarily tossed in a conservative alternative to the mix. There was literally no reason to do this other than to disrupt an actual progressive win.

There is so much wrong with this I don't even know where to begin.

First of all, the goal of the party establishment is to win elections. Literally, that's it. It's not the Congressional Progressive Caucus, it's for campaigning. Welder was not the man to meet this goal. Putting aside the fact that he has literally no ties to Kansas City, let alone the entire state of Kansas, he has significant flaws in regards to his politics. It's not that he's too progressive for the district, it's that he's associated with some fringe elements of the party before. I don't necessarily have a problem with that, but this wasn't the district to run a candidate like that in. Do you know anything about KS-03? It's R+4 and largely suburban in character. This isn't AOC's district in Queens, you can't just run DSA members and expect them to win elections. Davids is an objectively better candidate, and if you can't see that, you should probably try and get your head out of your own ass. So yes, it was necessary for her to run.

Second of all, I love how you say the establishment "tossed" Davids into the mix. She's an activist with strong ties to the district unlike your bearded waifu and had every right to make a run for the nomination. As a progressive, it pisses me off that my fellow progressives feel entitled to be the only candidates running in these seats and cry foul whenever a more moderate challenger, even a slightly more moderate challenger like Davids, joins the fray. You're not owed anything. If Welder had a right to the seat he would've won.

Third, Davids had establishment backing, sure. But let's not pretend that getting endorsed by EMILY'S List is like getting added to the DCCC's Red to Blue list. The DCCC actually stayed out of this one just so they could give Welder a chance. That sounds pretty fair to me.

Fourth, Davids is not a conservative. You clearly know nothing about Sharice Davids. She's an experienced lawyer, specialist in development, and all around badass who brings a lot to the table in regards to diversity of perspectives in Congress. What she isn't is a conservative. Have you even seen any of her platform? If so, name one conservative position she holds. She's more moderate than Welder, but she's no blue dog.

 Its been shown that ideology matters little in elections in the USA. Its more likely that it was his baggage, not his views that would sink him.

Davids appears to be a new-age moderate. Supportive of a tax cut, but only for the middle class. Not wanting medicare for all, but wanting more Obamacare. I will be honest, she is actually on the conservative side of moderate candidates this year. Will we win this district? Likely. Would we have won this district? Also likely. Are the Left upset that one of their likely candidates was taken out by a let recruit? yeah, kind of. Are the Left entitled? No, I dont know where you got that idea, since most of us have preached D unity. Is this one district the defining election of 2018? No, so I dont know why we are fussing over 1 seat of out 488.

[Zaybay]

I take solace that in 2020, after Dems win the house and possibly the senate, that the message of Dem Unity will be ineffective, and Dems will finally start to support the candidates that they actually like, instead of "muh electoral strength"

The goal of the party is to win elections, not "purity of views" of it's members and candidates. Of course - if a party is NOT of Bolshevick's type, which you seem to admire.

All I said is that the idea of winning the election and elect-ability will be less important than actually supporting a candidate you like. And if you are really chiding the D party for ideological purity, then I really have nothing to say.

[Zaybay]

I take solace that in 2020, after Dems win the house and possibly the senate, that the message of Dem Unity will be ineffective, and Dems will finally start to support the candidates that they actually like, instead of "muh electoral strength"

That's awfully optimistic.

1978 my friend, 1978.

[wesmoorenerd]

Congrats to EmilysList for securing a Republican vs. Republican match-up in KS-03.

LMAO. You’re ridiculous if you think Davids isn’t progressive. At least she didn’t move into the district in April unlike Welder.

This is Tom Perez all over again. The establishment saw a progressive insurgent gaining momentum and unnecessarily tossed in a conservative alternative to the mix. There was literally no reason to do this other than to disrupt an actual progressive win.

There is so much wrong with this I don't even know where to begin.

First of all, the goal of the party establishment is to win elections. Literally, that's it. It's not the Congressional Progressive Caucus, it's for campaigning. Welder was not the man to meet this goal. Putting aside the fact that he has literally no ties to Kansas City, let alone the entire state of Kansas, he has significant flaws in regards to his politics. It's not that he's too progressive for the district, it's that he's associated with some fringe elements of the party before. I don't necessarily have a problem with that, but this wasn't the district to run a candidate like that in. Do you know anything about KS-03? It's R+4 and largely suburban in character. This isn't AOC's district in Queens, you can't just run DSA members and expect them to win elections. Davids is an objectively better candidate, and if you can't see that, you should probably try and get your head out of your own ass. So yes, it was necessary for her to run.

Second of all, I love how you say the establishment "tossed" Davids into the mix. She's an activist with strong ties to the district unlike your bearded waifu and had every right to make a run for the nomination. As a progressive, it pisses me off that my fellow progressives feel entitled to be the only candidates running in these seats and cry foul whenever a more moderate challenger, even a slightly more moderate challenger like Davids, joins the fray. You're not owed anything. If Welder had a right to the seat he would've won.

Third, Davids had establishment backing, sure. But let's not pretend that getting endorsed by EMILY'S List is like getting added to the DCCC's Red to Blue list. The DCCC actually stayed out of this one just so they could give Welder a chance. That sounds pretty fair to me.

Fourth, Davids is not a conservative. You clearly know nothing about Sharice Davids. She's an experienced lawyer, specialist in development, and all around badass who brings a lot to the table in regards to diversity of perspectives in Congress. What she isn't is a conservative. Have you even seen any of her platform? If so, name one conservative position she holds. She's more moderate than Welder, but she's no blue dog.

 Its been shown that ideology matters little in elections in the USA. Its more likely that it was his baggage, not his views that would sink him.

Davids appears to be a new-age moderate. Supportive of a tax cut, but only for the middle class. Not wanting medicare for all, but wanting more Obamacare. I will be honest, she is actually on the conservative side of moderate candidates this year. Will we win this district? Likely. Would we have won this district? Also likely. Are the Left upset that one of their likely candidates was taken out by a let recruit? yeah, kind of. Are the Left entitled? No, I dont know where you got that idea, since most of us have preached D unity. Is this one district the defining election of 2018? No, so I dont know why we are fussing over 1 seat of out 488.

Did you not read what I said? I literally said that his leftist positions weren't what would've sunk him. Davids is pretty mainstream but progressive relative to the district, which is how we should really be judging these candidates. She's definitely not "conservative". Welder's campaign had a high chance of imploding considering all of its baggage. That alone made me enthusiastically support Davids, because guess what? Any of the Dems would be better than Yoder.

I'm sick of my fellow progressives acting like they have a monopoly on everything left of center. Sure, most progressives have done an admirable job uniting behind the Democratic Party, but the guy I was responding to literally called Davids, a mainstream liberal that's progressive relative to her suburban district, a Republican. Doesn't sound like D unity to me.

[Zaybay]

Congrats to EmilysList for securing a Republican vs. Republican match-up in KS-03.

LMAO. You’re ridiculous if you think Davids isn’t progressive. At least she didn’t move into the district in April unlike Welder.

This is Tom Perez all over again. The establishment saw a progressive insurgent gaining momentum and unnecessarily tossed in a conservative alternative to the mix. There was literally no reason to do this other than to disrupt an actual progressive win.

There is so much wrong with this I don't even know where to begin.

First of all, the goal of the party establishment is to win elections. Literally, that's it. It's not the Congressional Progressive Caucus, it's for campaigning. Welder was not the man to meet this goal. Putting aside the fact that he has literally no ties to Kansas City, let alone the entire state of Kansas, he has significant flaws in regards to his politics. It's not that he's too progressive for the district, it's that he's associated with some fringe elements of the party before. I don't necessarily have a problem with that, but this wasn't the district to run a candidate like that in. Do you know anything about KS-03? It's R+4 and largely suburban in character. This isn't AOC's district in Queens, you can't just run DSA members and expect them to win elections. Davids is an objectively better candidate, and if you can't see that, you should probably try and get your head out of your own ass. So yes, it was necessary for her to run.

Second of all, I love how you say the establishment "tossed" Davids into the mix. She's an activist with strong ties to the district unlike your bearded waifu and had every right to make a run for the nomination. As a progressive, it pisses me off that my fellow progressives feel entitled to be the only candidates running in these seats and cry foul whenever a more moderate challenger, even a slightly more moderate challenger like Davids, joins the fray. You're not owed anything. If Welder had a right to the seat he would've won.

Third, Davids had establishment backing, sure. But let's not pretend that getting endorsed by EMILY'S List is like getting added to the DCCC's Red to Blue list. The DCCC actually stayed out of this one just so they could give Welder a chance. That sounds pretty fair to me.

Fourth, Davids is not a conservative. You clearly know nothing about Sharice Davids. She's an experienced lawyer, specialist in development, and all around badass who brings a lot to the table in regards to diversity of perspectives in Congress. What she isn't is a conservative. Have you even seen any of her platform? If so, name one conservative position she holds. She's more moderate than Welder, but she's no blue dog.

 Its been shown that ideology matters little in elections in the USA. Its more likely that it was his baggage, not his views that would sink him.

Davids appears to be a new-age moderate. Supportive of a tax cut, but only for the middle class. Not wanting medicare for all, but wanting more Obamacare. I will be honest, she is actually on the conservative side of moderate candidates this year. Will we win this district? Likely. Would we have won this district? Also likely. Are the Left upset that one of their likely candidates was taken out by a let recruit? yeah, kind of. Are the Left entitled? No, I dont know where you got that idea, since most of us have preached D unity. Is this one district the defining election of 2018? No, so I dont know why we are fussing over 1 seat of out 488.

Did you not read what I said? I literally said that his leftist positions weren't what would've sunk him. Davids is pretty mainstream but progressive relative to the district, which is how we should really be judging these candidates. She's definitely not "conservative". Welder's campaign had a high chance of imploding considering all of its baggage. That alone made me enthusiastically support Davids, because guess what? Any of the Dems would be better than Yoder.

I'm sick of my fellow progressives acting like they have a monopoly on everything left of center. Sure, most progressives have done an admirable job uniting behind the Democratic Party, but the guy I was responding to literally called Davids, a mainstream liberal that's progressive relative to her suburban district, a Republican. Doesn't sound like D unity to me.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I was referring to this line, which is false, as I said, ideology matters little. Based on your rebuttal, however, it seems that I was nitpicking, and I apologize.

Anyway, you are correct that Davids is left of the district, but she could have been more. The way I see it, there are 4 branches of the D party at this point, Conservative, Liberal, Progressive, and DS. She fits in the liberal category, but on the Conservative side. As I pointed out, she is rather squishy and moderate, even on issues that she doesnt have to. She likes the tax cuts, but only the ones for the Middle Class. She likes Obamacare, but not expanding the program into medicare for all, which is something most moderate candidates have embraced at this point. Even on guns, in a suburban district, she is not progressive on them,  wanting stricter background checks, and nothing else.

And while I dont agree that she is a Republican, I would not call her a Dem either, she is in the middle, but leans Atlas Red, according to her platform. Overall, I am disappointed, but this is just one race, and Im surprised we are all obsessing over it. Then again, the same happened when Kara Eastman, a real progressive, beat the actual R Democrat for the D nomination, so, I guess I should expect this going onto Atlas.

[smoltchanov]

I take solace that in 2020, after Dems win the house and possibly the senate, that the message of Dem Unity will be ineffective, and Dems will finally start to support the candidates that they actually like, instead of "muh electoral strength"

The goal of the party is to win elections, not "purity of views" of it's members and candidates. Of course - if a party is NOT of Bolshevick's type, which you seem to admire.

All I said is that the idea of winning the election and elect-ability will be less important than actually supporting a candidate you like. And if you are really chiding the D party for ideological purity, then I really have nothing to say.

Yes, i chide it. Less, then Republicans, but "ideological purity" became an obsession of considerable part of it. And surely, party is much less resembling a "big tent" now, then it was when i began to study US politics.

[Jeppe]

> Be Sharice Davids
> Calls to abolish ICE
> Be called a Republican

[smoltchanov]

The way I see it, there are 4 branches of the D party at this point, Conservative, Liberal, Progressive, and DS.

What is a "Conservative"? People like Dianne Feinstein? Then i will have a very good laugh...

[Zaybay]

> Be Sharice Davids
> Calls to abolish ICE
> Be called a Republican

wait, she called for that? Wha....why isnt that on her platform? That puts her in the middle of the Liberal category, but why that issue?

I really dont want to say it, but she kinda resembles the D party that was suppose to arise, a Progressive on social issues, but a moderate/conservative on economics. So, a Liberal.

[libertpaulian]

The way I see it, there are 4 branches of the D party at this point, Conservative, Liberal, Progressive, and DS.

What is a "Conservative"? People like Dianne Feinstein? Then i will have a very good laugh...

Anyone to the right of Joseph Stalin or Fidel Castro is "conservative."  Hell, to some of these people, Nicolas Maduro is probably "conservative."

[136or142]

The way I see it, there are 4 branches of the D party at this point, Conservative, Liberal, Progressive, and DS.

What is a "Conservative"? People like Dianne Feinstein? Then i will have a very good laugh...

Joe Donnelly
Heidi Heitkamp
Joe Manchin

[smoltchanov]

The way I see it, there are 4 branches of the D party at this point, Conservative, Liberal, Progressive, and DS.

What is a "Conservative"? People like Dianne Feinstein? Then i will have a very good laugh...

Anyone to the right of Joseph Stalin or Fidel Castro is "conservative."  Hell, to some of these people, Nicolas Maduro is probably "conservative."

In such case - one short word is very applicable: idiots.

[Zaybay]

The way I see it, there are 4 branches of the D party at this point, Conservative, Liberal, Progressive, and DS.

What is a "Conservative"? People like Dianne Feinstein? Then i will have a very good laugh...

There used to be much more, but people such as Lamb, Chist, David Scott, Lipinski, Manchin, Donnelly. Moderate/Conservative on both groups(economic/social). Dianne Feinstein would have been a left liberal, but now she is a conservative/moderate progressive. I have a system.

Conservative-Liberal-Progressive-DS

and each category has three sections, left, moderate, conservative.

[wesmoorenerd]

-snip-

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I was referring to this line, which is false, as I said, ideology matters little. Based on your rebuttal, however, it seems that I was nitpicking, and I apologize.

Anyway, you are correct that Davids is left of the district, but she could have been more. The way I see it, there are 4 branches of the D party at this point, Conservative, Liberal, Progressive, and DS. She fits in the liberal category, but on the Conservative side. As I pointed out, she is rather squishy and moderate, even on issues that she doesnt have to. She likes the tax cuts, but only the ones for the Middle Class. She likes Obamacare, but not expanding the program into medicare for all, which is something most moderate candidates have embraced at this point. Even on guns, in a suburban district, she is not progressive on them,  wanting stricter background checks, and nothing else.

And while I dont agree that she is a Republican, I would not call her a Dem either, she is in the middle, but leans Atlas Red, according to her platform. Overall, I am disappointed, but this is just one race, and Im surprised we are all obsessing over it. Then again, the same happened when Kara Eastman, a real progressive, beat the actual R Democrat for the D nomination, so, I guess I should expect this going onto Atlas.

Davids certainly could've been further to the left of the district. We could've gotten away with running someone with Welder's positions in the district, no question about it. The ideal candidate would've pretty much would've combined Davids' electability with Welder's positions. Unfortunately, that ideal candidate didn't exist. Instead, we got a very progressive option that would've struggled to win the election, and a more moderate candidate that would probably be favored. The risk was larger than the reward in this case, so I backed Davids. Davids is definitely left of center, though, no question in my mind.

Also worth noting that Kara Eastman was and is a very good candidate: progressive and also electable, without Welder-esque baggage.

Lastly, why would you ever go onto Atlas and expect informed discussion

[Pyro]

Congrats to EmilysList for securing a Republican vs. Republican match-up in KS-03.

LMAO. You’re ridiculous if you think Davids isn’t progressive. At least she didn’t move into the district in April unlike Welder.

This is Tom Perez all over again. The establishment saw a progressive insurgent gaining momentum and unnecessarily tossed in a conservative alternative to the mix. There was literally no reason to do this other than to disrupt an actual progressive win.

There is so much wrong with this I don't even know where to begin.

First of all, the goal of the party establishment is to win elections. Literally, that's it. It's not the Congressional Progressive Caucus, it's for campaigning. Welder was not the man to meet this goal. Putting aside the fact that he has literally no ties to Kansas City, let alone the entire state of Kansas, he has significant flaws in regards to his politics. It's not that he's too progressive for the district, it's that he's associated with some fringe elements of the party before. I don't necessarily have a problem with that, but this wasn't the district to run a candidate like that in. Do you know anything about KS-03? It's R+4 and largely suburban in character. This isn't AOC's district in Queens, you can't just run DSA members and expect them to win elections. Davids is an objectively better candidate, and if you can't see that, you should probably try and get your head out of your own ass. So yes, it was necessary for her to run.

Second of all, I love how you say the establishment "tossed" Davids into the mix. She's an activist with strong ties to the district unlike your bearded waifu and had every right to make a run for the nomination. As a progressive, it pisses me off that my fellow progressives feel entitled to be the only candidates running in these seats and cry foul whenever a more moderate challenger, even a slightly more moderate challenger like Davids, joins the fray. You're not owed anything. If Welder had a right to the seat he would've won.

Third, Davids had establishment backing, sure. But let's not pretend that getting endorsed by EMILY'S List is like getting added to the DCCC's Red to Blue list. The DCCC actually stayed out of this one just so they could give Welder a chance. That sounds pretty fair to me.

Fourth, Davids is not a conservative. You clearly know nothing about Sharice Davids. She's an experienced lawyer, specialist in development, and all around badass who brings a lot to the table in regards to diversity of perspectives in Congress. What she isn't is a conservative. Have you even seen any of her platform? If so, name one conservative position she holds. She's more moderate than Welder, but she's no blue dog.

"It's all about the money, Lebowski." The goal of the party establishment is to win in races where the agenda of the doners can be met. They will go out of their way to support candidates who pledge to pursue this path, regardless of whether they win or lose in the general election. Their primary goal is not to win elections, it is to get paid. That's been the game for decades.

You don't believe their is a dramatic difference between these candidates? OK, well let's see what they've stood for. Brent Welder has been vocally opposed to the above concept and has strictly accepted donations from smaller doners and actual human beings opposed to gigantic corporations or SuperPACs. He is a labor lawyer who directly works for the interests of workers. He is in favor of Medicare for All, a living wage, zero-cost public universities and pushing big money from politics - all basic tenants of a progressive identity (and far less than what I'd consider DSA-inspired).

What is Sharice Davids in favor of? According to her website and her ads, she is a "fighter" who supports preserving Obamacare and a "tax cut for the middle class", among other generic platitudes that inspire no one. This is a deafening signal that she will not defend working people and will instead serve the interests of the few. Does she wish to promote comprehensive campaign finance reform? Nope. Is she for a living wage and economic dignity? No, yet rather instead proposes to "create a small business standard deduction". I certainly recognize that her candidacy will provide the oft-neglected perspectives of both the LGBT and Native American communities, but that is simply not enough for me to look past the fact that she is not in favor of a single, specific and genuine progressive policy proposal. We can do better, regardless of the district and state.

[smoltchanov]

The way I see it, there are 4 branches of the D party at this point, Conservative, Liberal, Progressive, and DS.

What is a "Conservative"? People like Dianne Feinstein? Then i will have a very good laugh...

Joe Donnelly
Heidi Heitkamp
Joe Manchin

Nothing conservative. Center to Left-of-center people. I would understand if someone would call Boren or McIntyre or Matheson "a conservative", but only barely with adjective "moderate" before this word. The last Democrat i could simply call a "conservative" was, probably, Ralph Hall

[Zaybay]

The way I see it, there are 4 branches of the D party at this point, Conservative, Liberal, Progressive, and DS.

What is a "Conservative"? People like Dianne Feinstein? Then i will have a very good laugh...

Joe Donnelly
Heidi Heitkamp
Joe Manchin

Nothing conservative. Center to Left-of-center people. I would understand if someone would call Boren or McIntyre or Matheson "a conservative", but only barely with adjective "moderate" before this word. The last Democrat i could simply call a "conservative" was, probably, Ralph Hall

Then it may be your definition of "Conservative" that is messed up, because these guys are not center-left, they are center/center-tilt-right, which is the Conservative faction of the Dems.

[smoltchanov]

The way I see it, there are 4 branches of the D party at this point, Conservative, Liberal, Progressive, and DS.

What is a "Conservative"? People like Dianne Feinstein? Then i will have a very good laugh...

There used to be much more, but people such as Lamb, Chist, David Scott, Lipinski, Manchin, Donnelly. Moderate/Conservative on both groups(economic/social). Dianne Feinstein would have been a left liberal, but now she is a conservative/moderate progressive. I have a system.

Conservative-Liberal-Progressive-DS

and each category has three sections, left, moderate, conservative.

None of them is really conservative to me. All are center to left-of-center type. I can't call even one Democratic member of Congress even "moderate conservative", even less - without "moderate". There are still some in Louisiana, Arkansas and Mississippi state legislatures, and that's - all...

[tmthforu94]

Democrats dodged a bullet by not nominating Welder. He was too liberal for the district and would have been hammered for being a Missourian. Plus TMTH would have campaigned heavily against him. Sharice Davids is a progressive, but comes across more down-to-earth and has a compelling story that still should do well in this district. I wouldn't be upset if she won in November.

[Zaybay]

The way I see it, there are 4 branches of the D party at this point, Conservative, Liberal, Progressive, and DS.

What is a "Conservative"? People like Dianne Feinstein? Then i will have a very good laugh...

There used to be much more, but people such as Lamb, Chist, David Scott, Lipinski, Manchin, Donnelly. Moderate/Conservative on both groups(economic/social). Dianne Feinstein would have been a left liberal, but now she is a conservative/moderate progressive. I have a system.

Conservative-Liberal-Progressive-DS

and each category has three sections, left, moderate, conservative.

None of them is really conservative to me. All are center to left-of-center type. I can't call even one Democratic member of Congress even "moderate conservative", even less - without "moderate". There are still some in Louisiana, Arkansas and Mississippi state legislatures, and that's - all...

....What is a conservative Democrat to you?

[smoltchanov]

The way I see it, there are 4 branches of the D party at this point, Conservative, Liberal, Progressive, and DS.

What is a "Conservative"? People like Dianne Feinstein? Then i will have a very good laugh...

Joe Donnelly
Heidi Heitkamp
Joe Manchin

Nothing conservative. Center to Left-of-center people. I would understand if someone would call Boren or McIntyre or Matheson "a conservative", but only barely with adjective "moderate" before this word. The last Democrat i could simply call a "conservative" was, probably, Ralph Hall

Then it may be your definition of "Conservative" that is messed up, because these guys are not center-left, they are center/center-tilt-right, which is the Conservative faction of the Dems.

Among "Present day Democrats" that may be "right", but only among "present day". On a general common idrological scale they are not "conservative" at all...

[136or142]

The way I see it, there are 4 branches of the D party at this point, Conservative, Liberal, Progressive, and DS.

What is a "Conservative"? People like Dianne Feinstein? Then i will have a very good laugh...

Joe Donnelly
Heidi Heitkamp
Joe Manchin

Nothing conservative. Center to Left-of-center people. I would understand if someone would call Boren or McIntyre or Matheson "a conservative", but only barely with adjective "moderate" before this word. The last Democrat i could simply call a "conservative" was, probably, Ralph Hall

Then it may be your definition of "Conservative" that is messed up, because these guys are not center-left, they are center/center-tilt-right, which is the Conservative faction of the Dems.

Among "Present day Democrats" that may be "right", but only among "present day". On a general common idrological scale they are not "conservative" at all...

The days when the Republicans had a liberal faction and the Democrats had a conservative faction are long gone.

[smoltchanov]

The way I see it, there are 4 branches of the D party at this point, Conservative, Liberal, Progressive, and DS.

What is a "Conservative"? People like Dianne Feinstein? Then i will have a very good laugh...

There used to be much more, but people such as Lamb, Chist, David Scott, Lipinski, Manchin, Donnelly. Moderate/Conservative on both groups(economic/social). Dianne Feinstein would have been a left liberal, but now she is a conservative/moderate progressive. I have a system.

Conservative-Liberal-Progressive-DS

and each category has three sections, left, moderate, conservative.

None of them is really conservative to me. All are center to left-of-center type. I can't call even one Democratic member of Congress even "moderate conservative", even less - without "moderate". There are still some in Louisiana, Arkansas and Mississippi state legislatures, and that's - all...

....What is a conservative Democrat to you?

Now?? People like John Milkovich, Francis Thompson, Mike Danahay and Major Thibaut from Louisiana legislature, or J.P. Wilemon, Bob Dearing or Nick Bain from Mississippi's. 20 years ago i wuld call almost all of them "moderate conservatives" as then there were much more conservative types - really conservative.

[smoltchanov]

The way I see it, there are 4 branches of the D party at this point, Conservative, Liberal, Progressive, and DS.

What is a "Conservative"? People like Dianne Feinstein? Then i will have a very good laugh...

Joe Donnelly
Heidi Heitkamp
Joe Manchin

Nothing conservative. Center to Left-of-center people. I would understand if someone would call Boren or McIntyre or Matheson "a conservative", but only barely with adjective "moderate" before this word. The last Democrat i could simply call a "conservative" was, probably, Ralph Hall

Then it may be your definition of "Conservative" that is messed up, because these guys are not center-left, they are center/center-tilt-right, which is the Conservative faction of the Dems.

Among "Present day Democrats" that may be "right", but only among "present day". On a general common idrological scale they are not "conservative" at all...

The days when the Republicans had a liberal faction and the Democrats had a conservative faction are long gone.

If so - almost all interest to study US politics evaporates almost immediately. It's utterly boring when one party is an army of Barbara Lee clones, another - Jim Jordan's