IL-3 Dem Primary: Election Day!

[Calthrina950]

This primary seems to be a good example of the ever-accelerating trend of polarization within this country. If Lipinski is defeated (which is a strong possibility at this point), then it would mean a further consolidation of the Democratic caucus, in terms of ideological thought. Both parties have become more and more extreme in recent years, and this has contributed to polarization. Why can there not be party members who don't always toe the party line on every single issue?

[Calthrina950]

This primary seems to be a good example of the ever-accelerating trend of polarization within this country. If Lipinski is defeated (which is a strong possibility at this point), then it would mean a further consolidation of the Democratic caucus, in terms of ideological thought. Both parties have become more and more extreme in recent years, and this has contributed to polarization. Why can there not be party members who don't always toe the party line on every single issue?

Welcome to Atlas Forum mr. David Brooks.

I know who David Brooks is, and I know what you are implying by calling me that. But that shouldn't change the veracity of the points which I am arguing.

[Calthrina950]

Wow bernie, way to turn on the working class who you claim to be for. Lipinski is one of the good guys in congress and working class centrist Dems are a dying breed (Lipinski, Lynch, Peterson, Kind, etc.) My whole family was once working class democrats, but Bernie, Newman, and their whole SJW crusade jolted us across the aisle. Please, people of IL-3, keep Dan Lipinski as your congressman

What I find interesting is the "purity crusade" which seems to be occurring within both parties. For me, a political party that espouses just one ideology will have a "narrower" tent then one that tends to have a greater diversity of opinion. This primary also seems to be part of the longer-term trend towards the Democrats moving away from working-class populism, and towards a more, far left-wing platform.

[Calthrina950]

I'm fine with a big tent on issues like guns/abortion/immigration, but at the same time, there needs to be a difference between the two parties on economics of some sorts, at least in safe seats. If not, why have political parties at all? I'm not offended by Lipinski's social views but what I am bothered by is his vote against a centrist health care plan when he was in a blue seat.

The Blue Dog support for Lipinski is a bit baffling from an ideological prospective though given that he basically is a Republican, and there's a reason Blue Dogs on here aren't Republicans, and are usually willing to put aside one's support for abortion if they agreed with them on other issues. Rather, many here are slamming Newsman for her support for abortion. In reality, I think they fear - and to some extent I do as someone who is more left wing economically than socially and thinks party lines being driven by social issues is what's destroyed the country - that since a major source of Newman's support comes from the contrast between the two on social issues, the idea of purity becoming mainstream, specifically the idea that one must be in the mold of Kamala Harris to be a Democrat. Honestly, to me Lipinski is so bad that quite frankly at the end of the day, Marie Newman would be a much better Congresswoman than Lipinski, and I don't think the Justice Democrats have the firepower to repeatedly pull this off in race after race after race, so I'm not sure how extreme of a trend this will be. 

I do think Lipinski's vote against Obamacare was wrong, and that is out of step with what I would expect a populist Democrat to support. However, I am concerned about the potential for "purism", and I do not believe that it would bode well for the Democratic Party (and the Republican Party), to completely shut out the voices of those who may diverge from some aspects of the party platform.

[Calthrina950]

I'm fine with a big tent on issues like guns/abortion/immigration, but at the same time, there needs to be a difference between the two parties on economics of some sorts, at least in safe seats. If not, why have political parties at all? I'm not offended by Lipinski's social views but what I am bothered by is his vote against a centrist health care plan when he was in a blue seat.

The Blue Dog support for Lipinski is a bit baffling from an ideological prospective though given that he basically is a Republican, and there's a reason Blue Dogs on here aren't Republicans, and are usually willing to put aside one's support for abortion if they agreed with them on other issues. Rather, many here are slamming Newsman for her support for abortion. In reality, I think they fear - and to some extent I do as someone who is more left wing economically than socially and thinks party lines being driven by social issues is what's destroyed the country - that since a major source of Newman's support comes from the contrast between the two on social issues, the idea of purity becoming mainstream, specifically the idea that one must be in the mold of Kamala Harris to be a Democrat. Honestly, to me Lipinski is so bad that quite frankly at the end of the day, Marie Newman would be a much better Congresswoman than Lipinski, and I don't think the Justice Democrats have the firepower to repeatedly pull this off in race after race after race, so I'm not sure how extreme of a trend this will be. 

I do think Lipinski's vote against Obamacare was wrong, and that is out of step with what I would expect a populist Democrat to support. However, I am concerned about the potential for "purism", and I do not believe that it would bode well for the Democratic Party (and the Republican Party), to completely shut out the voices of those who may diverge from some aspects of the party platform.

HE IS NOT A POPULIST DEMOCRAT

HE IS SLIGHTLY TO THE RIGHT OF LARRY HOGAN AND REPRESENTS CHICAGO

JESUS CHRIST

By your definition, a populist Democrat is someone as left, or to the left, of Bernie Sanders.

[Calthrina950]

Wow bernie, way to turn on the working class who you claim to be for. Lipinski is one of the good guys in congress and working class centrist Dems are a dying breed (Lipinski, Lynch, Peterson, Kind, etc.) My whole family was once working class democrats, but Bernie, Newman, and their whole SJW crusade jolted us across the aisle. Please, people of IL-3, keep Dan Lipinski as your congressman

Very good, great statement by a great poster.

What do you feel about the drive to remove Lipinski from office? From my understanding, this is a traditional working-class kind of district, and one with a kind of "working-class religious" tint.

[Calthrina950]

I'm fine with a big tent on issues like guns/abortion/immigration, but at the same time, there needs to be a difference between the two parties on economics of some sorts, at least in safe seats. If not, why have political parties at all? I'm not offended by Lipinski's social views but what I am bothered by is his vote against a centrist health care plan when he was in a blue seat.

The Blue Dog support for Lipinski is a bit baffling from an ideological prospective though given that he basically is a Republican, and there's a reason Blue Dogs on here aren't Republicans, and are usually willing to put aside one's support for abortion if they agreed with them on other issues. Rather, many here are slamming Newsman for her support for abortion. In reality, I think they fear - and to some extent I do as someone who is more left wing economically than socially and thinks party lines being driven by social issues is what's destroyed the country - that since a major source of Newman's support comes from the contrast between the two on social issues, the idea of purity becoming mainstream, specifically the idea that one must be in the mold of Kamala Harris to be a Democrat. Honestly, to me Lipinski is so bad that quite frankly at the end of the day, Marie Newman would be a much better Congresswoman than Lipinski, and I don't think the Justice Democrats have the firepower to repeatedly pull this off in race after race after race, so I'm not sure how extreme of a trend this will be.  

I do think Lipinski's vote against Obamacare was wrong, and that is out of step with what I would expect a populist Democrat to support. However, I am concerned about the potential for "purism", and I do not believe that it would bode well for the Democratic Party (and the Republican Party), to completely shut out the voices of those who may diverge from some aspects of the party platform.

HE IS NOT A POPULIST DEMOCRAT

HE IS SLIGHTLY TO THE RIGHT OF LARRY HOGAN AND REPRESENTS CHICAGO

JESUS CHRIST

By your definition, a populist Democrat is someone as left, or to the left, of Bernie Sanders.

Yes, because that is what a populist Democrat is, you moron.

Why do you insult me? I merely come to this thread to offer my opinion about this district, and you instantly resort to ad hominem attacks! This is uncalled for, and I've reported your post.

[Calthrina950]

Wow bernie, way to turn on the working class who you claim to be for. Lipinski is one of the good guys in congress and working class centrist Dems are a dying breed (Lipinski, Lynch, Peterson, Kind, etc.) My whole family was once working class democrats, but Bernie, Newman, and their whole SJW crusade jolted us across the aisle. Please, people of IL-3, keep Dan Lipinski as your congressman

Very good, great statement by a great poster.

What do you feel about the drive to remove Lipinski from office? From my understanding, this is a traditional working-class kind of district, and one with a kind of "working-class religious" tint.

I'm disgusted by the purist purges, and I really hope Lipinski can pull through, and I think it has tightened but he still holds the advantage.

We will see what happens. Many of the Blue Dog Democrats, of a very similar cast as Lipinski, were wiped out in 2010, and had been a critical component of the old Democratic majorities in the House. By engaging in such purges, Democrats make it more difficult for themselves, and less likely that they can hold a viable coalition in the future. My hope is that things eventually go down the path as suggested in that Cordray timeline: one where Democrats return to their roots, and don't go too far out of field.  

[Calthrina950]

I'm fine with a big tent on issues like guns/abortion/immigration, but at the same time, there needs to be a difference between the two parties on economics of some sorts, at least in safe seats. If not, why have political parties at all? I'm not offended by Lipinski's social views but what I am bothered by is his vote against a centrist health care plan when he was in a blue seat.

The Blue Dog support for Lipinski is a bit baffling from an ideological prospective though given that he basically is a Republican, and there's a reason Blue Dogs on here aren't Republicans, and are usually willing to put aside one's support for abortion if they agreed with them on other issues. Rather, many here are slamming Newsman for her support for abortion. In reality, I think they fear - and to some extent I do as someone who is more left wing economically than socially and thinks party lines being driven by social issues is what's destroyed the country - that since a major source of Newman's support comes from the contrast between the two on social issues, the idea of purity becoming mainstream, specifically the idea that one must be in the mold of Kamala Harris to be a Democrat. Honestly, to me Lipinski is so bad that quite frankly at the end of the day, Marie Newman would be a much better Congresswoman than Lipinski, and I don't think the Justice Democrats have the firepower to repeatedly pull this off in race after race after race, so I'm not sure how extreme of a trend this will be.  

I do think Lipinski's vote against Obamacare was wrong, and that is out of step with what I would expect a populist Democrat to support. However, I am concerned about the potential for "purism", and I do not believe that it would bode well for the Democratic Party (and the Republican Party), to completely shut out the voices of those who may diverge from some aspects of the party platform.

HE IS NOT A POPULIST DEMOCRAT

HE IS SLIGHTLY TO THE RIGHT OF LARRY HOGAN AND REPRESENTS CHICAGO

JESUS CHRIST

By your definition, a populist Democrat is someone as left, or to the left, of Bernie Sanders.

Yes, because that is what a populist Democrat is, you moron.

Why do you insult me? I merely come to this thread to offer my opinion about this district, and you instantly resort to ad hominem attacks! This is uncalled for, and I've reported your post.

Report this one too: go fuck yourself, and don't take yourself so fucking seriously.

Once again, there is a resort to insults which is not productive, and not conducive to the civil debate environment which I thought was supposed to be the standard here. But what can I say. You're far from the first person who has insulted me over the Internet during all my years on it. And you won't be the last.

[Calthrina950]

Wow bernie, way to turn on the working class who you claim to be for. Lipinski is one of the good guys in congress and working class centrist Dems are a dying breed (Lipinski, Lynch, Peterson, Kind, etc.) My whole family was once working class democrats, but Bernie, Newman, and their whole SJW crusade jolted us across the aisle. Please, people of IL-3, keep Dan Lipinski as your congressman

Very good, great statement by a great poster.

What do you feel about the drive to remove Lipinski from office? From my understanding, this is a traditional working-class kind of district, and one with a kind of "working-class religious" tint.

I'm disgusted by the purist purges, and I really hope Lipinski can pull through, and I think it has tightened but he still holds the advantage.

We will see what happens. Many of the Blue Dog Democrats, of a very similar cast as Lipinski, were wiped out in 2010, and had been a critical component of the old Democratic majorities in the House. By engaging in such purges, Democrats make it more difficult for themselves, and less likely that they can hold a viable coalition in the future. My hope is that things eventually go down the path as suggested in that Cordray timeline: one where Democrats return to their roots, and don't go too far out of field.  

Democrats have not had a majority without moderates in nearly a hundred years. They are cutting off a good foot by primarying Lipinskis all over the country. Because they feel as though a prosthetic would look cooler. We also need moderates to break the gridlock, and get stuff done. Extreme polarization screws us all over. We don't have enough moderates.

I fully agree with you. And as you can see elsewhere on this thread, it seems as if people jump on you if you try to call for moderation and for greater bipartisanship. All that we say also applies to the Republican Party as well. I honestly believe our country would be better off if we had more politicians in the mold of Manchin and Collins, rather than extremists like Cruz and Harris.

[Calthrina950]

Wow bernie, way to turn on the working class who you claim to be for. Lipinski is one of the good guys in congress and working class centrist Dems are a dying breed (Lipinski, Lynch, Peterson, Kind, etc.) My whole family was once working class democrats, but Bernie, Newman, and their whole SJW crusade jolted us across the aisle. Please, people of IL-3, keep Dan Lipinski as your congressman

Very good, great statement by a great poster.

What do you feel about the drive to remove Lipinski from office? From my understanding, this is a traditional working-class kind of district, and one with a kind of "working-class religious" tint.

I'm disgusted by the purist purges, and I really hope Lipinski can pull through, and I think it has tightened but he still holds the advantage.

We will see what happens. Many of the Blue Dog Democrats, of a very similar cast as Lipinski, were wiped out in 2010, and had been a critical component of the old Democratic majorities in the House. By engaging in such purges, Democrats make it more difficult for themselves, and less likely that they can hold a viable coalition in the future. My hope is that things eventually go down the path as suggested in that Cordray timeline: one where Democrats return to their roots, and don't go too far out of field.  

Democrats have not had a majority without moderates in nearly a hundred years. They are cutting off a good foot by primarying Lipinskis all over the country. Because they feel as though a prosthetic would look cooler. We also need moderates to break the gridlock, and get stuff done. Extreme polarization screws us all over. We don't have enough moderates.

It's not about looking cooler. It's about trying to have the votes to do stuff like Medicare for All, Free College, paid family and medical leave, paid vacation time by law, taxing and regulating weed, and financial regulation in 2020 or whenever we get a trifecta. Have we learned anything from 2006 CT Sen? I'm generally for running economic and social moderates but run them where actually necessary.

All of those objectives, I believe, follow in the tradition of the New Deal and Great Society. My personal opinion is that a Democrat who supports this, but who may still be socially moderate or conservative, wouldn't necessarily be the worst thing to have. To me, primary challenges such as this one aren't the most productive thing, because they tend to aggravate the divide between the factions within the Party.

[Calthrina950]

Wow bernie, way to turn on the working class who you claim to be for. Lipinski is one of the good guys in congress and working class centrist Dems are a dying breed (Lipinski, Lynch, Peterson, Kind, etc.) My whole family was once working class democrats, but Bernie, Newman, and their whole SJW crusade jolted us across the aisle. Please, people of IL-3, keep Dan Lipinski as your congressman

Very good, great statement by a great poster.

What do you feel about the drive to remove Lipinski from office? From my understanding, this is a traditional working-class kind of district, and one with a kind of "working-class religious" tint.

I'm disgusted by the purist purges, and I really hope Lipinski can pull through, and I think it has tightened but he still holds the advantage.

We will see what happens. Many of the Blue Dog Democrats, of a very similar cast as Lipinski, were wiped out in 2010, and had been a critical component of the old Democratic majorities in the House. By engaging in such purges, Democrats make it more difficult for themselves, and less likely that they can hold a viable coalition in the future. My hope is that things eventually go down the path as suggested in that Cordray timeline: one where Democrats return to their roots, and don't go too far out of field.  

Democrats have not had a majority without moderates in nearly a hundred years. They are cutting off a good foot by primarying Lipinskis all over the country. Because they feel as though a prosthetic would look cooler. We also need moderates to break the gridlock, and get stuff done. Extreme polarization screws us all over. We don't have enough moderates.

It's not about looking cooler. It's about trying to have the votes to do stuff like Medicare for All, Free College, paid family and medical leave, paid vacation time by law, taxing and regulating weed, and financial regulation in 2020 or whenever we get a trifecta. Have we learned anything from 2006 CT Sen? I'm generally for running economic and social moderates but run them where actually necessary.

All of those objectives, I believe, follow in the tradition of the New Deal and Great Society. My personal opinion is that a Democrat who supports this, but who may still be socially moderate or conservative, wouldn't necessarily be the worst thing to have. To me, primary challenges such as this one aren't the most productive thing, because they tend to aggravate the divide between the factions within the Party.

Yes, but I wouldn't consider Lipinski someone who supports that, given he voted against Obamacare, and voted to deregulate Wall Street, and has been hesitant to increase the minimum wage. They're not the most productive thing, but I don't think Justice Dems and similar organizations have the resources to pull this off in the same extent the Tea Party did, and at the end of the day, Marie Newman will be a better congresswomen than Dan Lipinski.

Although I don't agree with Newman's views on abortion, I don't have a particularly strong objection to her. If she wins, then that means the primary electorate in that district decided for a change. And she may very well be more economically progressive or populist than Lipinski. But I also caution against any efforts to knock off all moderate Democrats. I wouldn't want the Democratic Party to become too extreme ideologically, nor do I want the same of the Republicans.

[Calthrina950]

Wow bernie, way to turn on the working class who you claim to be for. Lipinski is one of the good guys in congress and working class centrist Dems are a dying breed (Lipinski, Lynch, Peterson, Kind, etc.) My whole family was once working class democrats, but Bernie, Newman, and their whole SJW crusade jolted us across the aisle. Please, people of IL-3, keep Dan Lipinski as your congressman

Very good, great statement by a great poster.

What do you feel about the drive to remove Lipinski from office? From my understanding, this is a traditional working-class kind of district, and one with a kind of "working-class religious" tint.

I'm disgusted by the purist purges, and I really hope Lipinski can pull through, and I think it has tightened but he still holds the advantage.

We will see what happens. Many of the Blue Dog Democrats, of a very similar cast as Lipinski, were wiped out in 2010, and had been a critical component of the old Democratic majorities in the House. By engaging in such purges, Democrats make it more difficult for themselves, and less likely that they can hold a viable coalition in the future. My hope is that things eventually go down the path as suggested in that Cordray timeline: one where Democrats return to their roots, and don't go too far out of field.  

Democrats have not had a majority without moderates in nearly a hundred years. They are cutting off a good foot by primarying Lipinskis all over the country. Because they feel as though a prosthetic would look cooler. We also need moderates to break the gridlock, and get stuff done. Extreme polarization screws us all over. We don't have enough moderates.

It's not about looking cooler. It's about trying to have the votes to do stuff like Medicare for All, Free College, paid family and medical leave, paid vacation time by law, taxing and regulating weed, and financial regulation in 2020 or whenever we get a trifecta. Have we learned anything from 2006 CT Sen? I'm generally for running economic and social moderates but run them where actually necessary.

All of those objectives, I believe, follow in the tradition of the New Deal and Great Society. My personal opinion is that a Democrat who supports this, but who may still be socially moderate or conservative, wouldn't necessarily be the worst thing to have. To me, primary challenges such as this one aren't the most productive thing, because they tend to aggravate the divide between the factions within the Party.

Yes, but I wouldn't consider Lipinski someone who supports that, given he voted against Obamacare, and voted to deregulate Wall Street, and has been hesitant to increase the minimum wage. They're not the most productive thing, but I don't think Justice Dems and similar organizations have the resources to pull this off in the same extent the Tea Party did, and at the end of the day, Marie Newman will be a better congresswomen than Dan Lipinski.

If Lipinski loses the primary, we all know things are going to get even uglier, but if he wins, does that send a large counterblow?

It remains to be seen. Though as I just explained to YE, I won't have too much of a negative reaction if Newman wins the primary. My main concern is that "purism" might eventually spread through the entire Party.

[Calthrina950]

Is calthrina a spoof account parodying the 'muh enlightened centrist' stereotype?

No I am not. I've been on this forum since 2016, but I've generally remained confined to the Election Scenarios thread until now. And why do you, along with other posters here, have a bias against users such as myself? Is it because you cannot tolerate anyone who doesn't toe with the party line, whether it be Democratic or Republican? This statement is an unfair and blanket one to make, and engaging in this kind of rhetoric doesn't help anyone.

[Calthrina950]

Wow bernie, way to turn on the working class who you claim to be for. Lipinski is one of the good guys in congress and working class centrist Dems are a dying breed (Lipinski, Lynch, Peterson, Kind, etc.) My whole family was once working class democrats, but Bernie, Newman, and their whole SJW crusade jolted us across the aisle. Please, people of IL-3, keep Dan Lipinski as your congressman

Very good, great statement by a great poster.

What do you feel about the drive to remove Lipinski from office? From my understanding, this is a traditional working-class kind of district, and one with a kind of "working-class religious" tint.

Why do people here seem to think every area is exactly like it was stereotyped 30 years ago?

I don't seem to think that. I've never visited this district, and I will admit that I don't know all that much about Chicago-area politics. What I know comes from reading the posts in this thread and from reading a number of articles about the district, and the primary there. The impressions that I got were derived from those sources. I understand that parts of the district have gentrified, and that it has gotten more diverse than it used to be. But I had still read things discussing how there is still a large Polish/Irish population there, and that it was traditionally socially conservative. It is wrong for you to make assumptions based off just one post.

[Calthrina950]

This area is almost the same as it was 30 years ago though.  There is not much going for it, no good jobs, dying industries and declining population.  The only difference is Mexican immigrants, who are NOT the voters Newman is targetting.  The gentrified Bridgeport neighborhood is probably 1% of the voters here.

Since you seem to know more about this district, what do you think is going to happen with the primary?

[Calthrina950]

This area is almost the same as it was 30 years ago though.  There is not much going for it, no good jobs, dying industries and declining population.  The only difference is Mexican immigrants, who are NOT the voters Newman is targetting.  The gentrified Bridgeport neighborhood is probably 1% of the voters here.

Since you seem to know more about this district, what do you think is going to happen with the primary?

I think Lipinski will win narrowly but I am a lot less confident than I was a few months ago.  He hasn't run any ads while she has been bombarding the airwaves.  The district as a whole is definitely with Lipinski but I don't know what will happen in the Democratic primary where clearly liberal activists are the most fired up this year. 

I see. And what do you think the consequences would be if Lipinski were to lose? It seems as if most of the people here want him gone, simply because he is not a all-out progressive as they would prefer most Democrats to be.

[Calthrina950]

This area is almost the same as it was 30 years ago though.  There is not much going for it, no good jobs, dying industries and declining population.  The only difference is Mexican immigrants, who are NOT the voters Newman is targetting.  The gentrified Bridgeport neighborhood is probably 1% of the voters here.

Since you seem to know more about this district, what do you think is going to happen with the primary?

I think Lipinski will win narrowly but I am a lot less confident than I was a few months ago.  He hasn't run any ads while she has been bombarding the airwaves.  The district as a whole is definitely with Lipinski but I don't know what will happen in the Democratic primary where clearly liberal activists are the most fired up this year. 

I see. And what do you think the consequences would be if Lipinski were to lose? It seems as if most of the people here want him gone, simply because he is not a all-out progressive as they would prefer most Democrats to be.

If Lipinski loses?  Nothing.  The Republican is a Nazi and this is still a Democratic district, so people will suck it up and vote for her.

That is true. But what I actually meant was this: what would the consequences be for the Party as a whole?

[Calthrina950]

This area is almost the same as it was 30 years ago though.  There is not much going for it, no good jobs, dying industries and declining population.  The only difference is Mexican immigrants, who are NOT the voters Newman is targetting.  The gentrified Bridgeport neighborhood is probably 1% of the voters here.

Since you seem to know more about this district, what do you think is going to happen with the primary?

I think Lipinski will win narrowly but I am a lot less confident than I was a few months ago.  He hasn't run any ads while she has been bombarding the airwaves.  The district as a whole is definitely with Lipinski but I don't know what will happen in the Democratic primary where clearly liberal activists are the most fired up this year. 

I see. And what do you think the consequences would be if Lipinski were to lose? It seems as if most of the people here want him gone, simply because he is not a all-out progressive as they would prefer most Democrats to be.

If Lipinski loses?  Nothing.  The Republican is a Nazi and this is still a Democratic district, so people will suck it up and vote for her.

That is true. But what I actually meant was this: what would the consequences be for the Party as a whole?

We'd get rid of a borderline-DINO in a safe Democratic seat without any downside?

But not just that. I'm fearful that over time, all Democrats will have to be ones who toe a strictly progressive platform on each and every single issue, with no room for deviation.

[Calthrina950]

This area is almost the same as it was 30 years ago though.  There is not much going for it, no good jobs, dying industries and declining population.  The only difference is Mexican immigrants, who are NOT the voters Newman is targetting.  The gentrified Bridgeport neighborhood is probably 1% of the voters here.

Since you seem to know more about this district, what do you think is going to happen with the primary?

I think Lipinski will win narrowly but I am a lot less confident than I was a few months ago.  He hasn't run any ads while she has been bombarding the airwaves.  The district as a whole is definitely with Lipinski but I don't know what will happen in the Democratic primary where clearly liberal activists are the most fired up this year. 

I see. And what do you think the consequences would be if Lipinski were to lose? It seems as if most of the people here want him gone, simply because he is not a all-out progressive as they would prefer most Democrats to be.

If Lipinski loses?  Nothing.  The Republican is a Nazi and this is still a Democratic district, so people will suck it up and vote for her.

That is true. But what I actually meant was this: what would the consequences be for the Party as a whole?

We'd get rid of a borderline-DINO in a safe Democratic seat without any downside?

But not just that. I'm fearful that over time, all Democrats will have to be ones who toe a strictly progressive platform on each and every single issue, with no room for deviation.

"If gay marriage is legalized, next thing people will be marrying dogs and polygamy will be legal!"

I wasn't saying that. What I've been arguing throughout is that if you drive out all the Blue Dog Democrats from the party, it would further exacerbate the polarization problem. Having two parties with diametrically opposed views, and with no room for compromise, would not be conducive to good debate. But judging from your comments, and from the comments of others, you must think otherwise.

[Calthrina950]

For all the right- Winger's lamenting Democrats engaging in a so-called Purity Purge of Lipinski, consider this. Take an AR + 6 District like Steven teague's or Justin Amash instead of A+ 6D District like lipinski's. Now imagine the Republican incumbent has a voting record that is pro Obamacare, Pro DREAM Act, pro-gay marriage even before became a fait accompli by the Supreme Court, and resolutely aggressively pro-choice. And they even refused to endorse Romney over Obama in 2012.

Go on and tell us because they are anywhere from right-of-center to mainstream conservative on economics that you would oppose a staunch conservative primary Challenger because you opposed Purity purges by either major party.

Yeah, I didn't think so either. The bottom line is conservatives are upset because they're losing a conservative vote on multiple issues out of this primary. Yet no one I think would hold my own party to the same standards of moderation. The fact is, it's unlikely that such a Republican incumbent as I described would ever exist or be elected in the first place in an r + 6 District. Though maybe if they inherited the seat from their father the same way Lipinski did, maybe.

"Right-wingers"? It's interesting that you would lump in people like Bagel23 (moderate Democrat) and GreenLine (independent), as well as an independent such as myself, under such a category. The argument throughout, which I have made, is that I think polarization would be less if there was room for ideological diversity within each party, and room for compromise and bipartisanship on more issues. The route that you're suggesting would eventually eliminate people like Manchin and Collins, leaving us with only politicians with aggressively partisan agendas, unwilling to work across party lines for the better good of the country.

[Calthrina950]

For all the right- Winger's lamenting Democrats engaging in a so-called Purity Purge of Lipinski, consider this. Take an AR + 6 District like Steven teague's or Justin Amash instead of A+ 6D District like lipinski's. Now imagine the Republican incumbent has a voting record that is pro Obamacare, Pro DREAM Act, pro-gay marriage even before became a fait accompli by the Supreme Court, and resolutely aggressively pro-choice. And they even refused to endorse Romney over Obama in 2012.

Go on and tell us because they are anywhere from right-of-center to mainstream conservative on economics that you would oppose a staunch conservative primary Challenger because you opposed Purity purges by either major party.

Yeah, I didn't think so either. The bottom line is conservatives are upset because they're losing a conservative vote on multiple issues out of this primary. Yet no one I think would hold my own party to the same standards of moderation. The fact is, it's unlikely that such a Republican incumbent as I described would ever exist or be elected in the first place in an r + 6 District. Though maybe if they inherited the seat from their father the same way Lipinski did, maybe.

"Right-wingers"? It's interesting that you would lump in people like Bagel23 (moderate Democrat) and GreenLine (independent), as well as an independent such as myself, under such a category. The argument throughout, which I have made, is that I think polarization would be less if there was room for ideological diversity within each party, and room for compromise and bipartisanship on more issues. The route that you're suggesting would eventually eliminate people like Manchin and Collins, leaving us with only politicians with aggressively partisan agendas, unwilling to work across party lines for the better good of the country.

If they are willing to call people like you right-wingers, then we may as well call them left-wing exclusionists.

That's a good point. Posters on this website routinely demonstrate why polarization has gotten as bad as it has.

[Calthrina950]

For all the right- Winger's lamenting Democrats engaging in a so-called Purity Purge of Lipinski, consider this. Take an AR + 6 District like Steven teague's or Justin Amash instead of A+ 6D District like lipinski's. Now imagine the Republican incumbent has a voting record that is pro Obamacare, Pro DREAM Act, pro-gay marriage even before became a fait accompli by the Supreme Court, and resolutely aggressively pro-choice. And they even refused to endorse Romney over Obama in 2012.

Go on and tell us because they are anywhere from right-of-center to mainstream conservative on economics that you would oppose a staunch conservative primary Challenger because you opposed Purity purges by either major party.

Yeah, I didn't think so either. The bottom line is conservatives are upset because they're losing a conservative vote on multiple issues out of this primary. Yet no one I think would hold my own party to the same standards of moderation. The fact is, it's unlikely that such a Republican incumbent as I described would ever exist or be elected in the first place in an r + 6 District. Though maybe if they inherited the seat from their father the same way Lipinski did, maybe.

This is the bottom line, right here.

If he represented some Utah blood-red area or Alaska or the Oklahoma panhandle then no one would be complaining.

The stupid asshole represents Chicago.

Should be noted that a minority of IL-03 is in Chicago, and the gentrifying social liberal types Newman is targeting the most are such a tiny bit of the seat.

This last part of your sentence may very well save Lipinski at the end: the fact that the district is not as socially liberal as one would think.

I also think it is clear why Bernie Sanders won the district against Hillary Clinton: his economic populism resonated with its voters (and fit them better) more than Clinton's establishment views, as well as her corruption. I also understand why Sanders is supporting Newman, because he believes that she will be more progressive than Lipinski.

[Calthrina950]

This area is almost the same as it was 30 years ago though.  There is not much going for it, no good jobs, dying industries and declining population.  The only difference is Mexican immigrants, who are NOT the voters Newman is targetting.  The gentrified Bridgeport neighborhood is probably 1% of the voters here.

Since you seem to know more about this district, what do you think is going to happen with the primary?

I think Lipinski will win narrowly but I am a lot less confident than I was a few months ago.  He hasn't run any ads while she has been bombarding the airwaves.  The district as a whole is definitely with Lipinski but I don't know what will happen in the Democratic primary where clearly liberal activists are the most fired up this year. 

I see. And what do you think the consequences would be if Lipinski were to lose? It seems as if most of the people here want him gone, simply because he is not a all-out progressive as they would prefer most Democrats to be.

If Lipinski loses?  Nothing.  The Republican is a Nazi and this is still a Democratic district, so people will suck it up and vote for her.

That is true. But what I actually meant was this: what would the consequences be for the Party as a whole?

We'd get rid of a borderline-DINO in a safe Democratic seat without any downside?

But not just that. I'm fearful that over time, all Democrats will have to be ones who toe a strictly progressive platform on each and every single issue, with no room for deviation.

"If gay marriage is legalized, next thing people will be marrying dogs and polygamy will be legal!"

I wasn't saying that. What I've been arguing throughout is that if you drive out all the Blue Dog Democrats from the party, it would further exacerbate the polarization problem. Having two parties with diametrically opposed views, and with no room for compromise, would not be conducive to good debate. But judging from your comments, and from the comments of others, you must think otherwise.

The point is you're using the exact same slippery slope argument. Which is a logical fallacy.

The difference between Machin and Lipinski is Lipinski represents a district that voted for Hillary by 15 points. He wouldn't attract as much controversy if he represented West Virginia. Hence why Machin isn't being targeted. This shouldn't be hard to figure out.

Actually, I would argue otherwise. There are many on this forum who complain routinely about Manchin, and if it weren't for the fact that West Virginia is the way it is, they would call for him to be primaried as well. Lipinski's district, like West Virginia used to be, is traditionally Democratic, but it's not the same kind of district as you would find in San Francisco, for example. By driving him out, you're reducing ideological diversity within the Party.

[Calthrina950]

For all the right- Winger's lamenting Democrats engaging in a so-called Purity Purge of Lipinski, consider this. Take an AR + 6 District like Steven teague's or Justin Amash instead of A+ 6D District like lipinski's. Now imagine the Republican incumbent has a voting record that is pro Obamacare, Pro DREAM Act, pro-gay marriage even before became a fait accompli by the Supreme Court, and resolutely aggressively pro-choice. And they even refused to endorse Romney over Obama in 2012.

Go on and tell us because they are anywhere from right-of-center to mainstream conservative on economics that you would oppose a staunch conservative primary Challenger because you opposed Purity purges by either major party.

Yeah, I didn't think so either. The bottom line is conservatives are upset because they're losing a conservative vote on multiple issues out of this primary. Yet no one I think would hold my own party to the same standards of moderation. The fact is, it's unlikely that such a Republican incumbent as I described would ever exist or be elected in the first place in an r + 6 District. Though maybe if they inherited the seat from their father the same way Lipinski did, maybe.

This is the bottom line, right here.

If he represented some Utah blood-red area or Alaska or the Oklahoma panhandle then no one would be complaining.

The stupid asshole represents Chicago.

Should be noted that a minority of IL-03 is in Chicago, and the gentrifying social liberal types Newman is targeting the most are such a tiny bit of the seat.

This last part of your sentence may very well save Lipinski at the end: the fact that the district is not as socially liberal as one would think.

I also think it is clear why Bernie Sanders won the district against Hillary Clinton: his economic populism resonated with its voters (and fit them better) more than Clinton's establishment views, as well as her corruption. I also understand why Sanders is supporting Newman, because he believes that she will be more progressive than Lipinski.

IL-03, at heart, seems to be a declining seat that has been losing industry for decades, which not only explains 1) why Sanders won here, and 2) if he loses, the single biggest reason will be because of Sanders endorsing Newman, not because of the abortion lobby's high-pitch, ideological diversity-hating campaign against him.

IL-03 also seems to be the kind of district that, if it were less diverse (not as Hispanic as it is now) and even more economically depressed, may even have gone to Trump. Of course, I'm glad that it didn't, but my belief is that Democrats would do better in working-class areas if they had socially moderate, but strongly economically progressive candidates. Basically, someone with Newman's positions on economic policy, and maybe, say, Manchin's views on social policy. I think it should be someone who accepts gay marriage and who may acknowledge the legal effects of Roe v. Wade in law, but at the same time is not a Social Justice Warrior, has moderate views on the Second Amendment, and who focuses on the issues that are truly important to voters-namely economic ones.