IL-3 Dem Primary: Election Day!

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

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.

[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.

[Blair]

Here come the buzzwords about 'San Francisco values'....

As a gay person, I'm perfectly happy for the Democratic Party primary voters to reduce the ideological diversity of the party, through primaries to get rid of people who don't support LGBT rights. Some times parties need to cut of the deadwood.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

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.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Oak Lawn is the largest city fully in the district and it has a higher median income than Illinois statewide. Its not just La Grange.

[Oryxslayer]

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.

I thought we already cleared this up, I guess we didn't. The 2016 primary in Chicago was entirely a proxy war around Rahm Emmanuel. Since he came out early as a supporter of Clinton, Sanders hammered that endorsement in the parts of Cook where he carries less favor. He also got the backing of Rahm's 2015 Hispanic Opponent, Chuy Garcia. The primary in chicago therefore was a situation where Sanders was a vote against Rahm\for Chuy's return (aka the Hispanics who are now incredibly strong in the district) and a Clinton vote was pro-Rahm.


This is what everyone seems to be forgetting, this won't come down to suburban whites vs chicago whites, or liberal whites vs white ethnics. This will be decided how the Hispanic vote, which makes up about 25% of the vap, and is crucial in D primaries, breaks.

Maps for comparison, 2016 primary then 2015 mayor race:

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Here come the buzzwords about 'San Francisco values'....

As a gay person, I'm perfectly happy for the Democratic Party primary voters to reduce the ideological diversity of the party, through primaries to get rid of people who don't support LGBT rights. Some times parties need to cut of the deadwood.

IL-03 is an objectively different area than San Francisco. San Francisco is a heavily gentrified tech hub of sorts, while IL-03 is mostly declining labor-Democratic more socially-moderate suburbia.
Newman is running a campaign that pretty much seems to imply SF and IL-03 are the same, which is ridiculous. But she might still win.

[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.

[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.

I thought we already cleared this up, I guess we didn't. The 2016 primary in Chicago was entirely a proxy war around Rahm Emmanuel. Since he came out early as a supporter of Clinton, Sanders hammered that endorsement in the parts of Cook where he carries less favor. He also got the backing of Rahm's 2015 Hispanic Opponent, Chuy Garcia. The primary in chicago therefore was a situation where Sanders was a vote against Rahm\for Chuy's return (aka the Hispanics who are now incredibly strong in the district) and a Clinton vote was pro-Rahm.


This is what everyone seems to be forgetting, this won't come down to suburban whites vs chicago whites, or liberal whites vs white ethnics. This will be decided how the Hispanic vote, which makes up about 25% of the vap, and is crucial in D primaries, breaks.

Maps for comparison, 2016 primary then 2015 mayor race:

I didn't know that. But again, I don't know that much about this area, besides what I've read. But when you talk about the "establishment" as embodied in Mayor Emanuel, you actually confirm the point that I was trying to make: that Sanders' populist views probably fit the district better than Clinton's more establishment-like ones. In effect, it was both a struggle within the Party, and one oriented around economic concerns. That should also be kept in mind when viewing how relatively well Sanders did throughout the Midwest.

[MAINEiac4434]

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.

I’m just seeing this now...

You think Kamala Harris, the former prosecutor who didn’t lift a finger to prosecute Steve Mnuchin, is an extremist on par with Ted Cruz, who thinks that women who seek abortions should be arrested.

Wow.

[Calthrina950]

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.

I’m just seeing this now...

You think Kamala Harris, the former prosecutor who didn’t lift a finger to prosecute Steve Mnuchin, is an extremist on par with Ted Cruz, who thinks that women who seek abortions should be arrested.

Wow.

I think that many of her social views are way out of left field, particularly those on immigration.

[Ye We Can]

Can't wait for Lipinski to lose. It will be yet another nail in the coffin of machine politics and dynasties.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

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.

I mean I can't speak for him, but someone who I've seen described as a populist Democrat many times and that I would agree with is Richard Ojeda in West Virginia. And he endorsed Trump in 2016.

So no one does not need to be as far left as Sanders.

[Rookie Yinzer]

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.

I’m just seeing this now...

You think Kamala Harris, the former prosecutor who didn’t lift a finger to prosecute Steve Mnuchin, is an extremist on par with Ted Cruz, who thinks that women who seek abortions should be arrested.

Wow.

I think that many of her social views are way out of left field, particularly those on immigration.

Literally the majority of Americans agree with her stance on DACA and so did the Republican president before his right wing ideologue and neo-nazi lite adviser Stephen Miller got in his ear.

[YE]

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.

I’m just seeing this now...

You think Kamala Harris, the former prosecutor who didn’t lift a finger to prosecute Steve Mnuchin, is an extremist on par with Ted Cruz, who thinks that women who seek abortions should be arrested.

Wow.

I think that many of her social views are way out of left field, particularly those on immigration.

On immigration? I'm with you and am not happy on the fact she won't accept DACA in exchange for symbolic pork known as a border wall but otherwise Kamala Harris is one of the better Democrats in the Senate even if she comes across as SJWy.

[Sestak]

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.

I’m just seeing this now...

You think Kamala Harris, the former prosecutor who didn’t lift a finger to prosecute Steve Mnuchin, is an extremist on par with Ted Cruz, who thinks that women who seek abortions should be arrested.

Wow.

I think that many of her social views are way out of left field, particularly those on immigration.

On immigration? I'm with you and am not happy on the fact she won't accept DACA in exchange for symbolic pork known as a border wall but otherwise Kamala Harris is one of the better Democrats in the Senate even if she comes across as SJWy.

Oh come on we all know Harris would have voted for that deal if she was the deciding vote.

[Calthrina950]

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.

I’m just seeing this now...

You think Kamala Harris, the former prosecutor who didn’t lift a finger to prosecute Steve Mnuchin, is an extremist on par with Ted Cruz, who thinks that women who seek abortions should be arrested.

Wow.

I think that many of her social views are way out of left field, particularly those on immigration.

Literally the majority of Americans agree with her stance on DACA and so did the Republican president before his right wing ideologue and neo-nazi lite adviser Stephen Miller got in his ear.

I'm not saying that I am against DACA. But I also think that any agreement to preserve that program should also include provisions to reform immigration enforcement and to crack down on deficiencies with our border patrols. I also think that the whole movement towards "sanctuary cities" and "sanctuary states", is not one that we should be seeing.

[Sestak]

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.

I’m just seeing this now...

You think Kamala Harris, the former prosecutor who didn’t lift a finger to prosecute Steve Mnuchin, is an extremist on par with Ted Cruz, who thinks that women who seek abortions should be arrested.

Wow.

I think that many of her social views are way out of left field, particularly those on immigration.

Literally the majority of Americans agree with her stance on DACA and so did the Republican president before his right wing ideologue and neo-nazi lite adviser Stephen Miller got in his ear.

I'm not saying that I am against DACA. But I also think that any agreement to preserve that program should also include provisions to reform immigration enforcement and to crack down on deficiencies with our border patrols. I also think that the whole movement towards "sanctuary cities" and "sanctuary states", is not one that we should be seeing.

Requiring conditions for DACA just means you are, in fact, against a clean DACA.

[YE]

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.

I’m just seeing this now...

You think Kamala Harris, the former prosecutor who didn’t lift a finger to prosecute Steve Mnuchin, is an extremist on par with Ted Cruz, who thinks that women who seek abortions should be arrested.

Wow.

I think that many of her social views are way out of left field, particularly those on immigration.

On immigration? I'm with you and am not happy on the fact she won't accept DACA in exchange for symbolic pork known as a border wall but otherwise Kamala Harris is one of the better Democrats in the Senate even if she comes across as SJWy.

Oh come on we all know Harris would have voted for that deal if she was the deciding vote.

Yes, but that vote showed she is wiling to pander to the open borders crowd. 

[Calthrina950]

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.

I’m just seeing this now...

You think Kamala Harris, the former prosecutor who didn’t lift a finger to prosecute Steve Mnuchin, is an extremist on par with Ted Cruz, who thinks that women who seek abortions should be arrested.

Wow.

I think that many of her social views are way out of left field, particularly those on immigration.

Literally the majority of Americans agree with her stance on DACA and so did the Republican president before his right wing ideologue and neo-nazi lite adviser Stephen Miller got in his ear.

I'm not saying that I am against DACA. But I also think that any agreement to preserve that program should also include provisions to reform immigration enforcement and to crack down on deficiencies with our border patrols. I also think that the whole movement towards "sanctuary cities" and "sanctuary states", is not one that we should be seeing.

Requiring conditions for DACA just means you are, in fact, against a clean DACA.

But I don't think that it is sufficient just to allow DACA by itself without taking steps to repair our broken immigration system.

[Jeppe]

This thread is a dumpster fire now...

Can you guys please PM each other instead, I wanna read news about the race, not people arguing about moderates.

[Badger]

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.

My quote was addressed to right-wingers like that conservative guy who rather hypocritically upgrades the Democrats for their purity Purge, but would unquestionably vote and probably campaign for right-wing primary Challenger against a moderate to Liberal Republican an r + 6 District. It was not addressed to all people who think that Lipinski is being unfairly targeted.

Nevertheless, would anyone really truly believe that in a district is conservative is Justin Amash or Harry Teague that had a ardently pro-choice, pro-gay-rights, Pro DREAM Act, Pro Obamacare member of Congress who didn't endorse Romney over Obama in 2012 wouldn't be dead meat? Please. People across the Spectrum would be shrugging their shoulders and wondering what took so long.

[IceAgeComing]

Here are my thoughts on this issue: perhaps they are a perspective expected by someone from Scotland who lives in a totally different political culture.

In a two-party system a broad-base party is what you need to win: as soon as parties start focusing entirely on one part of their coalition (and yes; this includes parties focusing too much on what they perceive as the 'centre' and ignoring more radical parts of their base; left-wingers exist too and you can't just assume that they'll vote for you) then that's when they start to get to a position where they consistently lose until they can sufficiently cater to all parts of their base again.  In that regard, the presence of more conservative Democrats like Manchin in areas which would always tend to vote against Democratic candidates is a positive thing and they should be allowed a longer leash on many issues.

However; members of a political party often need to make compromises if they want to remain an elected representative for that political party.  To use a sports analogy: in Football you might sometimes be asked to play positions which you don't like: perhaps sometimes an attacking central midfielder might be asked to play in a defensive midfield position if it suits the teams overall strategy.  A good team player may well disagree with that decision and hate it but they have to go along with it: you can't just decide play in whatever position you personally want just because you'd rather do it.  The same goes for politics in many ways: if you are elected for a political party there are certain things expected of you: to support the major policy proposals of the party leadership (in the US; I suppose that would be the President when you have the Presidency) and also publicly support those measures even if personally you may disagree with them - and this is especially the case if you represent a seat that isn't strongly for the other party.  Generally the exception to this would be abortion and other similar matters of conscience but in America those issues are so politicised that isn't the case.

That's why Lipinski is being targeted over other people with similar ideologies: because he's less of a team player.  He voted against Obamacare and the DREAM Act and other major proposals of the Obama administration; he supported a dramatic expansion of domestic surveillance legislation beyond almost any other Democrat and on top of that he didn't even endorse the incumbent Democratic President in 2012.  That's the core difference between him and the few other remaining Conservative democrats: he doesn't represent somewhere like West Virginia or Alabama where support for more right wing measures might be seen as acceptable (although voting for the repeal of key bank regulations strikes me as not meeting that criteria and certainly spinnable) and also he doesn't seem to support key party policies on lots of issues; including some of the key policy measures of the previous Democratic President.  In that regard I think he crosses the line of a person who many people would tolerate as being an elected representative for their party: because he's not a team player.

Lets consider what some posting here seem to want: two parties that are almost indistinguishable with the exception of one having a pronounced left wing and the other one of the right.  That's something which would be very bad for American democracy: it'd lead to a situation where no matter who people vote for in elections; nothing really changing since you'd have this centrist majority on everything.  Another thing about two party systems: not only do they need to be broad-base parties but they also need to have a strong core ideology which is specific enough to make them distinct from the other party but also vague enough to be inclusive of lots of people - in much of the world this led to you having a broad two-party (or in some places with PR a two-bloc) system with Socialists on one side and Conservatives on the right: in America the tradition of the left is based on Liberalism instead so you have a Liberal/Conservative divide.  The way I see it: having members of a party that are basically like the other party in everything other than party membership in elected office is a negative thing because that's not representing the members of their area well: after all they voted for a Democrat and expect someone to support Democratic policies and not someone who just votes with the other side.

Again an exception to this are people like Manchin who seems to have a pretty strong personal vote and who represents a strong Republican area - but also note that if the Democratic leadership needs him on the vast majority issue he's right there voting with them because even though many people in the party may disagree with him; he's still a team player and willing to vote with the party when required - and on the other hand if they don't need his vote and have enough votes then he tends to be the first person they let defy the whip: its a fair balance.  That isn't the case for Lipinski though: not only the stuff mentioned above but also the fact that he represents a pretty Democratic area and also its hard to say whether he has a strong personal vote: he's never really faced a strong Republican challenge before (no candidate declared in 2016; the only Republican declared in 2018 is a legit Neo-Nazi and before that it was a lot of low level people who didn't seem to have a lot of financial support) but the fact that he's facing this strong primary challenge suggests that any personal vote isn't overly strong.  In that regard who can blame local party members who wanting someone else in: if Lipinski had been a team player for the party he might not be the one facing a strong challenge.

I think this argument shows that the word "populist" has lost all meaning - not that it really had any in the first place.  Certainly doesn't seem to be a term to describe Lipinski at all.  It also shows a very... weird perspective about what working class voters are like, almost like everyone who is working class is the same and that there are no working class women, or gay working class people; or working class immigrants; or working class people who benefitted from the ACA...

[Blair]

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/03/11/dan-lipinski-illinois-primary-democrats-453618

You must be logged in to read this quote.