So lets discuss which Democratic Representatives need to be primaried in 2020

[The Mikado]

Clearly, Lipinski will get a primary opponent. You don't win a primary 51-49 and not summon out the hounds to rip you apart next time out.

[Nutmeg]

Clearly, Lipinski will get a primary opponent. You don't win a primary 51-49 and not summon out the hounds to rip you apart next time out.

Which could be the danger -- the closeness last time prompts multiple challengers, allowing him to slip by with a plurality.

[Idaho Conservative]

Clearly, Lipinski will get a primary opponent. You don't win a primary 51-49 and not summon out the hounds to rip you apart next time out.

I hope Lipinski gets several strong challengers in 2020.

[S019]

Clearly, Lipinski will get a primary opponent. You don't win a primary 51-49 and not summon out the hounds to rip you apart next time out.

I hope Lipinski gets several strong challengers in 2020.

Why say this, if you are a Republicah, that safe is Safe D and we have a DINO there instead of a progressive

[Idaho Conservative]

Clearly, Lipinski will get a primary opponent. You don't win a primary 51-49 and not summon out the hounds to rip you apart next time out.

I hope Lipinski gets several strong challengers in 2020.

Why say this, if you are a Republicah, that safe is Safe D and we have a DINO there instead of a progressive

Because SEVERAL strong challengers means Lipinski is guaranteed to win the primary       I 100% having moderate Dems in progressive disricts.

[junior chįmp]

Hakeem Jefferies comes to mind.

What a gigantic fraud

[Ex-Assemblyman Steelers]

Carolyn Maloney

[Anti Democrat Democrat Club]

New Representatives: Indie Edition:

Senate:

* Mark Warner - Dodd-Frank rollback, Haspel vote. Would not support in general either.
* Jeanne Shaheen - See: Warner, Mark. The NHGOP really doesn't have a bench besides Sununu. I could see someone like Mindi Messmer or even CSP winning, but this is a pipe dream.
* Gary Peters - Dodd-Frank rollback, confirming Ajit Pai
* Ben Ray Lujan - Omar grifting. Would not support in general.
* Kirsten Gillibrand - Part of the campaign to parachute a carpetbagger into my district, abandoning the left. Would not support in general.

House:

The Big Ones:

* Tim Ryan - I was against him when he started railing on about how he's open to corporate tax cuts. I'm glad to see it's fashionable now.
* Seth Moulton - Blue Dog and media whore. Also have a raging personal grudge against him for trying to mess with my district.
* Dan Lipinski - Need I say more?
* Tulsi Gabbard - Assadism, generally being a false prophet
* Kim Jong Bustos - The one who wants to protect them all and play Politburo

Blue Dogs/Corporatists in D Districts:
Vicente Gonzalez - Corporatist
Filemon Vela - Corporatist
Darren Soto - No Labels shill
Jim Costa - Absolute trash, backed Trump on immigration
Rick Larsen - I still remember his condescension re: Bernie
Lou Correa - Not great
Brad Schneider - District's trended enough to the left, plus not a fan of his fopo
Annie Kuster - If Carol can win 4 terms as an unapologetic progressive, then I don't see why Kuster can't in a more economically liberal district. Pappas also won in commanding fashion despite being significantly more progressive.

Pelosi Blue Dogs:
Ed Case (the second-best candidate in the field last year, but still trash)
Donna Shalala (also seems pretty weak)
Lori Trahan (only a conservative)
Al Lawson (Lipinski-tier trash), WNSIG

Anti-Pelosi:
Kathleen Rice (No Labels shilling, both-sidesing)
Kurt Schrader (No Labels shilling)
Tom Suozzi (Raging moderate hero, both sides-ing)
Bill Foster (idr why I put him here)
Jeff Van Drew (Sure, it's conservative, but we can do better here as well)

Traitors (GOP supporters):
Henry Cuellar - (John Carter) - also literally more conservative than Manchin
Stephen Lynch - (Charlie Baker)
David Scott - (Johnny Isakson)

[smoltchanov]

^ Guys, the same question: why are you pleased as hell, when some moderate Republican bashes Trump, and at the same time  - spew hate, when some reasonable Democrat criticizes your favorites or supports reasonable Republican, like Baker???  Lynch supported Baker, so what? Baker was 100 times better candidate then Gonzalez was, so Lynch only showed his political wisdom by that.  Dozens of Democratic mayors and state legislators in MAssachusetts did the same. The bigger question: does membership in the party automatically means that one must ALWAYS support candidates of that party ONLY, and never - otherwise? That he never has freedom to choose except primaries (and even then MUST vote only for particular type of candidates)? If so - you have perfect Stalinist parties with Stalinist activists, not worthy of ANY support from any reasonable person. My congratulations!!

[S019]

House:
Ilhan Omar
AOC
Maxine Waters
Alcee Hastings
Pramila Jayapal
Chris Pappas
Rashida Tlaib
Ayanna Pressley
Jan Schawkowsky

Senate:
Jeff Merkley (gross, please have Kurt Schrader run)
Ed Markey (do I really need to say more)
Jack Reed (old, boring, Washingtonite)
Cory Booker (too liberal)
Chris Murphy (too liberal, we need a Lieberman clone)

[smoltchanov]

House:
Ilhan Omar
AOC
Maxine Waters
Alcee Hastings
Pramila Jayapal
Chris Pappas
Rashida Tlaib
Ayanna Pressley
Jan Schawkowsky

Senate:
Jeff Merkley (gross, please have Kurt Schrader run)
Ed Markey (do I really need to say more)
Jack Reed (old, boring, Washingtonite)
Cory Booker (too liberal)
Chris Murphy (too liberal, we need a Lieberman clone)

[Skunk]

we need a Lieberman clone

This is the last thing anybody anywhere needs.

[Dr. MB]

Jeff Merkley (gross, please have Kurt Schrader run)

Schrader is a god but HOW DARE YOU

[smoltchanov]

Jeff Merkley (gross, please have Kurt Schrader run)

Schrader is a god but HOW DARE YOU

No, of course. But neither is Merkley...

[Anti Democrat Democrat Club]

Ilhan Omar
AOC
Maxine Waters
Alcee Hastings
Pramila Jayapal
Chris Pappas
Rashida Tlaib
Ayanna Pressley
Jan Schawkowsky

It's very amusing to see a who's who of the most liberal members of the House juxtaposed with a random Congressman (who thankfully happens to be mine). While he's certainly not Bernie, he's at least at the same ideological level as Shea-Porter. I was scared for a moment since he joined the New Dems but he's been hitting all the right notes to keep everyone happy

[Xing]

I’m sure the “reasonable moderates” here think that very conservative Republicans in dark red districts should be primaried by moderates as well

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

I’m sure the “reasonable moderates” here think that very conservative Republicans in dark red districts should be primaried by moderates as well

Steve King is hopefully getting thrown out on his bigoted ass, so yeah.

We don't want the left-wingers out, just the bigots and their enablers.

[Scrumtrulescent]

Got bored and tabulated the votes:

Red avatars (30)
18             Dan Lipinski  (IL-3)
12             Henry Cuellar  (TX-28),  Tulsi Gabbard  (HI-2)
10             Seth Moulton  (MA-6)
9               Stephen Lynch  (MA-8)
8               Ed Case  (HI-1)
6               Ilhan Omar  (MN-5)
5               Alcee Hastings  (FL-20)
4               Wasserman-Schultz  (FL-23),  Shalala  (FL-27),  Tlaib  (MI-13),  Jackson-Lee  (TX-18),  Hoyer  (MD-5)
3 & under   28 other reps


Blue avatars (10)
7               Alexandira Ocasio-Cortez  (NY-14),  Ilhan Omar  (MN-5)
6               Rashida Tlaib  (MI-13)
4               Maxine Waters  (CA-43)
2               Hastings  (FL-20),  Pressley  (MA-7),  Schawkowsky  (IL-9),  Jayapal  (WA-7),  Moulton  (MA-6),  Jackson-Lee  (TX-18),  Ryan  (OH-13),  Gabbard  (HI-2)
1               29 other reps


Green avatars (7)
4                Dan Lipinski  (IL-3),  Henry Cuellar  (TX-28),  Tulsi Gabbard  (HI-2)
3                Al Lawson  (FL-5),  Jim Costa  (CA-16),  Stephen Lynch  (MA-8)
2                21 other reps
1                43 other reps


No avatars (4)
2               Hastings  (FL-20),  Ocasio-Cortez  (NY-14),  Case  (HI-1),  Omar  (MN-5),  Tlaib  (MI-13),  Gabbard  (HI-2)
1               20 other reps

Orange avatars (2)
1               Lawson  (FL-5),  Cuellar  (TX-28),  Lipinski  (IL-3),  Correa  (CA-46)

[coloradocowboi]

• Rashida Tlaib (She follows an "Israel did 9/11" account on Instagram and refused to unfollow it when called out. Brenda Jones can kick her six ways to Sunday)

That is a really minor thing to primary an incumbent for. Im pretty sure 1/4 of the Dem and GOP caucuses would be gone if the criteria was to not follow weird social media accounts.

Would you feel the same way if it was a Republican following a social media account that did nothing but post racist KKK-style memes about black people?

Nope, because it would only confirm to me what their policies vis-a-vis voter disenfranchisement and BLM, and their continued employment of the Southern Strategy are already implying.

Republicans are literally hopeless, but Democrats who would primary someone merely for not kowtowing to the mandatory 9/11 flag waving BS that got us into two trillion dollar wars, but think that primarying someone because they think people who can't afford health insurance should die really are totally delusional about the party's principles and where it's headed. Ilhan, AOC, and Tlaib are here to stay and only going to get more powerful, and thank God for that.

[smoltchanov]

• Rashida Tlaib (She follows an "Israel did 9/11" account on Instagram and refused to unfollow it when called out. Brenda Jones can kick her six ways to Sunday)

That is a really minor thing to primary an incumbent for. Im pretty sure 1/4 of the Dem and GOP caucuses would be gone if the criteria was to not follow weird social media accounts.

Would you feel the same way if it was a Republican following a social media account that did nothing but post racist KKK-style memes about black people?

Ilhan, AOC, and Tlaib are here to stay and only going to get more powerful, and thank God for that.

If so - i feel sorrow for Democratic party. And the need for sane 3rd party becomes absolutely urgent.

[coloradocowboi]

• Rashida Tlaib (She follows an "Israel did 9/11" account on Instagram and refused to unfollow it when called out. Brenda Jones can kick her six ways to Sunday)

That is a really minor thing to primary an incumbent for. Im pretty sure 1/4 of the Dem and GOP caucuses would be gone if the criteria was to not follow weird social media accounts.

Would you feel the same way if it was a Republican following a social media account that did nothing but post racist KKK-style memes about black people?

Ilhan, AOC, and Tlaib are here to stay and only going to get more powerful, and thank God for that.

If so - i feel sorrow for Democratic party. And the need for sane 3rd party becomes absolutely urgent.

Yeah. Wanting to address a scientifically proven mounting environmental crisis is "insane." Just like holding Israel to account for its disproportionate influence over our sovereign country's foreign policy. Or perhaps its apartheid treatment of Palestinians. Just like wanting billionaires to stop writing laws. Just like wanting people not to die because they can't afford insurance. All of that is insane, and I am so glad you have made a cogent argument proving that to me instead of just slinging the ad hominem of insanity at Leftist politics without engaging with them substantially whatsoever.

Try to understand how you are being understood, and that will demonstrate to you WHY the party is heading in this direction. Or don't because it's inevitable anyway.

[smoltchanov]

• Rashida Tlaib (She follows an "Israel did 9/11" account on Instagram and refused to unfollow it when called out. Brenda Jones can kick her six ways to Sunday)

That is a really minor thing to primary an incumbent for. Im pretty sure 1/4 of the Dem and GOP caucuses would be gone if the criteria was to not follow weird social media accounts.

Would you feel the same way if it was a Republican following a social media account that did nothing but post racist KKK-style memes about black people?

Ilhan, AOC, and Tlaib are here to stay and only going to get more powerful, and thank God for that.

If so - i feel sorrow for Democratic party. And the need for sane 3rd party becomes absolutely urgent.

Yeah. Wanting to address a scientifically proven mounting environmental crisis is "insane." Just like holding Israel to account for its disproportionate influence over our sovereign country's foreign policy. Or perhaps its apartheid treatment of Palestinians. Just like wanting billionaires to stop writing laws. Just like wanting people not to die because they can't afford insurance. All of that is insane, and I am so glad you have made a cogent argument proving that to me instead of just slinging the ad hominem of insanity at Leftist politics without engaging with them substantially whatsoever.

Try to understand how you are being understood, and that will demonstrate to you WHY the party is heading in this direction. Or don't because it's inevitable anyway.

You know, that i don't care about party (partially - because i live in dfferent country, and it's (party) very existence (or nonexisistence) has zero influence on my daily life). Neither party. What happens in Russia - influences my life daily, what happens in US - almost never (very rarely - through my American friends and relatives). As a result - i don't care how i am understood by you or any other person. Sorry.

Now some more broad observations:

1. You never presented any proofs to your so called "arguments". While almost all scientists recognize climate change, going on the planet, their differ wildly about  it's manifestations and consequences. And so on. You make a standard set of cliches, professing them to be "axioms". For you - may be. But not for me, my set of axioms is very different.

2. Again return to the fact, that i live in different country, and what happens in US doesn't influence my life in 99.9% of all cases. Result? It's for you, what happens in the sphere of American politics is a life. Or - big part of life at least. For me - it's a game. Very big, and in the past (no more) interesting, but nothing more, then a game. And games have it's own rules: in part, in almost any sport game spectators want unpredictabilty, unusual results and frequently cheer for underdogs. US politics satisfied this conditions admirably when i began to study it in early 1970th: unpredictability was almost everywhere (you couldn't predict the views od Southen Democrat with 99% probablility then, for example, as he could be a "Mississippi Democrat" or "Alabama Democrat", nor "national Democrat", the same - for Republican candidates, where there were considerable mumber of moderates or even liberals, especially in North-East), underdogs could win in a lot of districts, exactly because of these particular views of them, presidential election results notwithstanding, unusual results? - almost hundreds of them. I will not even mention state legislative or local elections in this aspect,you could find literally everyone: from ultraconservative Democrats in Mississippi or Louisiana to very liberal Republicans in New England. What now? Absolute pridictability of views (looking at the letter after candidate's name i can easily recite his/her positions on almost all major issues), of results (correlation with presidential election PVI is extremely high, so in 95% of all cases you can determine a winner right after primary is over, and polarization is astonishing). Again - would a soccer game, where you know the tactics of both teams in every details, know, where this or that midfielder or defender will run in this or that situation, be intersting for you? I doubt it. And that's exactly a reason why  a game called "US elections" became progressively not interesting to me with years. Only old habits and almost 30 papers (in Russian) written on this subject still hold me at least minimally attracted.

3. Your 2 parties became parties of "programmed robots" of late, and soon the development of science will make possible a substitution of real people by real robots for this purpose: one must only programm a reaction on large, but finite, set of questions and situations (like "in this situation you say that things and do that..."). Intersting? It's for uou to decide, and looking at posts like your i tend to think so, For me - absolutely not, as all moments, that make game interesting are almost gone. Yes, i feel sorrow for that, because i have relatives (some of them are thinking about return, BTW, exactly because of similar feelings, though they would formulate it slightly differently) and friends in US, but, after all, it's YOUR choice. And no - thanks for your attempt to "enlighten me", but it wasn't successsfull, and none - will, both because my views are very solid ("set in stone" as you say), and because of fact, that people, usually, don't change their views after living most of their life with them.

That's all. Thanks. And, to all: let's finish an attempts to "change me" or "to enlighten me". They are futile. I will not object if everyone puts me on ignore list (honestly!), but i really don't want to have a continuation of this "discussion"

P.S. Sorry for some offtopic, but, given how personal was previous post, i had no other choice...

[coloradocowboi]

• Rashida Tlaib (She follows an "Israel did 9/11" account on Instagram and refused to unfollow it when called out. Brenda Jones can kick her six ways to Sunday)

That is a really minor thing to primary an incumbent for. Im pretty sure 1/4 of the Dem and GOP caucuses would be gone if the criteria was to not follow weird social media accounts.

Would you feel the same way if it was a Republican following a social media account that did nothing but post racist KKK-style memes about black people?

Ilhan, AOC, and Tlaib are here to stay and only going to get more powerful, and thank God for that.

If so - i feel sorrow for Democratic party. And the need for sane 3rd party becomes absolutely urgent.

Yeah. Wanting to address a scientifically proven mounting environmental crisis is "insane." Just like holding Israel to account for its disproportionate influence over our sovereign country's foreign policy. Or perhaps its apartheid treatment of Palestinians. Just like wanting billionaires to stop writing laws. Just like wanting people not to die because they can't afford insurance. All of that is insane, and I am so glad you have made a cogent argument proving that to me instead of just slinging the ad hominem of insanity at Leftist politics without engaging with them substantially whatsoever.

Try to understand how you are being understood, and that will demonstrate to you WHY the party is heading in this direction. Or don't because it's inevitable anyway.

You know, that i don't care about party (partially - because i live in dfferent country, and it's (party) very existence (or nonexisistence) has zero influence on my daily life). Neither party. What happens in Russia - influences my life daily, what happens in US - almost never (very rarely - through my American friends and relatives). As a result - i don't care how i am understood by you or any other person. Sorry.

Now some more broad observations:

1. You never presented any proofs to your so called "arguments". While almost all scientists recognize climate change, going on the planet, their differ wildly about  it's manifestations and consequences. And so on. You make a standard set of cliches, professing them to be "axioms". For you - may be. But not for me, my set of axioms is very different.

2. Again return to the fact, that i live in different country, and what happens in US doesn't influence my life in 99.9% of all cases. Result? It's for you, what happens in the sphere of American politics is a life. Or - big part of life at least. For me - it's a game. Very big, and in the past (no more) interesting, but nothing more, then a game. And games have it's own rules: in part, in almost any sport game spectators want unpredictabilty, unusual results and frequently cheer for underdogs. US politics satisfied this conditions admirably when i began to study it in early 1970th: unpredictability was almost everywhere (you couldn't predict the views od Southen Democrat with 99% probablility then, for example, as he could be a "Mississippi Democrat" or "Alabama Democrat", nor "national Democrat", the same - for Republican candidates, where there were considerable mumber of moderates or even liberals, especially in North-East), underdogs could win in a lot of districts, exactly because of these particular views of them, presidential election results notwithstanding, unusual results? - almost hundreds of them. I will not even mention state legislative or local elections in this aspect,you could find literally everyone: from ultraconservative Democrats in Mississippi or Louisiana to very liberal Republicans in New England. What now? Absolute pridictability of views (looking at the letter after candidate's name i can easily recite his/her positions on almost all major issues), of results (correlation with presidential election PVI is extremely high, so in 95% of all cases you can determine a winner right after primary is over, and polarization is astonishing). Again - would a soccer game, where you know the tactics of both teams in every details, know, where this or that midfielder or defender will run in this or that situation, be intersting for you? I doubt it. And that's exactly a reason why  a game called "US elections" became progressively not interesting to me with years. Only old habits and almost 30 papers (in Russian) written on this subject still hold me at least minimally attracted.

3. Your 2 parties became parties of "programmed robots" of late, and soon the development of science will make possible a substitution of real people by real robots for this purpose: one must only programm a reaction on large, but finite, set of questions and situations (like "in this situation you say that things and do that..."). Intersting? It's for uou to decide, and looking at posts like your i tend to think so, For me - absolutely not, as all moments, that make game interesting are almost gone. Yes, i feel sorrow for that, because i have relatives (some of them are thinking about return, BTW, exactly because of similar feelings, though they would formulate it slightly differently) and friends in US, but, after all, it's YOUR choice. And no - thanks for your attempt to "enlighten me", but it wasn't successsfull, and none - will, both because my views are very solid ("set in stone" as you say), and because of fact, that people, usually, don't change their views after living most of their life with them.

That's all. Thanks. And, to all: let's finish an attempts to "change me" or "to enlighten me". They are futile. I will not object if everyone puts me on ignore list (honestly!), but i really don't want to have a continuation of this "discussion"

P.S. Sorry for some offtopic, but, given how personal was previous post, i had no other choice...

 I don't need to present proof. There are 5 IPCC reports that have been widely reported on, that have been peer tested and reviewed multiple times. It is an incontrovertible fact, not an axiom. I just don't think it's my responsibility to make strangers on the internet learn about something that is widely accessible and a mere starting point for climate science--certainly not a controversy.

Also, it's not personal. You yourself just said it. You aren't in tune with urban America's political ethos, and that's fine, but then you aren't going to understand what an urban political party's interest is in. AOC is not going to get primaried. If they do primary her, that person will lose big. Probably same for Omar. The only reason it's iffier with Tlaib is because of ethnic and racial concerns--although I will say if they run some bland Black neoliberal against her that candidate might get stomped too. All of this is because regardless of what anyone on this board's political interest is, the young, urban social class that is the Dem's base is represented by these women's views. Their views are the mainstream of the party (and in many cases the majority of the electorate), so any desire to make them go away is a fantasy.

[smoltchanov]

^ I already said - let's end ANY attempts to "educate" or "convince" me, it's futile. Move on, if you have something really interesting to say. If not - be silent, please... (i am trying to be very polite)... It seems - you haven't even read my post, it was devoted to absolutely different subject....

[coloradocowboi]

^ I already said - let's end ANY attempts to "educate" or "convince" me, it's futile. Move on, if you have something really interesting to say. If not - be silent, please... (i am trying to be very polite)... It seems - you haven't even read my post, it was devoted to absolutely different subject....

Too bad you're not receptive to other people's opinions. But I hope that the silence you expect from me you give in kind to the young, multicultural, multiracial folks who make up the party's base and therefore whose opinion about what direction it should go in is more germane than yours. I doubt that you would though, given what I've seen in this thread and others. But enjoy my future silence!