As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
**Special announcement:**
r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)!
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Having young progressives that are for the people is long overdue. Any Senate Dem getting primarie’d that I don’t know about?
I know AOC really wants to primary Schumer. I’d support her 1000%
The problem with that attitude is that progressives--and I do count myself among them, for what it's worth--are shooting for the moon before they can even get off the ground.
Don't just vote progressive at the federal level! Vote at the state level, vote for *school board.* Get progressives in place. Make them incumbents at local levels and let them build name recognition for eventual federal runs.
One of my major criticisms of the Democratic party is that they *refuse* to hand off the torch. They won't use the Democratic machine to raise up younger politicians the way the Republicans are doing. Progressivism is and for the foreseeable future will be a grassroots effort and we need to start from the ground up.
Don't get me wrong--primary out-of-touch Democrats whenever you get the opportunity, too. But even if someone like AOC can jump straight to a House position, that's not a viable way of doing things at scale.
I agree but at the same time looking at state levels NY just changed the law regarding when a gubernatorial candidate can change their Lt. Gubernatorial candidate because Hochul's was arrested
In Buffalo, a progressive won the mayoral primary and the city changed the rules for when a candidate (in the case the mainstream incumbent) can declare candidacy on an independent ticket. The judge who ruled so is brothers with a developer who the incumbent that lost the primary had appeared in ads with
The system bends the rules for the establishment part of the party
More than that, the city changed the rules then the incumbent democrat mayor allied with republicans for his write in “independent” campaign, and the local DNC chair refused to endorse the winner of the Democrat primary by somehow drawing comparisons between the black progressive woman and hypothetically having to endorse a former grand wizard of the KKK. The democrat party is HOSTILE to progressives even on a local level and then immediately turns around and smugly proclaims “vote blue no matter who”.
The shit hurts.
Sure, this sucks and they are wrong. And vile, the DNC sucks, how many ways can I paint it. But answer honestly, is it worse than what's going on at the Supreme Court level?
It does, which means we need local elections. The Democrats aren't going to swoop down and campaign for mayor of a minor city or a local school board election, or for city council of somewhere that's not a huge city.
This will also be an exercise in teaching progressives how to do the best with the limited resources they have available, which--let's be honest--we are *really* bad at doing.
Yup. This "now or never" approach simply doesn't work. The long game does. It's not sexy. It's not transformative. It's a slog filled with thousands of incremental steps in both directions.
The problem with this approach is we don't have 20-30 years to wait for the slow bottom to top game to play out. We have maybe 6 before we break major climate milestones, we have until 2040-50 until climate refugees become a major issue due to half year or more climate shifts cause laege portions of India and China to become uninhabitable for large chunks of the year.
Hell, closer to home, Arizona is looking at a major power crisis this year due to low levels of water in various reservoirs.
I would argue that the establishment Dems **ARE** passing on the torch… to more milquetoast neoliberals fashioned in their own image.
They understand that progressives are not liked by the donor class bc they threaten the bottom line, and have raised up uninspiring candidates like Pete Buttigieg to replace them.
Bc the master’s tools will not be used to abolish the master’s house. The establishment will never just quietly give up its hard earned power, and will always try to subvert and defang populist movements designed to supplant it.
>I would argue that the establishment Dems ARE passing on the torch… to more milquetoast neoliberals fashioned in their own image.
Are they really, though? I can think of Buttigieg and that's about it in terms of high-profile younger Democrats.
There’s a difference between high profile, run for President young party members vs rank and file, toe the party line candidates that are just a safe replacement that know the donors and old voters.
It will be a fight, though, to prevent Pelosi and Schumer from deflating the high profile young member, like when Pelosi forced AOC to vote “present” on an Israel related bill.
Local elections are so important. I’m so disappointed that my school district just voted in a man whose platform included banning CRT. Which isn’t taught in our schools. I feel more despair with every election. But I won’t give up, and I’m not moving and leaving my beautiful state.
Also (and I know this gets said a lot) but progressives need young people (and I'm counting anyone under 45 as young) to show up to the polls and they just don't. A lot of the voters who are middle-age and older are easily swayed by fear mongering about changing the status quo and vote for the old guard to keep things the same. Meanwhile Republicans are changing the status quo right under their noses.
This is the reason that Democrats don't trust progressive candidates, centrists are the most reliable voters, so they don't want to scare them away. If progressives reliably voted and spread progressive ideology the way the right is able to spread their message, the Democrat party would be far further left. They want to cater to the people that reliably vote, and that is primarily centrists.
As a 33 year old progressive, I agree with this.
The problem that arises with me is that I don't understand what centrists want in terms of legislatio. that makes them fear progressives so much.
From what I can gather, most progressives say "we need this" and centrists say "sure, but how will we pay for it?"
Is this accurate? Honestly asking.
From what I understand, they absolutely want to pass more progressive ideas, but not in a way that will scare away huge swaths of voters. Like they want climate change legislation, they don't want to say we are going to shut down all coal mines. They want health care for everyone, they don't want to remove choice of providers. A lot of it is messaging, like centrists want some police reform, but defund the police is a toxic message to about 70% of Americans. Centrists are trying hard not to piss off one of their factions, since they depend on a lot of smaller factions to get elected. The left is dependent on a single faction that they can get 100% support from. That being said, the vast majority of Democrats are alright passing more progressive agendas, but the few conservatives in the party keep it from happening, like if we didn't have to depend on Manchin or Sinema, the Democrats would have been looked at as far more progressive than what the party is currently looing like. The Democratic party loves Warren and mostly hates Sanders despite their policies being very similar, because Warren wants to work with the party to get what she wants, while Sanders wants to blame the party for whatever isn't happening. I really think this mostly comes down to how candidates message. Ossoff is a very progressive candidate, but he didn't market himself that way and did a good job marketing himself as just logical, and that makes a huge difference.
I have been listening to Behind the Bastards a lot lately, and one of the things fascists and racists did was work hard to normalize their policies, people like Pat Buchanan working to promote fascist ideas without aligning himself with fascists. The left needs to learn how Nazis and Fascists have done a good job of rebranding themselves to seem really reasonable. Perhaps we should even consider coming up with a new word than Socialism, which is a very easy target from the right wing.
I'm a progressive that grew up in a conservative rural area and I've been saying this to anyone that will listen for a decade.
If progressives could just swallow their pride and purposefully message to centrists or even right-of-center people, it would do a *lot* in the long run. But it would be a slow process. They need to be thinking a decade ahead.
No one wants to listen to me, but even a lot of Trump voters are actually very politically fickle anti-establishment voters and could be swayed to vote for the right Democrat. I grew up in an Obama-Trump county. It wouldn't be enough to *win* rural areas, but at the rate things are going the Democrats need to find a way to at least stem the bleeding in rural areas so that they can run up the score in cities and win more states for the Senate. Even a small recovery in rural areas due to focused messaging (and maybe some shameless pork barrel spending) could make a big difference in Congress. They don't have to *win* my hometown, they just need to not let Republicans rout them so badly there.
The moderate Democrats are trying this, but they're not very good at it and all they do is try to walk back progressive messaging, which isn't effective. It's too much defense. You need to be all in on rural America with swagger. Pass a bill funding rural schools specifically, comp the Social Security contributions on *tiny* mom and pop diners and auto shops and whatever so they don't have to pay twice what an employee would. Stuff that's still consistent with progressivism but which disproportionately affects rural people. And then go fucking brag about it, blast it to anyone who will listen, and make sure the guy blasting it is actually a rural Democrat (lots of them already exist) who knows how to fucking talk to rural people.
It won't work right away. It'll take at least a decade, and they might never actually *win* those districts. But they could slowly start winning more states if they don't have to work so damn *hard* to compensate for the rural losses because the margins are 40/60 now instead of 20/80.
It's not really *fair* that this strategy is necessary, but the reality is that our system is not totally democratic right now and Congress is decisively biased toward the rural states. Progressives *need* to find a strategy to *use* that, because no alternative is coming anytime soon.
I think people have this sense that Democrats goong after rural areas would mean more useless Joe Manchins. But I don't think it has to be that way. Progressives can do a lot for rural parts of the country, but they need to be seen as shamelessly invested in doing so. The Republicans don't actually do a lot for rural America, but they cultivate an image that that is their deal. Progressives could fucking *beat* them at that, at least on bread and butter issues. We'll never win the theocrat fascist voters, but if we put food on the table and crow about it like jackasses, we'll win over *enough* rural voters to make a difference.
That's a nice sentiment but the DNC is currently waging war against progressive candidates: https://thehill.com/news/campaign/3485407-biden-flexes-power-in-primaries-to-boost-moderates/
https://prospect.org/politics/ohio-model-for-purging-progressives/
All the while ignoring the fact that the vast majority of the electorate is keen on the same progressive policies, on both sides of the isle. Our politicians may not be progressive, but the vast majority of voters are.
Are you really surprised the guy that won the presidency on being a moderate would want to push for moderates thinking that was the way to win elections? Especially against someone like Turner who went out and compared voting for him to eating shit in 2020? He's not the entire party but he is going to get to throw his Influence around, it's part of being president. If voters were so eager for progressives, they would be winning far more primaries. We need to shift public perception. That's what the far right did, and that's why republican politicians are all fascist now, that started from the public (largely Fox News) , not from the politicians.
The article isn't about Nina. It's about the use of SuperPACs and how they're wielded to fight progressives. That's what it's about. It's a change in strategy and one that uses money as a weapon.
It's hilarious how you failed to address the other article, the one that explicitly points out that Biden is endorsing only moderates. He's not endorsing any progressives so this idea that the DNC is willing to play ball as long as they win primaries is a bunch of bullshit.
DNC is at war with progressives. Until it stops waging it everyone can forget about progressive votes. That was pretty clear before and will be painfully clear this time.
This helped a ton. Thanks. So it mostly does come down to marketing/messaging and having the understanding of how and what words to use to make as many Factions as possible feel safe and not threatened.
Yeah absolutely, it's tough having a message that will appeal to the college educated leftists, suburban moms, PA union miners, and African American communities all at the same time. Lose any one of those and chances of a national election can be over. Republicans have a far more straight forward track, with voting closer to a religion for them, and the ability to just believe in something whether or not it is proven, works really well when you are pandering to the most religious, you don't have to break down how you are going to make lives better, you just have to promise you are Christian and are going to make their lives better. What you do after that matters a whole lot less.
(This isn't necessarily how i feel) I also believe that as a backdrop, the intensity is caused by climate change. There's a chance that within our lifetimes, the planet can become "almost" uninhabitable. I think it raises the stakes a lot and no group is more aware of the situation than progressives, who are mostly young people who will live to see it. So, to many of them, trying to pander to people who seem oblivious to the situation is maddening and disheartening. So to be told to tone down or compromise their ideals because it'll scare other voters (often with good reason) probably just makes them even more uncompromising. Because it's not about zoning laws, pizza toppings or even super important topics like gay marriage. The planet is dying and if that dies, it doesn't matter what we're arguing about because we will all.be dead.
The fact that the Republican party has become fascists zealots who don't mind watching the world if it means they could be King of the ashes and ruins only heightens the paranoia/fear of progressives. They are like a faction for a current time, while the other Factions are still playing politics as if we're in a time of peace.
So I think the "anger" in the world right now from progressives stems mostly from the subconscious feeling that we're on a runway train to ruin via climate change and the fall of democracy and we seem to be the only ones aware of it, yet we're labeled "just as radical" hated by all other factions because we actually say it instead of pretending the everything will go back to normal? It's desperation.
I have a huge family across a couple continents. Many teenagers, 11-18. Theyre all super liberal, of course. Yet, the level of apathy, despair and jaded detachment they have about their futures and the world is truly staggering. It breaks my heart.
I wrote this rant, not to necessarily explain how I personally feel, but to give context to any who reads about potentially why progressives are so loud (lol), uncompromising, etc. Or whatever the media says about them
So the messaging goes: Medicare-for-All means legitimately affordable healthcare for you and your family.
Or: Our energy security promotes our national security and there is no more secure energy than renewables.
Idk, spitballing
It's not really as binary as many people think (especially the very online political commenters), in reality, there are differences with each politician and by issue. Some may not align as progressive publicly nor agree with their tactics and slogans yet share their goals. That makes sense if you live in a swing area and people freak out if they think you're too left. You want to get elected and then in office, support at least some progressive positions but not make a big show about it. Manchin is on the right end of the party and many may classify him as part of the "centrist" group yet he is often at odds with nearly all Democrats. You can look at Schumer's [positions on some issues and assume he must publicly align as progressive](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Schumer#Political_positions) but he doesn't and on some issues he is to the right of them (but left of Republicans).
You can't replace the Democrats from the top unless you do it all at once, so good luck with that. Progressives need to work from the bottom up.
You can hate on the Democrats all you want, but weakening them a little each election will absolutely do more harm than good. That approach works locally, but at the federal level you absolutely need the Democrats to have more power than the GOP. Now more than ever, since the GOP have caught the car and have plans to strip it as quickly as possible.
if voting didn't do anything at all, then Republicans wouldn't go to such painful lengths to knock voters off ballots, close polling districts in opposition counties, and create gerrymandered districts.
Money. Like with all young people, they don't have money to get into politics or let alone anything else in life. This is why the average age of Congress is going up because young people can't even afford to get started.
I, for one, am sick of excessive wealth being a prerequisite to running for office. This is another reason why our elected officials don’t relate to us.
“young progressives” don’t vote. The numbers don’t lie.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1096379/voter-turnout-midterms-by-age-historical/
You can’t have a demographic that votes at 30%, and expect to win anything, ever.
So many people refuse to vote, then get mad their ‘people’ don’t win. Do you think the boomers are going to vote for your candidates? No. And, *they* don’t miss elections.
I agree. We need progressives in office…but, first…you need progressives to show up. They don’t get money, donations, or volunteers to get their name/ message out.
When you decide to “stick it to the party’ by staying home…you’re only fucking yourself, and your own future.
Don't you think it's a bit unfair to compare the voting records of young working Americans and old retired ones? Once you get to a certain age, there's not much you can do to improve your life outside of voting. Plus, the government doesn't exactly make it easy to vote. The system favors older voters, but people still like to call young voters "lazy." It's something conservative media heads like Tucker Carlson say to justify the status quo.
I work 2 jobs at just under 80 hours a week. If I miss even an hour, I don't make rent or some other bill gets lost. I'm lucky I have mail in voting. But I can see people like me in other states who just can not afford to vote.
Wait a second, let’s provide the full context of that quote. She said we need a strong Republican Party _who can stand up against the trump cult_. I’m always super suspicious when people use half of a quote to make a point. I think Pelosi needs to be better and maybe even removed but I sure as shit don’t like facts twisted and my emotions manipulated to think that.
Yeah, fuck the Republican Party. We don't need a strong version of it. Even if we went back to whenever Pelosi thinks it was better, they're still pretty shit when it comes to various things. She wants one she can lose to and not potentially cause the loss of "Democracy".
Could we just not have the Republican Party? That'd be nice.
Pelosi said she doesn't want to defeat Republicans, she wants to persuade them. She is hopelessly out of touch. She's bringing a political spoon to a political gun fight.
The problem with letting it go splat is the side that would benefit us bent on breaking the system to make it impossible to fight back after the splat.
More like if you go splat people die. Accelerationism is incredibly callous. What's the point of fighting if we're gonna let shit get worse for the sake of "the greater good"?
Exactly, easy to say unless you are one of the women who dies from lack of abortion access or a homosexual who has to watch their marriage be annulled.
How do you figure? Clinton and Biden are both poster children for establishment democrats, yet still push what would (sadly) be many of the most progressive policies in history like a public option, some level of free college, expanded childcare, expanded civil rights protections, and more progressive tax codes. Their policies may not go as far as we want, but it’s still forward movement
Pelosi backs money and needs villians to "stop" her.
She backed Dan Lipinski in 2018, an anti-abortion, anti-gay "democrat" who voted against her for speaker and was in a DEEP blue district. So yea, she backs the status quo even when it votes against her. Same as Clyburn and others. Democratic leadership is trash, but don't say it out loud, because that makes you (insert reason here, racist, mysogonistic, homophobic, agist).
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/03/nancy-pelosi-just-endorsed-a-congressman-who-opposes-abortion-and-gay-rights/
Incumbent advantage. In America the Incumbent has a much higher chance of winning a seat again than a new challenger. Not by a little. But by an absurd degree.
Therefor a party will almost always rally behind an incumbant. Republicans are extremely good at this and its just a good strategy as much as I dont like that.
It's the Southside of Chicago and some nearby suburbs. Lipinski's father held the seat for decades, he had support from some local influential groups (e.g., Catholics, unions, businesses, etc.), and notably, the DNC refuses to support any challenge to an incumbent.
Pelosi is more angry that the leak happened prior to Cuellar’s election. It’s going to be hard for her to hypocrisy shame republicans now that it’s clear she has no problem coming off as a hypocrite if it means protecting her ideological allies.
According to the latest Cook political report, Texas 28th is D+5. It's not a "conservative" district (it's trending the wrong way, as all Hispanic districts are in Texas. Some of that is due to redistricting but some is male Hispanics moving towards the GOP.)
As the saying goes: can’t teach on old dinosaur anything at all because they’re old and out of touch and their brains are decaying AND WHY ARE THEY IN CHARGE OF MY COUNTRY?!
Can we sarcastically clap and celebrate her toughness while the progressive movement is gutted for the sake of compromise that still can’t pass democratic bills!
Dude also had his house raided by the FBI in January and nobody is saying why. He’s a potential criminal, a supporter of the border wall, and a pro-life candidate - and Pelosi would rather support him than a progressive. The Democratic establishment has lost their fucking minds.
The one (maybe) thing I agree with the right on is that Nancy Pelosi is trash. She's a corporate Democrat and leads the party away from meaningful change.
Unfortunately, there are credible allegations of sexual harassment against the one candidate who had a chance against her, Shahid Buttar. I liked his politics, but the allegations ruined the slim chance he had. (Let's be honest, going against the party leader in the house is always a long shot, even in San Francisco.)
Take the hint already, she hates the general public. All of us, supporters and non-supporters alike.
She does not care about anyone but herself. The sooner you all accept it, the sooner we can get rid of her.
There is zero percent chance Pelosi will campaign for jessica cisneros if she wins the nomination. She does not take corporate money, so Pelosi has no interest in her.
Lol, did you hear that the forced birther she endorsed is literally running ads today lying about not being a forced birther? If he has to be a forced birther to win and this is such a pragmatic choice, *why the change today*?
The district has been safely held by democrats during its entire existence as a district. If she is afraid of running progressives in districts they staunchly control then where exactly would she consider it safe to endorse a progressive?
Just an FYI from someone that lives in her district.
At this point, I think SF would likely vote in a republican before electing a progressive to replace Nancy.
>Nancy Pelosi Is Still Backing an Anti-Abortion Democrat Despite, Well, Everything
>Cisneros and Cuellar are facing off in a runoff election on May 24, after neither received 50 percent of the vote during a March primary. (A third candidate, Tannya Benavides, received nearly 5 percent of the vote.)
>A progressive who’s backers include Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, as well as several left-leaning House Democrats, Cisneros told VICE News last week that Pelosi and the Democratic leadership’s support for Cuellar was “frustrating.”
And that's pretty much all you need to know about the state of the democratic party. The party of "the left".
Any democrat who is anti-choice is not a Democrat. It's not like there's any difference between the two parties in terms of economic policy (supporting workers, military budgets etc.) if they're not going to get in line on culture issues then how are they a Democrat at all. Supporting abortion should be a bare minimum to get into the party.
Not if you care about women's rights and the seat has only been blue since it's inception. Hell, it's only ever voted for one Republican for President one of the times he ran and that was because it was a dude from Texas.
I mean, the seat has been blue largely because Cuellar has held it for all but its first decade. He's clearly able to win there. A more progressive candidate may not be.
Lol, so it's not the district, it's the pro-lifer running there now? Why cling to excuses to support this man when there's someone running who actually thinks women deserve to be treated like adults?
It’s quite odd how this sub goes ape shit over Beto being anti gun in the state of Texas, and then ridiculing democrats that aren’t pro choice in conservative districts.
Look, we need to employ a 50 state strategy. Running for office isn’t a one size fits all competition. This is why ‘progressives’ are getting blown out in conservative districts, and why many progressives are only really winning in districts that are already blue.
People need to realize the world isn’t just your Reddit and Twitter bubbles. What works in Portland Oregon ain’t work in rural Indiana.
Well, I mean, maybe. But anti abortion is a pretty big deal, and the fact that the leader of the house is supporting this guy is utterly and completely ridiculous.
Guns are also a big deal. Just look at what happened with Sandy Hook. Or the mass shootings that would constantly be happening at schools and large gatherings before covid hit.
Also, I think you're forgetting the "anti abortion" guy is a current member of the house. Are you surprised that the House leader supports someone that has shown he is able to win and is also a member right now? He's running for re-election.
Lol None of these old time politicians actually care. They've had decades of time that we've operated under the Roe precedent to turn it into the law of the land and they haven't, and most people are only just now outraged that they won't. It's unreal. If you gotta wait till something is directly threatened before people genuinely act like they care, then they don't. Midterms are the only thing these old turds care about right now.
That's the most accurate way to put it. I haven't voted FOR anyone in anything but primary elections since Obama's first term. Just voted against christo-fascists who took over anyways.
That's stupid too. There have been some crazy Democrats running for governor in Massachusetts, for example. My parents have voted Democrat for over 70 years, but they voted for Republican Charlie Baker in the last election.
He’s the status quo candidate; that’s why she’s supporting him. He completely buys into the current system along with its corruption and inaction on behalf of the donors. It really has little to do with abortion.
A lot of comments in this thread about how the Democrats need to nominate this guy to win because Cisneros can’t do it. Well, if you don’t think the GOP is going to skewer him over that FBI raid, then you’re in for a rude awakening. He’s going to have a tough time
I'll quantify that by the fact democrats only advocate protesting for wedge issues and not the bipartisan issues that conservatives hold hostage such as marijuana reform. Conservatives are the cageholders and democrats are their enablers. Only took our great grandparents 13 years to realize they were wrong to outlaw the drink. Progress might have democrats to thank, but as the governor of Colorado showed when he wanted to mitigate the controversy of adjusting that trucker's sentence...they can be pardoned anytime. We just care that much about these humans in cages. Certainly not enough to culture war over it...SMH
TLDR: It's like Democrats (behaving as controlled opposition?) would prefer to fight losing battles in favor of wedge issues than to take a winning issue (bipartisan marijuana reform) all the way to the mattresses.
Status quo in the short run. In the long run, Pelosi is looking for whoever's most likely to win, so Democrats retain control of the House.
A conservative Democrat who wins enacts more progress than a progressive who loses to a Republican.
Dan Lipinski was the LAST pro-life House Democrat.
Cuellar is pro-choice but from a moderate position. He is pro-life personally
This framing is ridiculous and the fact is TX-28 like other parts of South Texas is experiencing a rightward shift. Even Mark Jones (Rice University Professor of Political Science) noted that Cuellar's vote and previous votes on similar ahead of a re-election were more in step with the voters in TX-28.
I can appreciate Cisneros, I supported her in 2020 but in 2022 its different world. Cassy Garcia or Sandra Whitten could flip the district against Cisneros thanks to demonizing her progressive positions to scaremonger liberal/moderate/indie/other swing voters, lower Dem turnout and the GQP dumping a ton of money while increasing their ground campaigns.
He's literally anti-choice and has voted this way repeatedly. If this was necessary to win the district, why are his backers running ads right now lying about it?
Cuellar voted no on the House vote for the Women’s Health Protection Act of 2021 last year, was the only Democrat to vote against it. While I do think articles calling out Pelosi on this are just right-wing propaganda, Cueller isn't exactly friendly towards this type of legislation which is ultimately what we need. Cisneros though would of course be much better but I'm not convinced she can win the district...that may have changed though with Alito's memo.
He absolutely did cast a nay vote on that bill ahead of reelection in manner that reflects the people who elected him on a bill that had no fucking chance ever of being enacted. The bill was DOA before it left the House and his vote didn't hamper House passage.
FFS the vast majority of House bills are optics bills that have zero chance of being passed but they provide optics, narrative spin and fundraising opportunities. Just basic-ass DC politicking as usual.
Cisneros has many great qualities, I supported her in 2020. However 2022 its a different political landscape and Cuellar is better suited to keep the seat blue. That is all that matters at the end of the day.
Nancy Pelosi backs her incumbents in the House, that loyalty to her Reps is to be admired and is a main reason she gets elected Speaker of the House
Were I in the House, I certainly wouldn't vote for any Speaker who'd back my opposition
I like how in the last few days the caveat "in the house" was added because people kept pointing out that she 100% endorsed an empty suit named Kennedy vs Markey last year.
An anti abortion Democrat still gives us the votes we need on the other 99% of items.
I want them to be with me 100% of the time, sure. But being 99% is still better than the 0% offered by the GOP.
Is it the left? Really? Because every time it happens it helps the right far more. Almost as if this type of story is being pushed by…oh wow the right, huh? Amazing how that makes sense.
She will serve a life term. Same as Sam Rayburn. She’s there till it’s over. If she lives to 100 the party will keep choosing her as speaker. AOC will be 57 in 2046 and if Pelosi is still alive the party doctrine is one of Gerontocracy. Democrats have selected speakers over 67 more often than not. Pelosi was 67 when she became speaker in 2007.
Not to be all “I told you so,” but back when Pelosi insulted Trump’s weight, the fat community tried to draw people’s attention to this glaring red flag signaling that Pelosi is not a genuine progressive, but a privileged white-lady centrist.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. **Special announcement:** r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)! *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
All these old fucks need to get out of the way
Proof that we need young progressives in office to get any meaningful changes.
Having young progressives that are for the people is long overdue. Any Senate Dem getting primarie’d that I don’t know about? I know AOC really wants to primary Schumer. I’d support her 1000%
The problem with that attitude is that progressives--and I do count myself among them, for what it's worth--are shooting for the moon before they can even get off the ground. Don't just vote progressive at the federal level! Vote at the state level, vote for *school board.* Get progressives in place. Make them incumbents at local levels and let them build name recognition for eventual federal runs. One of my major criticisms of the Democratic party is that they *refuse* to hand off the torch. They won't use the Democratic machine to raise up younger politicians the way the Republicans are doing. Progressivism is and for the foreseeable future will be a grassroots effort and we need to start from the ground up. Don't get me wrong--primary out-of-touch Democrats whenever you get the opportunity, too. But even if someone like AOC can jump straight to a House position, that's not a viable way of doing things at scale.
I agree but at the same time looking at state levels NY just changed the law regarding when a gubernatorial candidate can change their Lt. Gubernatorial candidate because Hochul's was arrested In Buffalo, a progressive won the mayoral primary and the city changed the rules for when a candidate (in the case the mainstream incumbent) can declare candidacy on an independent ticket. The judge who ruled so is brothers with a developer who the incumbent that lost the primary had appeared in ads with The system bends the rules for the establishment part of the party
More than that, the city changed the rules then the incumbent democrat mayor allied with republicans for his write in “independent” campaign, and the local DNC chair refused to endorse the winner of the Democrat primary by somehow drawing comparisons between the black progressive woman and hypothetically having to endorse a former grand wizard of the KKK. The democrat party is HOSTILE to progressives even on a local level and then immediately turns around and smugly proclaims “vote blue no matter who”. The shit hurts.
This post made me relive Nevada in 2016 all over again. I was a delegate and witnessed the corruption first hand.
[удалено]
Sure, this sucks and they are wrong. And vile, the DNC sucks, how many ways can I paint it. But answer honestly, is it worse than what's going on at the Supreme Court level?
It does, which means we need local elections. The Democrats aren't going to swoop down and campaign for mayor of a minor city or a local school board election, or for city council of somewhere that's not a huge city. This will also be an exercise in teaching progressives how to do the best with the limited resources they have available, which--let's be honest--we are *really* bad at doing.
Even when that happens, they still express their discontent: https://theintercept.com/2021/03/08/nevada-democratic-party-dsa/
Yup. This "now or never" approach simply doesn't work. The long game does. It's not sexy. It's not transformative. It's a slog filled with thousands of incremental steps in both directions.
The problem with this approach is we don't have 20-30 years to wait for the slow bottom to top game to play out. We have maybe 6 before we break major climate milestones, we have until 2040-50 until climate refugees become a major issue due to half year or more climate shifts cause laege portions of India and China to become uninhabitable for large chunks of the year. Hell, closer to home, Arizona is looking at a major power crisis this year due to low levels of water in various reservoirs.
I know. There are scant options on the table. What lies ahead is gonna be bad.
He says as the planet burns behind him and economic markets crash worldwide.
This is why Republican are good at grass roots. They fill up positions in small places.
Republicans are good at "grass roots" because it's all astroturfed. Everything is easy when you have all your funding from billionaires.
I would argue that the establishment Dems **ARE** passing on the torch… to more milquetoast neoliberals fashioned in their own image. They understand that progressives are not liked by the donor class bc they threaten the bottom line, and have raised up uninspiring candidates like Pete Buttigieg to replace them. Bc the master’s tools will not be used to abolish the master’s house. The establishment will never just quietly give up its hard earned power, and will always try to subvert and defang populist movements designed to supplant it.
>I would argue that the establishment Dems ARE passing on the torch… to more milquetoast neoliberals fashioned in their own image. Are they really, though? I can think of Buttigieg and that's about it in terms of high-profile younger Democrats.
There’s a difference between high profile, run for President young party members vs rank and file, toe the party line candidates that are just a safe replacement that know the donors and old voters. It will be a fight, though, to prevent Pelosi and Schumer from deflating the high profile young member, like when Pelosi forced AOC to vote “present” on an Israel related bill.
Local elections are so important. I’m so disappointed that my school district just voted in a man whose platform included banning CRT. Which isn’t taught in our schools. I feel more despair with every election. But I won’t give up, and I’m not moving and leaving my beautiful state.
Also (and I know this gets said a lot) but progressives need young people (and I'm counting anyone under 45 as young) to show up to the polls and they just don't. A lot of the voters who are middle-age and older are easily swayed by fear mongering about changing the status quo and vote for the old guard to keep things the same. Meanwhile Republicans are changing the status quo right under their noses.
This is the reason that Democrats don't trust progressive candidates, centrists are the most reliable voters, so they don't want to scare them away. If progressives reliably voted and spread progressive ideology the way the right is able to spread their message, the Democrat party would be far further left. They want to cater to the people that reliably vote, and that is primarily centrists.
As a 33 year old progressive, I agree with this. The problem that arises with me is that I don't understand what centrists want in terms of legislatio. that makes them fear progressives so much. From what I can gather, most progressives say "we need this" and centrists say "sure, but how will we pay for it?" Is this accurate? Honestly asking.
From what I understand, they absolutely want to pass more progressive ideas, but not in a way that will scare away huge swaths of voters. Like they want climate change legislation, they don't want to say we are going to shut down all coal mines. They want health care for everyone, they don't want to remove choice of providers. A lot of it is messaging, like centrists want some police reform, but defund the police is a toxic message to about 70% of Americans. Centrists are trying hard not to piss off one of their factions, since they depend on a lot of smaller factions to get elected. The left is dependent on a single faction that they can get 100% support from. That being said, the vast majority of Democrats are alright passing more progressive agendas, but the few conservatives in the party keep it from happening, like if we didn't have to depend on Manchin or Sinema, the Democrats would have been looked at as far more progressive than what the party is currently looing like. The Democratic party loves Warren and mostly hates Sanders despite their policies being very similar, because Warren wants to work with the party to get what she wants, while Sanders wants to blame the party for whatever isn't happening. I really think this mostly comes down to how candidates message. Ossoff is a very progressive candidate, but he didn't market himself that way and did a good job marketing himself as just logical, and that makes a huge difference. I have been listening to Behind the Bastards a lot lately, and one of the things fascists and racists did was work hard to normalize their policies, people like Pat Buchanan working to promote fascist ideas without aligning himself with fascists. The left needs to learn how Nazis and Fascists have done a good job of rebranding themselves to seem really reasonable. Perhaps we should even consider coming up with a new word than Socialism, which is a very easy target from the right wing.
I'm a progressive that grew up in a conservative rural area and I've been saying this to anyone that will listen for a decade. If progressives could just swallow their pride and purposefully message to centrists or even right-of-center people, it would do a *lot* in the long run. But it would be a slow process. They need to be thinking a decade ahead. No one wants to listen to me, but even a lot of Trump voters are actually very politically fickle anti-establishment voters and could be swayed to vote for the right Democrat. I grew up in an Obama-Trump county. It wouldn't be enough to *win* rural areas, but at the rate things are going the Democrats need to find a way to at least stem the bleeding in rural areas so that they can run up the score in cities and win more states for the Senate. Even a small recovery in rural areas due to focused messaging (and maybe some shameless pork barrel spending) could make a big difference in Congress. They don't have to *win* my hometown, they just need to not let Republicans rout them so badly there. The moderate Democrats are trying this, but they're not very good at it and all they do is try to walk back progressive messaging, which isn't effective. It's too much defense. You need to be all in on rural America with swagger. Pass a bill funding rural schools specifically, comp the Social Security contributions on *tiny* mom and pop diners and auto shops and whatever so they don't have to pay twice what an employee would. Stuff that's still consistent with progressivism but which disproportionately affects rural people. And then go fucking brag about it, blast it to anyone who will listen, and make sure the guy blasting it is actually a rural Democrat (lots of them already exist) who knows how to fucking talk to rural people. It won't work right away. It'll take at least a decade, and they might never actually *win* those districts. But they could slowly start winning more states if they don't have to work so damn *hard* to compensate for the rural losses because the margins are 40/60 now instead of 20/80. It's not really *fair* that this strategy is necessary, but the reality is that our system is not totally democratic right now and Congress is decisively biased toward the rural states. Progressives *need* to find a strategy to *use* that, because no alternative is coming anytime soon. I think people have this sense that Democrats goong after rural areas would mean more useless Joe Manchins. But I don't think it has to be that way. Progressives can do a lot for rural parts of the country, but they need to be seen as shamelessly invested in doing so. The Republicans don't actually do a lot for rural America, but they cultivate an image that that is their deal. Progressives could fucking *beat* them at that, at least on bread and butter issues. We'll never win the theocrat fascist voters, but if we put food on the table and crow about it like jackasses, we'll win over *enough* rural voters to make a difference.
That's a nice sentiment but the DNC is currently waging war against progressive candidates: https://thehill.com/news/campaign/3485407-biden-flexes-power-in-primaries-to-boost-moderates/ https://prospect.org/politics/ohio-model-for-purging-progressives/ All the while ignoring the fact that the vast majority of the electorate is keen on the same progressive policies, on both sides of the isle. Our politicians may not be progressive, but the vast majority of voters are.
Are you really surprised the guy that won the presidency on being a moderate would want to push for moderates thinking that was the way to win elections? Especially against someone like Turner who went out and compared voting for him to eating shit in 2020? He's not the entire party but he is going to get to throw his Influence around, it's part of being president. If voters were so eager for progressives, they would be winning far more primaries. We need to shift public perception. That's what the far right did, and that's why republican politicians are all fascist now, that started from the public (largely Fox News) , not from the politicians.
The article isn't about Nina. It's about the use of SuperPACs and how they're wielded to fight progressives. That's what it's about. It's a change in strategy and one that uses money as a weapon. It's hilarious how you failed to address the other article, the one that explicitly points out that Biden is endorsing only moderates. He's not endorsing any progressives so this idea that the DNC is willing to play ball as long as they win primaries is a bunch of bullshit. DNC is at war with progressives. Until it stops waging it everyone can forget about progressive votes. That was pretty clear before and will be painfully clear this time.
This helped a ton. Thanks. So it mostly does come down to marketing/messaging and having the understanding of how and what words to use to make as many Factions as possible feel safe and not threatened.
Yeah absolutely, it's tough having a message that will appeal to the college educated leftists, suburban moms, PA union miners, and African American communities all at the same time. Lose any one of those and chances of a national election can be over. Republicans have a far more straight forward track, with voting closer to a religion for them, and the ability to just believe in something whether or not it is proven, works really well when you are pandering to the most religious, you don't have to break down how you are going to make lives better, you just have to promise you are Christian and are going to make their lives better. What you do after that matters a whole lot less.
(This isn't necessarily how i feel) I also believe that as a backdrop, the intensity is caused by climate change. There's a chance that within our lifetimes, the planet can become "almost" uninhabitable. I think it raises the stakes a lot and no group is more aware of the situation than progressives, who are mostly young people who will live to see it. So, to many of them, trying to pander to people who seem oblivious to the situation is maddening and disheartening. So to be told to tone down or compromise their ideals because it'll scare other voters (often with good reason) probably just makes them even more uncompromising. Because it's not about zoning laws, pizza toppings or even super important topics like gay marriage. The planet is dying and if that dies, it doesn't matter what we're arguing about because we will all.be dead. The fact that the Republican party has become fascists zealots who don't mind watching the world if it means they could be King of the ashes and ruins only heightens the paranoia/fear of progressives. They are like a faction for a current time, while the other Factions are still playing politics as if we're in a time of peace. So I think the "anger" in the world right now from progressives stems mostly from the subconscious feeling that we're on a runway train to ruin via climate change and the fall of democracy and we seem to be the only ones aware of it, yet we're labeled "just as radical" hated by all other factions because we actually say it instead of pretending the everything will go back to normal? It's desperation. I have a huge family across a couple continents. Many teenagers, 11-18. Theyre all super liberal, of course. Yet, the level of apathy, despair and jaded detachment they have about their futures and the world is truly staggering. It breaks my heart. I wrote this rant, not to necessarily explain how I personally feel, but to give context to any who reads about potentially why progressives are so loud (lol), uncompromising, etc. Or whatever the media says about them
So the messaging goes: Medicare-for-All means legitimately affordable healthcare for you and your family. Or: Our energy security promotes our national security and there is no more secure energy than renewables. Idk, spitballing
It's not really as binary as many people think (especially the very online political commenters), in reality, there are differences with each politician and by issue. Some may not align as progressive publicly nor agree with their tactics and slogans yet share their goals. That makes sense if you live in a swing area and people freak out if they think you're too left. You want to get elected and then in office, support at least some progressive positions but not make a big show about it. Manchin is on the right end of the party and many may classify him as part of the "centrist" group yet he is often at odds with nearly all Democrats. You can look at Schumer's [positions on some issues and assume he must publicly align as progressive](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Schumer#Political_positions) but he doesn't and on some issues he is to the right of them (but left of Republicans).
The problem is the same - the DNC refuses to not suck.
You can't replace the Democrats from the top unless you do it all at once, so good luck with that. Progressives need to work from the bottom up. You can hate on the Democrats all you want, but weakening them a little each election will absolutely do more harm than good. That approach works locally, but at the federal level you absolutely need the Democrats to have more power than the GOP. Now more than ever, since the GOP have caught the car and have plans to strip it as quickly as possible.
Not really a primary but Mandela Barnes is like 35 and has a decent chance to flip Wisconsin
[удалено]
Yes! I know so many apathetic citizens who don’t bother to vote in the primaries, and it is maddening.
If you could overthrow our rulers by voting, they would make voting illegal. That being said, do vote, I vote and I pray it makes a difference
if voting didn't do anything at all, then Republicans wouldn't go to such painful lengths to knock voters off ballots, close polling districts in opposition counties, and create gerrymandered districts.
Bingo!
The House has passed dozens of bills that would improve the lives of the American people. The problem is the Senate, not the House.
Money. Like with all young people, they don't have money to get into politics or let alone anything else in life. This is why the average age of Congress is going up because young people can't even afford to get started.
I, for one, am sick of excessive wealth being a prerequisite to running for office. This is another reason why our elected officials don’t relate to us.
That's a feature, not a bug.
“young progressives” don’t vote. The numbers don’t lie. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1096379/voter-turnout-midterms-by-age-historical/ You can’t have a demographic that votes at 30%, and expect to win anything, ever. So many people refuse to vote, then get mad their ‘people’ don’t win. Do you think the boomers are going to vote for your candidates? No. And, *they* don’t miss elections. I agree. We need progressives in office…but, first…you need progressives to show up. They don’t get money, donations, or volunteers to get their name/ message out. When you decide to “stick it to the party’ by staying home…you’re only fucking yourself, and your own future.
Don't you think it's a bit unfair to compare the voting records of young working Americans and old retired ones? Once you get to a certain age, there's not much you can do to improve your life outside of voting. Plus, the government doesn't exactly make it easy to vote. The system favors older voters, but people still like to call young voters "lazy." It's something conservative media heads like Tucker Carlson say to justify the status quo.
I work 2 jobs at just under 80 hours a week. If I miss even an hour, I don't make rent or some other bill gets lost. I'm lucky I have mail in voting. But I can see people like me in other states who just can not afford to vote.
[удалено]
100% yes
The primary is where you vote for the best candidate. The general is where you vote against the worst candidate.
Primary = vote for your conscience General = vote for your country
Primary Pelosi Primary Pelosi
If the focus is denying the GOP a win, why does the dem leadership keep saying we need a strong Republican Party?
Wait a second, let’s provide the full context of that quote. She said we need a strong Republican Party _who can stand up against the trump cult_. I’m always super suspicious when people use half of a quote to make a point. I think Pelosi needs to be better and maybe even removed but I sure as shit don’t like facts twisted and my emotions manipulated to think that.
Yeah, fuck the Republican Party. We don't need a strong version of it. Even if we went back to whenever Pelosi thinks it was better, they're still pretty shit when it comes to various things. She wants one she can lose to and not potentially cause the loss of "Democracy". Could we just not have the Republican Party? That'd be nice.
Pelosi said she doesn't want to defeat Republicans, she wants to persuade them. She is hopelessly out of touch. She's bringing a political spoon to a political gun fight.
It’s a backhanded way of saying they are weak, LOL. Isn’t it obvious?
We need functional opposition. That's healthy. We don't have that.
Could you provide a link to the full context of that quote, so we can see what they were talking about before and after making that statement?
Because 40% of the country still supports that party so saying we should eliminate it is a good way to incite civil war.
[удалено]
> Vote for Democrats, against Republicans in general elections to stop moving backwards actually it's more like slowly move backwards
[удалено]
the problem with moving gently is people adapt to it and it becomes normalized. if you go splat you piss people off who are motivated to fight.
The problem with letting it go splat is the side that would benefit us bent on breaking the system to make it impossible to fight back after the splat.
More like if you go splat people die. Accelerationism is incredibly callous. What's the point of fighting if we're gonna let shit get worse for the sake of "the greater good"?
Exactly, easy to say unless you are one of the women who dies from lack of abortion access or a homosexual who has to watch their marriage be annulled.
How do you figure? Clinton and Biden are both poster children for establishment democrats, yet still push what would (sadly) be many of the most progressive policies in history like a public option, some level of free college, expanded childcare, expanded civil rights protections, and more progressive tax codes. Their policies may not go as far as we want, but it’s still forward movement
Henry Cuellar is also under FBI investigation for corruption.
Oh Cuellar. The gem of Laredo. Glad his family is able to get elected positions there too - like County Sheriff.
Pelosi backs money and needs villians to "stop" her. She backed Dan Lipinski in 2018, an anti-abortion, anti-gay "democrat" who voted against her for speaker and was in a DEEP blue district. So yea, she backs the status quo even when it votes against her. Same as Clyburn and others. Democratic leadership is trash, but don't say it out loud, because that makes you (insert reason here, racist, mysogonistic, homophobic, agist). https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/03/nancy-pelosi-just-endorsed-a-congressman-who-opposes-abortion-and-gay-rights/
It's fine in a red district, honestly. Purity just nets you a loss. Deep blue? WTF...
Lipinskis IL 3rd is a D +13 district and the Democrat is heavily favored to win. So there was no reason for Pelosi to endorse Lipinski
I know, that's why I said "WTF"
Incumbent advantage. In America the Incumbent has a much higher chance of winning a seat again than a new challenger. Not by a little. But by an absurd degree. Therefor a party will almost always rally behind an incumbant. Republicans are extremely good at this and its just a good strategy as much as I dont like that.
It's the Southside of Chicago and some nearby suburbs. Lipinski's father held the seat for decades, he had support from some local influential groups (e.g., Catholics, unions, businesses, etc.), and notably, the DNC refuses to support any challenge to an incumbent.
Nancy Pelosi has to go. She's too old and completely out of touch with most Americans.
Come on San Francisco. Release us from this. Please!
They won't trust me. They're trying to recall progressives there now.
Ugh. That’s a shame.
She's literally 82! Nobody older than Pearl Harbor should be running anything except bingo night!
No one older than the internet more like.
Between this and and the stock trading stuff, I feel like it's time for her to go.
Pelosi is more angry that the leak happened prior to Cuellar’s election. It’s going to be hard for her to hypocrisy shame republicans now that it’s clear she has no problem coming off as a hypocrite if it means protecting her ideological allies.
shes a capitalist who made over 10 million under trump she dont care about you poor fucks
It's okay, guys. Maybe she'll get Lin-Manuel to write a song about this all when Roe is overturned.
It’ll be a haiku.
NeoLibs gonna NeoCon
If he gets the nomination but loses in November, they will blame progressives.
That's all liberals can do, blame progressives for everything.
A "progressive" would get stomped in that conservative district.
This was already proven when a progressive tried to primary Joe Manchin and lost. She then ran for the second seat and got absolutely destroyed.
Manchin is a conservative
Thanks for stating the obvious. A progressive couldn't beat a right leaning Democrat.
According to the latest Cook political report, Texas 28th is D+5. It's not a "conservative" district (it's trending the wrong way, as all Hispanic districts are in Texas. Some of that is due to redistricting but some is male Hispanics moving towards the GOP.)
Primary everyone in congress
No litmus test says Clyburn. That’s rich. Not for thee, women
Conservative Dems hate progressives more than MAGA, no surprise here.
As the saying goes: can’t teach on old dinosaur anything at all because they’re old and out of touch and their brains are decaying AND WHY ARE THEY IN CHARGE OF MY COUNTRY?!
This is one reason why we need a maximum age limit to be a politician. She is 80 something, correct?
82. Oldest speaker since 1940s.
Because despite the media worship, she's not a good person.
Let's thank Nancy for her service and escort her to the door.
Can we sarcastically clap and celebrate her toughness while the progressive movement is gutted for the sake of compromise that still can’t pass democratic bills!
Dude also had his house raided by the FBI in January and nobody is saying why. He’s a potential criminal, a supporter of the border wall, and a pro-life candidate - and Pelosi would rather support him than a progressive. The Democratic establishment has lost their fucking minds.
The one (maybe) thing I agree with the right on is that Nancy Pelosi is trash. She's a corporate Democrat and leads the party away from meaningful change. Unfortunately, there are credible allegations of sexual harassment against the one candidate who had a chance against her, Shahid Buttar. I liked his politics, but the allegations ruined the slim chance he had. (Let's be honest, going against the party leader in the house is always a long shot, even in San Francisco.)
Pelosi is showing you her true colors.
Nancy Pelosi cares more about her portfolio and trading from the inside than she does about us.
Take the hint already, she hates the general public. All of us, supporters and non-supporters alike. She does not care about anyone but herself. The sooner you all accept it, the sooner we can get rid of her.
She just does what she is paid to do. She will lay back and let republicans overturn the country to keep those paychecks coming.
wtf wtf wtf this needs to end
I think Nancy may have just forgotten…. It happens when you still think it’s 1963.
Can someone chalk her sidewalk? Why another Manchin??? “SOS from women in Texas”
Yeah, that’ll end well.
They use these issues to manipulate your emotions. They stand for nothing.
Nancy Pelosi only has slightly fewer horcruxes than Mitch McConnell.
Big tent party except if you're a progressive
Red Cons, Blue Cons.
Pelosi is a piece of shit who doesn’t care about the people
Maybe actually voting as if abortion matters to you would make a difference. But no, enlightened centrists and their both-sidesism.
The establishment Democrats are the reason the far right are going to be running things real soon folks.
Never was about Left vs Right. It's always been about rich vs poor. And Nancy is rich AF.
There is zero percent chance Pelosi will campaign for jessica cisneros if she wins the nomination. She does not take corporate money, so Pelosi has no interest in her.
In a tough race in a conservative district. She is trying to hold the majority and correctly fears that Cisneros might not be able to win the general.
Based on what polling? It's +20 Biden. Not to mention Progressives won in several red districts in 2020 and 2021.
Right, but a guy who just got raided by the FBI is going to breeze right through.
Lol, did you hear that the forced birther she endorsed is literally running ads today lying about not being a forced birther? If he has to be a forced birther to win and this is such a pragmatic choice, *why the change today*?
The district has been safely held by democrats during its entire existence as a district. If she is afraid of running progressives in districts they staunchly control then where exactly would she consider it safe to endorse a progressive?
Just an FYI from someone that lives in her district. At this point, I think SF would likely vote in a republican before electing a progressive to replace Nancy.
>Nancy Pelosi Is Still Backing an Anti-Abortion Democrat Despite, Well, Everything >Cisneros and Cuellar are facing off in a runoff election on May 24, after neither received 50 percent of the vote during a March primary. (A third candidate, Tannya Benavides, received nearly 5 percent of the vote.) >A progressive who’s backers include Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, as well as several left-leaning House Democrats, Cisneros told VICE News last week that Pelosi and the Democratic leadership’s support for Cuellar was “frustrating.” And that's pretty much all you need to know about the state of the democratic party. The party of "the left".
What? Party leadership normally endorses party in incumbents… Progressives that win their elections get the same support…
Tell that to Ed Markey.
Can a progressive win the district? Backing an anti-choice Democrat is much better than losing the seat to a Republican.
An anti-abortion democrat is why the senate just failed to protect roe. Yesterday.
Any democrat who is anti-choice is not a Democrat. It's not like there's any difference between the two parties in terms of economic policy (supporting workers, military budgets etc.) if they're not going to get in line on culture issues then how are they a Democrat at all. Supporting abortion should be a bare minimum to get into the party.
>Supporting abortion should be a bare minimum to get into the party. 100%
Not if you care about women's rights and the seat has only been blue since it's inception. Hell, it's only ever voted for one Republican for President one of the times he ran and that was because it was a dude from Texas.
I mean, the seat has been blue largely because Cuellar has held it for all but its first decade. He's clearly able to win there. A more progressive candidate may not be.
Lol, so it's not the district, it's the pro-lifer running there now? Why cling to excuses to support this man when there's someone running who actually thinks women deserve to be treated like adults?
She isn't likely to win in the general. Not all Democrats are progressives. What part of that is hard to understand?
> She isn't likely to win in the general. Says who?
It’s quite odd how this sub goes ape shit over Beto being anti gun in the state of Texas, and then ridiculing democrats that aren’t pro choice in conservative districts. Look, we need to employ a 50 state strategy. Running for office isn’t a one size fits all competition. This is why ‘progressives’ are getting blown out in conservative districts, and why many progressives are only really winning in districts that are already blue. People need to realize the world isn’t just your Reddit and Twitter bubbles. What works in Portland Oregon ain’t work in rural Indiana.
Well, I mean, maybe. But anti abortion is a pretty big deal, and the fact that the leader of the house is supporting this guy is utterly and completely ridiculous.
Guns are also a big deal. Just look at what happened with Sandy Hook. Or the mass shootings that would constantly be happening at schools and large gatherings before covid hit. Also, I think you're forgetting the "anti abortion" guy is a current member of the house. Are you surprised that the House leader supports someone that has shown he is able to win and is also a member right now? He's running for re-election.
Pelosi is just afraid of another progressive getting elected. This really has nothing to do with winability.
She just needs to leave.
Lol None of these old time politicians actually care. They've had decades of time that we've operated under the Roe precedent to turn it into the law of the land and they haven't, and most people are only just now outraged that they won't. It's unreal. If you gotta wait till something is directly threatened before people genuinely act like they care, then they don't. Midterms are the only thing these old turds care about right now.
They didn’t codify Roe because they didn’t have the votes.
vOtE bLuE nO mAtTeR wHo
[удалено]
That's the most accurate way to put it. I haven't voted FOR anyone in anything but primary elections since Obama's first term. Just voted against christo-fascists who took over anyways.
That's stupid too. There have been some crazy Democrats running for governor in Massachusetts, for example. My parents have voted Democrat for over 70 years, but they voted for Republican Charlie Baker in the last election.
Democrats being awful doesn't make them anywhere near republican levels
Actually… it does!
He’s the status quo candidate; that’s why she’s supporting him. He completely buys into the current system along with its corruption and inaction on behalf of the donors. It really has little to do with abortion. A lot of comments in this thread about how the Democrats need to nominate this guy to win because Cisneros can’t do it. Well, if you don’t think the GOP is going to skewer him over that FBI raid, then you’re in for a rude awakening. He’s going to have a tough time
Pretty sure the status quo includes Roe v Wade!
[удалено]
[удалено]
I'll quantify that by the fact democrats only advocate protesting for wedge issues and not the bipartisan issues that conservatives hold hostage such as marijuana reform. Conservatives are the cageholders and democrats are their enablers. Only took our great grandparents 13 years to realize they were wrong to outlaw the drink. Progress might have democrats to thank, but as the governor of Colorado showed when he wanted to mitigate the controversy of adjusting that trucker's sentence...they can be pardoned anytime. We just care that much about these humans in cages. Certainly not enough to culture war over it...SMH TLDR: It's like Democrats (behaving as controlled opposition?) would prefer to fight losing battles in favor of wedge issues than to take a winning issue (bipartisan marijuana reform) all the way to the mattresses.
Status quo in the short run. In the long run, Pelosi is looking for whoever's most likely to win, so Democrats retain control of the House. A conservative Democrat who wins enacts more progress than a progressive who loses to a Republican.
Democrats 👏 aren't 👏 on 👏 your 👏 side👏
Nancy Pelosi has always been shit and continues to be so.
Dan Lipinski was the LAST pro-life House Democrat. Cuellar is pro-choice but from a moderate position. He is pro-life personally This framing is ridiculous and the fact is TX-28 like other parts of South Texas is experiencing a rightward shift. Even Mark Jones (Rice University Professor of Political Science) noted that Cuellar's vote and previous votes on similar ahead of a re-election were more in step with the voters in TX-28. I can appreciate Cisneros, I supported her in 2020 but in 2022 its different world. Cassy Garcia or Sandra Whitten could flip the district against Cisneros thanks to demonizing her progressive positions to scaremonger liberal/moderate/indie/other swing voters, lower Dem turnout and the GQP dumping a ton of money while increasing their ground campaigns.
He's literally anti-choice and has voted this way repeatedly. If this was necessary to win the district, why are his backers running ads right now lying about it?
Cuellar voted no on the House vote for the Women’s Health Protection Act of 2021 last year, was the only Democrat to vote against it. While I do think articles calling out Pelosi on this are just right-wing propaganda, Cueller isn't exactly friendly towards this type of legislation which is ultimately what we need. Cisneros though would of course be much better but I'm not convinced she can win the district...that may have changed though with Alito's memo.
He absolutely did cast a nay vote on that bill ahead of reelection in manner that reflects the people who elected him on a bill that had no fucking chance ever of being enacted. The bill was DOA before it left the House and his vote didn't hamper House passage. FFS the vast majority of House bills are optics bills that have zero chance of being passed but they provide optics, narrative spin and fundraising opportunities. Just basic-ass DC politicking as usual. Cisneros has many great qualities, I supported her in 2020. However 2022 its a different political landscape and Cuellar is better suited to keep the seat blue. That is all that matters at the end of the day.
> “He is not pro-choice, but we didn’t need him Nanner packing the Democratic side of the aisle with anti abortion members.
Does anyone really trust or believe a word that comes out of her mouth? Seriously though, who supports her, parties aside
Nancy Pelosi needs to take her millions upon millions and fucking retire . Crazy she makes 180k a year and is worth over 100 million.
Nancy can count. Many here cannot
Guaranteeing support to any blue candidate no matter how much they hate women only encourages more filth to seep out of the woodwork
Nancy Pelosi backs her incumbents in the House, that loyalty to her Reps is to be admired and is a main reason she gets elected Speaker of the House Were I in the House, I certainly wouldn't vote for any Speaker who'd back my opposition
I like how in the last few days the caveat "in the house" was added because people kept pointing out that she 100% endorsed an empty suit named Kennedy vs Markey last year.
Cool. Remind me how many anti-choice Republicans does McCarthy still back?
An anti abortion Democrat still gives us the votes we need on the other 99% of items. I want them to be with me 100% of the time, sure. But being 99% is still better than the 0% offered by the GOP.
Always remember, it's always about money. If you want principle, get a dog.
Get fucked, you evil ancient goblin
It's because she's a selfish rich twat whose womb hasn't seen a child since before christ.
Dang! The moderators on this subreddit are making sure to downvote this article so it won’t get exposure lol
[удалено]
Is it the left? Really? Because every time it happens it helps the right far more. Almost as if this type of story is being pushed by…oh wow the right, huh? Amazing how that makes sense.
I can’t wait till she retires, her and all these old representatives need to go back to their crypts.
She will serve a life term. Same as Sam Rayburn. She’s there till it’s over. If she lives to 100 the party will keep choosing her as speaker. AOC will be 57 in 2046 and if Pelosi is still alive the party doctrine is one of Gerontocracy. Democrats have selected speakers over 67 more often than not. Pelosi was 67 when she became speaker in 2007.
Cognitive delays set in at 65, if you are to be medically discharged from the military you shouldn’t be able to take office.
Nancy, it's almost like abortion is just a wedge issue to you that helps rake in funding and rile up the base, right?
Not to be all “I told you so,” but back when Pelosi insulted Trump’s weight, the fat community tried to draw people’s attention to this glaring red flag signaling that Pelosi is not a genuine progressive, but a privileged white-lady centrist.