Understanding what a big tent party is, American politics, minority and majority and not having enough votes or the power to bring something to a vote, that Republicans are the enemy here -- too much to ask, evidently.

And primary the Centrists.

It's not so simple, really. You might be able to influence an election in your own state, but you'll be ignored in other states, since they have their own political preferences.

Anyone can run in a primary. They just have to meet the qualification standards in a state and declare their candidacy. There are some forms to complete and maybe a fee of some kind. But anyone can run. Winning is a different matter, so every candidate has to convince voters in a particular state to vote for him or her in number large enough to become the nominee in the general election. Then, the candidate has to wine a majority of votes in that state.

That's exactly how it works. There are no other options. So, primary whomever you want, but you're going to have to find someone who can win, both in the primary and the general elections. Not so easy, depending on the state in question. You're in Florida, right?

Good luck with that, I say. Keep us informed.

in one of those states will only have the effect of depleting their campaign coffers, thus, assuming they win the primary anyway, being bloodied and bankrupt will make them vulnerable to a well-funded GOP opponent.

Or it could be that the upstart newbie wins but... in a largely centrist and conservative state, finds that they do not have the chops or the ability to attract voters who actually PREFER someone centrist or center-right. And in the end, the leftist Dem loses to the Republican.

As a result, we lose a seat in congress... and need to work even HARDER to recover from the TWO SEAT deficit that a single loss costs us.

The fact is that some states are about as liberal as they are going to be... ever!

We need to appreciate what we've got and instead use our time and money to DEFEAT REPUBLICANS rather than trying to seek purity among our own Democrats. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that Vermont style politicians will never be elected in mostly conservative or center-right states.

That could really put this whole 'centrists in centrist areas' theory to the test

To believe otherwise is fantasy. That's probably a very divisive issue that would motivate the "righties" to come out in full force. These folks will never vote for or support what's good for their own best interests. We've seen this play out time and again.

Maybe you're drawing on areas with strong party affiliations, but little talk of the economic issues that transcend left/right/center. Out here in the West it's been YEARS since campaign signs even indicated Democrat or Republican

Things are changing. Right now Seattle's Mayor-elect ran as a progressive and won. But before you say "Oh Seattle, totally blue" she defeated a fellow Democrat!

The new distinction is going to be Democratic Capitalist vs Democratic Socialist

just sayin

I think we can all agree that "socialism" is a charged term and that won't gain traction in places like West Virginia and similar states. That’s simply a reality we must accept. We’ll likely always have conservative Democrats --- if we're lucky. It reminds me of how much Joe Manchin was hated and harassed. Did that improve anything? No. Did his conservative views change? No. Did he leave the party? Yes. And how did that turn out for us?

At least with Manchin, we had someone who contributed to our Senate majority, but so many wanted to primary him to "teach him a lesson" for not being a Vermont-style liberal. Did they seriously believe West Virginia would elect any Democrat who wasn't right-of-center? What did they get instead? Jim Justice --- considered a very right-leaning Republican.

Times have changed. It will be a long time before another Rockefeller or Byrd warms the hearts of West Virginians. That seat Manchin held was crucial for Senate control, influencing hearings and bill decisions. I think a lot of people forget that CONTROL of the senate matters more than how a single senator votes. We need to look at the big picture and think strategically instead of emotionally.

a conservative Democrat will ALWAYS be better than a Republican. I'll gladly accept a couple of slices of stale bread rather than shunning it because it's not a whole fresh still-warm loaf. 🍞

No thanks

Last edited Wed Nov 12, 2025, 04:50 PM - Edit history (1)

and gives us an extra seat toward having (keeping?) the majority than to have a Republican who (also) never votes with-the-Dems... but who gives a majority advantage to the Republicans.

We always knew exactly how he was going to vote. So NOBODY should have been surprised or disappointed. Nobody should have felt betrayed. Nobody should have spend their time harassing and "primarying" him when an equal (or less) amount of effort could have been more effectively spent trying to defeat a vulnerable Republican and FLIP a seat.

People need to learn to appreciate what they have rather than being on a constant Quixotic quest for the "perfect" and the "pure" (that will never materialize) while neglecting, rather than nurturing and caring for something that already provides an important advantage.

We were damned lucky to have Joe Manchin (as awful as he was). Jim Justice is worse.

Controlling institutions matters more than winning arguments, and constitutional veneration is useful only to prevent reform. Actual American resistance history—Samuel Adams, Ona Judge, the Underground Railroad, the Radical Republicans acted outside the channels political culture called legitimate.

When are we going to figure out that this is all a charade?

We need to either start electing people who actually mean it when they use leftist terms or we need a revolution.

It’s absurd that we keep depending on people who are only interested in propping up their own class to do anything for ours.

“Sound familiar to what happened on Sunday night?” Actually, no.

Millions of borrowers took on way too much debt during the housing crisis, encouraged by the ridiculously easy terms of their home loans. The resulting disaster was easily foreseeable. I have limited compassion for people who deliberately choose to act recklessly hoping that someone will bail them out if they get into trouble. Not all legislative votes are bought; some are actually motivated by doing what someone perceives as the right thing.

And, the reason that resolving the housing crisis mattered to everyone was that investments in the securitized mortgages tied to these millions of borrowers' loans had made their way into mutual funds, pension plans, etc. - leaving folks like teachers, firefighters and other government workers facing the possibility of their pensions not being paid in full - which is, in fact, what happened in cities like Vallejo, CA and Detroit, MI. On top of that, the mounting number of foreclosed homes collapsed the entire housing market, affecting the value of even "responsible" homeowners' homes. What we all should have learned from that episode was that there often are externalities resulting from peoples' suffering that may well end up affecting all of us. Applied to today, even if you don't have coverage under Obamacare, the waves that will ripple through the entire healthcare industry as a result of cutting funding to Obamacare may well end up affecting all of us.

There was plenty of blame to go around for the housing crisis, starting with irresponsible banks and other financial interests and inadequate regulation. And, like now, we all pay the price for other people’s deception and greed.

I don’t know why eight Democratic and Independent senators caved this week (with the possible exception of Tim Kaine, whose constituents were severely impacted by the shutdown). Strategically, it strikes me as the wrong decision, one that could perhaps have been avoided with stronger leadership.