**** you old man

it was R+27 a few months ago, and it's koch's home $$$ district. The problem is optics more than anything else. Needed to throw in some token $ for optics (100-200k or so) simply since everybody's watching and it looks like they're throwing $ for their guys (like GA-6) rather than bernie types. They couldn't have thrown their entire weight, or R's would've done the same and they just lose worse. I agree their only shot would've been to snipe it and not give it national attention--but they definitely looked bad in optics doing literally nothing. R's still sent cruz/pence, they knew it was closer than D's thought it was.

Rationality has to come into play here but nobody is in that mind atm. People literally think dems could've won and they're just dumb for that one, but it does show that anything that isn't safe R should be attacked.

People really don't like brownback in KS though b/c he's screwing everything up, so everywhere in KS needs to be attacked in 18 if that continues. Dems will do nothing though b/c they're basically all wall street idiots. Can't win with a wall street message in the midwest as a dem.

James Thompson wasn't a Wall Street guy, he was a Civil Rights lawyer and he did pretty well. Maybe that's a model for a good candidate for districts that are extremely conservative/white.

Very Lord of the Flies ITT.

Symbolic.

That's my point, they won't get funded. Dem strat seems to be national message, but that's wrong, need to do what GOP does, tailor it to area.

I mean Kentucky used to be blue maybe a decade ago on the state level--a conservative blue, but still better than red. Kansas is a **** hole b/c of brownback. They can retake the midwest, and that's where I'd hammer, but it requires a message that isn't from say schumer/clinton's/pelosi's/perez's of the democratic realm. I think they got a good shot at texas too if they send out a pro gun no wall message (and obv drop the whole abortion topic for them, if that's the main national dem message, that's not gonna fly in TX), there's a lot of voters in TX that don't want the wall. Give em all 3 and dems have a very doable shot at winning there.

They will not do this, the $$$ does not care. Currently bernie is hanging around with perez using him for his own campaign donations probably. I don't trust perez, seems like a $$$ guy not a let's get votes guy. It's a shame, too many dems still on teh $$$ train rather than the voters. They could seriously crush the house in 18 if they went with door #2 rather than the pile of cash one. I get it, hard to turn down pile of cash but ffs.

Anyway, Illinois has started to turn deep blue. Some towns that never vote D have been flipped b/c lol trump. We'll see if that's a trend nationwide.

The guys on Pod Save America pointed something out this week that I would like to echo. People are complaining about the DCCC not spending on Kansas, and we can continue to put pressure on them for sure. But in the meantime there are plenty of ways to support progressive candidates directly. You can donate to their campaign directly, and you can also phone bank for them these days even if you're not local. You can support or start progressive orgs. like Indivisible. The best way to change the Democratic party is from the grassroots. We can't count on Tom Perez to save us or any single Democrat in Congress.

Purity tests definitely the way to go for an already splintering party.

Supporting progressive politicians isn't purity politics if it's an expression of your preferences. That's just normal politics.

In fairness, it's the party who's putting people up for tests and failing them.

Debate continues as the map turns redder.

I know a man. He says "Trump is awful, the worst. But I can't vote for Hillary: she's in Wall Street's pocket."

He doesn't vote.

He is complicit in Trump's victory.

Sure, but that's not the same as supporting progressive politicians.

Aye, 'honestly' is polite society's version of 'real talk'.

"Honestly" is a warning for 'I'm about to tell you something you're not going to like.'

It's probably bad for the Democratic Party and America, but I get the feeling that the Bernie/Perez unity and fellowship tour is going to produce a hilariously epic amount of shade and sniping.

Tom Perez is the leader of the Democratic Party, and Bernie Sanders is a guy who, for the last 40 years, rather than trying to organize within and shape his own vision of the party, has been actively working against and undermining it. I get why Perez is doing this because of Sanders' profile, but he left the Democratic Party as soon as it was no longer politically expedient for him to be a part of it.

Bernie sounds much more coherent than Perez in the video. It's clear why people like him better.

Cliffs: Perez dedicated to the party. Sanders dedicated to the American people.

Of course Perez is dedicated to the party! He's the ****ing head of it! It's a huge organization, with two centuries of history, experience, and infrastructure behind it, and if Bernie Sanders gave a **** about anyone who isn't named Bernie Sanders, he would work to improve the party. He doesn't, because he's an egotistical ******* who isn't interested in anything but self-aggrandizement.

And, to further belabor the point, the reason why Bernie Sanders isn't interested in working to build a sustainable infrastructure within the Democratic Party, to make it more progressive, and to pull the institution to the left, is because IT WOULD BENEFIT PEOPLE WHO AREN'T HIM AND HE DOESN'T GIVE A **** ABOUT ACTUALLY MOVING THE COUNTRY TO THE LEFT HE CARES ABOUT HIS OWN STATURE AS A CELEBRITY

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Lol "two centuries of history". You win the party prize for most fos.

So is the line of thinking that we'll move the country to the left by supporting the most right wing Democrats possible?

The part was started by Andrew Jackson, admittedly a racist, genocidal maniac, but still, more recently, it's had great presidents like FDR, JFK, and Barack Obama. There was another failed Presidential candidate from Vermont named Howard Dean, who after he lost the nomination in 2004, created Democracy for America. DFA has spent the last 13 years raising money for candidates, organizing for candidates, and electing candidates, up and down the ballot, all around the country. When you "care about America," that's how you do it. Not running a campaign, and as soon as you don't get your way, pack up your stuff, take your ball and go home.

Of course not. You support progressive candidates, but you actually support them. You raise money, organize volunteers, and get voters to the polls. What did Bernie Sanders do after he lost the nomination? What is he doing for candidates in special elections now?

The Democrats did crush the Republicans in the South, no one talks about this though.

Bernie was an independent before and after. We have a stupid system that makes it impossible to win outside the two parties. The American people and the whole world shouldn't have to suffer for that idiocy. So, if the party must be used, well **** yeah, use it.