the problem is the one person that is reliably talking **** is A) in the house and B) not born in the US, in Ted Lieu.if you follow his twitter he is constantly calling out trump and others in the administration. he's also the one that played the audio of the kids in the house meeting until he was thrown out. and yesterday used his 5 minutes to say what a farce the FBI hearing was and how republicans were deplorable.

the centrist dems already said they would vote no on it i saw. so it worked for republicans they get to use it as a "look at the crazy dems!!" propaganda.

" We elect limp dick olds to leadership positions while the GOP has Mitch who basically eviscerates Dems like it's nothing."

It ain't like Mitch is a young fierce tiger type - more like a hammerhead shark. But your point is well taken. It's like watching a kindergartner lose his lunch money day after day after day.....

"While GOP voters fall in line we rely on pretty much every demographic that can't get their ****ing ass to the poll or register on time."

I've noted before one of the (few) benefits to being old is that you get to see the same thing over and over again. The dems were going to change the world with the young vote in 1972. McGovern won one state - partially because turnout sucked, partially because he shot himself in the foot over and over again. And partially because the dem establishment were fine with Nixon winning as long as they kept their 6-figure bull**** jobs in DC. The dem establishment did less than nothing to help McGovern, and gave us the most venal scumbag president ever.

As long as Schumer, Pelosi and Feinstein are the heavy hitters, it's tough to see things improving. It isn't like THEY lose anything if the GOP rolls the dems again - they're locked in to their cushy spots.The best hope is that Trump continues to be so repulsive/incompetent that he dampens turnout enough on the right and gins up turnout on the left to flip Congress. He is capable of doing that, hopefully....

MM MD

So that's not good

McGovern's big issue was Vietnam War, but many people in the Democratic Party, the Party of Lyndon Johnson and John F Kennedy, were plenty hawkish on the war, the same way many people of the party of Bill Clinton are plenty hawkish on the border.

Aren't older and more male opposing demos?

I don't think big v small states have much different gender ratios. (Aside from AK)

And you could change the names to Mondale and Reagan and the story is the same.

Ok, but Kevin de Leon has been a big deal in the CA Dem party for a while now. It's cool, and it's a shocker, but not *that* big a shocker.

Yeah, he won't win, but at least it's a sign that California dem politics is moving left.

I guess, but he's been in the CA Senate/Assembly for 14 years and as Pres of the Senate he's in the top 3 or so Dems in the state party. The CA dems are pretty far left already in many/most Dem districts, though our statewide officeholders are often moderate or conservative Dems (on certain issues anyway.)

I wonder if a lot of Republicans strategically vote for more conservative Dems since the GOP has so little chance in statewide elections.

I think it's a shocker. At least, I'm shocked. SJ Mercury News:

No endorsement "in the name of party unity" is absolutely what I would have expected from the party, or maybe even outright endorsing Feinstein in a "how dare you challenge an incumbent!" sort of snub. Sixty five percent being like "**** that, we're going with the guy who doesn't suck" is pretty stunning to me.

Interesting feature article in this weeks Economist about the Democratic party - viewed from the prism of a Brit, I suppose. In an oversimplified summary, a lot of their argument is that the GOP would rather win than be right, and the dems would rather be right than win - which has obvious implications for winning elections. The Economist is obviously default conservative (not in the Trumpkin sense - they can't stop laughing at him), but I thought it was informative to get a take from outside the fishbowl.

MM MD

House Democrats unveil a new slogan for the midterm elections, and it's......good?

"Universal Health Care"

fixed it for them

No, you fixed it for America, but not for dems apparently

I've got a better slogan for Democrats 2018.

"We Work For You"

rofl

those pesky california and NY economies that are clearly inefficient and being propped up.. which would be something like the 8th and 10th largest economies in THE WORLD.

I guess we'll never know because wages never go up.

Why do you bother finding a graph when you're talking to people who already know what you're talking about? You know that we all know that the recession started at the end of the Bush term and the recovery occurred during the Obama years and is continuing during the Trump years. Obama didn't just decide to lower wages on a whim just like Trump isn't continuing the recovery through sheer willpower. It's because Presidents don't have much personal control over the economy. But legislation that has systematic effects do.

So I'm curious if you know that we know that why bother and try to say otherwise?

This seems about right. I don't know how'd you'd put it in a candidate's platform because apparently telling the Fed that they're doing it wrong is taboo

https://www.epi.org/blog/a-long-spel...nopsony-power/

Just in case you thought these people might finally engage with reality in the wake of this administration:

‘It’s the president we all want’: The melancholy world of liberals watching ‘The West Wing’ in 2018

At this point it seems shocking that 24 (which aired around the same time as The West Wing) was actually closer to reality in terms of how the presidency works.