2753

I know the district. I lived in it for years. Trust me when I tell you that Lipinski does not adequately represent the members of his district who are significantly more liberal than he is. The reason he maintains his seat is due to connections to the old Cook County machine politics that prevent him from receiving challengers.

He needs to go. And AOC and her group recruiting and assisting an actual liberal to oust Lipinski would be a very good thing.

This is the Democrat who has consistently voted against things like the ACA for example.

2754

Again, also realize that the press has a vested interest in blowing internal strife out of proportion, especially Fox News, where lots of these stories originate. Policy-wise, there’s not a single Democrat in Congress who I’d trade for a single Republican in Congress. And Democrats are shouldering the policy load for the whole country. They represent the vast majority of policy preferences, so necessarily have some gaps between members. Internal disagreements are expected. Fractious and inappropriate texts by staffers unsurprising. Clashes with leadership over caucus strategy wholly banal.

2755

Okay then grass root it. Don’t rely on infighting in Congress. Others uprooted incumbents before. You do that sort of thing during an election year. Nothing sends a more clear message that they are not doing their job then voting them out. You can’t just push them aside or ignore them while they’re there though. The only thing that tells everyone they don’t represent is when the voters send someone else, otherwise… it’s just talk.

I am in favor of ACA, but I will not oust someone from the Democratic party because of this. I do not expect Dems to vote 100% with each other all the time. That’s a sign of a party sickness.

2756

Well, I mean, the progressive caucus can’t actually elect anyone. They can just boost. And someone like AOC, who specifically mounted a challenge against in incumbent who was more conservative than his district, seems uniquely poised to identify similar districts and help similar efforts. Which is fine. I mean local politicians seek national endorsements every election.

2757

Call me stupid I guess, but I don’t see the point in protecting the seats of Dems who oppose the party platform if another Dem would win the seat easily and support the platform.

2758

What makes you think they oppose “the party platform”? And while you’re at it, define the party platform.

2759

Their votes against it?

2760

Umm, there was not vote a for or against a party platform. You just sent me a link to their marketing spiel. this is reality, real bills, real policy. You think if I went to the GOPs site they have in their party platform, put brown kids in cages?

Why do you think this person is actively working against the party platform as a whole and is somehow, deep down, really a Republican?

2761

I’d say voting with Trump and Republicans 1/3 of the time, including on things designed to protect big pharma from accountability due to opioid abuses, not promote police accountability, expanding border funding for ICE, etc would be the kind of things I would say go against the party.

And party platforms are designated at the conventions. We could look it up. EDIT: Scott looked it up.

If I was staying in that district, yeah, I would be working to oust him. But in 2016 I wasn’t fully aware of his problematic positions, and in 2018 he was running unopposed in the primary and against a literal nazi in the general.

2762

So 66% of the time, this person voted with the Dems? That’s higher than 33%. If the people they represent don’t like that, sure, run someone against them, but 66% for is better than 100% against. That person is not a Republican just using the information you gave me.

2763

@Nesrie let me be clear. I understand and even agree with your core point that it should be allowed for representatives of different views to be on the party. And that reps in conservative districts should not be targeted for being not liberal enough.

But I am saying there are certainly cases where reps treat their seat as birth right, and do not adequately express the will of their voters. And that they should not be allowed to go unchallenged. Raising primary challengers against such reps is not only good, but healthy.

See how that one rep, who has been unopposed and who has held the seat, along with his father, for 50 years, responded when challenged. He treated the seat as his right, how dare someone challenge him! Lipinski is the same. He holds he seat not because he earns it, but because the Cook County machine appointed him, and protects him from challenges. Like actual literal corruption, and he is one of the last vestiges of it. Challenge him, force him to defend the seat. And if he still wins it at least he will earn it.

And I never said he was a republican, or as bad as one. Just that he is a bad representative that needs to be challenged.

2764

The point of the link was to illustrate that the platform is not undefined, and of course a vote against a bill that advances a plank of the platform is a vote ‘against the platform’, in plain language. The Dems in 2008 surely ran on something like the ACA, and it was part of their platform (and remains so), and Dems who won seats and then voted against the ACA should go pound sand and make room for better Dems to take those seats.

2765

I understand.

Let me put this in a different way. ACA has been around for roughly 10 years. Votes are public records. Our system of government might be completely screwed up in some areas but not all.

If the majority of people felt this way in that area, they can actually do something about it… but they haven’t have they? Just because someone verbally says something doesn’t mean they will actually vote that way.

Right now, that person represents their area because they put them there. Whether it feels right, seems right, is right… doesn’t matter. Enough people are keeping them in their seat. We don’t have birthrights, and sure maybe some of that is just lazy voting, but the only thing stopping someone from challenging a seat is someone not signing up to do it. You can say money too, sure, but the person who spends that most doesn’t always win, and that’s what fundraising is for. If someone wants to fight the established or the establishment… it’s going to be hard, expensive but if the majority support it, well they’d vote for it.

The fact that no one challenges him… that’s a message itself.

2766

It’s almost like there is something stopping other Dems from successfully challenging such people. Some kind of reaction to such challenges, like coordinated party leadership attacks on those who challenge or aid challengers. But that doesn’t happen, right?

2767

You’re feeling awfully helpless within your own party.

Those leaders can’t stop me from voting. Do they stop you? They don’t control me, and they don’t control you. There is nothing stopping you or me or anyone else from supporting a new comer.

2768

If they prevent challenges by e.g. withholding campaign money, you don’t get the opportunity to vote on the challenge. I don’t really grasp why you want to defend this particular party behavior, but by all means enjoy yourself.

2769

You do not ask for permission. You do not ask for handouts. You do not rely on the establishment to help you oust the establishment. You don’t go up to them and say please. You get infront of cameras. You wear out your shoes. You make them listen to you.

Some of our new comers did not get their slots by asking pretty please from those in charge. Passion. Hard work. Fundraising outside and within the power structure. If people really care about this stuff, you force the issue.

There are lot of groups that were not welcome at the table, for decades, as participants of our government. waiting around for campaign money from that establishment is not the answer to taking on the establishment.

I’m being told there is a group out there, a majority group, with a representative that does not work for them, and they stopped at well we asked for money and they said no. What?

2770

Daily Kos has a pretty great explanation of when and why they get involved in local primaries:

WE WANT TO RESPECT LOCAL VOTERS

Generally speaking, we don’t get involved in contested Democratic primaries, because we don’t want to be perceived as a huge national organization bigfooting into a local race and telling folks what to do—it’s not good for democracy or Daily Kos. But there are some important exceptions where it does make sense for Daily Kos to jump into primaries, which we’ll discuss below.

WE WANT TO STOP AWFUL DEMOCRATS

Fortunately, there aren’t too many truly crummy Democrats left in our party these days. But if there’s a particularly lousy Democratic incumbent who’s out-of-step with his or her constituents, and a good progressive comes along to challenge them, then we’ll consider getting involved. (One example would be stridently anti-choice Rep. Dan Lipinski, who represents a blue district in Illinois.) The same goes for awful Democrats running in primaries for open seats. These sort of races will only ever be a small part of our portfolio, though, because our main focus is always going to be defeating Republicans.

WE WANT TO BUILD OUR BENCH AND ELECT OFFICE-HOLDERS WHO LOOK LIKE THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY

While we’ve always wanted to elect more candidates from underrepresented communities, our biggest change in 2017 is that we are now making this a much higher priority. The backbone of the Democratic Party is made up of women, people of color, religious minorities, LGBT people, and everyone who isn’t a member of this country’s dominant class. We as a party can only hope to fully understand the concerns and meet the needs of these communities if we elect people from these communities. And when the demographics of our elected officials start to better reflect the demographics of our voters, that will motivate our voters that much more—and make them feel good about staying with the party.

This means that we expect to get more involved in Democratic primaries, particularly since it’s often harder for candidates from underrepresented communities to obtain the resources they need to compete early enough. And it’s not about choosing ideological favorites or saying we have an objection to the other candidates in these primaries. Rather, it’s about building our bench—and a more inclusive Democratic Party. The folks who win races for state legislature eventually go on to run for the House, then the Senate, then the presidency. We want to help build up that pipeline of good candidates.

As noted above, though, we aren’t going to tromp into local races uninvited. If and when we detect real grassroots enthusiasm behind a particular candidate, then will we get involved.

2771

AOC got contributions from the SEIU, Columbia University, Justice Democrats, the AFT, UAW, NEA, MoveOn, and CPC among others. No one wins a Congressional campaign, particularly against an entrenched incumbent, without asking for money. What do you mean by “the establishment” in this case?

2772

I am referring specifically to the “withholding campaign money” statement. If she went to Columbia and asked for money, and they gave it to her, well I don’t see how the person she is challenging and the people behind them can stop that. I assume that is some sort of statement about DNC… maybe.

There are other places to get money.