I think we need to take optics into account. Obama isn't going to be in office anymore. The Clintons will be away from politics as well. So who are the Republicans going to tie Democratic house and senate candidates to? Nancy Pelosi, a wealthy, establishment figure representing a wealthy, liberal San Francisco district. The attack ads in rural, middle America districts practically write themselves. Would these Democratic house candidates get attacked by Republicans trying to compare them to Tim Ryan, an Ohio representative- representing a struggling area- who took on the establishment? Doubtful. Republicans don't win because they're on the right side of policy. They win because they're smarter with their attacks and they know how to play the game. Democrats don't have many efficient attack dogs, they fold too easily, and they don't know how to play the game. We won't find our way back if we can't take back the house (and we have been hemorrhaging seats the last handful of years.) Time to reflect and change.

But many will want to stick with a losing playbook

That would have created greater contrast between Trump and the Dem.

Yes, Corey Booker, he of school vouchers and vulture capitalism.

rest of the time, he reminds me of the 'gore = bush' types of 2000

You gotta compartmentalize him. Or get him to stop talking electoral politics...

He still has a good track record on many issues, like criminal justice reform but he can easily get the "neo-liberal" label going by some purist progressive standards... and yet Shaun would support him.

Who says any of this was supposed to make sense though ....

i think everyone has some negatives, and people need to stop hoping that a fairy princess will rescue them.

"people need to stop hoping that a fairy princess will rescue them."

Gosh yes.

Booker isn't the kind of guy that would embrace MMT, for example. He's great on many, many other issues though but he's an *actual* neoliberal/economic centrist and supports charters (which I think are deeply problematic to say the least), and those are issues I'd love to push him to the left on. Not that I wouldn't support him as a nominee though.

... despite her voting record.

Gabbard and Ryan are both conservative (by democratic standards) ... yet for whatever reason they are deemed "OK" by many of the purgers.

In Ryan's case, like you, I understand that some districts are NOT going to vote for truly progressive Democrats.

I can recall Northern Michigan was represented by Bart Stupak (a conservative dem/ personally anti-choice), when he decided not to run (to the glee of many progressives) he was replaced by a far, far, right tea-bagging nut job. Some areas are simplt not going to vote for a progressive

Because she endorsed Senator Sanders.

Doesn't matter what her record or positions are. That's what the litmus test for some.

She essentially became a blank slate for us to project "progressive" values on.

Pelosi, the life long liberal/progressive is 'bad' because she is old (fresh blood argument) and from SAN Francisco, so allegedly Middle Americans hate her. No matter that the last part is a Republican talking point. Our Ryan supporters were quite happy to embrace it.

Ryan also benefits from the blank slate effect. We can project progressive values on him because we don't know much about him. Being anti-Pelosi made him automatically "progressive" to some.

Most people outside of the House Democratic Caucus hadn't heard of Tim Ryan, and his challenge was backed mainly by Upper Midwest Dems, many of whom were centrists rather than progressive.

This wasn't a huge grassroots thing.

that the alternative is psychopathic Randians and Trumpers running the government.

The Ryan vs Pelosi think is somewhat parallel to the Trump vs Clinton thing--people may recognize that the senior candidate has superior expertise and qualifications, but feel like things need to change and that staying the same is the one thing we can't afford to do.



Not a perfect parallel obviously, but Pelosi has become the symbol of the Democratic Party's gerontocracy much like Clinton became a symbol for the party's reliance on the urban professional class.

this was around the time of his senate election and how he was a fighter and all that shit unlike the democrats in office now.

he has switched on that issue also.

looks like he has some plans for higher office. we already saw it with him trying to replace Pelosi .

I bet he runs for president in 2020 .

There are significantly more votes to gain from the center than there are on the far left.

For example, I don't see 100% progressive candidates winning in many red states. They will likely have to be more moderate on certain issues.

I am a bit biased here since I am a Catholic, pro-life Democrat so I am an example of somebody who does not fit the progressive bill completely. I accept that the national party may never be perfect in my eyes but I do think that there is room to work with people within the party on issues where we have common ground.