Why I left the Democratic Party

The bank deregulation bill the Senate just passed, explained VOX

The above is a long read, but worth it as it gets into details. The bill should not have passed and the democrats should not have went along with it. The ones who did, 'coincidently' have received money from certain banks.

Speaking of some democrats, I am glad it is looking like Lamb won, only because we need more democrats to stop bills such as the above from coming to the floor in the first place. Also, Lamb is pro-union and thought the tax cuts were a give away to the rich. However, he is pro-gun rights and anti-abortion. So I am not sure.

We can't have everything in a candidate most of the time, I an aware. I don't know a lot about Lamb, so I won't have much to say about it just now.

I have a feeling about him after watching him for several days; which is why I was interested in his views.

And I take it that of the democrats who didn't vote for this bill, none of them received any money from banks?



Get sure. We need the majority.

Don't worry Edgar, you'll be able to complain about how horrible this Democrat is, despite him likely following his campaign promises and securing a victory in a district that has been republican for 15+ years.

You'll say that he's not representing his district when he doesn't align with the democratic party on all issues....when it's his district who won't align with the democrats on all issues.

He's not Bernie Sanders reincarnated, so you'll be forced to hate him and I'm sure, complain about ALL democrats until the end of your time.

Unless he is a stealth liberal (which wouldn't surprise me) based on his campaign, you're not going to like him once you get to know him. He's Pro-life, Pro-Second Amendment, Anti-Pelosi, Pro-Tax Cut, and Pro-Tariff. In short, a Trumpian Democrat. If he wins, it won't be a victory for progressivism...unless, as I wrote, he is a deceptive liar.

Regardless, his district will be gone in a year

I've heard a few progressives say that they're happy that some republican districts are becoming more 'left of center'...but when that happens, this is what it looks like. For my needs, it's just fine. I don't agree with this dude on everything, but he having a D next to his name helps my policy positions.

I just don't get how some people think...if they do.

I agree we need the majority, but that doesn't mean we got to accept any moderate democrat who comes to down the line. I don't dislike him completely because he is a union guy and he stated the tax cuts were give away to the rich. I can get by on the abortion, and he said he is for better background checks on guns. I would just wait to see how he stands on civil rights issues for all races, gender, religions, sexuality... and justice for the minorities in the justice system before supporting him if he ever runs for anything nationally. I know people claim those are "identity politics" but they are very important issues to me. Also, I don't know how he stands on health care and such issues.

That's essentially my take in the matter.

Ill accept any moderate Dem who can win and hold on to a seat in Republican country.

If it becomes national party policy then I’ll have a problem.

It's a little difficult to see how the victory of a candidate who walks, swims and quacks like a Republican means a district is becoming more "left of center" simply because he has a "D" next to his name. Especially when the genuine Republican is a real jerk and looks like an old math teacher when standing near the young Dem duck.

I take your point about it being fine with you though. It would be fine with me if the roles were reversed and there was no other choice. Even if Lamb doesn't reveal himself to be a progressive wolf, he is more than likely to very frequently vote with his caucus. Joe Manchin of WV is his clone in the Senate (or Lamb's the clone of Manchin), and Manchin votes with the Dems a lot more often than I suspect a great number of his voters expected based on his last campaign and his public comments. He's walking a tightrope and the only way his party will cut him any slack and not punish him is if he tows the line a lot more than his rhetoric would suggest. The same will happen with Lamb and so you'll have even more to be OK with than you might now think.

Nate Silver's often fascinating website "fivethirtyeight," has a section in which it reports on how members of Congress are voting in line with Trump. Manchin has voted in line with Trump 59.7% of the time, which may seem like a lot, however, Silver (or his team) predicted that he would do so 93.6% of the time based on Trump's margin of victory in WV.

Trump won Lamb's district by something like 20 percentage points so I would imagine Silver will predict a high percentage of Lamb's votes will be in line with Trump, however, I'll wager we'll see roughly the same actual results as we see with Manchin. Lamb will also have the benefit of knowing that he won't be running for re-election because his district would exist in a year.

You can call it representing the will of their voters or being unprincipled whores, but, including Manchin, there are four Dem Senators who have vote in line with Trump over 50% of the time and it's not surprising that the other three are from Indiana, South Dakota, and Alaska, where Doug Jones has voted in line with Trump over 60% of the time.

There are three Dems who are in line over 40% of the time. Claire McCaskill, who is hardly a Blue Dog, leads the way with 47% because Trump's margin in Missouri was 18.6. Bill Nelson of FL follows the profile at 40.9% but Virginia (a state that went for HRC) is a surprise at 43.3%

What's not a surprise is that every Dem Senator who is being talked about for the 2020 election has fully embraced #RESIST: Gillibrand of NY voted in line with Trump only 7.5% of the time. NY went big for HRC, but even still, Silver predicted 22.6% This clearly means that Gillibrand who may be more ambitious and less principled than HRC is casting a lot of votes simply to be on the record as opposing Trump. These are issues where most of her Dem colleagues are voting in line with Trump which strongly suggests they are bi-partisan matters, and she regularly votes against Silver's prediction of how likely she would be to agree with the "Trump position." For instance, Silver assessed that there was a 72% chance that she would agree with Trump on the December 7th bill that extended government funding for two weeks...she voted against it. The exact same pattern plays out for Elizabeth Warren, Corey Booker, Bernie Sanders and Kamala Harris.

If anyone is looking for courageous and principled Democrats (as wrongheaded as they may be) or arrogant schmucks who don't care what their constituents want Silver's list suggests: Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, Sherrod Brown of Ohio, and John Tester of Montana

On the Republican side of the leger are: Rand Paul of Kentucky, Marco Rubio of Florida, Corey Gardner of Colorado, Dean Heller of Nevada, Patrick Toomey of Pennsylvania, and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin

I won't run through the list of House Representatives but voting records can tell you some important things about these people.

Well, the more you learn about her, the more you wonder how she has managed to keep out of the limelight. I hope she loses in her re-election bid.

I have my limits of what I will accept as a democrat. I am not all anti-democrat or the newly branded "progressive left" but I still have my limits. Those limits don't really evolve around abortion and gun control laws quite as much as the issues I mentioned.

Read about a democrat in Michigan who is making the environment and race a big issue in his campaign for governor; he is labeled as an underdog. It was some interesting facts of how the air and water in poorer neighborhoods are affected by the pollution of factories and lead pipes and such like.

An Underdog In Michigan’s Governor Race Shows Dems How To Run On Climate Change(HuffPost)

Abdul El-Sayed is a freak who wants to violate the Second Amendment.

Underdog is a bit of an understatement. He has no chance of being nominated. The Republicans would love to run against him if they could however.

It would certainly good to be rid of a major proponent for violating the Second Amendment, but what is wrong with her support for the people who protect us from terrorists?

Janis posted this on Facebook about herself -

Janis Ian

It took me thirteen years and two attorneys to get my own, and my parents', FBI files. In the end, they were so redacted that it was next to impossible to learn anything other than that we had, indeed, been under surveillance from before I was born - because my father, then a chicken farmer, went to a farmer's meeting about the price of eggs. And because my mother, then a waitress, went to the Civil Rights Congress to work for voter registration. My father served in the army, and after his honorable discharge, went to college on the GI Bill. He graduated a teacher, but he was never able to get tenure. He blamed it on himself, but it turned out the FBI would visit any school he worked at when the opportunity for tenure came up, and tell the principal my father was being watched. For what? They didn't have to give a reason; they just had to make the suggestion.
Because of that, we moved every two years. By the time I left home at sixteen, I'd attended eight different schools.
It is difficult to forgive those thirteen years. What a different life we'd have led, if they'd only been able to defend themselves against the lies that were being spread about them by our own government.