Why I left the Democratic Party

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/03/democrats-can-run-the-connor-lamb-strategy-over-and-over.html

more at link

http://www.newsweek.com/why-dccc-backing-former-nra-supporter-over-first-time-black-woman-candidate-840691
When Tanzie Youngblood announced her congressional bid for New Jersey’s 2nd District, she thought she’d easily win the support of local, and even national, Democrats. A year with a record number of women running for office, a promising blue wave and the #MeToo movement seemed perfect for her progressive campaign.

Youngblood—a retired school teacher and first-time black female candidate—figured the primary race might get crowded after 12-time Republican incumbent Frank LoBiondo announced his retirement in November. But she never anticipated that the ones attempting to sink her campaign wouldn’t be her primary opponents, but the Democratic establishment itself.

Last month, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee threw its weight behind Jeff Van Drew, a New Jersey state senator with a 100 percent rating from the National Rifle Association. Van Drew once accepted a $1,000 donation from the group, and has been dubbed one of the “most conservative Democrats” in the New Jersey legislature, a moniker he's earned for having co-sponsored legislation to bring back the state’s death penalty for certain murder convictions, and require parental notification for minors seeking abortions. He was also one of just two state Senate Democrats to vote against same-sex marriage in 2012.

This district went for Trump 50%-46% in the last election. It did vote for Obama the 2 elections before that, and then went for Bush in 2004. Seems like a pretty moderate district.

That may have something to do with this choice.

Janis Ian
2 hrs ·
Regarding what I said in an earlier post about the FBI's unwarranted attention during my youth, and their attempts to destroy my father's career as a teacher, I want to be very clear. This was a different era, and a different FBI.
I believe the current FBI is being targeted by our administration because the FBI is actually doing its proper work, and attempting to root out possibly treasonous activities on the part of current government officials and their families. With the firing of Andrew McCabe, the administration just proves that the FBI are doing their job, and that somewhere, there IS proof of collusion and potentially treasonous activities in the name of "good business." With the Trump organization's filing of $20 million in lawsuits against Stormy Daniels, and the continued attempts to shut up the more than 25 women (so far) who've come forward with allegations of sexual misconduct by Donald Trump, the entire administration has shown its willingness to support any kind of degradation in order to pretend our president and his cronies aren't the beasts they are.
If these people had any sense of decency, they would walk out en masse, and tell the world what they've witnessed.
But with the (mainly) Republicans in Congress refusing to turn their backs - indeed, actively continuing to court him - it just goes to show that our entire political system is geared to the preservation of the powers-that-be and their never-ending attempts to destroy our country's infrastructure, rape our natural resources, and destroy our children.

This is a riot.

So the FBI that abused their authority to persecute her father somewhere along the line got cleaned up (Probably once Obama took office), couldn't possibly be guilty of the same behavior as respects a politician she despises.

This is what I love about liberals like Janis Ian.

I wouldn't be surprised if at some point in her career she was singing songs about Salvadoran Death Squads created by the CIA raping and murdering nuns, but once Obama was elected all of the ghouls were replaced with Jack and Jill Armstrong types.

I just posted that because she said it. I never trusted government agencies like the FBI, CIA, or the rest, since I've been old enough to know what they are. At one level, they do their job, but there are many levels that seem to slip by accountability.

A bad move by the DNC, I hope it doesn't affect Youngblood's chances, she seems like a good candidate to me. The other guy is too conservative for my taste just going by your post.

In cases like this I am relying on the word of others. It is reported in too many situations to always be wrong.

Didn't refer to you edgar or your reason for posting it, but I believe you when you say you haven't experienced the conversion Ian has over the FBI.

Sounds like sour grapes to me. The DNC can't support every candidate and they seem to have made a decision to support moderate to conservative Dems in districts where they feel they need to recover Trump voting Democrats.

It may be, as someone in the article suggested, that those voters are lost forever, but if they are not, running Youngblood will push them further away. It's a strategy that seems to have worked in PA. with Lamb so it's not crazy.

The party can double down on the left-wing ideology of its progressive segment and continue to lose seats that are in play or it can run the candidates with a shot at winning, but who still have a "D" next to their name. A majority in the House and Senate with a handful of Blue Dogs will get more Democrat agenda items accomplished than an ideologically "pure" minority.

Personally, I wish they would follow the advice of folks like you and edgar, but you seem to think people like Youngblood can win in red districts. Do you think one would have had the same victory than Lamb pulled off?

Perez is the Chair of the DNC and he sure sounds like a left-winger. Either he's a figurehead only or not quite as ideologically pure as he would like you to believe.

in that case they should probably let someone less conservative run - they've got wiggle room of 10 - 20%

What would be the good of having a majority in either the house or senate or both if those so called blue dogs end up voting with republicans most of the time?

Ding ding ding!!!!

We have a winner.

Because they won't. Check out the voting records of people like Joe Manchin, but far be it from me to try an persuade you to support Dem candidates who can win in Red districts and States. By all means, stay ideologically pure.

I will check out their voting records, I am assuming their records are why they are deemed conservative democrats in the first place.

Jeff Van Drew - (D) New Jersey
State Senator - New Jersey Senate District 01 Bill Track

He seems good on the environment but very conservative on a lot of other issues concerning child custody and underage pregnancy and abortion and other such issues and voted that way.

Being a conservative blue dog democrat is not the real issue. The real issue is what are their specific votes. All issues don't have the same level of importance. All votes don't have the same level of importance. Certain votes are much more important to me than other votes. I suspect most Americans have certain issues and certain votes that are more important to them than other votes. All issues and all votes are not treated equally, just as they shouldn't be. Some votes may make me unhappy, but some votes may make me pissed. There is a difference.

I think it's more what they say in public

The bluest blue dog will vote with Dems at least 40% of the time but if the Dems don't hold the majority it doesn't much matter how they vote. Susan Collins often drives me nuts but I prefer her holding her seat to a Dem.

Your point is an excellent one. I didn't particularly like former Nebraska senator Ben Nelson, because he was a conservative democrat from a conservative state. His vote gave the dems the 60 vote filerbuster proof vote to pass Obamacare into law. If there was a republican holding that seat at that time, Obamacare would not have passed. Although, I didn't care much for Ben Nelson, I am glad he held that senate seat at that time to make that deciding vote.