What part? Be specific?Yes, you're fine with the system?
What part? Be specific?Yes, you're fine with the system?
If progressive candidates win they win. You sound like a child. Grow up a little.
like i said....democants are Losers with a capital L.
just make way for progressives to come thru and kick over the buildings and turn them into Winners.
![]()
Let's say sabotage was too strong a word.Wheres' the sabotage?
Someone should ask Levi if he wants the DCCC money or if he wants the DCCC not to fund anyone.Let's say sabotage was too strong a word.
Since it's supposed to be about winning let's look at it from a strategic standpoint. Doesn't it make sense to wait until after someone has proven they can win a primary before putting all your resources and backing behind them. If someone can win a primary on their own without any backing or nudging then wouldn't they be very likely to be able to win a general election with support?
So win the primary then.Yeah, the issue is handpicking who you support in a primary when you're not very good at it.
its hilarious. Basically, Lee Fang at the Intercept wants you to believe that candidates are only progressive if he approves of themso you have a problem with the system in general. OK.
But this is happening with both democrat and republican primaries.
Ironically the Candidate backed by the DCCC is poling ahead of the incumbent and he also supports campaign finance reform.
triggered......now shut the hell up.If progressive candidates win they win. You sound like a child. Grow up a little.
Corporate money in politics.What part? Be specific?
How about not owing anyone and let them fight it out without any support until the general? Otherwise, the process of the primary looks unfair and people can point it out.So win the primary then.
The DCCC doesn't owe everyone running for the Democratic ticket funding.
We can agree on that, but we seem to be moving a long way from the initial premise of this thread.Corporate money in politics.
The why and the how is not missing. watch the entire thing. And first off we already know WHY they make these choices or choose these picks. and we know how. he just said it, the decision is made and the money starts to flow towards that person. simple as that.The voter is on the ballot.
The voter is able to fundraising.
The voter is able to run ads.
This is just his form of campaigning and nothing more. And it's his right to campaign as dirty as he'd like.
What’s missing from this is a why and a how.
Suggesting politicians shouldnt support people they agree with during the primary seems like an odd ask.
But I'm willing to listen.
Any look at the polling numbers?
The why and the how is not missing. watch the entire thing. And first off we already know WHY they make these choices or choose these picks. and we know how. he just said it, the decision is made and the money starts to flow towards that person. simple as that.
In order to beat an established dem with this kind of shenanigans going on. you will have to be a super hero or rich.
it's not just this race. watch the entire video. which i know you didnt because you responded to quickly. this is not the short 4 min sketch video. it's them talking about this video and the overall theme of whats going on.The DCCC is supporting progressives in some races.
They just aren't in this one because the candidate that has raised the most money, has been polling ahead of the incumbent for months has accepted their help and following along with the guidelines that comes with that.
Framing this as against progressivism is off base especially considering this guys platform is left of Hillary.