Politics isn’t nearly this simple. This is your opinion, but it’s not a fact.
And IIRC, the tea party did in fact push out numerous Republicans – whether or not they’re “moderate” will depend on who’s asking.
It’s been the consistent theme of everything you’ve written in this thread. Here’s you saying it again a few hours after you asked this:
Also, the Tea Party was much more a symptom of awfulness within the GOP than a cause. Lots of Republicans are awful and stupid, and thus the Tea Party happened. If it hadn’t been the Tea Party, then those most-awful and stupidest among the Republicans would have made the party more awful and more stupid in some other way. Louie Gohmert and Steve King were around for years before the Tea Party started.
Whether or not they hurt the Republican party is also a matter of opinion based on your definition of opinion. Plenty of folks prefer this batshit crazy version of the Republican party. What they did (and what the Justice Democrats want to do) is turn the party into a more extreme version of itself.
AOC is apparently edging towards sanity, the Justice Democrats not so much.
So all the Justice Democrat successes were the result of smart people being smart and all the tea party success was just dumb luck?
That sounds like opinion, unfounded opinion.
Yes! Our disagreement is entirely one of opinion.
The Justice democrats can lead to a disfunctional party and still not be anywhere close to being as bad as the tea party.
Just because they both meet the standard of stupid and shitty doesn’t mean they are equally stupid and shitty.
And of course there is no awfulness in the Democratic party?
Every instance of awfulness in the Democratic party is an aberration and every instance of awfulness in the Republican party is representative?
I have not asserted this.
Nor have I asserted this.
Not entirely.
But at this point you have already conceded that the justice democrats are the tea party of the left except their agenda is more palatable to you than the tea party was so all that is left is our difference in opinion about whether pushing the Democratic party to where the Justice Democrats would like to take them is a good idea.
You like them and i think they’re batshit crazy.
No I haven’t – I don’t believe they’re any more “the tea party of the left” than the yellow dogs, blue dogs, progressives, or any other group. Some overlap in some political tactics is indicative of nothing more than that nothing in politics is really new – all of this has been done before, in some form of other. Political groups often use similar tactics. This is not at all notable or significant.
None of those others advocated primarying incumbent Democrats (diverting resources that could be better spent elsewhere to fight off an insurgency of left wing lunatics).
The Justice Democrats are not trying to nudge the Democratic party. They are trying to hijack it. They basically admit as much with their “we’re a party within a party” schtick.
What a joke! They haven’t cost the party a single seat. Come back to me when they’ve actually done something bad, rather than the good they’ve done by challenging shitty Democrats in safe blue seats (and beating at least one – Lipinski).
Why was Crowley a “shitty” Democrat?
I mean AOC was a Justice Democrat candidate, right?
Or does that not count because you say it doesn’t?
You are basically saying that the party now has to spend resources defending Democrats in safe blue seats or see them replaced with Justice Democrats. Ask Pelosi how much of a fucking pain in the ass they were as she fought a two front was against Trump on the right and the Justice Democrats on the left.
You don’t have to cost Democrats a single seat to be hijackers. We will see how the Justice Democrats crowd behave during the general election. Lets see if they’re Democrats or just socialist parasites trying to hijack the Democrats.
Okay, shitty Democrats plus an upgrade on an okay Democrat. An improvement there - certainly no harm to the party. The party is stronger with AOC then without her.
They haven’t done any of these scary things you’re worried about. No seats have been lost.
This is just baseless fear. You’ve offered nothing but your opinion that you don’t like AOC and her allies. That’s fine, but it’s just your opinion.
At this point yes, we are better off with her than without her. She has backed off from the most destructive elements of the Justice Democrat platform (primarying mainstream democrats to install left wingers) and sure there is plenty of room for left wingers, some districts are famous for electing radical lefties on a regular basis.
Forcing primary battles are part of the Justice Democrat platform. Seats don’t have to be lost to hurt the Democratic party. If you for resources to be spent fighting a war against the left as well as the right, then it is bad for Democrats.
No it’s not just opinion, it is the Justice democrat platform.
I no longer object to AOC. She seems to be maturing quickly enough to be taken seriously. I don’t agree with her on everything but I probably agree with her more than I agree with most Republicans.
You don’t have a single idea what Mussolini meant by “corporations” in that context.
Your hypothesis is that the Justice Democrats will hurt the party by diverting resources. But that’s just a hypothesis. Maybe they’ll find better fundraisers, like AOC, who blow away the dull Democrats they replace. Maybe the enthusiasm they inspire will result in better turnout. We don’t know. But all you’ve offered is a hypothesis, and I don’t buy it.
Now who is hypothesizing? You dismiss the 90% event in favor of the 10% event.
Sure there might be another AOC waiting in the wings but any future AOC type would be cannibalizing AOC’s fundraising if they had really good fundraising. Her fundraising is as much a result of Trump’s repugnance as it is her appeal.
You don’t have to buy it. Facts don’t stop being facts because you choose not to believe them.
The Justice Democrats platform includes ousting mainstream Democrats in districts where a more progressive Democrat can be nominated with their help. That means that moderates have to rally around other mainstream Democrats to prevent the party from being hijacked by wingnuts.
I make no prediction. I like AOC and her allies, and hope they continue to do well in the party. I hope the party becomes more like them. You disagree. But you’ve failed to convince me that you’re right and I’m wrong, and for some reason you’re having trouble accepting that this is just a disagreement in our opinion of these politicians.
You haven’t offered a single fact that conflicts with my support for AOC and her allies.
The second sentence doesn’t follow the first – “wingnuts” is certainly not a factual assertion. That’s your opinion, and you’ve failed to convince that it’s anything more than just an opinion.
We can disagree about politicians. We should not disagree about facts.
FACT: The Justice Democrats targetted a very progressive/liberal congressman only to replace him with an even MORE liberal congressman.
FACT The Justice Democrats intend to keep doing this, except now the Mainstream Democrats have to take them seriously and this will cause resources to be diverted to protect those seats from the socialist insurgents.
FACT: This will not lead to deep blue seats being turned red but the diversion of resources as the mainstream democrats fight a war on two fronts will hamper their ability to fund battles in swing districts.
If there is an actual bad politician somewhere then sure go ahead and primary him or her. We should be doing that already. But when you primary a good Democrat like Joe Crowley and then crow about it, that says something about you.
I’ve been saying the above three things for a while now. You seem to think that facts are only opinions if those facts are inconvenient.
Yes it does if the mainstream Democrats don’t want their party to be hijacked by wingnuts (wingnuts is my characterization, called them socialists if you like).