Berniacs Need To Grow TF Up

[oznabrag]

Somebody was complaining about how his precious Bernie doesn't get any respect and that "we are expected to bend for the 'kinder, gentler - tho still corporatist' party.. ".


I call bullspit.

Maybe, instead of the incessant whinging and victimhood-milking, instead of complaining that the Democratic Party doesn't represent your views, instead of leeching off the Democratic Party and making a cuckolder's plaything of it every four years, why don't you start your own party?

Seriously.

Y'all keep running out these statistics about how all your great ideas are supported in every county in the Union, so go get 'em, sport!

I have been say for years that the Republican Party is nothing less than a seditious cabal, bent upon the destruction of liberal democracy. The Republican Party is so utterly corrupted and insane that they no longer bear any resemblance whatsoever to 'conservatism' or even 'republicanism', and they are self-destructing as we speak. The Republican Party is soon to become either the new, authoritarian gangster government, complete with mass graves and bulging political prisons, or they will quickly become irrelevant.

You already regard the Democratic Party as the Bride Of Satan, and they're only going to get more conservative as the Republican Party devolves into a mass of flesh eating bacteria, in a feeding frenzy upon itself.

The left of the spectrum is WIDE OPEN, so put on your big boy pants and form a new party, or kwitcherbitchin'.

That is all.

[johnw]

Bored, Oz? Cruisin' for a fight?

[SKIP KILPATRICK]

Can't we all just get along?

[Ian McColgin]

OK, I've been a democratic radical community organizer, unpaid as a kid from age 14, as a college and grad student 19 to 24, and that's my profession ever since, one way or another.

I was trained by many, from Saul Alinsky to Bill Pastreich, and a primo notion was always that partisan politics are a septic drain that take people down. I don't fully subscribe to totally ignoring party politics and I do my bit for the Democratic Party, but, as with tenant unions and co-ops and so on I've been part of getting off, I know that human institutions are, like all of us human, born of sin.

My Oklahoma grandmother gave her life to the suffrage and temperance movements and very late in her life she told me that women voting and prohibition did not end war, poverty, and oppression - nothing would but it was still worth it. Good does not always triumph and evil does not triumph forever.

And that's what I try to help the fervid Bernistas learn - If you can't stand any compromise, depart this earth. If you can't stand the compromises of political action, stick to basic community empowerment and hope for the best. If you don't mind a bit of sin, levin your local organizing with some party action. Whatever, just take your place somewhere.

[Durnik]

compromise, cooperate, cave.. 3 'C's'.

diffs, discuss.

here's fodder.

Nina Turner, ... told me she has no appetite for the choice she faces: “It’s like saying to somebody, ‘You have a bowl of *poo in front of you, and all you’ve got to do is eat half of it instead of the whole thing.’ It’s still *poo.”



*poo > little kid word because some grownups can't handle the real one.

[David G]

OK, I've been a democratic radical community organizer, unpaid as a kid from age 14, as a college and grad student 19 to 24, and that's my profession ever since, one way or another.

I was trained by many, from Saul Alinsky to Bill Pastreich, and a primo notion was always that partisan politics are a septic drain that take people down. I don't fully subscribe to totally ignoring party politics and I do my bit for the Democratic Party, but, as with tenant unions and co-ops and so on I've been part of getting off, I know that human institutions are, like all of us human, born of sin.

My Oklahoma grandmother gave her life to the suffrage and temperance movements and very late in her life she told me that women voting and prohibition did not end war, poverty, and oppression - nothing would but it was still worth it. Good does not always triumph and evil does not triumph forever.

And that's what I try to help the fervid Bernistas learn - If you can't stand any compromise, depart this earth. If you can't stand the compromises of political action, stick to basic community empowerment and hope for the best. If you don't mind a bit of sin, levin your local organizing with some party action. Whatever, just take your place somewhere.

[johnw]

Face it, if they're electable, they're unacceptable.

[SMARTINSEN]

Moar popcorn

[Nicholas Scheuer]

He and AOC, plus the other three silent AOC Sheep should make for some compelling politics, if only it would attract a constituency beyond Vermont.

[WI-Tom]

Somebody was complaining about how his precious Bernie doesn't get any respect and that "we are expected to bend for the 'kinder, gentler - tho still corporatist' party.. ".


I call bullspit.

My party, right or wrong, eh?

That's never been a vision I could get behind, but you go ahead and knock yourself out. Meanwhile, you and I both vote the same anyway.

Tom

[WI-Tom]

Who here is arguing that?

OK, it would be more accurate to say "Love it or leave it" than "My party, right or wrong."

Maybe, instead of the incessant whinging and victimhood-milking, instead of complaining that the Democratic Party doesn't represent your views, instead of leeching off the Democratic Party and making a cuckolder's plaything of it every four years, why don't you start your own party?

But the one quite plausibly follows from the other.

By leaving out an obvious third option--critique the party in an attempt to transform it into something better--oz gets pretty close to that "my party, right or wrong" ideology. Pretty close, or perhaps a little ways past the line and well into it.

Tom

[oznabrag]

compromise, cooperate, cave.. 3 'C's'.

diffs, discuss.

here's fodder.

Nina Turner, ... told me she has no appetite for the choice she faces: “It’s like saying to somebody, ‘You have a bowl of *poo in front of you, and all you’ve got to do is eat half of it instead of the whole thing.’ It’s still *poo.”



*poo > little kid word because some grownups can't handle the real one.

Victimhood milking.

I guess you gotta stick with your strengths.

You're not required to eat ANY poo, but if you want candidates that reflect your positions, you DO need to start a new, leftist party.

Your analysis of the Ds is correct. It has become a champion of moderate, right-of-center politics.

Are you gonna whine about it for another fifty years, or are you going to work on something new?

My party, right or wrong, eh?

That's never been a vision I could get behind, but you go ahead and knock yourself out. Meanwhile, you and I both vote the same anyway.

Tom

For an English teacher, you sure have a crippled reading comprehension.

And a shameful dependency upon the Straw Man argument.

Not one, single word or phrase in your response is based upon anything remotely connected to my OP.

It's like trying to have a rational discussion with a hard-boiled, orange trumpista.

IF you are capable of understanding the OP, I'd like to hear your thoughts ON THAT SUBJECT.

If your raison is to cling desperately to the idea that the Democratic Party is a bowl of poo that you are being forced to eat, you'll find spoons over by the serving line, and the poo-eaters table is against the far wall.

If you would like to have your political views represented on the national stage then, with the ongoing collapse of the Insano-Fascist Party and the continued expansion of the Democratic party into the vacuum left by that collapse, you are being presented with a golden, historically-unprecedented opportunity to spread your wings and create a powerful progressive movement.

Your own posts have continually hammered on the fact that your progressive ideas are well-received in every county in the land.

You have also hammered on the claim that large swaths of Democrats are tired of the same old bowl of poo on the Democratic chow line.

Assuming you don't LIKE poo, your choices are to take the Berniacs, add the disgruntled/disgusted Democrats, wake up the 35% of voters who have succumbed to apathy and cynicism, and go kick some fascist butt, OR you can whine about how unfair it all is.

[John Smith]

I think Bernie is simply a poor salesman for some good ideas.

I also think Republicans are great at defining people, including Bernie.

What are his primary objectives? Universal health insurance? Higher minimum wage? I can see where many would think they're bad ideas.

[oznabrag]

OK, it would be more accurate to say "Love it or leave it" than "My party, right or wrong."



But the one quite plausibly follows from the other.

By leaving out an obvious third option--critique the party in an attempt to transform it into something better--oz gets pretty close to that "my party, right or wrong" ideology. Pretty close, or perhaps a little ways past the line and well into it.

Tom

One huge helping of poo you're trying to serve up there.

Trying to transform the Democratic Party into 'something better' is a lost cause.

Not only is it a lost cause, YOU CONSTANTLY SHOUT FROM THE ROOFTOPS THAT IT IS A LOST CAUSE.

You really seem to be solidly in your comfort zone screaming its a lost cause and whining about it all the while.

If you were 5, it might be cute.

You NEVER 'critique the party', all you ever do is whine about it.

With the collapse of the Republican Party and the rightward creep of the D's, this is the moment . . . well, assuming the country doesn't descend into political chaos on January 20th . . .

THIS IS THE MOMENT, but you'd rather whine than do.

[oznabrag]

Who here is arguing, 'Love it or leave it'?

Why rephrase and then attack your own rephrasing?

Why not dispense with rephrasing altogether?

He's a slave to the Straw Man.

[WI-Tom]

You're not required to eat ANY poo, but if you want candidates that reflect your positions, you DO need to start a new, leftist party.

That's complete and utter nonsense. It's quite common throughout history for organizations and political parties to be changed by activists acting within the organization. So, that's a "pants on fire" rating on the fact check.

When you spout cr@p that is so blatantly incorrect, that damages your credibility.

You can damage it further by doubling down. Or you can post a retraction. Which will it be?

Tom

[oznabrag]

But, if they are successful in creating a robust third national party, it will split the Dem vote, and open up an 8-lane highway for the right to win national races.

It will be Nader and Sanders and Perot on steroids.

They will be highly successful in giving a warm, comfortable place for their own identity, but they will fail in making real change.

That said, wouldn't it be better for the progressives to embrace the Democratic party, shout from the rooftops, 'This is my party, love it or leave it, right or wrong!' and try to push the party left?

They can't do that, can they? Why? Because they can't shed their personal identity, it is too important to them to embrace that they are not like everyone else.

The 'right' is wrong, for one thing.

Trump has factionalized the Republican Party, and I think they are either going to actually pull off this coup (it ain't over until the wooden stake is driven home, after all) . . . They're either going to pull off this coup, or they're going to split into a dozen factions and sink into political obscurity, punctuated with fitful, sporadic acts of domestic terrorism.

In my opinion, the Sane Republicans will vote D.

This will further alienate the progressives.

If a moderate, LEFT of center party emerges, with 70%+ top marginal tax rates, a wealth tax, sweeping justice reform, jailing of traitors, universal health care and FU to those who profit from human misery . . .

Just lay it all out there and DARE the oppressive bursteds to say us nay.

I think the key is NOT Left or Right, but the apathetic, cynical, less-than-affluent center.

Wake up the non-voters, and see your enemies driven before you and the lamentations of their women.

On the 'identity' front, are you saying it's like this?

[Too Little Time]

But, if they are successful in creating a robust third national party, it will split the Dem vote, and open up an 8-lane highway for the right to win national races.

That is the problem.

But it is unnecessary. The Demographics of the parties change fairly fast. The Demographics of the country change fast. It takes a desire for the political parties to change. The Democrats seem happy to move right.

[WI-Tom]

For an English teacher, you sure have a crippled reading comprehension.

And a shameful dependency upon the Straw Man argument.

Yep, I definitely need to work on getting a "straw man" thread posted so people can learn what it actually is--the term gets flung around with abandon, but rarely with any accuracy. But I'll save that for later.

Not one, single word or phrase in your response is based upon anything remotely connected to my OP.

Well, see, that's simply not true. Here's why:

For one thing, during the course of the discussion, I already modified my original comment when objections were raised.

OK, it would be more accurate to say "Love it or leave it" than "My party, right or wrong."

Assuming you're not going to post blatant inaccuracies again, that IS an accurate summation of your OP.

OK, so then what? Then, someone with good reading comprehension--an English teacher, for example--would think about the implications and logically necessary inferences deriving from the "love it or leave it" ideology you profess. Unavoidable associations of "love it or leave it" with a long history of reactionary and often violent hostility to various acts of protest might come to mind.

Read this, and replace "America" with "the Democratic party" each time it occurs, and you'll end up with a valid critique of your position, oz:

In the late 1960s that phrase [love it or leave it] became a popular declaration targeting Vietnam war protesters, whose opposition took forms as extreme as burning the American flag.Those who supported the war, or just disliked protesters, saw this as a rejection of America itself.

Had this been followed by an objective, open-minded discussion, it could have been explained that in most cases, burning the flag and other provocative acts were not rejections of America. They were assertions that America has a vital creed and values it was not upholding.

There was rarely, however, an objective, open-minded discussion. More often there were verbal or physical confrontations whose visceral furor matched or surpassed the anger in today’s political dialogue.
Accordingly, it was frequently suggested that those who burned the flag, demonstrated against the war or in some cases simply opposed the war should move elsewhere if they didn’t like the way America does business.
Merle Haggard, another extraordinary artist, put it more bluntly in “The Fightin’ Side of Me”: “If you don’t love it, leave it / Let this song that I’m singin’ be a warning. . . .”

Country singer Ernest Tubb — an artist with a marvelous body of work — recorded a Jimmie Helms song titled “It’s America” that went like this: “It’s America, you got no right to deceive it / It’s the best there is, you’d better believe it / Good men gave their lives so we could live to see it / It’s America, love it or leave it.”

Now, how did I get from "love it or leave it" (which IS your clearly stated position) to "my party, right or wrong"?

You agree with Durnik's assessment of the Democratic party:

compromise, cooperate, cave.. 3 'C's'.
...
Nina Turner, ... told me she has no appetite for the choice she faces: “It’s like saying to somebody, ‘You have a bowl of *poo in front of you, and all you’ve got to do is eat half of it instead of the whole thing.’ It’s still *poo.”

As indicated by your explicitly posting your agreement:

Your analysis of the Ds is correct. It has become a champion of moderate, right-of-center politics.

But you rant and rave about anyone who criticizes the party for its shortcomings, and have not (as far as I know) left the party to start your own in an attempt to deal with those shortcomings. Instead, you attack those who are critical of the party for reasons you've already identified as legitimate.

That is the very essence of "My party, right or wrong" as far as I can see.

So, a possibility to consider:

Instead of having "a crippled reading comprehension" as you so eloquently suggested, it may be that my comprehension is deeper and more comprehensive than yours, allowing me to understand not only the ideas you state explicitly, but ALSO to understand the unavoidable implications that must, logically, follow.

One last question: did the writer have you in mind when writing this? If not, you fit perfectly:

More often there were verbal or physical confrontations whose visceral furor matched or surpassed the anger in today’s political dialogue.

“Love it or leave it,” in 2019 as in 1968, is the call of the playground bully, someone who hopes to win by intimidation

Source for all:

https://dhinckley.medium.com/love-it...y-9fcf028b0cc4

Happy New Year!

Tom

[Keith Wilson]

My party, right or wrong, eh?

OK, it would be more accurate to say "Love it or leave it" than "My party, right or wrong."

Straw man fallacy - or false dichotomy, or maybe a bit of both. Yes, it is. There are other perfectly good alternatives. While we both might wish that the structure of US politics allowed more parties, with governing coalitions, it doesn't. Despite Garbanzo's rant, a serious new party to the left of the current Democratic party runs a serious risk of destroying both, and handing control to the Republicans for a long time - and under current circumstances, that is not a prospect I wish to contemplate.

[WI-Tom]

Straw man fallacy - or false dichotomy, or maybe a bit of both. Yes, it is.

Nope. Read post #24.

By the way, you're not only wrong, but your decision to simply say (in essence) "You're wrong" without explanation is the height of condescension.

An intellectually lazy dodge around having an actual discussion. I wonder why no one has posted a thread about that? Hmm...

Tom

[Art Haberland]

OK, it would be more accurate to say "Love it or leave it" than "My party, right or wrong."



But the one quite plausibly follows from the other.

By leaving out an obvious third option--critique the party in an attempt to transform it into something better--oz gets pretty close to that "my party, right or wrong" ideology. Pretty close, or perhaps a little ways past the line and well into it.

Tom

That is the problem with Bernie and his followers. They are "independants", therefor they do not try to influence any part. If his followers joined the DNC and worked hard from within it, they could shift the course more leftward. Sitting outside the community and the discussion and complaining that the DNC is too corporatist is lazy politics at best. Either band together and make your own party or jump in and make the change from within. All politics is local!

[Keith Wilson]

Damn, Tom, you're ornery this morning (not quite as ornery as Oznabrag, but that's a high standard ). I added some more while you were posting, although you probably won't agree with that either.

[CWSmith]

Let's be honest, when Sanders voters stayed home in the general election 4 years ago, they helped give the election to Trump. This was nothing more than a temper tantrum by people who did not get their way. (And I did not like Clinton. I voted for Sanders in the primary and Clinton in the general election because that is what I had to do.) They illustrate how the Democratic Party fails to get things done and AOC is cut from the same cloth. I often agree with her, but I don't admire her behavior.

[WI-Tom]

Straw man fallacy - or false dichotomy, or maybe a bit of both. Yes, it is. There are other perfectly good alternatives. While we both might wish that the structure of US politics allowed more parties, with governing coalitions, it doesn't. Despite Garbanzo's rant, a serious new party to the left of the current Democratic party runs a serious risk of destroying both, and handing control to the Republicans for a long time - and under current circumstances, that is not a prospect I wish to contemplate.

You are now arguing that splitting the party would be a bad tactical/strategical move. I haven's said anything to suggest I disagree with you, nor have I advocated for starting a new party. So, how does that support your claim (which I've said is false) that I'm using a straw man? It strikes me as irrelevant to the matter under discussion.

The false dichotomy, by the way, belongs to oznabrag. From what I understand, to him, it's an either/or: you either split the party, OR you refrain from criticizing its shortcomings and toe the line. All I am doing is point out the validity of a third option: believe in the Democratic party's traditional commitment (or lip service) to progressive values and policies, and be thoughtfully critical of the party when it fails to live up to those values.

So, am I "ornery"? Nah, not really. But you still haven't justified your "straw man" accusation. I took great pains to lay out my thinking to show how I got to the conclusions I posted.

Tom

[WI-Tom]

That is the problem with Bernie and his followers. They are "independants", therefor they do not try to influence any part. If his followers joined the DNC and worked hard from within it, they could shift the course more leftward. Sitting outside the community and the discussion and complaining that the DNC is too corporatist is lazy politics at best. Either band together and make your own party or jump in and make the change from within. All politics is local!

I don't think that's accurate, Art. Sanders has had a broad influence on the party, A quick Google search and a few headlines make that clear:

-Bernie's Influence on U.S. Politics Historic Despite Failed Campaign (Business Week)

-Sanders' Presidential Campaign Had An Impact On Democratic Party (NPR)

Etc. etc.

Tom

[WI-Tom]

Let's be honest, when Sanders voters stayed home in the general election 4 years ago, they helped give the election to Trump. This was nothing more than a temper tantrum by people who did not get their way. (And I did not like Clinton. I voted for Sanders in the primary and Clinton in the general election because that is what I had to do.) They illustrate how the Democratic Party fails to get things done and AOC is cut from the same cloth. I often agree with her, but I don't admire her behavior.

Another at least equally valid way of looking at it:

If the vast majority of Sanders' supporters had NOT voted for Clinton in 2016, she would have lost the popular vote AND the electoral vote. Had she not underperformed in other areas as well, she might have won both.

Tom

[Keith Wilson]

So, how does that support your claim (which I've said is false) that I'm using a straw man? It strikes me as irrelevant to the matter under discussion.

OK, thinking about it a little more - no, never mind. It's a nice day, the sun is shining, the temperature's rising, and I think there are better things I could be doing than arguing politics on the WBF. You may be right.

[David G]

My party, right or wrong, eh?

That's never been a vision I could get behind, but you go ahead and knock yourself out. Meanwhile, you and I both vote the same anyway.

Tom

Who here is arguing that?

Don't pay TOO much attention. I think he's just piling up easily accessed examples for his promised thread on the Straw Man Fallacy.

[oznabrag]

Straw man fallacy - or false dichotomy, or maybe a bit of both. Yes, it is. There are other perfectly good alternatives. While we both might wish that the structure of US politics allowed more parties, with governing coalitions, it doesn't. Despite Garbanzo's rant, a serious new party to the left of the current Democratic party runs a serious risk of destroying both, and handing control to the Republicans for a long time - and under current circumstances, that is not a prospect I wish to contemplate.

In response to this inflammatory thread, Mister Wilson, I am grateful for your trying to be reasonable.



There is such a danger.

As far as the recent Presidential election went, sane people must agree that any vote not for the Democratic Party was a vote for fascism.

Simples.

The Berniacs are spot on in their views well over 60% of the time, so the questions become 'Why are they such crappy leaders?', and 'The Bernie Approach is deeply and fundamentally flawed because?'

Because it's not the message that's the problem, it's the coding.

Our resident Berniacs have the brains to understand the code, so they're impatient with people who don't have the processing power to 'read' it.

This makes them come off as 'elitist' and 'arrogant'.

Maybe even 'whiny'.

Mind you, I'm aware that this insight is not any sort of solution, beyond an observation of the condition and characteristics of the problem.

And there IS a problem.*

I think the math looks like you wake up half the sleeping masses and get them to the polls, make an initial swipe at the Democratic Party of maybe 30%, collect most of the Libertarians with decriminalizing weed,

And the rest of it is simple, really, which almost never means 'easy', but simple nonetheless.

The most frustrating thing to me is that I can see this unfolding.

The changes I am saying will happen have already happened.

The Republican Party will eat itself, the Democratic Party will move just another touch right to absorb what's left of the sane Republicans and alienate the progressive Democrats, thereby creating a MASSIVE chunk of the electorate feeling pretty outraged.

I see these changes as inevitable, and if the Berniacs want a once-in-a-millenium chance to make a difference and actually prove that liberal democracy really IS the best, then it's never going to be better pickings than right now, ever in their lifetimes or their children's lifetimes, either.

Asking the Democratic Party to withdraw from the Right is to ask them to be irresponsible. They are sane, after all, and rejecting them would leave all those resources in the hands of madmen, fascists and bigots. It is only Democratic power that has kept the engines of commerce propelling this country in a more or less prosperous line since the Great Depression.

There needs to be a home for the SANE center-right person, and the Democratic Party is that home.

Clearly.



__________________________________________




*My father was driving his family on a picnic Sunday in rural Georgia, and got turned around on the back roads, so he stopped to ask directions.

There he was, standing at the side of the road and arguing with a man about what was the right way to get to the new picnic spot.

Remarkable.

That man had lived within a few miles of there for 50-odd years, yet my father seemed to know better.

The frustration grew, as the man failed to grasp that Dad was actually and fundamentally confused. On that day, his orientation to the map was cuckoo. Whacked.

So the guy ends the conversation by asking 'If you know so much, why ain't you the President?'





, which is of course worth probably less than what you paid for it,

[CWSmith]

Another at least equally valid way of looking at it:

If the vast majority of Sanders' supporters had NOT voted for Clinton in 2016, she would have lost the popular vote AND the electoral vote. Had she not underperformed in other areas as well, she might have won both.

Tom

I think you let them both off the hook to easily. Too many Sanders voters stayed home to the point that it became news. Clinton was an AWFUL candidate and made huge mistakes. There are a lot of "what ifs" we can play, but the bottom line is that there are too many snowflakes in the Democratic Party who can't play with others when they don't get their way. Marching in lock step is the strength of the Republican Party and while I do not like where they go with it, we need to admit it wins elections.

[David G]

Tom - you don't really NEED to stock up. When it comes time... there are LOTS of good examples available <G>

[Paul Pless]

does bernie even matter any more?

he’ll never run for president again, he’s lost his nationwide soapbox

[David G]

does bernie even matter any more?

he’ll never run for president again, he’s lost his nationwide soapbox

He has name recognition. And a broader appeal now than ever, methinks. He COULD use it to good effect. I hope he does.

[oznabrag]

You are now arguing that splitting the party would be a bad tactical/strategical move. I haven's said anything to suggest I disagree with you, nor have I advocated for starting a new party.

You should be.

So, how does that support your claim (which I've said is false) that I'm using a straw man? It strikes me as irrelevant to the matter under discussion.

The false dichotomy, by the way, belongs to oznabrag. From what I understand, to him, it's an either/or: you either split the party, OR you refrain from criticizing its shortcomings and toe the line.

Well, THERE'S yer problem!

During this past election, the only thing that mattered was to stop Trump.

There are four years 'til the next election.

There will not be another such an opportunity to assert progressive power in your lifetime.

The simple fact of the matter is that progressive policy is centrist policy, no matter what the Republicans and Democrats say.

The PROBLEM has been getting enough votes to make it happen.

That's because the moneyed interests are scared spitless.

The 'splitting the vote' thing is a curious beast.

If the R's and D's are up to their necks in Big Money, it is THEIR votes that are split.

Four years, if the Insano-Americans don't manage to burn it all down on the 20th.

You've even got a practice run in 2022.

I can see Abrams as quite likely to be the first woman elected President.

All I am doing is point out the validity of a third option: believe in the Democratic party's traditional commitment (or lip service) to progressive values and policies, and be thoughtfully critical of the party when it fails to live up to those values.

So, am I "ornery"? Nah, not really. But you still haven't justified your "straw man" accusation. I took great pains to lay out my thinking to show how I got to the conclusions I posted.

Tom

This strategy is a loser.

Proven loser.

The Ds are center right, by your own declaration, and we must let them be what they are.

Far, far better to have Democrats as the right-of-center-power-that-is than to have freakin' Louie Gohmert.

Furthermore, let the Ds go to war with the Rs.

Given the incandescent chaos those treacherous bursteds have descended into, The Ds will almost certainly win that fight. Meanwhile, the Ps will have established their cred, and amassed a bloc of voters enough to carry the elections.

Oh, and AOC needs to sit down and shut up, until we can all figure out why what she's doing isn't working.

Because it's not working. Not on a national scale, anyway.