It is the Ides of March…

Bernie, who is conveniently not a Democrat when people (centrists and leftists) want him to not be a Democrat, wins Democratic primaries. He’s not even in the party and he’s the supposed example of true leftism opposed to neoliberal centrism, and he still wins the primaries. He could go it alone in a three way race like you wanted, and the all-powerful DNC could rig his primary so he’d be out of their hair for good, but weirdly both don’t. Because in the end it’s just the votes that matter and winning a primary to clear a lane and then winning a 1-on-1 against the conservatives is easier and more effective.

And no, those things aren’t rigging. Opposing coalitions of centrists using their social influence or even antagonistic organizations spending money on advertising does not mean the vote is unfair. And neither of those things go away if you just decide to make a new party. However you label yourselves, you need to be ready and able to beat that.

And people do! AIPAC wanted Omar out too. The party establishment never wanted AOC to win. They both had less money and less influence than the forces arrayed against them, and they won by just doing good politics and convincing regular people to vote for them. Because whatever money and machine politics was against them, the thing that counts is still just votes.

If the Republicans wanted that they’d have done it.

Why? AOC wins primaries, Omar wins primaries, Bernie wins primaries (for his senate seat). Unless you think they only cheat for the presidency, this “primaries are rigged” view seems like roughly the same level of conspiracy as the MAGAs.

What’s the conspiracy that’s so undefeatable it’s easier to build a new party from scratch that needs to overcome vote splitting in every election?

Removed by mod

Yeah, but they will anyway, because they’d rather split the vote than let progressives win. Dunno why you think that’s the case at every other point along the way but that they’ll just bow to higher goals when someone is much more explicitly trying to eat their lunch.

At least winning a primary means trying to split the vote will go against the normies feelings of fairness and “the team”.

Lol, wut? There are like three other breaking news topics on this and the NY Post doesn’t have any special access with Democrats. They’re reporting on other reporting. Why post hack conservative papers for news about Democrats?

Ah, a liberal turns right in what they think is a political masterstroke to defang conservative attacks, conservatives don’t care and still attack anyway. Who could have foreseen this development!

Guess the only answer is to turn right to adapt to the new attack.

Yeah, if this was going to be his read, he could have come to that conclusion before the House stood unified in opposition. Turning at the last minute is the worst way to handle it.

I’m pretty sure anything the NYPost has uncovered about Democrats will also be published in a less terrible paper.

Well I expect to hear some real bullshit in my response telling Brian Schatz to publicly fight Chuck Schumer (because I assumed he wasn’t on the "leave the House out to dry nonsense). He’s usually a passable senator, but he’s been more disappointing lately and I’m general he doesn’t really have the fortitude to actually lead on anything.

The one time he actually sticks his neck out and it’s just to be a lapdog for an unpopular decision by leadership.

Children getting an education isn’t a gift to the parents, it’s part of just having a society. No one benefits when children are kept from basic learning. That’s why it’s usually not an optional thing.

Yes, he was involved in organizing all but one of the Democratic caucus members to vote against it. And the one vote they lost wasn’t the difference in it passing. That was pretty close to the maximal amount of opposition for the thing you’re pretending to be angry about.

I’m assuming that you’re trying to do some kind of bit, but it’s too confused a character to actually have an underlying statement or joke.

When people complain about bans for seemingly absurd reasons with little elaboration, they’re usually leaving out pertinent information. Like it was a sub ban in something like /r/publicschoolteachers and they JAQed off on a topic about teachers being stretched thin to buy school goods for their students because the council cut funding.

Honestly, for a question like “have you lost confidence in Chuck Schumer”, anything but a “no” is a pretty harsh response. That’s not a question that’s supposed to have two equally valid answers. If someone asks you “do you love your wife” and the answer is “next question”, you didn’t really dodge the question.

Not to get in the way of someone not voting for Hakeem Jefferies, but he’s in the House, which voted nearly unanimously (one breakaway) against the CR.

A witness told police that a man threw gasoline on the Tesla, lit it on fire and then ran off.

Sounds like another battery fire to me. Those things are notoriously unreliable.

If they wanted a shutdown, they have every ability to make that happen. If a couple of House Republicans opposed it, it would have failed to pass. They didn’t because people are going to blame Republicans for it (or at least were before Schumer mucked up the story).

And they can’t fund it bit by but. The executive can decide how to allocate remaining funds and order some people to work without pay, but turning stuff back on for the long term takes Congress and the Republicans have a single budget vote this year that can be Republican-only.

Finally, if this was the end conclusion of The Adult In The Room, all of it was true before the House voted. This isn’t the end game of a serious thinker, this is Schumer blowing up the game after his colleagues have already taken the risk of voting no across the board. He should be fired for that alone.

deleted by creator

Another good quote:

“I don’t think they knew who Chuck Schumer was before today,” the lawmaker said. “But they know now and they hate him.”