as a weird roundabout way to tie 'establishment' candidates to an 'unpopular' dem president.

i talked about them tying beto to obama earlier in this post. i guess they backed themselves into a corner where they have to actually make obama seem bad now too.

just one problem.

obama has a *95%* approval rating among democrats and left office almost as popular as reagan overall.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38667115

one of my main issues with the 'progressive' movement is that its not really focused on coalition building like politicians like clinton (bill), obama, beto, etc. its more about the politics of exclusion/elimination and telling other candidates/voters theyre not as politically virtuous as you.

like 'progressives' say politicians like obama are not 'real democrats' ('any blue wont do')...as they bring out record numbers of democrats to vote and are loved overwhelmingly by the true base of the party lol.

the more you do shit like this...the more you galvanize the much larger mainstream party base against you. i mean...there are real people voting for the politicians you claim dont represent the party lol.

'establishment' democrats put together coalitions of dems/indies/crossover repubs to flip red senate seats in places like arizona and nevada. and came within a few votes per precinct of flipping a red senate seat in texas (+9 republican in 2016).

meanwhile 'progressives' could only flip one *district* from red to blue in *cali* in a democratic wave year.

if the 'progressive' movement really wants to grow into a viable *majority* force it has to start taking a big tent approach instead of a velvet rope approach.