Are you referring to a specific candidate here?

>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

Sure. And the party should use that popularity.


But, its okay to admit Obama the President didn't equal Obama the candidate.

And learn from that. And address it.

And I think that, as the primary goes on, the question of "how will you accomplish x when Obama couldn't?" is a fair question.



I'm not saying its right or even smart to shit on Obama. But, if there are critiques to be made and/or questions to ask, we can't label that person 'progressive'


>
>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.

This is where I get lost on who you mean by 'progressive'...because I don't think your generalization is fair.

Are you talking about Bernie Bros?


>
>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.

Again, I'm not sure who are fighting here, specifically. And, who is the "politician like Obama" in this case? Beto? Kamala?

Also, you just said "the true base of the party"...isn't that a divisive statement? How is that different than saying "true Democrat"?

Both sides in this do it.


>
>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).

Obviously, there are other factors to consider than their status as establishment or 'progressive' as you put it.

In general, voters had tangible reasons to vote Democrat last cycle. The party needs to continue to communicate those reasons.


Also...Reeq...are you saying Dems need to chase Republican votes in 2020? You seemingly have gone back and forth on that.

And, anyway, that didn't work in 16.




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

Obviously more than one progressive won in 2018. It is your definition of 'progressive' that loses me.

But, I hope you aren't claiming that progressive energy didn't deliver huge wins in 18.

>
>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.

How would that look? Because part of the issue is the party runs to the center too often.

And how can these 'progressives' take a big tent approach, when they are told they aren't the "real base of the party" etc?