Short excerpt below from a really long article. The audio is in the linked article. It doesn't play as scandalous, but rather just smug and gross. The fucked up thing is that all Tillemann is asking is for DCCC to keep their thumb off the scale in the primary, not to back him instead of Crow.

I don't think that this strategy is really going to be a productive one for actually accomplishing anything politically. It was fun as hell when Doug Jones won, but he's voted for bank deregulation, to continue US support for the war in Yemen, and has indicated more recently that he plans to vote to confirm Mike Pompeo. Maybe Jones was the only Dem who could have beaten Moore, but it'd be swell if he had more going for him than "not a child molester" but that seems to be the limit of the DCCC's interest.

https://theintercept.com/2018/04/26/steny-hoyer-audio-levi-tillemann/

In a frank and wide-ranging conversation, Hoyer laid down the law for Tillemann. The decision, Tillemann was told, had been made long ago. It wasn’t personal, Hoyer insisted, and there was nothing uniquely unfair being done to Tillemann, he explained: This is how the party does it everywhere.

Tillemann had heard the argument before from D.C. insiders and local Democratic bigwigs, all of whom had discouraged him from challenging the establishment favorite. The only difference was that for this conversation, the candidate had his phone set to record.

The secretly taped audio recording, released here for the first time, reveals how senior Democratic officials have worked to crush competitive primaries and steer political resources, money, and other support to hand-picked candidates in key races across the country, long before the party publicly announces a preference. The invisible assistance boosts the preferred candidate in fundraising and endorsements, and then that fundraising success and those endorsements are used to justify national party support. Meanwhile, opponents of the party’s unspoken pick are driven into paranoia, wondering if they are merely imagining that unseen hands are working against them.

Hoyer bluntly told Tillemann that it wasn’t his imagination, and that mobilizing support for one Democratic candidate over another in a primary isn’t unusual. Rep. Ben Ray Luján, D-N.M., chair of the DCCC, has a “policy that early on, we’d try to agree on a candidate who we thought could win the general and give the candidate all the help we could give them,” Hoyer told Tillemann matter-of-factly.

“Yeah, I’m for Crow,” Hoyer explained. “I am for Crow because a judgment was made very early on. I didn’t know Crow. I didn’t participate in the decision. But a decision was made early on by the Colorado delegation,” he said, referencing the three House Democrats elected from Colorado.

“So your position is, a decision was made very early on before voters had a say, and that’s fine because the DCCC knows better than the voters of the 6th Congressional District, and we should line up behind that candidate,” asked Tillemann during the conversation.

“That’s certainly a consequence of our decision,” responded Hoyer.

“Staying out of primaries sounds small-D democratic, very intellectual, and very interesting,” said Hoyer. “But if you stay out of primaries, and somebody wins in the primary who can’t possibly win in the general,” the Maryland representative said, citing the surprise victory of Democrat Doug Jones over Republican Roy Moore in the Alabama Senate election, “I’m not saying you’re that person.” But staying out of primaries, he argued, is “not very smart strategy.”

______________________________

"Walleye, a lot of things are going to go wrong in your life that technically aren't your fault. Always remember that this doesn't make you any less of an idiot"

--Walleye's Dad

And while all politics are national, not all politicians are
Doug Jones is the current best representative of his state
How far should the pendalum swing from Jeff Session in less than two years?

------
“There is no fate that cannot be surmounted by scorn.” -Albert Camus

getting a dem senator in the reddest state in the nation who even votes with dems 70%+ of the time is a damn near miracle. better than the more likely repub who will vote with dems almost 0% and actively work against a dem/progressive agenda 100%.

Demanding that the US stop participating in this isn't a morally complex issue.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/yemen-united-nations-cholera-famine-war-houthi-rebels-saudi-arabia/

U.N. warned "we should all feel deeply guilty" as Yemenis die
Share Tweet Reddit Flipboard Email
Last Updated Jul 13, 2017 8:31 AM EDT

UNITED NATIONS -- The cholera epidemic raging across war-torn Yemen -- already the worst outbreak of the disease in the world -- grew dramatically worse over the past month, United Nations officials warned the Security Council on Wednesday.

The United Nations has sounded alarm bells before, but few as dramatic as humanitarian relief coordinator Stephen O'Brien's warning that "millions of Yemeni civilians -- women, children and men -- continue to be exposed to unfathomable pain and suffering" due to famine and the cholera epidemic.

Yemen, a large and impoverished country located at the southern tip of the Arabian Peninsula, has been engulfed in civil war for almost three years. The battle is between Iranian-backed Shiite Muslim rebels, known as Houthis, and the internationally recognized government of President Abed-Rabbo Mansour Hadi. The U.S. government has backed a controversially aggressive Saudi Arabia-led offensive against the Houthis.

U.S. may be "guilty of war crimes" in Yemen, expert warns
In addition to the thousands of deaths blamed on the fighting, the war has left Yemen in chaos. The simultaneous power vacuum and crippling of Yemen's already-weak health and security infrastructures have enabled al Qaeda and ISIS affiliates to operate, albeit under threat of U.S. airstrike, and unleashed a tsunami of starvation and disease.

The face of famine
"Nearly 16 million people do not have access to adequate water, sanitation and hygiene, and more than 320,000 suspected cholera cases have been reported," O'Brien, the Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator, told the Council, appearing even more worried than last week, when he first released some of the figures on the dire situation.

With relief agencies unable to deliver aid amid regular airstrikes and fighting on the ground, O'Brien said seven million people -- including 2.3 million malnourished children under the age of five -- are on the "cusp of famine."

"The international community must do more," he said, "We should all feel deeply guilty… This cholera scandal is entirely manmade by the conflicting parties and those beyond Yemen's borders who are leading, supplying, fighting and perpetuating the fear and fighting."

Human rights groups have documented large-scale human rights violations by both sides in the conflict. Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and several U.N. agencies have accused Saudi and allied jets, and the Houthis of targeting hospitals, schools, markets and residential buildings.

An International Committee of the Red Cross report published this week documents more than 300,000 suspected cases of cholera in Yemen, where only 45 percent of hospitals are functioning. The U.N. children's protection agency UNICEF says kids are the most vulnerable in the cholera outbreak.

Alon Ben-Meir, professor of international relations at the Center for Global Affairs at New York University, has called for Security Council action to focus on negotiating a ceasefire deal.

China's Ambassador Liu Jieyi, as the President of the Security Council for the month of July, read a statement agreed to by the Council, saying the members support a "political solution as the only way to end the conflict in Yemen."

"The Council members do see eye to eye with each other on the gravity of the situation," Liu said.

The Secretary-General's Special Envoy for Yemen, Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed, who leaves for Cairo on Thursday to encourage negotiation between the fighting parties, told the Council before his trip that the humanitarian situation in Yemen is "appalling."

"The people are suffering from war, hunger and cholera, which has spread further during the last few weeks," he said on Wednesday, "History will not judge kindly those who have used the war to increase their influence or profit."

______________________________

"Walleye, a lot of things are going to go wrong in your life that technically aren't your fault. Always remember that this doesn't make you any less of an idiot"

--Walleye's Dad

_______________________________________

He's a miserable ghoul, but The Party said he was the best we could do (just like Crow in the original post, and etc.) so we have to take their word on it. And definitely don't try to hold him accountable at all. Asking the US not to help other countries commit war crimes makes you a divisive Puritan.

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/379392-senate-sides-with-trump-on-providing-saudi-military-support

Senate sides with Trump on providing Saudi military support
BY JORDAIN CARNEY - 03/20/18 05:08 PM EDT

The Senate on Tuesday rejected an effort to force President Trump to end the U.S. military's support for Saudi Arabia's bombing operations in Yemen.

Senators voted 55-44 to table the resolution, effectively killing it.

The resolution, spearheaded by Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), would require Trump to withdraw any troops in “or affecting" Yemen within 30 days unless they are fighting al Qaeda.

Senate Republicans who voted against tabling the measure included Lee, Susan Collins (Maine), Steve Daines (Mont.), Jerry Moran (Kansas) and Rand Paul (Ky.).

Democrats Christopher Coons (Del.), Catherine Cortez Masto (Nev.), Joe Donnelly (Ind.), Heidi Heitkamp (N.D.), Doug Jones (Ala.), Joe Manchin (W.Va.), Bob Menendez (N.J.), Bill Nelson (Fla.), Jack Reed (R.I.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.) voted with the majority to table the measure.

The vote marks a victory for the administration, which lobbied hard against the resolution.

Defense Secretary James Mattis urged Republicans to oppose the resolution during a closed-door lunch just hours ahead of the vote. And administration officials briefed all senators late last week to tout the U.S.-Saudi relationship.

“New restrictions on this limited U.S. military support could increase civilian casualties, jeopardize cooperation with our partners on counterterrorism and reduce our influence with the Saudis,” Mattis wrote in a letter to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) last week.

The United States has provided support for the Saudi campaign in Yemen's years-long civil war, including military advisers helping Saudi forces target enemies in Yemen for attack and U.S. planes refueling Saudi-led bombers on combat missions.

But senators have signaled growing concerns about the level of civilian casualties. The United Nations estimates that 10,000 people have been killed.

“This war in Yemen has killed tens of thousands of innocent civilians, human beings, lest we forget. Each one of them possessing innate, immeasurable worth and dignity. This was has created refugees, orphans, widows,” Lee said.

Supporters of the resolution argue that too much power on foreign policy has been ceded to the executive branch and Congress needs to sign off on military action in Yemen. The Sanders-Murphy-Lee resolution would require congressional approval for future operations.

“It is Congress that has the power to declare war. The founding fathers gave the power to authorize military conflicts to Congress … not the president,” Sanders said. “For far too long, Congress under Democratic and Republican administrations has abdicated its constitutional role in authorizing war.”

But supporters faced an uphill battle in the Senate where other efforts to place restrictions on the U.S.’s support for Saudi Arabia’s military action have fallen short. For example, last year, a resolution to block part of Trump’s $110 billion arms sale narrowly failed.

Murphy acknowledged that votes on the Democratic side remained “fluid” with members weighing whether or not to set a “new precedent.”

Menendez noted the Foreign Relations Committee, where he is the top Democrat, “has the jurisdiction over the questions of the use of force.”

“As we consider this resolution, we must fully grasp the situation on the ground and the scope of the attacks on one of our traditional security partners. Saudi Arabia has endured Yemeni-originated attacks inside its territory on a scale that no American would accept,” he said.

GOP leadership publicly lined up against the resolution ahead of Tuesday’s vote.

“Withdrawing U.S. support would increase, not decrease, the risk of civilian casualties. And it would signal that we are not serious about containing Iran or its proxies," McConnell said.

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) added that the resolution should go back through the committee process, calling the move to bring it straight to the floor “very unusual.”

“Not all of us are as up to speed on the details of this or what the unintended impact might be as the Foreign Relations Committee that’s set up for the purpose of examining legislation,” he said.

Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) noted that he and other lawmakers met with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman on Tuesday and “strongly pushed back on what is happening right now in Yemen and asked them to take strong corrective actions.”

He added the Senate Foreign Relations Committee will hold a hearing on Yemen in coming weeks, as well as markup a war authorization bill next month.

“We plan to have a Yemen hearing in the next few weeks to deal with this issue, but also to take up appropriate legislation. That is the way that we typically deal with issues of such importance,” he said.

He added that the way the forthcoming authorization for the use of military force bill is being constructed “when we go into new countries, when we take on new groups, the Senate would have the ability to weigh in on those issues.”

Sens. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) and Todd Young (R-Ind.) separately introduced legislation that would require the State Department to certify that Saudi Arabia is working in “good faith” to try to negotiate an end to Yemen’s civil war and alleviate the humanitarian crisis.

If the secretary of State couldn’t make that certification, then steep restrictions would be placed on using U.S. funds to refuel Saudi-coalition aircraft.

Young added on Tuesday that the Lee-Murphy-Sanders resolution is the “wrong approach.”

“ resolution sidesteps the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, doesn’t lead to the short of fulsome debate,” he said. “The legislation is never going to become law. It will never become law. It’s an exercise in messaging.”

The Senate vote came just hours after Trump met with bin Salman, who is visiting Washington for the first time since becoming next in line to the throne.

Trump, during the meeting, called Saudi Arabia a “very great friend and a big purchaser of equipment and lots of other things.”

______________________________

"Walleye, a lot of things are going to go wrong in your life that technically aren't your fault. Always remember that this doesn't make you any less of an idiot"

--Walleye's Dad

a repub from alabama would vote down the same resolution too.

jones would have voted to save healthcare for millions, stop the tax cuts, etc. whereas a repub from alabama would not.

if you view both options as the exact same then thats your choice i guess (but intellectually disjointed).

plus if jones voted for it, the outcome wouldnt have changed but it would possibly be used against him in his state anyway. maybe thats a nuance you dont care about tho.

But did you forget that he stood strong against ACA repeal, Tax cuts for the wealthy, and a whole host of other things.

Give me a blue dog democrat in 2018 West Virginia any day of the week

_______________________________________

and get a progressive in there lol. that shit wouldnt do anything but put another (extreme) repub in the chamber.

im glad so many people are starting to really tune into politics for the 1st time (especially young progressives). but theres a lot they still have to learn lol.

Their house representatives were also pretty blue starting in the early seventies until the late 2000's. It's not like Manchin was some rare glimpse of Dem light.

But it actually doesn't matter because my overall point here is so absolutely tepid. Manchin and Jones and this Crow fellow from Colorado may indeed be what the voters of those states want, but as long as the DCCC is picking nominees (please note that Hoyer said he'd never even *met* Crow) then we actually don't have an unobstructed view of what those states want in a Democrat. We only know what some consultants think they want.

Voting is the stone in the stone soup of politics, and so electing a progressive in a primary isn't the only good thing that can come out of a primary. Simply giving a progressive a fair chance in a primary is a chance to engage a broader range of left voters and to gauge honestly how much support there is for left positions. If Tillemann loses, he loses. But making Crow actually engage him in a real election means creating some accountability for what Crow does once he actually takes office.

______________________________

"Walleye, a lot of things are going to go wrong in your life that technically aren't your fault. Always remember that this doesn't make you any less of an idiot"

--Walleye's Dad

who got elected based on coal, guns, and anti-abortion.

dems have actually evaporated in places like wv, the south, and the rust belt because they went *too* far left (especially on social issues).

the district that conor lamb won was filled with 'dems' who had left party because the party went further left (which is why he ran center).

like how do you expect to win elections in the shenandoah valley or midwest when you cant shore up labor support from the steelworkers union because your activist base will shun you for not being against a proposed fossil fuel pipeline?

a progressive primary opponent in some areas would just cause the moderate candidate who actually has a chance of winning to burn up unnecessary money and drain their bank account against an unelectable opponent, while possibly getting politically damaged in the process. then running up against a well funded unchallenged republican who has been doing nothing but running ads and campaigning while you were fighting an unnecessary fight.

tough contested primaries arent always a good thing. thats a political reality.

not saying the party should be picking candidates in every instance but there are people who are a lot more experienced and knowledgeable than either of us and they recognize/interpret the variables at play.

So, Doug Jones is there to hold some minimal line for the Democratic party. Locating his hypothetical votes on healthcare and the tax cuts on the right side of that line and literal genocide on the unimportant side of that line is... some kind of thing. But what mechanism is in place to move him toward an actual, Democratic Party vision for improving America's material conditions if not for primaries?

Over and over and over again we hear from practical centrists that we have to get Democrats in office and then change can occur, but if there's no way to push the more timid Democrats to actually do something useful then the party's just going to spin its wheels and the window of electable political views on the left is going to stay narrow while it gets wider and wider for the right.

If you're thinking of another way to get right-center D's like Jones and etc. to move left and actually help people, I'd love to hear it. Because "make them promise shit in a fair primary" is a pretty good answer - unless the DCCC keeps spiking it.

______________________________

"Walleye, a lot of things are going to go wrong in your life that technically aren't your fault. Always remember that this doesn't make you any less of an idiot"

--Walleye's Dad

or at least why at *your* pace?

i mean...i want america to move left in just about every aspect...social, economic, etc. but thinking that everyone else has to move in that direction is a very entitled view.

point blank you have to win elections. and the large majority of america isnt progressive (which explains their difficulty in winning elections).

progressives have this delusional thing they do where they think someone who lost the primary by a convincing margin would have won the general. or they portray the dnc/dccc as this big galavanized obstructive unconquerable force...but also weak unorganized and incompetent. or they think a progressive candidate who barely gets enough ballot signatures to be eligible to run and only raises like $40k should be entitled to the same level of support as an incumbent with a proven track record of winning, millions of dollars in donations raised, and an established infrastructure and gotv operation.

at some point you just have to stop making excuses and realize that maybe your agenda isnt the one everyone is attracted to in every area. so you might have to just pick someone that is the most closely aligned to it.

honest question...

why do you think moderates like ralph northam, doug jones, and conor lamb pull out crucial elections even against the odds...but progressive superstars like zephyr teachout cant even crack 40% in a gov primary in a true blue state like ny?

like if you asked moderates/centrists for their big major wins since the trump election, they have a laundry list of answers from elections on several levels of government.

if you asked progressives for their big major wins since the trump election, they would list the mayor of birmingham (who was also the state director for hillary clinton and had significant establishment backing).

progressives only make viable statewide candidates in a few west coast states and a few north east states. theres literally only 1 senator in the progressive caucus.

that aint the dnc/dccc. thats most of america not exactly seeing eye to eye with you.

As some kind of pure vacuum where political ideas can be broached and explored so that voters can freely accept or reject them without the unseen influence of backroom shenanigans or campaign money?

Holy shit.

______________________________

"Walleye, a lot of things are going to go wrong in your life that technically aren't your fault. Always remember that this doesn't make you any less of an idiot"

--Walleye's Dad

That's a tough, tough position to defend.

______________________________

"Walleye, a lot of things are going to go wrong in your life that technically aren't your fault. Always remember that this doesn't make you any less of an idiot"

--Walleye's Dad

to show how popular they are.

take your time.

sometimes the party will support someone who is better fit for the district, is a proven fundraiser, plays a larger part in establishing/expanding the party infrastructure in their area, is more aligned with the party platform, has been a loyalist or donor, etc.

its how the party tries to make sure a candidate doesnt win a primary then coughs up a winnable general election (like roy moore).

even during the tea party wave, republicans lost key senate races in red states like indiana, missouri, and north dakota because extreme candidates won their primaries but a good portion of moderate republicans and independents rejected them.

barack obama wasnt the party guy in his 1st state senate run (got out the primary by getting opponents kicked off the ballot due to a technicality). still won.

he wasnt the party guy in his us senate run (both hines and hull got more party support/endorsements). still won.

he wasnt the party guy in his presidential run either (the dnc and even the congressional black caucus supported clinton). still won.

this shit is baked into the cake at this point fam. if you are complaining about it then you prolly arent running a good campaign.

I am an adult human who has lived in 21st century America, so I understand how politics presently works. What I am arguing here is that it's immoral and dishonest. The people who run it that way and the people who shrug and assent to it should be shamed into behaving differently.

______________________________

"Walleye, a lot of things are going to go wrong in your life that technically aren't your fault. Always remember that this doesn't make you any less of an idiot"

--Walleye's Dad

sometimes you avert a disaster for the greater good.

like you have 'dems' that win primaries (especially open ones) then win the general and caucus with conservatives. sheriff david clarke ran (and won) as a dem in wisconsin. there are elected dems in the ny state senate (the idc) that essentially vote as repubs.

should the party butt out of their next primary?

its not the same as the situation you posted but outright losing that seat to republican would be the same result.

A president should be able to form his government with the people he wants.
Unless they are fundamentally unqualified or corrupt, they should be confirmed with no resistance whatsoever. This is the way it's been done forever and how it should be done now and in the future.
They fact that you disagree on policy is not a reason to vote against a cabinet nominee. That fight was lost already in the presidential election

_______________________________________

It's immoral and illegal. His previous support for it is permanently disqualifying.

______________________________

"Walleye, a lot of things are going to go wrong in your life that technically aren't your fault. Always remember that this doesn't make you any less of an idiot"

--Walleye's Dad

when they used the filibuster for nominees and fed judicial appointments to block obama appointments to the point harry reid had to nuke that filibuster just to be able to allow the president to govern.

then after 2014 when repubs gained a senate majority and just blocked nominees wholesale (including a supreme court nominee). they literally blocked an obama nominee so long she died. and then celebrated it.

>they literally blocked an obama nominee so long she
>died. and then celebrated it.

And it was for an utterly non-political role: Ambassador to the Bahamas. I can't imagine any regular resistance that the Democrats could undertake that would be in the same universe of gross perversion of process as Cotton-on-Cassandra Butts.

The default answer to anything that Trump wants should be "fuck you, no."

______________________________

"Walleye, a lot of things are going to go wrong in your life that technically aren't your fault. Always remember that this doesn't make you any less of an idiot"

--Walleye's Dad

i wanna punch em in the jaw.

the audacity of these clowns.

Shit is a race to the bottom. Just a series of score settlings and grudges.

_______________________________________

especially with the repub party rapidly expelling moderates and going further right with more tea party type candidates.

like if a 1st term dem president comes in with a majority repub senate...they might not even let him/her fill *any* appointments...or very few. whats stopping them when they dont pay at the polls with their voters?

and at some point somebody is just gonna have to nuke the legislative filibuster to pass any laws. which basically ends the senate being the senate. repubs will almost certainly have to do that in the future to be able to pass an increasingly unpopular agenda.

>They fact that you disagree on policy is not a reason to vote
>against a cabinet nominee. That fight was lost already in the
>presidential election

If the policy you disagree on is "We shouldn't rush into a war with Iran just because a bunch of Bushies never got over their bloodlust the last time they were in power," that is absoultely a reason to vote against someone becoming SecState.

------

12 play and 12 planets are enlighten for all the Aliens to Party and free those on the Sex Planet-maxxx

XBL: trkc21
Twitter: @tyrcasey

------
“There is no fate that cannot be surmounted by scorn.” -Albert Camus

------
“There is no fate that cannot be surmounted by scorn.” -Albert Camus

Fundamentally unqualified to head education programs in this country

------
“There is no fate that cannot be surmounted by scorn.” -Albert Camus

Enforcement

------
“There is no fate that cannot be surmounted by scorn.” -Albert Camus

We're looking at a spate of conflicts of interests and often people who's goals and policies counter the role and mission of the departments they now lead.

------
“There is no fate that cannot be surmounted by scorn.” -Albert Camus

was for.

it was to help ensure noms were moderate, experienced, and usually a-political...so they could garner high bipartisan support.

which is why the process was largely noncontroversial up until obamas administration.

now without the filibuster...repubs are putting up extreme and unqualified candidates and rightfully facing resistance.

Return of the Bluedog Democrats.

http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2018/04/democratic_endorsement_in_nj_riles_partys_other_candidates.html

---------------------------
Signature

****************
TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*

n/m

---------------------------
Signature

this is actually my district. To think the DCCC thought it was smart to run (and publicize) oppo research on the progressive candidate Laura Moser is so many levels of fucked-up there aren't enough fingers in the universe to count them. Especially when they might have a shot at unseating the awfulness that is John "cars good/public transport bad" Culberson.

------------------------------
For the record, my teams:
MLB: Mets / Soccer: PSG
NCAA BB: Arizona / NCAA FB: Michigan
NBA: Spurs / NFL: Jets

>this is actually my district. To think the DCCC thought it
>was smart to run (and publicize) oppo research on the
>progressive candidate Laura Moser is so many levels of
>fucked-up there aren't enough fingers in the universe to count
>them.

Good God, that was a mess. It's so incredibly weird to have people with such an obviously terrible track record assure us over and over again to trust the experts.

______________________________

"Walleye, a lot of things are going to go wrong in your life that technically aren't your fault. Always remember that this doesn't make you any less of an idiot"

--Walleye's Dad

and it's so dumb that they couldn't figure out in 2018 this just would not fly at all. There are two extremely accomplished women running (both for the first time ever) to try to take down one of the most entrenched Republican seats in the state, and somehow the DCCC managed to muddle this with their petty Mr Magoo tactics.

------------------------------
For the record, my teams:
MLB: Mets / Soccer: PSG
NCAA BB: Arizona / NCAA FB: Michigan
NBA: Spurs / NFL: Jets

i dont know a single dem on either end of the party that thought any good would come from that.

moser has some real vulnerabilities but publishing that oppo on the official committee site in the middle of an otherwise healthy and spirited primary was some repugnant shit.

one thread:
https://twitter.com/DanaHoule/status/989621847791632384

honestly i think the putincept and the far left are just trying to cost dems elections at this point. they rallied against northam, jones, etc in *general* elections. they even rallied against a black woman dem mayoral candidate in atlanta in favor of a white conservative one...because they said the actual dem wasnt progressive enough lol.

now they run these dccc/dnc boogeyman pieces more than they cover the unprecedented level of corruption in the republican administration.
they are coming for joy ann reid heavy too. she has been a target of theirs for a while because she shits on bernie bros lol.