Damn I miss Barack.
My two cents
I hope this helps.
Today I’m proud to endorse such a wide and impressive array of Democratic candidates – leaders as diverse, patriotic, and big-hearted as the America they’re running to represent
Remember when we had a POTUS who used the language to inspire and motivate us?
A serious man making thoughtful endorsements. And you don’t have to dress your baby in an Obama onesie or read Dreams From My Father to the child to curry favor with him. Not only do you get to keep your dignity, he actually enhances it.
No love for Amy McGrath in Kentucky? I would hate to think it’s because he offered and she declined. That’s the act of a coward, Lt. Colonel McGrath. And it’s the reason why Alison Lundergan Grimes lost the 2014 Senate race to the most hated man in Kentucky.
Apparently he did not endorse a single primary challenger to an incumbent, so maybe not so thoughtful.
The Incumbent Protection Racket marches on…
“What a day for a daydream…” - LSpoonful
Some one is singing their one note again…
A presidential tweet without any misspellings, grammatically correct, free of lies and hate, and full of hope. God, I miss that man.
Don’t get ahead of your data.
Fact of life: Incumbents have a better record of getting elected in the general than challengers do.
So what matters more – a legislature controlled by Democrats or Democrats in the minority but purer?
Yes and no…
Yes, in the general sense. There is a measure of comfort and the incumbent is s known quantity.
No, In some specific cases as the incumbent has already lost their primary.
Was disappointed to not see Ocasio-cortez on Obama’s list.
It would be odd if you could go running around the country attacking the Democrats with the best chance of being elected and expect to be on that list.
My goal is more and better Democrats. The incumbents have not been getting it done.
I was commenting on the idea that Obama actually gave this any serious thought. When there was an incumbent in a primary, he just picked the incumbent.
Yes, I agree: “Incumbents have a better record of getting elected in the general than challengers do.” That is why I refer to the Incumbent Protection Racket. Incumbents get larger bribes campaign contributions.
Obama was not a progressive President.
DNC has many a time badly judged who has best chance.
At best, they are “not on the leading edge” of where the party is headed. At worst they are trying to subvert where its headed.
Moreover, advocating for progressives is not attacking incumbents. Saying someone is better than their competitor is not attacking, is campaigning.
ETA: Lastly, the party tent is inclusive of progressives and we push them away at our own Electoral peril. As she has already won her primary she should be up for an endorsement.
As president he was hampered by being the first AA president. He had to be more careful and measured than any president before him.
He has some progressive impulses and pushed where society was ready to accept (LGBTQ Rights for example)
What if the only two realistic options are more Democrats or fewer but better Democrats?
Perhaps incumbents have the edge because they get more money – corporate and otherwise but that’s not all there is to it or we’d have solid GOP legislatures because they are generally better funded.
Sure we all wish for more and better but you need to explain why you think that is feasible in this election.