Dianne Feinstein is vulnerable

    The California Democratic Party (CDP) declined to endorse anybody in this year’s U.S. Senate race. Since the two most popular candidates are Democrats - one of whom will almost certainly win in November - some may see nothing more than a decision not to upset an apple cart that’s rolling downhill.

    Still, the result is surprising if only because front runner Dianne Feinstein could muster only 37% of the vote of CDP delegates. Feinstein of course is the octogenarian San Franciscan who rose to national prominence forty years ago in the aftermath of the assassinations of Mayor George Moscone and Supervisor Harvey Milk. Little known Kevin de Leόn copped 54% of the vote.

    It is a measure of how far to the left the CDP has moved in the past year that it nearly endorsed a relative newcomer over the U.S. Senator whom one consultant calls California’s Daniel Webster. Although grassroots activists could not prevent drug company ally Eric Bauman from becoming the party’s chair last year, they did elect many progressives to the state’s dozens of central committees.

    Team Feinstein minimized the vote’s importance claiming that the CDP voters are more progressive than most Democratic voters. They can to a January survey of likely Democratic voters that has Feinstein up 46 to 17 over De Leόn.

    But Feinstein could be headed for rough waters. She will almost certainly lose the votes of white progressives who favor a socialist economic agenda and a pacifist foreign policy. Feinstein drew jeers at a town hall last year when she declared that she opposes Bernie Sanders’ Medicare-for-all plan. She is one the party’s hawks and her less confrontational approach towards President Trump has also cost her support on the left.

    When it comes to voters of color, Feinstein faces difficulties as well. Since de Leόn is a Latino, he will likely have an advantage with that very sizable demographic. Feinstein's relationship with the junior California U.S. Senator Kamala Harris has been contentious at times. This may hurt her with African American voters even though Harris has endorsed Feinstein.

    Feinstein’s establishment backers may comfort themselves with her sizable advantage in the most recent poll but they should not be congratulating themselves just yet. Despite overwhelming name recognition, she could not scare up support from a majority of the Democrats surveyed. Given CA's top two primary system and the over 2 to 1 advantage that Democrats have statewide, Feinstein is very likely to have to square off against Kevin de Leόn twice - once in the June primary and then again in November. Assuming de Leόn makes it to the run-off, he will be very well-known to Californians when they go to the polls in November. I expect a nail biter.


    Her challenger de Leon has a sexual harassment charge


    edited to clarify

    de Leon is accused of helping cover for a friend charged with a sexual harassment chrge

    rmrd0000... Huh?

    "...de Leon has a sexual harassment charge."

    That seems quite misleading and is news to me. You better re-read this following part of that SacBee article very closely.

    State Sen. Tony Mendoza, with whom de León shared a Sacramento apartment until he learned about Mendoza’s alleged behavior, is under investigation after The Bee reported that the Artesia Democrat invited a young woman seeking permanent employment in his office to his home to review résumés.

    --- snip---

    De León spent his first legislative floor session of 2018 steering his caucus through a decision about whether Mendoza should step down. He ultimately agreed to do so temporarily with pay.

    And then Thursday February 22, 2018 ...
    California senator resigns amid harassment allegations

    Sen. Tony Mendoza resigned from office Thursday as his colleagues considered an unprecedented vote to expel him.

    His decision came days after the Senate publicly released the findings of a two-month investigation that concluded Mendoza, D-Artesia, “more likely than not” engaged in a pattern of unwanted advances and sexually suggestive behavior toward six women, including four subordinates, over the last decade.

    Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de León drafted Senate Resolution 85, which cited the house’s zero-tolerance sexual harassment policy and the results of the investigation as grounds to expel Mendoza, for a vote on the floor on Thursday after Republicans and Democrats met privately to discuss action against Mendoza.

    As closed-door meetings dragged on, Mendoza resigned. “I shall resign my position as Senator with immediate effect as it is clear that Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de León will not rest until he has my head on a platter to convince the Me Too Movement of his ‘sincerity’ in supporting the Me Too cause,” Mendoza wrote in a resignation letter he sent his colleagues on Thursday.

    Sounds to me like de León did his job.


    Typed too fast

    Major screw  up

    rmrd0000... Ah Hah...

    There's always the edit feature... cheeky


    Did that

    Overall I see rmrd's Sacramento Bee link pushing the idea that the #Metoo effect is very powerful right now in the whole of California, with Weinstein et. al. already affecting the southern vote and this whole State Sen. Mendoza thing affecting the Sacramento area  with Female leaders behind Sacramento’s “We Said Enough” campaign say the male-dominated power structure in California’s Capitol perpetuates “pervasive” abuses etc.etc. That he shared an apt.with Mendoza as well as being caucus leader,so he must have known what he was like.

    Doesn't really suggest it has affected this U.S. Senate race yet but suggests Feinstein could use it against him just because she is a woman even though a woman that has been moderate towards Trump

    The developments give Feinstein plenty of political fodder, should she need to use it.

    “He hasn’t been elected statewide, and therefore most Californians don’t know who he is,” said Garry South, a Democratic political strategist. “Whenever you’re part of legislative leadership, and there are problems or scandals in the Legislature, some of that is going to stick to you. To what extent depends on whether Feinstein and her operatives and her surrogates want to drive it at him.”

    The shocker in the piece for me was this: she is 84! I had no idea:

    A moderate Democrat at age 84, Feinstein says her experience and ability to get things done are essential in today’s Washington.

    Six more years would mean: well, we can all add.

    looking elsewhere, I see things might be getting pretty vicious in that Capitol, playing race card vs. gender card:

    Sexual misconduct scandal envelops California Legislature @ A.P., Feb.19

    It again will be the focus when lawmakers return Tuesday and learn whether an investigation cleared state Sen. Tony Mendoza of misconduct allegations or set him up for possible expulsion. In another headline-grabbing development, the Los Angeles-area Democrat sued the Senate last week, claiming he was unfairly suspended and that racism might have been a factor.

    Not going to follow it up, as I believe the main premise that #Metoo is pretty hot right now in California. Could cool by November, though, as fast as things move today. 

    rmrd0000... sheesh...

    de Leon is accused of helping cover for a friend charged with a sexual harassment chrge

    Nowhere in that piece does it approach anything like that.

    Unless you're reading the following vague statement from California Dem strategist Garry South into that line of crap.

    “Whenever you’re part of legislative leadership, and there are problems or scandals in the Legislature, some of that is going to stick to you."

    Go ahead have the last word on this BS... bye bye.


    De Leon was president pro ten of the Senate reports of harassment as a rule go to that office.

    A spokesman for De León told the Associated Press Thursday that the Senate leader did not know about the allegations against Mendoza or the investigation into his colleague.

    “The Senate is the employer of Senate staff, not individual members, and Senate Rules Committee has the responsibility for thoroughly investigating complaints in consultation with outside counsel,” Alvarez said in a follow-up statement on Friday night. “As the process requires, the Senate will take action once Senate Rules completes their investigation.”

    Several former Senate staffers said it was the procedure in past years for the president pro tem — who also serves as chairman of the Rules Committee — to be notified right away of harassment investigations.

    Kathy Dresslar, who served as chief of staff to former Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, said Friday that her boss was always instantly made aware of all harassment allegations about his members by the Senate secretary, to whom Human Resources personnel report. 

    “When I worked in the pro tem’s office and the secretary of the Senate was Greg Schmidt, he would have come in and told us — and he did come in and tell us — when there was a complaint about a member,” she said. “Immediately.”

    Schmidt died last year at age 69 after a brief battle with cancer.

    Sara Velasco, a Rules Committee staffer in the ’90s who helped write the Senate’s sexual harassment policies, said she had no doubt that in the past, the pro tem would be aware of any probe.

    “If there’s an investigation started, I’m sure he would know,” Velasco said.

    But a De León spokesman said he did not know about the allegations.

    Some political insiders questioned how De León could not be aware of the allegations against one of his members when the three staffers were fired.

    “It’s unfathomable that someone in that position would not know what’s going on,” said Larry Gerston, political science professor emeritus at San Jose State. “It’s beyond belief. It’s beyond comprehension.”




    Yada yada mrrd0000...

    I respectfully rescind my "have the last word on this BS..."

    Speculation by political insiders, and possible politically motivated innuendo do not make for "...de Leon has a sexual harassment charge" nor "helping cover for a friend charged with a sexual harassment chrge"...

    Keep digging and show me some kind of real substantiated "smoking gun" and I might continue to play this silly little game of gotcha.


    The voters of California will decide if this is important. Feinstein has the support of Democrats I respect like Ted Lieu and Kamala Harris. If de Leon wins, they will both back him. He will have to directly address the issue during the campaign. I don’t see a Republican winning even if Feinstein and de Leon bash each other.


    Yes we will... decide.

    Arty made my point for me ... here in thread...


    Under California's top-two primary system, the general election can and often does consist of two Democrats facing each other. Dem Kamala Harris beat Dem Loretta Sanchez in November 2016 to take Barbara Boxer's seat. If the candidates remain in their current slots, Feinstein will face de Leon twice - in the primaries and then again in the general. This will help de Leon overcome Feinstein's advantage in name recognition. De Leon will almost certainly never face a Republican trying to exploit his extremely tenuous connection to sexual harassment charges against another State Senator. Feinstein, of course, may try to make hay out of it but if she did so, she'd strengthen the argument of progressives and independents that she's a shady operator with a mediocre record.

    You make a good attack dog, no? Over and over, "if not my way, they're corrupt and subhuman". You obviously don't wany to persuade anyone, so what is your goal?

    When the law is on your side, argue the law

    If the facts are on your side, argue the facts

    If neither the law or the facts are on your side, jump up and down and yell.

    You inspired me to look that one up. Carl Sandburg!

    I was close

    You make a good attack dog, no?

    It is what trial lawyers do for a living. Just sayin'.

    You obviously don't wany to persuade anyone, so what is your goal?

    There is supposed to be someone on the other side attacking just as vociferously. Then there's supposed to be a jury figuring out where the truth is, usually somewhere in the middle. If one of the advocates is not as talented at the advocacy thing, then often the truth will fall more towards his argument.

    Obviously, my style of writing doesn't persuade you. What style does? The Nation's? https://www.thenation.com/article/dianne-feinstein-isnt-too-old-but-she-...

    My sense is that you are not persuadable. Otherwise, you'd have already been persuaded, if not by me then, by the myriad of other possibly better and certainly better-known progressive writers and commentators out there, right?

    Regarding your assessment of the legal profession and trial litigation specifically, it is accurate as far as I'm concerned. I was good enough in court - not great maybe - but good enough. But as you note the truth is often the first casualty. That's a big reason that I quit. The other is that I burnt out. It took too much out of me to be prepared for everything. Now, I just argue what I believe.

    "Subhuman?" I don't recall using that word to describe any politician here or anywhere. If I did, I shouldn't have. "Corrupt?" - yes many are. I did not use that word to describe Feinstein. Feel free to see that quality in her based on her opposition to single-payer and the contributions she accepts from for-profit health care industry players. What would persuade you PP? What evidence would persuade you that your worldview is incorrect and mine is correct?

    I don't have a "worldview". I have a collection of opinions and observations that evolve over time. I used to have more sympathy towards communism before I dealt with communists and communist systems (though feel more and more that Europe's socialism is overall on the right path but still appreciate its failings and need to evolve). I used to believe more in charity and less in the power of trade & the market until I got a business degree and witnessed the growth of Pacific Rim "tigers" and the largely floundering of Africa. I used to believe more in the good of the Internet until I saw more and more of its negatives - still optimistic, but much more cautious. I used to thrill to the Gary Hart and John Anderson and Bill Bradley and Howard Dean underdogs until I saw enough of them come and go, and realized they were just fodder for the early campaign ad season and like Bernie almost all would assuredly fade. I used to think things were largely hopeless, but then read a lot of Bucky Fuller and saw Carter(Brzezinski)/Reagan reverse the scary Soviet threat and saw Bill Clinton help manage the decrease in crime and launch internet commerce and bring sidelined blacks into government & home ownership (and then saw much of that crash again by bringing in an uncaring steward who was happy running things into a ditch through some misguided "laissez-faire" attitude. I've seen the transition of countries with typical salaries of $50-80/month turn into near parity with world leaders. Used to think education important, but see enough of its limitations in terms of jobs and time investment and actual implementation plus the successes of *some* without formal education, so a bit more defining in that area.

    I can fantasize with the best of 'em, and often am at the cutting "bleeding" edge, but at heart I'm pretty reality-driven, and am fairly responsive to new facts. I realized a while ago in music that I appreciate experimentation, but like it best just before it merges with the mainstream. Which as you might discern, eventually or quickly leads to heartbreak, but then I move on. No shortage of new bands, unlike politicians, sadly.

    Interesting stuff here PP. The Asian Tigers definitely deserve more attention. There's gold to be mined in their experiences. It's curious that you express doubts with respect to the value of education when most, but not all, observers attribute a significant amount of the success of the Tigers to their focus on upgrading the quality of public education. See e.g., Building Human Capital in East Asia. Others argue that the the Tigers' success depends, in part, on government policies, including education, land reform, and housing assistance, that promoted a relatively high level of economic equality.

    [response to followup comment for more space]

    You realize maybe that your paper's latest citations are *1997* (one 1998), 20 years ago (the Clinton Years, by 1 measure), the year Gore pushed through the Kyoto protocol, the year Hong Kong returned to China & the final dissolution of Yugoslavia (5 years after the breakup of the Soviet Union), back before the mobile internet, Google, Facebook, Twitter, PayPal, the year Steve Jobs returned to Apple and before Amazon's IPO when it just sold books; the year today's WiFi was released, before modern Web pages (Ajax/CSS, etc.), before Project Management went mainstream, before Agile programming, 4 years before 9/11, 5 years before the Indian offshoring hype, 10 years before the iPhone, etc., etc. - i.e. structurally and economically a very different world with still much less hyper-competition - with a ton of caveats:

    The treatment of the educational issues in the paper has neither been exhaustive nor thoroughly in-depth. A few select, somewhat dominant aspects of educational policy and practice have been critically examined. An important issue that has been given somewhat greater attention is the financing of education. The analysis is based on data on a few select indicators of educational development collected from different sources, mostly international, but also others including national sources and research material. Caution needs to be exercised in interpreting the data, as there could be differences in the definition, scope, and nature of various indicators, including various levels of education, used here on various economies. Nevertheless it is hoped that these differences do not affect our overall analysis and observations. There is no single East Asian model of educational development. The half-dozen economies are rich in diversity; and are varied with reference to demography, religion, culture, ethnicity, and of course, education. They have followed different policies and adopted different strategies and approaches over time.


    This was a time of great demand for more "low paid" workforce, which by low paid meant "less than the West", so besides just curing regional illiteracy, there was a lot of training to man assembly lines and textile factories  and other low-level grunt work. That's quite different from the higher-trained positions, and it's 20 years back in time from today, where the economy is much tighter with expenditures, and education is now $50k-70k per year for college versus say 1/8th that, so assuming that slinging that kind of money around is budgetable...

    Additionally, the level of government/authoritarian control in these Pacific Tigers is much much higher than western democracies, so expecting voters to push through the same kind of decisions is unrealistic. (Similar phenomena at the family level that doesn't carry exactly to other world regions)

    Third, we don't see this lesson updated to reflect what happens when the education level has matured, when competition internally & externally has matured, when the pay difference with western countries has tightened, nor to see the phenomena we see in the US, where educated people can't find jobs, where education might be for only 5-10 years before the technology is obsolete or other factors require retraining, or simply the focus down on a few particular skills rather than a more grandiose expectation of "education".

    To summarize, there is no longer the expectation that education will actually pay for itself in general, though in some areas of study this might be likely. In China their "housing assistance" can mean crappy dormrooms for singles in 10 bunkbeds per room just so they can come to the city and work in the factory. In India or Bangladesh it might mean the mother separates from her child(ren) in order to hold down a job, etc. So these terms also mean something different rather than helping pay a mortgage....

    "Land reform" when most people are moving from country to city and don't want to stay back is also questionable (though China is spending billions - trillions? - trying to easy conditions in its rural outback.

    Etc. A million things to say.

    Yup. Lots of lessons to be learned. But one that cannot be fairly gleaned from the experiences of the Tigers is that letting the rich and powerful have their way while wages settle to some natural (naturally low) level is a recipe for American success.  It's odd that you're so insistent that that is the one to take.

    For fuck's sakes, I never said that, so fuck you and your "insistence" crap. I've supported the minimum basic wage, i've supported raising the minimum wage,  I've supported identifying the Value-add sectors where we won't compete so much with untrained labor around the world that's trying to dig therir countries out of the dirt, I've supported the wealthy and profitable companies paying their fair share rather than endless tax breaks, but have also noted that as one of the richest countries we have a responsibility to make sure our economic efforts to help at home don't screw the rest of the world's poor. I *have* noted that lower prices at the register are savings not only in income but income PLUS all taxes that would have been paid (including regressive sales tax that whallops the poor). But I am also AGAINST imitating the motherfucking communists and their planned economy bullshit that stifled creativity, productivity and variety while ended up encouraging a cronyist insider 2-tier system (plus caused the Holodomor, the diasastrous Great Leap Forward and other atrocities and shortages).

    You are a pain in the ass troll.

    Glad to know I've been misreading you all these years and that you're really not the neolib you sometimes pretend to be. So what should government do to rein in the economic might of the .1% and ensure a reasonably just allocation of resources?

    Hal, you claim that when voters are presented with the most Progressive candidate, the most Progressive candidate will win. That is not true. Most of the Berniecrats running for national office lost their elections.


    Gabbard, Ellison, and Jayapal appear to be the only winners.

    Peter Welch also won. Most of the others in the article lost to other Democrats in the primaries. None lost to a Republican in a general election. I argue consistently that for the Democratic Party to rebecome dominant nationally party, Democratic primary voters will have to nominate true economic progressives on a consistent basis. Some economic progressives will still lose of course. They will also be fighting an uphill battle since they won't be able to raise nearly as much money from the billionaire class. But if Democratic primary voters resist the blandishments of corporadems, we will do better.

    This is why both 2008 and 2016, for very different reasons, were lost opportunities. Obama took office with a strong mandate. He could have fought tooth and nail for poor, working, and middle-class Americans. Had he done so, the Democrats probably would be in a much better place right now. This would have meant no more trade deals, bailing out underwater homeowners not banks, prosecuting the crooked bankers, and constantly campaigning in blue-collar areas not hanging out with wealthy liberals in East Hampton and San Francsisco.

    Bernie probably would have won over Trump. If he had, we would of course be in a much better place than we are now.

    Bernie was a joke to the Republicans.  They would have made him into mincemeat based on his communist past and his sex writings (Hillary could have but she took the high road, unlike Bernie).  Bernie would have gone down in flames, and at least he would be gone.

    You, however remain a troll, just as Peracles said.  

    You know what's funny about this CVille is you accuse me of being a troll yet you make a declarative statement "Bernie was a joke to the Republicans" without providing any credible support for the claim. You do 1) invoke a "communist past" that never existed - except in the fevered allegations of Hillary surrogate scum-of-the-earth David Brock - and 2) claim that 45-year old musings in a throwaway paper about sex would have caused Republicans to vote for a thrice-married man who actually boasted in the 2000s about assaulting women.

    That's what trolls do. They make bald assertions without evidence or with the flimsiest of possible evidence in order to provoke a response. If you look at my assertions, they're always backed up by a litany of credible evidence. You may not like the evidence. You may not think it holds up. But it's there.

    Regarding how Republicans view Bernie, I am doing a tremendous amount of organizing in Maryland for progressive and Democratic groups in advance of this year's elections. I talk to lots of folks and the sentiment that keeps coming through is how disappointed they have been in the Democrats and in Hillary in particular. At a group I sat in on that was being chaired by another organizer, two working-class women talked about how crucial affordable health care was to them and why they were enthusiastic supporters of the Healthy Maryland Act. Another woman asked how they dealt with Trump supporters. They said that it's tough but they can find common ground. Indeed, they both said that some in their family and at work would have supported Bernie because the Affordable Care Act didn't do anything for them and Bernie, like Trump on occasion, called for universal coverage.

    In 2016, Trump and Clinton were historically unpopular candidates - among voters in their own party. That's why neither could muster up 50% of the popular vote, despite the absence of a reasonably strong 3rd party challenger like Ross Perot. The only reason Trump and Clinton did get as many votes as they got is because Republicans and Democrats absolutely despised the other team's candidate. Bernie doesn't excite nearly as much animus among Republicans as Hillary does and as survey after survey that I have presented here shows - he's very popular among Democrats as well.

    Please feel free to respond with evidence or insult me or say nothing at all. It don't make no never mind.

    Joe Biden does better than Bernie Sanders when we look at a poll testing the theoretical race against Trump in 2020.


    I like my meaningless theoretical poll more than any meaningless theoretical poll you can find.

    First of all try not sabotaging progressives' campaigns in the name of purity tests. Did that 2000 and 2016, didn't turn out well.

    And stop using the term "neolib" because it's just become an open ended arbitrary term of slander for any Democrat who you don't happen to like, usually combined with misrepresenting their positions.

    And then attack the enemy leadership once in a while rather than just Democrats  - you know, Trump, McConnell, Ryan, Nunes, Chaffetz... as well as their allies like Koch Brothers, Bannon, Mercer, Giuliani, Rove, Hannity.. and even thwir Russian- influenced mafia buddies from Putin on down (including Assange and Snowden. Manning will give a bit of a pass).

    Then, read some economics and some of the common Democratic proposals to help people and adjust unfair economic conditions while protecting them at work and home and school (gun control is just one wee bit - women's rights including access to abortion, and end to gerrymandering and disenfranchisement of voters, reasonable support of education and student funding, lowering police overreach on the street, support for new energy and clamping down on/regulating pollutants...

    Well, that'd be a start - Rome wasn't built ina day.

    Poor conservastablishmentcorporadems hate being called neolibs. Aww! We sure don't want to hurt their feelings now do we. Dems win when they champion poor, working, and middle-class Americans over the billionaire class. You can talk all you want about enterprise zones. But what it boils down to is good-paying jobs with a future, healthcare, education, economic security, and a comfortable retirement.

    You keep tossing out this theory, but it simply isn't true. First, Dems typically win when they spend more than their opponent - a dirty little not so secret.

    Second, I dont care about my feelings - I care about you lying about my positions, and you already fucked up big time, so dont push it, asshole..

    Really, I lied about your positions? Why don't you set out the specific statement that I made and then disprove it. Otherwise, you haven't demonstrated jack no matter how angry you get. Oh and why do you get so angry? Why are you so sensitive and prickly? Why do you think that you can't bear being challenged? What's that about?

    I already did, and as per previous discussions, I'm not going to continue to argue with and document things for a serial liar. Change your attitude.

    And enough of this stupid bullshit "oh please tell me where I've erred, I want to learn..." You know what you do, and if you don't, well screw you anyway. You lower the quality of the conversation around here every time.


    You're a dagblogger and yet you are the most mean-spirited, nasty, and vicious commentator here. You are abusive and profane. You bully people. You are also reactive and lack any self-awareness. Is this the kind of atmosphere that you want or do you want a welcoming community where people debate heatedly but ultimately respectfully? Are you afraid of an honest debate? I mean again one has to wonder what's going on with you.

    You lie directly to me about me and you have the nerve to complain that I get "nasty"? Get bent, dude - you're a waste of space.

    Hal, you have taken on trump’s characteristics.  It is you who is mean-spirited, nasty, and lack self-awareness.  Yes, Peracles uses profanity (when he is profoundly frustrated, as do I). You bully people by your constant “faux-professorial assignments) to list the things you want them to list.  Reactive?  Thy name is Hal...You are truly Johnny One Note, repeating the same nostrums over and over, and acting shocked that we don’t all suddenly feel enlightened, and you realize that your trite BS hasn’t changed our minds.

    Honest debate?  You wouldn’t know an honest debate if it bit you in the face.  Bernie, Bernie, Bernie.  You don’t even think anymore.  There is no reason to read anything that you write because it is always boring, uninformed, and prejudiced.

    You make declarative statements CVille. I ask you to back them up with facts. I'm sorry if that upsets you.

    As time goes on, you are going nowhere with protectionism,it's just that simple, millennials identifying with both parties overwhelmingly want to be open to the world:


    There are stark partisan differences across generations in views of whether or not openness to people from around the world is central to America's national identity https://t.co/ut67f40ULf pic.twitter.com/M5z2YZOLuW

    — Pew Research Center (@pewresearch) March 1, 2018


    The whole rust belt/Reagan Dem thing is in its death throes. Trump is probably the last one to use it to his benefit,  especially since his behavior overall is turning off plenty who may have once been intrigued by him.

    I don't see Bernie stress protectionism as much as you do, he's smarter about it. I think he knows too,he's got the younger fans, that's why, though too old to have it impact much on him. It's going to be worth some votes pandering to that whole rust belt thing for like one more election cycle, then it's over, kaput. That's precisely why he stresses free education, medicare for all, because he knows the future is not going to be #MAGA jobs but more free-lance than lifetime job, less factory work, more service economy and craftsmanship, and many competing with global workers who can do the same damn work just using a tablet device. There's going to be a shrinking amount of assembly line and similar work, robots will take over quick because of efficiency, worldwide.. And taking care of the robots requires education .

    Instead of protection against global trade, the government has to be open to finessing trade deals with infinite care just like Bill Clinton was famous for doing  and at the same time the government has to start taking over some things that used to be provided for by cradle-to-grave employment with big corporations being dogged by labor unions. The whole latter scenario is dying quick.

    Just look what is happening to car mechanics ('People are freaking out.' Will electric vehicles doom your neighborhood auto mechanic?) and extrapolate that to everyone (around the world.) Radical change. The kids know it, we are one big world, no #MAGA type stuff, there's no there there for them, they see it.

    While corporations were happy to use it to screw employees, the move to IRAs/401K's/403b's as a retirement you could take with you *also* removed employees' slavery to particular companies. Before if you left after 15 years, you basically left without anything. Now as an employee you have your own + company matching contributions (and there are laws requiring you be treated as an employee for benefits past X years/Y hours per week). Not as good as the tony retirement of yesteryear, but at least something more than a social secruity check.

    With the gig economy, this stuff becomes even more important. Where I live, you simply have health care and you pay according to your income. Unemployed, employed, self-employed, it's very straight forward. As is Social Security in the US. Maybe it's not enough for retirement, but you know what you get. I can't imagine why this is more controversial than required insurance for cars, kids required to attend school, metal checks at airports. All these Greatest Generation types who saw people starving in the fields, and the idea that 80 years later we can't offer a bit of care and safety net because because because.... Hitler or Lenin or what?

    What are you talking about? Of course millennials want to be open to the world. That doesn't mean they want to have to compete against $1/hour labor in the far east does it?

    More; you are simply wrong about the future political viability of protectionism:

    By about three-to-one, more Millennials say NAFTA is good for the U.S. than say it is bad. Older generations are less positive about the trade pact. https://t.co/G0g5SLSzZP pic.twitter.com/vvxKRjG6Ph

    — Pew Research Center (@pewresearch) March 2, 2018

    Millennials are right about an awful lot. They're wrong about the trade deals and this is a no-brainer by the way.

    And more:

    Immigrants are great. We should welcome them into our nation as citizens.. We shouldn't send jobs making products for American markets overseas.

    Hal... but but but . . .

    What's all your gobblygook got to do with Diane Feinstein?


    Hal… Hal…

    See my comment of my take on Feinstein below.


    Feinstein has been a strong supporter of the H1-B program as I mentioned earlier in this thread.

    She will almost certainly lose the votes of white progressives who favor a socialist economic agenda and a pacifist foreign policy.

    yeah, yeah, yeah.  

    And Bernie will almost certainly win those votes.  Good luck, because most Democrats don’t hate Democrats.

    Yeah yeah yeah, she was a prominent supporter of Bernie, so must take the axe (since they haven't much taken down any Republicans)

    Feinstein's never pleased progressives too much - was even unpopular with gays in San Francisco for less than full-throated support despite inheriting her position when Harvey Milk was killed - while Marcy Wheeler has regularly pointed out her liberty shortcomings being a senior figure on defense and security committees with sometimes overforgiving stances towards the NSA/FBI/CIA/etc.

    Nevertheless, the timing is ironic considering: "Feinstein was the author of the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban which expired in 2004. In 2013 she introduced a new assault weapons bill, which failed to pass."

    But I figure this little flareup will only make her relevant again (plus help her in the November race when being not-so-liberal is a good thing in Orange County). 

    And by the way, she has a shit-ton of money in her re-election coffers. I don't necessarily think she's the best candidate, but I do think Democrats should be careful when taking down especially female and minority icons that have provided some kind of landmarks among some pretty spotty years.

    Oh, & by the way, AA, she turns 85 in June, so would potentially turn 91 in office if elected. There's a tough old broad, if I can use such a loaded, sexist (but admiring) phrase.

    Hmmm, meant yo start this as "prominent supporter if Hillary..." Brain, meet beach. Beach, meet brain. Any questions?

    The democrats should nominate and elect her.

    Of course there will be some elements of the party-let's say young progressive ones- who would prefer a candidate  who is more like them.And if a young progressive one is chosen 

                      there will be some elements of the party --let's say old conservatve  ones- who would prefer a candidate      etc. etc. etc.       

    Of course                some elements of the party will object to any candidate that's a given.

    Quantify please. 

    If she runs again  How large would  that  displeased  %  And how displeased:

    a  grumble on the way to vote for her

    b stay home

    c protest vote for this years liberal  no-hoper

    d vote for this year's conservative no-hoper

    e vote for an actually  dangerous republican.

    Or just grow up and  accept that Diane will as always be  a"lberal enough " , honest enough , savvy enough candidate so that any chunk of the party which won't support her has a death wish.


    The nominations by Democratic primary voters of folks like Evan Bayh, Rahm Emanuel, Corey Booker, Dianne Feinstein, Claire McCaskill, and Doug Bennett exemplify the party's "death wish."

    This editorial from the St. Louis Post Dispatch May give you a hint about McKaskill’s state.


    She is considered a Liberal.

    I wouldn't trust Chuck Raasch on McCaskill's political bent. Virtually every column he's written about her is negative. He's trying to sow fear in Show-Me-Staters of the dreaded Liburral. In fact, McCaskill wants to deny your children guaranteed healthcare and voted to direct local law enforcement to help ICE to deport "illegals." She tends to side against working people, e.g., she voted to fast track the TPP and against the interest of flight attendants when she supported an airline merger. The funny thing is that when Missourians have a chance to vote for true progressive populists they do.

    Your post makes an important point, although not the one you're trying to make. Regardless of how determinedly centrist or center right a Democrat may be, no matter how much they side with corporations over people, there will be righties who attack them as liberals. Given that fact, don't you think it makes sense to vote for the real McCoy.

    The neoliberals you noted above were all elected. Bernie Sanders was not elected. Donna Edwards of Maryland was not elected. Nina Turner of Ohio was not elected.  The “real thing” seems to be losers.

    Lol, a "real McCoy liberal" would lose the seat because there will be righties who attack them as liberal that's why they do that, it works The thing that you always avoid talking about is that a populist, to win in such a state, has to also bring along some of the menu of the right populist culture wars, i.e., anti-gay marriage, support our troops, anti-abortion, anti-black-lives-matter, stand for the national anthem or some such. They can't be a "real McCoy" liberal. You want to do Potemkin liberal in progressive populist clothing, ain't gonna work, first thing local reporters will ask is: are you for capital punishment?

    The righties attack conservadems as liberal. So, it doesn't really matter if Democrats are progressive populists or corporatist hawks, either way they get called liberals. Thus, they may as well embrace pro-people policies that are popular in the state in which they are running. Right-wing culture warriors are less likely to prevail when confronting progressive populists with a history of fighting for economic justice than when they're confronting pro-gay marrriage anti-gun neolibs.

    Donna Edwards

    Nina Turner


      "Devil you know" works for me. But then I was brought up in a city which re-elected  its jailed mayor. Even campaigned for him ,tap dancing on the stage in the Savin Hill community center.

    Reminds me of Mario Cuomo's  refusal to debate his re-election opponent . Who then toured the state  debating  a card- board cut- out  Cuomo .  When the press asked Mario about that he  said " I hear the dummy usually   wins". and was re elected.

    On the subject of re election  the ur text may be   "The Last Hurrah " which my  friend Frank described  as "The worst book I've ever read........from cover to cover without stopping."

    She's been a great senator, and all your arguments sound like bot arguments. There is one valid reason she shouldn't run, she'll be 90 when her next term is over, that's too old. She needs to step aside it's just time to let new blood in, I feel like anyone they vote for in California is going to be acceptable. I cannot imagine they will be flipping to red anytime soon.

    Hal's "establishment" link to a Slate piece....is a typical internet disinformation piece. Typical Hal mudslinging on the "Democrat Establishment".

    The Slate article (February 14, 2018) says Feinstein doesn't support single payer "today".......and this links to a "People for Bernie".... (April 17,  2017) short twitter video. 

    In a group of apparently rowdy students one student spends 1/3 of the video asking a rambling question about Bernies single payer which he admits, when Feinstein mentions it, that there are in fact, no details on how it would be implemented or paid for. Until it is, it is just a progressive fantasy....!

    Feinstein then mentions that health care and climate are the top issues.She is more concerned with saving health care for those who may very soon, lose it, see below.

    She NEVER says she doesn't support single payer in the 2017 video. The badgering on single payer, with the GOP in power is frankly annoying particularly in 4/2017.

    Feinstein mentions 6 million low income Americans are now at risk, may lose subsidies (4/2017) due to GOP sabotage, and her immediate concern about these people. 

    May 2, 2017 - Sen. Dianne Feinstein recently told her constituents at a San Francisco town hall event that she’s not ready to support a single-payer health care system -- an idea that has been gaining steam at the state level in California.

    "If single-payer health care is going to mean complete takeover by the government of all health care,” the California Democrat said, “I am not there.”

    A week later, Feinstein was even further from there, benefitting from a fundraising event at the Washington, D.C., office of Avenue Solutions, a lobbying firm that represents major health insurers, pharmaceutical companies and the primary trade association for doctors. The industries have historically opposed efforts to create a universal, government-run health care system -- an idea supported by 58 percent of U.S. adults. Feinstein supporters at the event were expected to kick in $1,000 to $5,000 for her re-election bid.


    In no country in the world has the government "totally taken over" the health care.

    Millions in Britain and Germany have private insurance.

    She also said " I don't get there by making statements I can't deliver."

    There is no prospect for single payer until the 2020's at least, and the video you linked showed Feinstein concerned about the here and now of millions losing health insurance in 2017, and she said health care and climate were her top issues.

    I do agree with Tmac on Feinstein retiring due to her age. But am tired of seeing so much slanted slimy biased articles with links that do not contain what they are said to contain.

    There is a very good case for coming up with a full single payer plan, with most of the details, and polling on how to implement it, before using support of it as a litmus test to purge the Democratic Party. If the Dems are to win country wide, not angering those content with their current plans may require something less than a "total takeover".

    Right. Single-payer is not government take-over. Yet Feinstein raised this terrifying specter as, no doubt, her financiers in the for-profit health care industry desired. Her boast that she doesn't make statements she can't deliver is wholly inapposite. She was asked if she supports single-payer not whether she could deliver it.

    "No doubt her financiers in the for-profit health care industry desired."


    Her health care industry financiers wanted her to try to scare constituents away from single-payer and she did try. I doubt she had much success though.

    "Her financers wanted  her ...try to scare constituents away ...and she did try"  . I read that as "   she tried  because she was  being paid off".  Another dishonest woman like we know who.

    Am I wrong?



    She may have done it because she was being paid to do it or she may have been rewarded for doing what she would have done in any case. Feel free to choose the option that is more palatable to you. I think DiFi - a very wealthy woman in her own right - is at heart a neolib/neocon. She also has been richly rewarded for being one.

    I got it.   You don't claim Dianne Feinstein was  against single payer because she was bribed . Indeed  she is already  very wealthy.  Nor  claim to explain   why she 's against  it..Maybe it's  " what she  would have done in any case".

    Good . Seems to me It would have been lowering the tone of  Dagblog  for you  to  make an unsubstantiated claim   (as is done all the time with Hillary ) of corruption . Whereas  I  now   realize you were just discussing  hypotheticals.

    She is full of shit.


    The only people who object to "government takeover" yada yadda are people who cannot do math, viz:


    Medicaid, (that would be your government tookover medical care) delivers first dollar (ie, no deductible, no copay of significance, including in New York teeth eyes and hearing) for about $4,800 per  capita annually.  That's less than a third of the premium for those shitty obamacare policies and less than the out of pocket for most of those AFTER someone has paid a premium.


    Just let people buy into Medicaid if they want to, or argue with the pharmacy benefit racketeers managers if they prefer.  


    No coercion, just the miracle of empowered consumers exercising their free choice in the free market.


    Paul Ryan will come in his pants.

    I like her, she's done a great job, I just think she is too old and it's time to let a younger Californian get their shot at being a Senator. It's not like the state will go red, it won't.  

    On the merits of this essay or lack-there-of of the hit piece, you are correct in your assessment. And she did release some pretty important documents this year, which made me pretty happy. She has always been a good Senator. I like her.

    I just don't know that someone who will be around 90 at the end of her next term should really be considering running again.

    There it is, really. I don't know anyone in their 80's who hasn't experienced some physical and cognitive decline no matter how spry they may appear at first glance. I doubt Feinstein is an anomaly, one of the rare very old people who still have the stamina and intellectual rigor of youth.

    Feinstein has a mixed record. She is a very strong advocate of sane gun laws and can boast of genuine successes when it comes to wilderness preservation. On the other hand, she continues to support 1) capital punishment and 2) the Patriot Act, 3) she voted for the war on Iraq, 4) she sponsored the anti-free speech flag desecration Constitutional Amendment, 5) she has taken an extremely hard line against Edward Snowden going so far as to label this genuine American hero a "traitor", 6) although she has done good work to increase health care accessibility for children, she also continues to carry water for the health insurance companies in their battle to keep Americans from having guaranteed health care, 7) she supported expansion of the H1-B program which provides temporary visas to guest workers whom multinational corporations fly in from India and Sri Lanka to replace Americans.

    I do not see greatness. Why do you?

    That "American hero" is holed up in Russia and half of his cover story seems to have been bullshit.

    Do you have a problem with hanging this asshole who shot 17 kids dead? I don't.

     Re: the iraq vote, already explained wht that was about. (hint, for Dems it wasn't about going to war)

    "carry water for health insurance companies" - could you be any more vague?

    What does this H1-B program legislation mean for Silicon Valley and California's economy?

    There are people whom I agree have forfeited the right to life but do you support the death penalty in the U.S.A?

    mho, more interesting than what one person on the internet writing under a pseudonym and purportedly not living in California thinks on it: how the California population has been changing how it thinks on it.

    There is pertinence to the subject and pertinence to comments about opinions on the subject, both pertinent in a discussion, IMO. 

    I overall *don't* support the death penalty, but there are people I won't get riled over.

    And I find it ironic that one case that's plagued Bill Clinton for years is this guy who killed 2-3 people over a $3 cover charge, hid out for 2 days, then came home to his mom's as she was sitting with this white cop who knew the family, had shown some compassion, was trying to bring him in calmly, and walked up from behind and shot him in the back at the kitchen table, and then he walked into the backyard and tried to shoot himself but bolloxed it up and only lobotomized himself.  And this turned into a "mentally retarded black man" that the far left has paraded for years trying to show how evil Clinton is in various guises for executing this fucker.

    So besides it being political, the issue is often quite deceitful and detached from actual details, kinda like the whole superpredator thing. I lose a lot of respect for people when they just gloss over the pertinent details and head straight to their favorite culture and/or personality war.

    You might reconsider the use of the word "greatness" for making your point.

    I'd see "greatness" in any female managing being re-elected to the U.S. Senate 4 times from a state where the economy rivals that of major countries. I think most people would.

    You are correct she is vulnerable, that is evidenced in the recent state party delegate vote. But you do not know why that is. Much of it could just be because of her age. My own guess is as good as yours what that 52% of delegates think. The article that rmrd posted convinced me that #Metoo is going to enter in here in the primary and it is going to be a significant factor, possibly weighing more heavily than any of the factors you mentioned. He's gonna need to talk and walk feminist 4th wave to get any traction.

    Party delegates and caucus voters are made up of activists, those people who take the time to get deeply involved in party politics. Right now the majority are made up of the far right on the republican side and the far left on the democratic side. Those activists don't make up the majority of voters in either party. The far right has taken over the republican party only because they've taken over the republican primary system. The far left will only be successful in taking over the democratic party if they do the same. So far that hasn't happened. I don't consider party delegate votes or caucus votes as indicative of a candidate's vulnerability or level of support in a general election.

    Good point. Anyhow,as I understand it, the party did not end up endorsing anyone, it was: let the games begin. And they are boss of their very own California Dem party (it's their party and they'll cry if they want to?) and if anyone doesn't like it, they should get active in it too or start another one.

    Arty made my point for me ...

     "...they are boss of their very own California Dem party (it's their party and they'll cry if they want to?) and if anyone doesn't like it, they should get active in it too or start another one."

    Yes we are our own boss. Who else here at Dag is from California besides me?

    Hal once was until he bailed to the east.


    Hal… cutting through the gobblygook…

    I give Feinstein big props for this painstaking work that took five years and $40 million to compile and finally get parts of it released. That was her high water mark for me. Since then the “Company” has had her on their shit-list radar and her effectiveness has pretty much waned and been downhill from there.

    New blood is needed.


    Thanks OGD. This story - Feinstein's work to expose the CIA's torture program and to stop it - shows her at her finest. I confess to having largely forgotten about these important efforts. I did speak of them at the time they were happening but they slipped my mind. Feinstein deserves a lot of credit. As I wrote, her record is mixed.

    Hal... and...

    You're welcome...That's all there is and there is no more.

    And her finding something funny during this bipartisan
    meeting with Trump on guns doesn't sit too well with me.


    You wrote: 

    Feinstein has a mixed record. 

    No kidding, everyone on the face of the earth has a mixed record, that's why people at Dag feel the need to take you to task often Hal, every politician has a mixed record, but overall the Senator has a great record.

    It's weird to me that in your stridency you would pick one word from my response and question why I think someone is great when you don't think they are great,  and because you don't think they are great, no one should believe this person is great.  Why is that so important to you that you change my mind, that I list my reasons so that you can challenge them, and tell me over and over again why she isn't great and why I should not hold her in high esteem. I hold her in high esteem for many reasons, some quantifiable some are just a feeling, but why does that matter at all?  

    See, the 2016 election was filled with that, propaganda that turned full human beings into one dimensional objects, easy to hate, so easy not to vote for, why is it you are using those tactics against other humans walking on this earth? It's bizarre to me, that you believe these are the tactics that will help your side win in 2018 and 2020. Me, I think if you use those tactics the progressive political movement will remain a fringe movement, and it will have no impact on federal or state policies. If you want your movement to have an impact you have to build bridges with people, our moms and grams said it best, of course, you attract more bees with honey than with vinegar. They weren't wrong you know. 

    She will be too old in six years. De Gaulle, Adenauer, Churchill  none of them made it to 90 in office.

    And old age gradually affects you . Often by causing you to reject the evidence  that it has done so.

    You're right, she should go.

    This article is about the House, not the Senate. And I'd stipulate that Senate races are different because the electorate is state-wide,so it probably doesn't apply to your Feinstein topic. But I am offering it up here only because one should always look at political horse races from the other side's plan and I see they are hoping for the type of "healthy" discord in the Dem party that you'd like to provide.

    How Republicans Can Win the Midterms

    It won’t be easy, but with some lucky breaks and a lot of Democratic squabbling, the GOP could hold the House.

    By Charlie Mahtesian @ Pollitico.com, February 27, 2018

    There are so many signs of a coming rout in the House in November that’s it’s almost impossible to envision any way for Republicans to hang on to their 24-seat majority. And yet a faint outline of how the party might pull it off is nevertheless taking shape.

    It’s not readily obvious. There are a record number of GOP retirements—42, so far—including many in the kinds of suburban districts that will be hardest for the party to hold

    [.....] Republicans will have to embrace, fund and protect their blue-state colleagues, not to mention allowing them to get distance from the president and his policies. None of that will come naturally to the red-state dominated Republican Conference. It won’t be easy for the party to acknowledge its fate in the House might be tied to the Vichy Republicans of the Acela corridor.

    The other essential ingredient of the Republican survival plan is largely out of the party’s hands: Democratic self-immolation. Naturally, it’s already underway.​

    Trump has re-engineered the laws of candidate supply and demand, leading to Democratic primaries that are teeming with viable prospects. Yet that’s also raising the odds of bruising, cash-draining contests before the general election, which could force some candidates to adopt positions that will haunt them in a general election [....]

    The main point, I guess is: do you want to win any of the seats right now where Republicans are retiring? 

    Your long term plan is clearly to change the Democratic party's national message. Meanwhile, there are individual Congressional districts with gerrymandered makeup that need to be pandered to. As he points out, many are "suburban",which can mean many things these days beyond "soccer moms".. Not necessarily what's come to be known as "white working class." And social media as the new tool to pander to their individual interests, all candidates will be able to pander to very particular district interests.

    I found this article helpful on the Feinstein race,it's got a lot of detail and is very reality- based analysis. I think it's especially interesting in how ye olde "netroots" (remember them?) were part of ramping this up:

    Dianne Feinstein’s Democratic Challenger Has Little Support but Lots of Time

    By JOSH VOORHEES @ Slate.com, Feb. 14

    And this shouldn't be forgotten:

    She has also been laying some groundwork herself for the anti-Trump case of late, most notably when she decided to unilaterally release the Fusion GPS transcripts, which debunked the conservative conspiracy theory that it was Hillary Clinton’s campaign that effectively started the FBI investigation into Trump.


    Reminds me that this is when moderate Dems on national security show their true strength, come in real handy. They are always loathe to appear to play politics with these issues. So when something that an administration is doing bothers them, when they speak out on it, they have integrity, only the crazies can accuse them of political aims.

    Latest Comments