Looking at reactions to the Feinstein loss last night, I think there's some confusion. First of all, "the party" is not one thing.
"The party" that decided to overwhelmingly support Kevin de Leon last night is made up of activists dating back to the post-Dean election, through Obama and Bernie, most of whom are more progressive than all 3 of them.
It includes anti-homelessness activists and anti-bail activists and anti-war activists and environmental activists. In 08 I was a delegate of "the party" and got the party to support a resolution to impeach torture memo author Jay Bybee.
"The party" was pretty establishment when I encountered it at that time but it's grown more and more progressive ever since. It doesn't always do the right thing because it's made up of a lot of competing forces.
For example, the vice chair was caught shilling for the dialysis industry. theintercept.com/2018/07/13/pro… But "the party" rejected her and endorsed the measure to cap dialysis profits.
"The party" was asked to make a decision between a candidate who has been in their communities and at their meetings for years and someone they don't know.
As you become more informed as a Democratic voter in California you become less likely to support Dianne Feinstein. And these are among the most informed voters.
You may have made another choice in your activism. You may think party leaders are all hacks and losers. These people decided to work inside the party to take it over and make it more progressive.
They haven't won the battle - and de Leon won't necessarily win the election - but they registered their discontent with someone who has disappointed them time and again. In this case it was their job.
That's not illegitimate and it's in no way hypocritical to highlight it. Activists outside "the party" can beat the machine. Or they can work their way inside "the party" and change it. There's no one pure, true way.
One other thing- people are going to vote however they want. It's an endorsement. It's not a command. Research shows party endorsements shift votes in the high single digits in downballot races. This isn't downballot.
Feinstein has close to a 20:1 cash advantage (the viability this endorsement brings might shrink that) and every major elected endorsing her. "The party" chose someone else. It's an expression of their values.
Also it's hard to see how "the party" shifting leftward has worked out badly for Democrats in CA politically over the past decade.
One reaction to this thread appears to be that its illegitimate for anyone to work within a system if it leads to a result I don't like
Also the allusion to superdelegates is just wrong. These individuals made an endorsement. They don't get a vote in the outcome that's many times more powerful than any voter.
Also superdelegates are done, with a simple fix I actually proposed 10 years ago.
In sum, this is why I hate writing about politics in this current age. Here, take a story about a guy who's life was ruined by reporting sexual harassment. highline.huffingtonpost.com/articles/en/hs…
