In 2004, this guy’s dad, a Chicago machine politician, announced abruptly he wouldn’t run for re-election to Congress. It was too late for anybody else to run, but he had arranged to put his son, a professor living out of state, on the ballot. He won unopposed. /1
In 2018 @Marie4Congress challenged him, lost a close race, and people and groups who supported her were put on the Dem establishment shit list. When nearby Illinois Rep. Bustos took over the DCCC next cycle, she formalized that into a blacklist. Newman ran again anyway.
She smoked him the second time. He’s done, and this vote against $2,000 checks will be one of his last votes ever.
Why would he cast this meaningless vote on his way out the door? The dark money group No Labels, which is backed by pro-austerity wealthy donors, spent big to defend him. This is his thank you, helping make opposition to these checks look bipartisan theintercept.com/2018/03/30/dan…
There are more fun Lipinski stories in my book, like how he used redistricting after 2010 to make his district *more* conservative so he could keep drifting right
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Yes, like this one, which would also have a hilarious time defending 10,000 libel suits a day. But sadly they’re not gonna let twitter shut down either
I’ve kept thinking about this argument over the M4A floor vote because while the debate itself doesn’t mean much, it divided people in a useless way. So maybe this’ll help make more sense of it:
Consider the fact that the left basically has no power rn. Right? Ok.
You can’t maneuver your way out of powerlessness. There’s no clever trick that abolitionists could have pulled in 1820 that would’ve ended slavery, even tho there were a few members of Congress against slavery
That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t debate tactics and maneuvers. You absolutely should. Some maneuvers are dumb, some are smart. Argue that out. But understand that that’s all you’re talking about. Your opponent in those debates is not your enemy. You might even be wrong.
Real question that will help me engage with folks on here who I do think are coming from a good place: Why is a vote on the House floor for M4A considered so obviously better than other demands? What’s so useful about the floor? We already know who backs it and who doesn’t...
Ok I think I get it: people think the cosponsor list is fake but a vote would be real.
Sorry to say but that’s wrong: A vote on a bill that won’t pass the Senate is just as symbolic as the act of cosponsoring. They’re both posturing. So if you have leverage, get something real.
Biden could give everyone who had Covid Medicare by executive action. That could end up being 30 million people or more. They could try to extract a commitment from Pelosi to demand that in exchange for govt funding bills. Whatever. Real things are possible.
People on here, including, apparently, lurkers like @BarackObama, are confused about the 20th Century party realignment, and that has led them to a confused understanding of politics today. The myth is that LBJ signed Civil Rights and said, well, there goes the south /1
He may have said some version of that, but that's beside the point. In fact, the realignment goes back at least to the New Deal. In the '30s, the GOP was still the Party of Lincoln and Dems were the bigger racists, but the New Deal was very good for everybody. And so in 1936 /2
for the first time that we have a reliable record, a majority of Black voters went Democratic. Elite columnists thought it was absurd that Black voters could ever side with the legacy of the Confederacy which was still dominated at the congressional level by white supremacists./3
For people wondering why House Democratic leaders would be launching an attack on the Squad out of the gate, consider the math and the new power balance:
Dems will have a much smaller majority in 2021, maybe 8 or 9 seats. Think about what that means:/1 theintercept.com/2020/11/06/ele…
Dems gave @AOC 60 seconds at the convention and iirc the rest of the Squad nothing. Defund the police was a slogan that came from the protests. The Squad could vanish from the earth tomorrow and none of the centrist complaints about messaging would be assuaged.
Spanberger would have gotten the same attack ad. And she’s going to get it again in 2022. If she has something to actually run on to counter it, maybe she’ll be ok. Worth a shot, no?
That’s different than saying that any particular slogan is effective or not. The purpose of a slogan is to win mass support for your cause. If it’s working, it’s good, if it’s not, it’s not, and people need to be hard headed about that.