It would be disastrous if this moment of potential revolution for Dems is harnessed by a conservative (or 'moderate' if you prefer) like Craig to win a Senate seat. Don't let the rhetoric of campaign talk trick you - she is not going to be fighting fascism.
Voted yes on the Laken Riley Act, yes to sanction the ICC, yes on the nonprofit ki…
It would be disastrous if this moment of potential revolution for Dems is harnessed by a conservative (or 'moderate' if you prefer) like Craig to win a Senate seat. Don't let the rhetoric of campaign talk trick you - she is not going to be fighting fascism.
Voted yes on the Laken Riley Act, yes to sanction the ICC, yes on the nonprofit killer bill (HR 9495). Craig is one of the worst House Dems in terms of # of votes with Republicans, just barely a step above Cuellar/Golden/Perez.
Sinema is the worst example you could give lol. Before her Arizona was voting Republican for Senate majority leader and after they are voting Democrat.
Harris only won by five points with the sitting governor as her running mate. This complacency about Minnesota being an automatic lock for Democrats seems misguided to me.
In Peggy Flanagan’s case, she’s already been building up a decent list of endorsements. She’s even quoted the late Paul Wellstone on her campaign website.
In my opinion Omar is a great rep, though hypothetically I think it would be fair to question her chances of winning statewide. But that's a moot point because Omar has already announced she's not running for Senate.
MN already has a very solid candidate in Peggy Flanagan, who has actually won statewide! Lopez Franzen would be much preferable to Craig as well.
I don't believe Lieutenant Governor in Minnesota is a standalone office so I wouldn't count that as winning statewide. People weren't really voting for her they were voting for Tim Walz.
Wait, my comment may seem flippant. Complete opposite. We love Flanagan. I was ready to vote for Walz and him picking her made it a no brainer for me back in 2018. And, their primary opponents for Gov/Lt Gov were the first candidate I ever volunteered for and a friend from college. Should’ve been a tough choice but it wasn’t. 2016 was scary af and I wanted Tim Walz as my candidate for Gov. Dude is a safety blanket.
I am no fan of Omar's and would love for her to get clobbered in a primary, but what's the basis for calling her "corrupt"? I don't like to see that term get thrown around without reason...
"The complaint cited a June story in the Minnesota Reformer on how Omar's husband, Tim Mynett, and his business partner, Will Hailer, are being accused of fraud and breach of contract in connection to their marijuana and wine ventures, which collapsed.
Omar, over the last three years, has not disclosed to Congress the value of these troubled business ventures, NLPC said in the complaint, pointing to a reported $300,000 investment from a Washington, D.C., business owner, Naeem Mohd, in the wine business — eStCru."
And there's this:
"Omar marries political consultant, months after affair claim"
"Filings with the Federal Election Commission show Omar’s campaign paid Tim Mynett or his firm nearly $600,000 since July 2018. Though it may raise eyebrows, family members, including spouses, can be on the campaign payroll as long as the family member provides services at a fair market value. "
This seems like a nothingburger and there are MANY other things I'd object to her over before this. That said, perception becomes reality on these things I suppose. Regardless, you and I are aligned that she is unelectable statewide. Good news is that, unlike Republicans, our crazies don't tend to win primaries...
I think it's premature to make that assumption that she has the primary wrapped up. Maybe she thinks she could be a stronger choice in the general than Flanagan. Also, I pointed out that she voted against censuring Al Green. That commentor was wrong and the spreadsheet he provided disproved that she voted Yes for censuring Al Green. Criticizing the party and the nominees is one thing and I don't doubt that Craig has her share of criticisms. But making false claims about the votes they made is a whole different beast.
The guy did make a factual error on the Al Green censure vote, but he may have been mistaken, otherwise he wouldn't have provided the spreadsheet. Let's not start a fight here.
She voted No on censuring Al Green. Even your spreadsheet says that. I know she has taken some shitty votes before because she is in a swing district but I wouldn't go as far as comparing here to Cuellar, Golden or Perez with your analysis or even comparing her to Sinema. She'll have to answer for some of those votes in the primary but if she proves to be a strong campaigner that convinces primary voters she is the strongest candidate in the general election, then so be it. I have a feeling as Senator she would vote more along the lines of the state's blue lean. I know we are all rooting for a Democratic version of a Tea Party movement this cycle but usually a candidate who proves they will do everything to win over Democratic base, despite their voting records, will be come the nominee. I'm not saying there will be successful primary challengers in races this cycle, but if Craig makes the case that she would be a stronger choice for Team Fight, then she can win the nominee. It's now on Peggy Flanagan to decide how she's going to run her primary campaign. I expect it to get heated but if it gets too negative and toxic for either Craig or Flanagan, then that's what might cost either of them their shot. What I am more concerned about is finding a candidate to hold onto Craig's district.
If you mean betraying minority rights, no, that's not something Democrats should consider doing. But they have to be better at using their own strong framing and not parroting Republican framing.
Right. That's the conundrum. FDR held his coalition by appeasing Southern segregationists. If progressives don't make those kinds of cultural bargains, they lose power to those who will. It's why I don't see much hope for any kind of durable progressive governance. The culture is changing too quickly to avoid giving the bad guys the ammunition needed to quickly blow apart coalitions. That and I just don't see where the money's gonna come from to finance durable progressive governance with so much of the population aging out of their taxpaying years.
As long as the U.S. dollar remains the primary world currency, money can be borrowed for that purpose, but once it's dropped, the U.S. is likely to be in deep trouble. And I agree that the capacity of numerous American voters to vote for criminal, incompetent racist extremists shows that expecting durable progressive governance in this country is probably a lost cause. They'll vote for progressives when Republicans preside over economic disasters they don't give them a pass for like Trump's deadly mishandling of COVID, but they won't do so consistently because too many of them are ignorant, stupid, bigoted, or believe in demonstrably false religions (by which I mean they refuse to accept scientific facts in favor of religious fantasies, not things like believing in an eventual apocalypse, Second Coming, etc.) and ministers and therefore are easy prey for conspiracy lies and con men.
Your argument on Angie Craig doesn’t add up as her record is far more liberal than Cuellar, Golden and Perez. For starters, Craig sponsored DC statehood and has been consistent on impeaching Trump from the beginning.
I don’t think Craig is a perfect House Democrat either but if anyone here were to actually call her a conservative, facts wouldn’t back them up.
I think it's very cringey when progressives call anyone who isn't as far left as them "conservatives". Criticize their votes, sure, but let's be accurate.
Other than some of the squad, Progressives aren't really far left rather just left-wing Social Democrats. The guy did make a factual error on the Al Green censure vote, but he may have been mistaken, otherwise he wouldn't have provided the spreadsheet. I personally agree with Progressives on some issues and New Democrats on some others.
Sure. I believe in accurately describing a Democrat regardless of how liberal, moderate or conservative they may be compared to others. Being honest with facts is important.
That said, criticizing a House Democrat or Democratic U.S. Senator because of votes is fair game.
My take is that Craig would be fine but Flanagan would be good/great. I wouldn't be disappointed to have Craig end up senator ipso facto, but I would be disappointed to see us miss the opportunity to get someone who I'd expect would be great.
Kind of like Porter vs Schiff. It's not that Schiff was inherently awful but that Porter presented the chance to get more of the type of strong communicators and real policy wonks the party could benefit from.
Craig will shift to the left if she is elected as MN's next Senator. Having said that, I personally try to reward ideological consistency over politicking where and when it makes sense (this is MN after all, not WV/MT/OH). In the case of MN, while Craig is a great Democrat and a fantastic rep for her seat and her part of the state, there is no reason to not select a more liberal but still very solid candidate, which in this case is LG Flanagan.
Like Gillibrand shifted to the left? But there are those occasional big votes when she can't be counted on, like the vote for the Republican budget. She's still pretending to fight for all of the things she voted to cut and not reminding her constituents about that vote in her mass emails...
We should never bank on a candidate shifting in any direction when going statewide instead of their district specifically. There's one famous example of someone moving left when becoming senator (Gillibrand) and one equally famous example of someone moving right when becoming senator (Sinema).
Fact is we do not know. Right now it's only an assumption. Craig could move left. She might not.
Putting aside the silliness of calling Craig a "Conservative", don't we think she is likely to be more like Kristen Gillibrand? Holding positions more aligned with her district and then moving to the left (where she probably really is) after winning statewide? For the record, I have no real preference between her and Flanagan. I think they'd both be overwhelming GE favorites and would be perfectly fine senators.
I would think so. The votes referenced above all were going to pass, anyway. It’s not like she stands in the way of progress - she’s just voting like a moderate when it’s convenient for her winning reelection.
Even though the move statewide is actually a redder constituency, the Democrats she’s aiming to win over are heavily based in Minneapolis/St. Paul. If she wants to win and stay a winner, she now has to convince us and keep it that way.
The censure Al Green vote is a good example of why she’s fine. Votes that are going to pass anyway and help her look moderate so she can win by bigger margins are going to happen in a swing district. Shitting on fellow Democrats is a no. Actually standing in our way or being a deciding vote has never happened.
Let’s also remember she’s a lesbian representing some pretty red rural turf. She has a big hill to overcome and she’s done it beautifully in flannel. Her winning by a huge margin in 2024 shows she’s positioned herself to be another Senator the blue team doesn’t have to worry about.
Ugh, how to choose. I’m gay so I’ve got a leaning. But I’m ready for campaigns and will make a careful decision.
It would be disastrous if this moment of potential revolution for Dems is harnessed by a conservative (or 'moderate' if you prefer) like Craig to win a Senate seat. Don't let the rhetoric of campaign talk trick you - she is not going to be fighting fascism.
Voted yes on the Laken Riley Act, yes to sanction the ICC, yes on the nonprofit killer bill (HR 9495). Craig is one of the worst House Dems in terms of # of votes with Republicans, just barely a step above Cuellar/Golden/Perez.
Source: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1gPBdBrqVCbtuy7f1bjOdCDUzEv5RqbbU1yYAr3KoHYE/edit?gid=686052829#gid=686052829
Edit: I mistakenly wrote in an earlier version of this comment that Craig voted to censure Al Green. Craig was a No on that vote.
Can she win the general election and caucus with Democrats? That's the only thing that matters.
Not the only thing that matters when you have a better alternative.
I'm not an MN voter but I am leaning more towards Flanagan but open to Craig.
Just like how Kyrsten Sinema won a general election and caucused with Democrats?
Sinema is the worst example you could give lol. Before her Arizona was voting Republican for Senate majority leader and after they are voting Democrat.
Yeah and Minnesota hasn't been voting that way. So unlike with Sinema, there's no justification for Craig
Harris only won by five points with the sitting governor as her running mate. This complacency about Minnesota being an automatic lock for Democrats seems misguided to me.
It's not a lock, but if they can't win a Senate seat in Minnesota next year, the problems go much deeper than a single state!
What does Sinema have to do with the Senate race in MN? She was awful in her own way.
We don’t need to accept just any Democrat in a state like Minnesota, people to Craig’s left win the general election there all the time.
In Peggy Flanagan’s case, she’s already been building up a decent list of endorsements. She’s even quoted the late Paul Wellstone on her campaign website.
Minnesota isn't really a state where an Ilhan Omar (who is who I'm presuming you want to run) can win statewide.
In my opinion Omar is a great rep, though hypothetically I think it would be fair to question her chances of winning statewide. But that's a moot point because Omar has already announced she's not running for Senate.
MN already has a very solid candidate in Peggy Flanagan, who has actually won statewide! Lopez Franzen would be much preferable to Craig as well.
I don't believe Lieutenant Governor in Minnesota is a standalone office so I wouldn't count that as winning statewide. People weren't really voting for her they were voting for Tim Walz.
Yeah. She just got picked bc then Walz could win over more progressive Dems. It worked fantastically.
Wait, my comment may seem flippant. Complete opposite. We love Flanagan. I was ready to vote for Walz and him picking her made it a no brainer for me back in 2018. And, their primary opponents for Gov/Lt Gov were the first candidate I ever volunteered for and a friend from college. Should’ve been a tough choice but it wasn’t. 2016 was scary af and I wanted Tim Walz as my candidate for Gov. Dude is a safety blanket.
Your previous comment didn't seem flippant to me but this was a great comment.
Objecting to a candidate who's made some bad House votes doesn't mean the alternative is corrupt, no-chance-to-win-a-statewide-race Ilhan Omar!
I am no fan of Omar's and would love for her to get clobbered in a primary, but what's the basis for calling her "corrupt"? I don't like to see that term get thrown around without reason...
Let's put it this way: There's certainly been at least a whiff of corruption around her.
What eventually happened with this?
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ilhan-omar-faces-ethics-complaint-over-not-disclosing-husband-s-assets/ar-BB1p1tfj
"The complaint cited a June story in the Minnesota Reformer on how Omar's husband, Tim Mynett, and his business partner, Will Hailer, are being accused of fraud and breach of contract in connection to their marijuana and wine ventures, which collapsed.
Omar, over the last three years, has not disclosed to Congress the value of these troubled business ventures, NLPC said in the complaint, pointing to a reported $300,000 investment from a Washington, D.C., business owner, Naeem Mohd, in the wine business — eStCru."
And there's this:
"Omar marries political consultant, months after affair claim"
https://apnews.com/article/c1a31dbcc7adcf48667f799403873406
"Filings with the Federal Election Commission show Omar’s campaign paid Tim Mynett or his firm nearly $600,000 since July 2018. Though it may raise eyebrows, family members, including spouses, can be on the campaign payroll as long as the family member provides services at a fair market value. "
This seems like a nothingburger and there are MANY other things I'd object to her over before this. That said, perception becomes reality on these things I suppose. Regardless, you and I are aligned that she is unelectable statewide. Good news is that, unlike Republicans, our crazies don't tend to win primaries...
She votes like she has the primary wrapped up and she's pivoting to the general which is not the case. Unwise votes politically in my opinion.
I think it's premature to make that assumption that she has the primary wrapped up. Maybe she thinks she could be a stronger choice in the general than Flanagan. Also, I pointed out that she voted against censuring Al Green. That commentor was wrong and the spreadsheet he provided disproved that she voted Yes for censuring Al Green. Criticizing the party and the nominees is one thing and I don't doubt that Craig has her share of criticisms. But making false claims about the votes they made is a whole different beast.
The guy did make a factual error on the Al Green censure vote, but he may have been mistaken, otherwise he wouldn't have provided the spreadsheet. Let's not start a fight here.
She voted No on censuring Al Green. Even your spreadsheet says that. I know she has taken some shitty votes before because she is in a swing district but I wouldn't go as far as comparing here to Cuellar, Golden or Perez with your analysis or even comparing her to Sinema. She'll have to answer for some of those votes in the primary but if she proves to be a strong campaigner that convinces primary voters she is the strongest candidate in the general election, then so be it. I have a feeling as Senator she would vote more along the lines of the state's blue lean. I know we are all rooting for a Democratic version of a Tea Party movement this cycle but usually a candidate who proves they will do everything to win over Democratic base, despite their voting records, will be come the nominee. I'm not saying there will be successful primary challengers in races this cycle, but if Craig makes the case that she would be a stronger choice for Team Fight, then she can win the nominee. It's now on Peggy Flanagan to decide how she's going to run her primary campaign. I expect it to get heated but if it gets too negative and toxic for either Craig or Flanagan, then that's what might cost either of them their shot. What I am more concerned about is finding a candidate to hold onto Craig's district.
A democratic tea party does need to happen, not based on ideological purity tests but between fighters vs do-nothing Democrats.
They'd have to avoid getting caught up in the next iterations of the culture war to have any chance of pulling it off, and I don't like their chances.
If you mean betraying minority rights, no, that's not something Democrats should consider doing. But they have to be better at using their own strong framing and not parroting Republican framing.
Right. That's the conundrum. FDR held his coalition by appeasing Southern segregationists. If progressives don't make those kinds of cultural bargains, they lose power to those who will. It's why I don't see much hope for any kind of durable progressive governance. The culture is changing too quickly to avoid giving the bad guys the ammunition needed to quickly blow apart coalitions. That and I just don't see where the money's gonna come from to finance durable progressive governance with so much of the population aging out of their taxpaying years.
As long as the U.S. dollar remains the primary world currency, money can be borrowed for that purpose, but once it's dropped, the U.S. is likely to be in deep trouble. And I agree that the capacity of numerous American voters to vote for criminal, incompetent racist extremists shows that expecting durable progressive governance in this country is probably a lost cause. They'll vote for progressives when Republicans preside over economic disasters they don't give them a pass for like Trump's deadly mishandling of COVID, but they won't do so consistently because too many of them are ignorant, stupid, bigoted, or believe in demonstrably false religions (by which I mean they refuse to accept scientific facts in favor of religious fantasies, not things like believing in an eventual apocalypse, Second Coming, etc.) and ministers and therefore are easy prey for conspiracy lies and con men.
Your argument on Angie Craig doesn’t add up as her record is far more liberal than Cuellar, Golden and Perez. For starters, Craig sponsored DC statehood and has been consistent on impeaching Trump from the beginning.
I don’t think Craig is a perfect House Democrat either but if anyone here were to actually call her a conservative, facts wouldn’t back them up.
https://ontheissues.org/House/Angie_Craig.htm
I think it's very cringey when progressives call anyone who isn't as far left as them "conservatives". Criticize their votes, sure, but let's be accurate.
Other than some of the squad, Progressives aren't really far left rather just left-wing Social Democrats. The guy did make a factual error on the Al Green censure vote, but he may have been mistaken, otherwise he wouldn't have provided the spreadsheet. I personally agree with Progressives on some issues and New Democrats on some others.
Sure. I believe in accurately describing a Democrat regardless of how liberal, moderate or conservative they may be compared to others. Being honest with facts is important.
That said, criticizing a House Democrat or Democratic U.S. Senator because of votes is fair game.
Agreed. I’d probably narrowly prefer Flanagan to Craig but Craig is hardly some conservadem
My view is the same.
My take is that Craig would be fine but Flanagan would be good/great. I wouldn't be disappointed to have Craig end up senator ipso facto, but I would be disappointed to see us miss the opportunity to get someone who I'd expect would be great.
Kind of like Porter vs Schiff. It's not that Schiff was inherently awful but that Porter presented the chance to get more of the type of strong communicators and real policy wonks the party could benefit from.
Craig will shift to the left if she is elected as MN's next Senator. Having said that, I personally try to reward ideological consistency over politicking where and when it makes sense (this is MN after all, not WV/MT/OH). In the case of MN, while Craig is a great Democrat and a fantastic rep for her seat and her part of the state, there is no reason to not select a more liberal but still very solid candidate, which in this case is LG Flanagan.
Like Gillibrand shifted to the left? But there are those occasional big votes when she can't be counted on, like the vote for the Republican budget. She's still pretending to fight for all of the things she voted to cut and not reminding her constituents about that vote in her mass emails...
We should never bank on a candidate shifting in any direction when going statewide instead of their district specifically. There's one famous example of someone moving left when becoming senator (Gillibrand) and one equally famous example of someone moving right when becoming senator (Sinema).
Fact is we do not know. Right now it's only an assumption. Craig could move left. She might not.
Putting aside the silliness of calling Craig a "Conservative", don't we think she is likely to be more like Kristen Gillibrand? Holding positions more aligned with her district and then moving to the left (where she probably really is) after winning statewide? For the record, I have no real preference between her and Flanagan. I think they'd both be overwhelming GE favorites and would be perfectly fine senators.
I would think so. The votes referenced above all were going to pass, anyway. It’s not like she stands in the way of progress - she’s just voting like a moderate when it’s convenient for her winning reelection.
Even though the move statewide is actually a redder constituency, the Democrats she’s aiming to win over are heavily based in Minneapolis/St. Paul. If she wants to win and stay a winner, she now has to convince us and keep it that way.
The censure Al Green vote is a good example of why she’s fine. Votes that are going to pass anyway and help her look moderate so she can win by bigger margins are going to happen in a swing district. Shitting on fellow Democrats is a no. Actually standing in our way or being a deciding vote has never happened.
Let’s also remember she’s a lesbian representing some pretty red rural turf. She has a big hill to overcome and she’s done it beautifully in flannel. Her winning by a huge margin in 2024 shows she’s positioned herself to be another Senator the blue team doesn’t have to worry about.
Ugh, how to choose. I’m gay so I’ve got a leaning. But I’m ready for campaigns and will make a careful decision.