They got a lot of attention at the time

I just meant they seem kinda early 20s at this point. They ran on climate change, Medicare For All, detention ctr atrocities, etc

Today's crop of progressives are talking heating bills and groceries, ICE murders, and getting AIPAC money out of politics

Completely different environment, so the comparison seems irrelevant

President solely for power. That and my father and uncles all fought fascists

read who did win in Illinois.

I do know I Respect Hakeem Jeffries.

AIPAC spent $20 million in IL on ads talking about anything but Israel. And then afterwards gloated that the results, which included two of their four preferred moderate candidates losing, proved that, “Being pro-Israel is good policy and good politics.”

Uh-huh.

A great night for Jeffries and any other business-as-usual Democrat would have been an AIPAC sweep. But you won’t read that in Axios.

But par for the course given the source (er...I mean Axios, of course...).

The celebratory tone is wild given Abugazaleh's remarkable overperformance in IL-9. For the usual Progressive Haters Club not to take that seriously is a laughable mistake. The article has all the hallmarks of whistling past the graveyard.

"Most of the Democratic House candidates who have refused to commit to supporting Jeffries for leader or speaker are leftist insurgents."

Using a word that has been used exclusively in Recent years to describe fanatical terrorist ground like ISIS is definitely a choice.

I don't know any "leftist insurgents". Who writes this ridiculous crap?

As if any of these people are leftists.

As if there would be anything wrong with siding with the working class over the ruling class.

We’re never going to get where we need to go if punching left is more important than punching right.

They took it as some sign that certain candidates can win, instead of realizing that a big part of his win was the unpopularity of his chief opponent.

Candidates matter.

He spoke about affordability and economics in ways that people could relate and he did so without ignoring or playing down the very real social and civil right issues that so many are facing.

He reached out to Democrats, spoke with them and built a solid coalition. He didn't denigrate the Democratic Party or Democratic leaders.

He addressed the humanitarian crisis in Gaza without discussing AIPAC.

with Democrats is true. Visited Trump and nobody accused him of caving, being complicit, a Vichy Democrat and so on -- a Mamdani miracle!

Democrats being politicians is seen as bad by the anti-Democrats because it's compromise and cooperation and incrementalism as government is, while their candidates have to try to be seen as uncompromising ideologically pure unpoliticians -- a difficult position!

casting their ballots primarily for either a sex pest or a right wing loon who wears a red beret and lives in a studio apartment with 16 cats.

The perpetually-on-twitter misread the result as some sort of "overwhelming mandate". Mamdani knows the real score and course-corrected during his transition and after having been sworn in.

. . . and were never going to vote for a Democrat in any case. So don't try to minimize Mamdani's victory.

to any of the other candidates, including Mamdani. 49.2% total voted for someone other than Mamdani. Nevertheless, some folks on twitter made the mistake of framing the 50.8% win as a landslide.

Democrats here in NY breathed a sigh of relief when the mayor cracked the 50% mark. Mayor Mamdani wisely read the room and moderated during his transition and after he was sworn in.

That being...How exactly do the most progressive of progressives think they are viewed by moderate and mainstream liberals? Seriously. You can't express continued disdain for a group of people and not eventually have them view you the same exact way.

despite what Donald Trump and assorted others seem to think.

I believe you know full well what the word means. But in the interest of combatting "confusion":


https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/insurgent

Is insurgent a new word?

Insurgent is not a particularly novel coinage; it has been in use as both a noun and an adjective for well over 200 years. Appearances of the word began to spike in the early 21st century, however, due to a combination of factors (including the appearance of such combatants in conflicts and the desire among journalists to avoid words that might seem biased, such as terrorist or freedom fighter).

The definition of the noun, which includes the phrase “a rebel not recognized as a belligerent,” refers to a specific sense of belligerent: “belonging to or recognized as an organized military power protected by and subject to the laws of war.”

From your link:

Further, it is exactly this kind of striving for hyperbole that creates impediment to honest conversation within our own party. How can you constructively converse with a person who creates their own definitions for words? This is the kind of question you'd think need only be raised with regard to Republicans. But, nope, this kind of nonsense goes on in our own party as well. There is no need for it. Finally, there is absolutely no need to take offense to being called an "insurgent." An insurgent is a rebel, someone who bucks the same old, same old. Good examples would be John Lewis and his anthem of "good trouble" on the left side of the aisle and John McCain and his penchant for being "the maverick" on the right side of the aisle.

Further, Axios is not a source to be trusted - owned primarily by Cox Enterprises - which has been taken over with republican funding. source: open secrets - https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/cox-enterprises/totals?id=D000000768

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/insurgent

insurgent
1 of 2
noun
in·​sur·​gent in-ˈsər-jənt
Synonyms of insurgent
1
: a person who revolts against civil authority or an established government
especially : a rebel not recognized as a belligerent
2
: one who acts contrary to the policies and decisions of one's own political party
insurgent

2 of 2
adjective
: rising in opposition to civil authority or established leadership : rebellious
insurgently adverb

Revolting, acting contrary, rising in opposition...all not terrorism. As for the news source, that again does not change the definition of a word. And, as we all know...words matter.

Trump started it and now it seems as if everybody is using overly emotional language in politics. It makes everybody sound nuts.

... well, the comparisons and language will naturally follow their own lead and the tone already set.

Taking on and standing up to and fighting an evil Democratic establishment, accusing Democrats of genocide because AIPAC donates five dollars to a campaign (Democrats "take" money -- we imagine cartoon villains greedily rubbing their hands together), threats of primarying because of imaginary corrupt geezers clinging to power (will stop at nothing to thwart nice young candidates), threats not to do as I say or else I won't vote, Democrats the "true roadblock to progress" who must be removed and replaced.

It's an very aggressive message.

Unless we understand that in order to control Congress we are unable to make the necessary decision that help the American people and hold those accountable who are corrupt. It takes a united front to defeat the GOP because they have very few defectors.

This outcome in Illinois suggests changing voter priorities and could signal a broader shift within the party’s internal landscape.

... engage in purity debates. They know that choosing ELECTABLE candidates (who can compete in the General Election) and candidates with experience is more important than angry firebrands who would be eaten alive.

I know it is tough to hear, but t he majority of America is in the center. I consider myself center left and quit coming here for a while because it felt like my voice did not matter.

We need people willing to compromise, you never get everything you want in a democracy.

I have been lurking again lately.

I want legislators who have the courage to take risks, not compromise with MAGA. They don't negotiate back, so what's the point?

Even at that, I don't see much compromise and dialogue. What I see is serving self interest, nest-feathering and turf protecting. "Me keeping my job" takes priority over governing. So we might as well vote for someone who is going to do something.

If we can elect people we trust with good character, they can do the job. Being intransigent, isn’t getting anything done.

Take a look around.

We have what's going on now because of that approach. Happy with it?

The only one for me that comes to mind is Abughazelah. But upon looking at Biss' site, he might have been just as left -or to the left of her...

Daniel Biss looks very awesome BTW at first glance at least. I only knew of abughazelah before this but am quickly becoming a fan of Biss based on what Im seeing

Most of the incumbents won their seats, no surprise there, hardly any of the "squad" candidates had the kind of money the incumbents did because they didn't take PAC money. No surprise there.

Most of the incumbents who won, especially in the Chicago area, are far left already.

In my congressional district, the far left member of Congress ran unopposed. So did our most liberal member of the Illinois house and the most liberal Senator in Springfield.

In a field of 10 candidates, Juliana Stratton was a clear winner over Raja Krishnamoorthi, and the fact that the Republicans have to reach back and grab Darren Bailey, who already got his rear end handed to him on a platter, to run against Governor Pritzker, is a sign that progressives have control of Illinois' Democrats and are a powerful force to reckon with. So Axios, eat your maga heart out.

what a dumbass headline, and from this, I won't bother reading the story. It's behind a paywall anyway. Axios is a long way from when they launched back in 2016.

https://russblib.blogspot.com

Period

It's great news for House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.), who is most popular among the moderate and mainstream liberal wings of his party.

Moderates and mainstream Dems are in no way liberal.

Last edited Fri Mar 20, 2026, 11:06 AM - Edit history (1)

It literally reads "mainstream liberals".

Notwithstanding any vibes that play into people's misunderstanding of the word, the word "mainstream" (like the word "insurgent" ) has an actual definition:

More posts like this will likely get one put on ignore, deep posting history or not..

In essence, the Illinois primaries ended up being a compromise - much to the benefit of the people of Illinois.