90% of Democratic policies/priorities are supported by majorities of Americans from abortion access to taxing the rich. Why some of those Americans vote against their interests has nothing to do with whatever the hell Booker is talking about. It may have been a year or ago that Gav. Newsom tried this tack with his "the Democratic brand is toxic" nonsense. Since then, Dems have cleaned up in elections and Newsom seems to have STFU about the "Democratic brand."

Meanwhile, magaworld is doing things everyone hates and Booker is still trashing Democrats. He should have lunch with Fetterman.

And that’s what is killing this country.

The other dying thing is your presidential aspirations which are DOA if this is your schtick.

I can see running to the right but that would be a move for a DEM candidate who DOESN'T raise the hairs on a rightie's neck! The DEMS need to perfect COHERENCE(Buttigieg!) first..then the fancy head shrinking stuff should come later.

They are killing the chances of too many good democrats. In 24 and 16, purity tests gave us Trump. In 2000, they gave is Bush. And this year, they may prevent democrats from gaining a majority in the Senate.

Have a good day!

Because everything i saw was mainly compromise candidates that gave us those results. Still waiting to see any sign of a purity test.

We are still, best i can tell, the party of Zell Miller, Joe Manchin, and John Fetterman. Schumer is running things, Booker himself is a party leader. One of the people who gets to decide whether we have "purity tests". No-one to blame but himself if he feels those exist or are a problem.

were compromise candidates?

Please explain.

Not meaning to be combative, But I started by asking you a question.. specifically to elaborate on the purity tests you think are in place which are "killing the chances of too many good democrats." and on how "In 24 and 16, purity tests gave us Trump. In 2000, they gave is Bush. And this year, they may prevent democrats from gaining a majority in the Senate."

From my perspective it looks like you are diverting the conversation into other questions. Im happy to get into my answer to your question, but in the interest of fair discussion, I would request that you answer my questions first.

Okay, have a nice day.

Oh and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purity_test_(politics)

But this indicates to me that you are not interested in good faith discussion at this time. I asked you a question, and all you can do is try to avoid answering by diverting topic with other questions.

I plan to have an excelent day. I hope you also have a nice day.

Last edited Fri Apr 3, 2026, 10:55 AM - Edit history (2)

If I were advising him I would have him focus on the up vs. down divide. You can do it without even getting into what the democratic party is doing or not doing. MAGA is killing our country - focus on that. MAGA is invading foreign countries, making gas and everything else a lot more expensive. Rather than fixing healthcare, MAGA has just pushed more people off it. Etc.

I rec'd the post because I think it's something that needs to be discussed. I heard Gavin doing it too. When you pick at the dem party, attack certain interest groups, start talking about purity, etc - all of that. You're just doing the republican's work for them. Instead, attack the real problem - MAGA is definitely not making the country better - or anywhere close to great.

Clinton used to say, "it's the economy, stupid". He may have had other failings, but he was correct about how to keep the country solvent (MAGA can't even do that).

I don't want to go through this shit again.

I mean, better him than any Republican, but he can count on a primary challenger getting my support.

Fergawdssake, Cory, the "Tip and Ronnie" days ended while you were still in your 20s. And stop equating Left and Right. The only people on the Left who are as radical as the Right are true fringers with no resources, no support infrastructure, and who can't organize their way out of a wet paper bag. "The Left" you keep referring to are mainly about applying some New Deal experience to our present situation. They're not radicals.

Anyone who passes a purity test should be ruled out for leadership. We need people who can run things and win elections for our core values. We don't need sweetie pie "people pleasers" and fakers. Pure people are fakes.

No more Fetterman, Sinema, or Manchin.
Bernie and AOC are getting the silent majority to vote. Quit chasing independents after years of go TV they are ashamed republicans.
https://www.rawstory.com/gop-2676637346/

I assume you're not volunteering to administer purity tests. As you know, the self-elected who claim priestly purity must always be considered frauds, at least until they show proof someone elected them to something. Democracy confers validity.

We need a candidate that can win. And if these are some of his supporters, so be it.

Continued cover-up of the Epstein files.

Actually, it's not a system anymore. Our electoral process is now a thriving, for-profit industry. Most companies give to both parties, usually favoring one over the other, but there's no getting away from candidates needing money, & a lot of it, if they want to get elected. Unfortunately, the ones who can change the system are a subset of those who benefit from it.

"We're all trying to find the guy that did this."

https://giphy.com/explore/hot-dog-man

in which a wienermobile has crashed through the front window of a clothing shop, and a guy in a hot dog costume is claiming it wasn't him and when the cops show up proclaims "we're all trying to find the guy that did this".

Just my way of saying that Booker as long been part of the bland Schumer milquetoast wing of the party that got us to this point, but now he is pretending he is going to find out who did this.

got us to this point.

the point where somehow the most vomitous pile of excrement stuffed into a trash bag of a suit is somehow President for a second time.

For Booker to say that the Democratic party has failed this moment overlooks the fact that he played a central role.

on senate floor?

The folks who got us to this point are the morons who voted for Trump along with the uber-entitled who whined “the lesser of two evils is still evil” (as if Kamala Harris were evil) and then stayed home or voted third party.

As for the “famous wienermobile skit”, it’s a cute story, but it’s fairly irrelevant in this instance.

If folks move past the rage bait headline and listen to the actual interview, Senator Booker is clear about “who did this”:

then rushed to vote to confirm the pardoned felon Charles Kushner, Jared Kushner's daddy as the U.S. Ambassador to France?

Actions speak louder than words.

Actions do indeed speak louder than words.

Does the name Jared Kushner and the name Jamal Khashoggi ring a bell?

Someone should tell the wienermobile guy (cute story!) that the purity patrol has been located exactly where Senator Booker said it would be.

See also: purity test.

I'm 100% right and everyone knows it's the only right and moral position, facts or opinions or just being wrong or making a mistake or different point of view cannot exist, anybody who does not agree with me in my marching in lockstep echo chamber is immoral and the enemy THEM with evil intentions out to get me because I am right and they are TERRIFIED.

This is a term used by those who would white wash our Democratic platform to something more palatable to the corporate christo-supremacists and the private prison industry. Lets not make MAGA mad or scared.

Too many have spent their political careers "purifying" themselves into a flavorless brand. "The New Bland has a New Look!"

It's the new phrase for "political correctness," which they know full well is a rightwing term so they can't say it

Talk about the New Deal as something we can learn from and apply today, not simply as a remote historical artifact, and you will fail the "Centrist" purity test and will be vigorously shut down.

The almost-literal elephant in the room is that wealthy Democrats like their Republican tax cuts and will vigorously squelch any talk that highlights that condition. And with that, any talk that the "Centrists" are not actually the center.

If this is his presidential pitch, to go after the left wing of the party who have been 100% correct in predicting the rise of fascism over the last 30 years of centrist Democrats moving the party further right, then I'm just gonna go out on a limb and say that is a LOSING message.

Ignore it and lose.

The GOP gets people to ignore it and wins.



"Thank you for your inattention to oligarchy"

And Epstein.

The two issues the Donald wants us to ignore the most.

I guess it is OK to criticize Democrats from the so-called "middle" (more like from the right). That is just "common sense." That is "practicality." But from the left? No, that is disloyalty.

Miss me with this bullshit.

He's been pretty damn disappointing post-marathon floor speech.

He then had to backtrack and apologize. He won't ever be president because he constantly lobs grenades at his own side and has a chronic case foot-in-mouth.

Take politics out of it, nominate a non-politician for president, nominate the #1 fighter.

How about :

Miles Taylor or
Malcolm Nance

The purity test he talks about is the moderate v Progressive battle is it not?

I hate the term "purity test" because it's been weaponized against people just trying to push for policy change in the Democratic Party.

I also think the "vote blue, no matter who" is dangerous because we already have Republicans, running as Democrats to capitalize on just that sentiment. It also gets us people like Fetterman.

It's not about "purity tests" it's about expecting more from our candidates and just not wanting a candidate to win a primary that is little more than Republican Lite.

"According to data from the website VoteHub, Fetterman only votes with President Trump 28 percent of the time. And although this means he sides with Trump more frequently than any other Senate Democrat, it’s not by much: the next-closest senator, Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, votes with Trump 25.6% of the time."

"Moreover, Fetterman has supported Democrats on several high-profile matters. He has taken a decidedly populist tone on economic issues, supporting many liberal positions such as closing income tax loopholes for billionaires, repealing executive orders targeting labor unions, and tackling 'corporate greed.' He voted 'HELL NO' on Trump’s biggest policy priority of his second term, called on the president to fire DHS Secretary Kristi Noem over the Minneapolis fallout, and criticized him for paving the way to increased restrictions on abortion. Fetterman has even sided with the left on contentious social issues. In fact, he has said he is a Democrat because of abortion and LGBT issues, specifically."

https://www.liberalpatriot.com/p/john-fetterman-and-the-new-era-of

In contrast, Senator Oz (R-Pa)would have voted 100% of the time in support of Trump's agenda, and in lockstep with his fellow Republicans.

The time to defeat "Democrats" like Fetterman (or Manchin and Sinema) is in the party primary . Democrats fail when they do not vote "D" in the general.

Fetterman's Report Card": https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/john_fetterman/456877/report-card/2024

Is his recent and overt support for Mango Mussolini, especially in his key vote to pass Mullin out of committee and his unequivocal support for war with Iran is unacceptable. His going on Fox and trashing Dems is also unacceptable.

To be clear, I'm talking about in the primary as well. Like I absolutely hate Newsom as a presidential candidate but if he gets nominated I'll hold my nose and vote for him in the general.
I don't think there is a millimeter of space between how Mango Mussolini deals with billionaires and how Newsom would deal with them but hopefully he works out in other categories but I would still vote for him over any Republican.
My hope though is to get a candidate in the primary that sees billionaires just as they are: a clear and present danger to all humanity.

If Democrats want to punish Fetterman for his "crime," then do it in the primary. It's political illiteracy to play "purity test" games in the general election, by either staying home or voting for a third party candidate.

If I lived in Pennsylvania, and Fetterman managed to win the Democratic primary for U.S. Senate again in 2028 (Pa is a closed primary state), despite all the issues I and other Democrats have with him, it would be political suicide not to vote "D" in the general election. That's just reality.

I'm questioning and advocating for certain candidates in the primaries.
By the general it's too late to have buyer's remorse. You ride with what you got and try to fix it in the next election.

Which doesn't mean that once the election is over that their actions are above reproach. They are not royalty and legitimate criticism is always valid.

I’d prefer Beshear or Murphy, personally.

...it is a sane-insane divide, a divide between the "reality-based community" and the "fantasy and horseshit community".

And the fact that they hate us with a passion and genuinely dream of grinding us under their bootheels.

It's not really the Democratic Party that has failed, but its leadership (such as yourself, Senator) has. Specifically, its decades-long blindness to recognize the radicalism driving the Right. The failure to pay attention when they refuse any cross-party cooperation. The refusal to recognize their Soviet-Politburo-level of lockstep. The failure to recognize that while your Republican colleagues might be swell guys in person who tell you all sorts of complaints about Trump, it's their actions that define them, and their actions wholeheartedly back Trump and the rest of his ideologue/zealot/grifter-ridden administration.

And just as a suggestion, STOP EQUATING RIGHT AND LEFT. When the ball is on the 5 yard line, the big thing to focus on is NOT "both sides need to move the ball down the field to score." It may be technically true, but it deliberately ignores the actual situation.

Anyone trying to pull us to the right has failed to understand the actual message being sent by the electorate.

Any Democrat insinuating that other Democrats must met Nazis in the middle has 100% lost the plot.

It's a shame that Democrats want to help people, but they are stuck in their own world where they have an effect on everything all of the time, and everything they do makes them heroes, which alienates the people they want to help. This is propagated by podcasters and MS_NOW.

If he runs it won't be to win. It will be to make a point.

If you oppose Trump and attacks on the constitution, welcome aboard. We can sort out who uses which bathroom later, but right now we all have to join in fighting the common enemy. "What should Democrats being doing differently" is the complicit substitution for the question "What should AMERICANS be doing and doing differently."

than stopping Trump and holding every felon in his employ responsible for what they are currently doing.

We have to put the fire out and arrest all the arsons before we start building our new house.

but that conversation, at least as noted sounds like vague, generic stuff.

Purity tests are not good. That's exactly what the GOP does and most certainly under trump, where everyone who doesn't follow Dear Leader is a rInO or a cOmMiE.

That said, there was (is?) the "gEnOcIdE jOe" crowd too and all they did was help trump (how's that going for them..?)

We also see it with the purity gatekeepers who can't accept good faith criticism from our coalition.

We absolutely will need a FIGHTER not an appeaser that wants to "heal" the nation. Healing should be a byproduct of our next Administration not the goal. That's how we end up with Garlands and uncommitted voters 2 weeks out from election day. We need decisive clear goals, hate them or love them.

Which is why I have previously suggested we need a very active Vice President. We need 2 leaders because the mess that's been made can not be fixed by 1 person. We need 2 with the authority to do 2 separate jobs.

One to repair the damage as much and as quickly as possible in the first 18 months because campaigning starts soon after so Dems need something to campaign on.

And, two, to hold the criminals accountable via investigations, exploring new laws with clearly written penalties. No Felon should ever be allowed to hold Federal office again, investigations of known crooked justices with impeachment as the end goal.

Personality needs not matter. We're not electing the person to have a beer with. The hell with likeability. We need efficiency, a pit bull. Really, really consider their qualifications not their looks, not their gender. No apologists need apply unless it's to our allies.

just like Chris Murphy, Jeff Merkley, Chuck Schumer, Chris Van Hollen, and Kirsten Gillibrand.

Pro tip: forget the vibes and research the voting records.

https://www.ontheissues.org/

Kamala Harris was almost universally described as a centrist or moderate in the press when she first ran for president even though she was one of the most progressive senators and had gotten two or three bills passed already -- is it really too much to ask to be correct about such things?

Divide divide divide divide while a supernaturally united Republican Party lets a lunatic destroy the country (which is of course Democrats' fault, today Booker's fault).

And trying to turn centrists into dangerous extremist radical enemies is nutty anyway.

Sure, he has a good voting record but a true leader shows more than that. A leader doesn't look for publicity for publicity's sake. It's a byproduct of good leadership. Don't get me wrong, he seems to be a good guy, but not a leadership choice for me. I choose not to go into detail about why not.
I'll leave it at that and wish you a goodnight.

... oh wait, never mind.

whether Democrats are making a mistake of shrinking their coalition with purity tests, Booker responded that his party 'has failed this moment.'"

Looks like Cory failed a purity test by suggesting Democrats knock off the purity tests.

At least he takes the heat off Schumer and Jeffries for a minute.

I'm sure MAGAts appreciate the support.

for vague emotional righteous "moral" reasons that don't have anything to do with the reality. Then they bash religion while being religious about purity tests.

Doing the right-wings work for them. Stupid!

Medicare for All (if you don't say those exact words you don't support universal health care and are a corrupt shill of Big Pharma and Big Insurance), campaign funding (you're a corrupt corporate shill beholden to Big Everything and wealthy donors and billionaires and oligarchs and Satan) especially AIPAC (genocide monster Satan), Gaza ("Killer" genocide warmonger) -- all successful purity tests to vilify Democrats.

....this shit again.

Dems=failure.

That's essentially his message. That's what will be conveyed.

It's goddamn bullshit.

The 'generational' crap is belied by the way seasoned Democrats have repeatedly and consistently produced for the people in the majority. THAT should be the message, but instead we have this navelgazing crap that supposes we've done nothing at all. Where the fuck was he when we were passing historic legislation in the Biden term with Chuck Schumer as majority leader?

Why kick the party when we're down? NOT ONE ELECTED DEMOCRAT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE LAST ELECTION LOSSES.

Those elected Dems he's pushing off of here have actually fought and WON against republicans. Posturing as if there's something wrong with them because some younger candidate didn't do the same is just sophistry; a specious and self-defeating argument, especially making it at the behest of one of the worst media demagogues in the business.

Just BRILLIANT politics displayed here by Booker basically taking a cue from Welker to trash Dems, I tell ya.

We EXCEL in the majority, USHERING IN HISTORIC PROGRESSIVE LEGISLATIVE CHANGE and are limited in the minority to making statements LIKE THIS.

You'd think people would be self aware and recognize that this is nothing but anti-Democratic messaging; screeds that are exploited by trolls on social media everyday.

But here we are with another person posturing as if he's better than everyone else in the party that's fighting the same battles and wants the very same things he does, as badly as he does, and acting as if anti-Democratic party messaging is some sort of political genius or some sort of political rallying call for voters.

It's just not. It reads and sounds like someone who hasn't yet achieved what he's exhorting everyone else to do, and is acting as if he's above it all. It's just a turn-off.

It's even more ridiculous supposing he's primed to say something that hasn't already been said; or is poised to put on some political performance that's going to change a vote among the people he works with.

Just grandstanding and pushing off on his own party as if he had actually done something to coalesce and organize the coalition of elected Democrats that we have now and is ready to present a workable coalition to advance legislation (which is what he's basically complaining about, or should be); or that his words represent something other than his own projections.

That performative spiel should be reserved for the actual republican opposition. And anyone taking comfort in this should check and see just how many voters have been encouraged by this TO SUPPORT THE PARTY AT ELECTION TIME.

Because that's virtually ALL he's done here is project counterproductive nonsense about Democrats, and helped normalize the bullshit notion presented here by Welker about 'purity tests,' whatever that means to that inveterate cipher for her news org's bullshit takes-of-the-day against Democrats.

that is the Democratic message. I am so sick of the elite firing squad of our party - by Democrats. He is sending his own purity message.

The General is where we fall into line.
Lick, your wounds, shut up and vote, DEMOCRAT.

Maybe I have the wrong idea of what is meant by purity tests.

Though, leave it to RW apologist Welker to lob such a question (like Holt's 'soul-searching BS asked of Biden) at Booker. And one which Booker might have answered better.

What I think a purity test means is one insisting that a candidate checks every single box. There is no such thing as the perfect candidate for everyone.

In the primaries, you vote for the closest match, but then you stick with whoever prevails, whether or not she or he supported your particular niche enough to your satisfaction.

Because your protest vote, or no vote, is a vote for the other side. And I'd think by now we'd have learned that.

So if that's what it means, I'd have to agree with the first part of his statement.

But certainly NOT with that 'transcend traditional party lines and the left-versus-right divide' comment.

Because the divide is far too great, too fundamental in nature. Because there's too much at stake.

You don't transcend, reach out, compromise with principles, policies, and ideology you know are repugnantly, abhorrently unacceptable.

And you don't compromise with a cult that you know is hell bent on your... 'obliteration' (to coin a term).

In 2020 (and this will apply too all future primaries, as well), I categorically refused to support any of the "lookit me" Senators running who had publicly urged Al Franken to resign, and then did not apologize afterward. So, this meant Booker, Warren, Sanders, Harris and Gillibrand. There was just no way I would ever support any of them in a primary. Ever. That still stands.

But in the General? That is something else entirely. There was no way I would ever NOT vote against the Republican, and if that meant supporting someone I didn't want to win the primary, well, them's da breaks.

exactly where you want to go. You get on the bus that gets you closest.

Each of us has to decide for ourselves what "closest" means. I do have some lines in the sand, especially for the primaries. Most of us do. The designation of those as "purity tests" and this whole discussion of "purity" with regard to voters' choices, is ridiculous.

does that line in the sand hold even when one knows that holding it assures the victory of something far worse? The victory of someone who checks NO boxes?

Democratic primary, which is highly unlikely where I live but not everywhere, I would not be able to vote for them.

My lines are pretty easily met by the vast majority of Democratic candidates, and I have always been able to happily vote for Democratic primary winners. My priorities have never been so violated that I haven't been able to vote for one of our candidates.

But during the primary? I'm looking at voting records and I'm weighing my priorities. And incumbents don't get a pass just because they're incumbents. Right now there are a few who I fervently hope will be primaried. If they win the primary, I'll certainly vote for them, but I'm not happy with them and hope we can replace them. If that's a purity test, so be it. As I see it, that's how our system is supposed to work.

that's what primaries are for, and how the system should work.

The selection of the candidate that most closely aligns (even when not perfectly) with the voting majority.

Followed by complete support in the general. None of that, 'my guy/gal didn't win so ----- it.'