He has literally talked about the end goal being Communism. He’s an ML.
This is largely an opinion peice, and also does not draw the conclusion that Democrats lost because they didn’t cater to MLs
Cool opinion
I didn’t say dems are perfect, or haven’t been dropping the ball.
I’m making the case that courting someone who’s goal is to promote communism and who’s anti-liberal views are completely at odds with the party is obviously not of interest or a good move for the Dems.
my argument have never been that the democrats needed to interface at all with Hassan, but they are spending their efforts into attacking him as a further battle against the growing progressive base. this includes astro turfing false narratives against him that you have brought up.
my point is that they are not merely dropping the ball, that they are making a concerted effort to court the right and fighting to prevent progressives from gaining sway over the party.
the argument that the report is an “opinion” is in bad faith. its methodology is sound, its conclusions are measurable and it corllates to democratic actions in giving up the shutdown. and is backed by the establishment actively attempting to suppress it
these are not dropping the ball, this is a pattern of internal alignment with the republicans over their own base.
i don’t care about Hassan, it’s not about him, he is just yet another example of the larger effort the democratic party expends to fight against the progressive base from getting control.
if your argument is that effort at self sabotage, that has cost them the election due to voter apathy, i disagree. and the numbers show it.
if the argument is that this internal sabotage isn’t what is stopping them from doing their job, then that means they are “dropping the ball” by choice
i don’t care about Hassan, it’s not about him, he is just yet another example of the larger effort the democratic party expends to fight against the progressive base from getting control.
And yet you say that pushing back against him trying to inject himself into the part takes significant effort from the party that could be devoted to other things.
If we agree that Hasan is a bad example of a person they’d want in the coalition, then who are these other “progressive” figures they are spending so much effort fighting against?
It’s not about finding a ‘perfect’ individual; it’s about the documented institutional effort to crush the progressive wing regardless of the candidate.
If you want examples of who the party fights, look at the 2024 and 2026 primary cycles. The establishment (via groups like AIPAC and the Democratic Majority for Israel) spent over $100 million,the most in U.S. history, specifically to unseat progressives like Jamaal Bowman and Cori Bush. In the 2026 special election in New Jersey, they even turned on a former moderate like Tom Malinowski the second he suggested conditioning aid to Israel.
This isn’t about Hasan, it’s about the fact that the DNC recently voted down a resolution to limit the influence of dark money and corporate PACs in Democratic primaries. They are effectively keeping the door open for Republican billionaire mega-donors (like Miriam Adelson) to fund ‘Democratic’ primary campaigns against progressives.
When the party leadership chooses to protect that dark money pipeline instead of their own base, they aren’t dropping the ball, they are protecting their donors.
My point stands: the establishment perceives a loss to a Republican as a manageable setback, but they perceive a progressive takeover of the party as an existential threat. The spending records prove it.
he is facing attacks from the democrat party, because he represents a progressive shift. and the democrats are doing so because they see progressive movement as a larger threat then the republican party.
this is consistent to my whole argument, and why i said that.
I didn’t say dems are perfect, or haven’t been dropping the ball.
I’m making the case that courting someone who’s goal is to promote communism and who’s anti-liberal views are completely at odds with the party is obviously not of interest or a good move for the Dems.
my argument have never been that the democrats needed to interface at all with Hassan, but they are spending their efforts into attacking him as a further battle against the growing progressive base. this includes astro turfing false narratives against him that you have brought up.
my point is that they are not merely dropping the ball, that they are making a concerted effort to court the right and fighting to prevent progressives from gaining sway over the party.
the argument that the report is an “opinion” is in bad faith. its methodology is sound, its conclusions are measurable and it corllates to democratic actions in giving up the shutdown. and is backed by the establishment actively attempting to suppress it
these are not dropping the ball, this is a pattern of internal alignment with the republicans over their own base.
Again, they are not spending significant effort “attacking” Hasan that’s keeping them from doing other things. That’s a fantasy.
i don’t care about Hassan, it’s not about him, he is just yet another example of the larger effort the democratic party expends to fight against the progressive base from getting control.
if your argument is that effort at self sabotage, that has cost them the election due to voter apathy, i disagree. and the numbers show it.
if the argument is that this internal sabotage isn’t what is stopping them from doing their job, then that means they are “dropping the ball” by choice
And yet you say that pushing back against him trying to inject himself into the part takes significant effort from the party that could be devoted to other things.
If we agree that Hasan is a bad example of a person they’d want in the coalition, then who are these other “progressive” figures they are spending so much effort fighting against?
It’s not about finding a ‘perfect’ individual; it’s about the documented institutional effort to crush the progressive wing regardless of the candidate.
If you want examples of who the party fights, look at the 2024 and 2026 primary cycles. The establishment (via groups like AIPAC and the Democratic Majority for Israel) spent over $100 million,the most in U.S. history, specifically to unseat progressives like Jamaal Bowman and Cori Bush. In the 2026 special election in New Jersey, they even turned on a former moderate like Tom Malinowski the second he suggested conditioning aid to Israel.
This isn’t about Hasan, it’s about the fact that the DNC recently voted down a resolution to limit the influence of dark money and corporate PACs in Democratic primaries. They are effectively keeping the door open for Republican billionaire mega-donors (like Miriam Adelson) to fund ‘Democratic’ primary campaigns against progressives.
When the party leadership chooses to protect that dark money pipeline instead of their own base, they aren’t dropping the ball, they are protecting their donors.
My point stands: the establishment perceives a loss to a Republican as a manageable setback, but they perceive a progressive takeover of the party as an existential threat. The spending records prove it.
So then we agree that this comment was either nonsense or bait.
NO,
he is facing attacks from the democrat party, because he represents a progressive shift. and the democrats are doing so because they see progressive movement as a larger threat then the republican party.
this is consistent to my whole argument, and why i said that.
What’s your strongest example of a Democrat attacking Hasan for his progressive views?