Correct me if I'm wrong, but Georgia currently has a sitting Republican governor and the GOP plans to run someone in the general? Let's not count the chickens quite so fast - you're taking allot using the "winning model" of a candidate who hadn't won yet (and who's centrist ideology isn't popular in the northwest)

As to Philip Roth, he was an amazing writer. And as a result of his work, millions never ate liver again.

wtf?.....

Stacey Abrams WINS (the Democratic Primary) in Georgia!
It's a Blue Wave!
OMG; Georgia Democrats elected a DEMOCRAT to run for governor!
Brilliant!
Now, if the Republicans also run an inexperienced liberal white girl against Abrams in November Abrams' formulae will produce victory!!

(btw 610,000 Georgians voted in the Republican Primary; 550,000 Democratic; math may not be our friend in November)

Pro Tip;

Betteridge's law of headlines: "Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no."

If "we are the product of the media that we absorb," as Katie says, I have to wonder what media she has been absorbing to make such an assertion as "the Democrats are just as much in the pockets of big banks as Republicans are."

It was Democrats that created the CFPB (a product of Dodd-Frank) and set rules in place for internal appointments, to guard against political appointments - which is unique in government agencies. This, after Obama had to spend most of his first term simply cleaning up W's disastrous tax policy. The Republicans have already effectively killed the CFPB - after years of railing against it and lying about it - by ignoring those rules and installing Mick Mulvaney as its director. The Republicans just voted to roll back Dodd-Frank rules (yes, there were 33 Dems out of the total 258 yeas, or about 11 GOP for every 1 Dem), as you were just discussing. It was also Republicans that just passed the most vicious tax policy in American history, favoring the wealthy, corporations and of course big banks. But yeah, both sides are just as bad. Sure, Katie.

3: Georgia Dems have lost every governor's race since 2002 nominating candidates who were just barely not Republican. Are you really going to argue they should try THAT again?

Why does the panel think her being a romance novelist is a plus? That's almost enough by itself to make my Never list, regardless of party.

As for Mr Roth as a Great, were only Americans being counted?

It's not that the DCCC can't win, Dan, it's that they can't win WITH EVERYONE, becasue we have coalitions within the Democratic Party with competing goals. People who think they should be intervening in primaries won't be happy if they don't, and people who think they shouldn't be intervening primaries won't be happy if they do.

That's, like, always the case with any decision between mutually exclusive options. So I'm not sure what the point is supposed to be? It's not the case that one side can validly criticize while the other side can't. The DCCC can't please everyone, which means that whichever strategy they adopt, people who disagree with that strategy will object and try to sway the DCCC to their preferred strategy, as they should, becasue that's how democratic politics operates.

Also, Dan's wrong (lying?) about what Clinton did versus Obama somehow being different than what Sanders did versus Clinton. She didn't step aside once the nomination was certain, and she justified staying in by saying Obama could be assassinated like Bobby Kennedy was - https://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0508/Hillary_cites_RFK_assasination_in_explaining_why_shes_still_in_race.html