The new party of no?

[Riot]

I just want to know if you Dem's think that moving your party further left and allowing an extremely unpopular politician to remain the face of the party is going to workout in your favor?

Apparently the Dems think it will work wonderfully for them. You disagree. So you should be happy about it. We'll see how it works out.

I would also like an explanation on why the Dem's can now be the "party of no" (admittedly so seemingly at the expense of their former golden child) and why no one in the media (or Riot) is writing about it as being "anti-American" or "out of touch" like the GOP was characterized as?

Have the Dems actually done any of that yet? No one can write about what hasn't happened.

I'm sure the first time the Dems obstruct passage of a normal-business bill (like allowing the military to continue getting paychecks) via filibuster, with a 100% vote for political reasons, requiring a 60-vote filibuster-break vote for a bill to pass, rather than the Constitutional majority of 51 votes, you'll let us know.

And many of the Blue Dogs lost because the vast majority of them were running in relatively conservative districts where being a Dem (and being associated with Pelosi/Obama) hurt them, not because democrats wanted more liberal representation. That is a fairly ridiculous theory.

Good think nobody here has proposed that theory then, right?

I agree with your assessment, above. I'll repeat again, I was not trying to say the election was about eliminating blue dogs. It wasn't. Only that it turns out, that indeed was the result - the in-office Dems left are now the most progressive of the lot. And they are banding behind Pelosi and Reid with that in mind.