Rest of article: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...al-votes-analysis-capital-and-main?CMP=twt_gu
Yes the non-profit news organization examining his past votes is trying to destroy him.
This is still good stuff to know as his voting record is important, especially if he's gonna run for President under the guise of being progressive.
It is when presenting not voting lockstep with democrats as automatically a bad thing.
The dude raised tens of millions in small donations for a Senate race. Regardless of his voting record, the guy has widespread appeal - suggesting people only supported him because "Dem Billionaires (who, Steyer?) told them to is pretty lame
Nevermind, misread
That is fine. I think it would be important to examine each decision though, rather than just republican v democrat it.
Several of the bills mentioned further in had broad bipartisan support.
Wait until you see the articles about her office's prosecutions. Trust me, the press will leave no stone unturned on Democratic candidates.
O’Rourke represented one of the most solidly Democratic congressional districts in the United States, he has frequently voted against the majority of House Democrats in support of Republican bills and Trump administration priorities.
Such as? Where? Who? Quick everyone, let's dogpile that guy with attacks!
Well, yeah typically when you're looking to sit at the highest office of the land people are going to want to know what policies you support.
It doesn't really matter why there is increased scrutiny on them if the scrutiny turns up reasons to avoid supporting them.
Yeah people’s voting records get looked at when they eye the White House it’s not exactly a conspiracy.
The choice isn’t Beto or Trump yet though. The primary hasn’t happened.
First they came for Avenatti, and I did not say anything because I wasn’t an opportunistic jackal who beat women
I'm not involved, but I just disagree with taking a broad look with the whole history of democrat purity test stuff. If he does not stand as supportive of things his constituents want, and that will benefit Americans, then yeah screw him and don't vote for him if he runs.
Meaning that he voted with Democrats >90% in that two year period. That includes bills that were sponsored by the Republican majority, of course.
It's not much of a guise if he can't even say if he is a progressive or not.
He's in a heavily democratic district, so the "it's Texas" explanation doesn't work.
These people think that Bernie weakened Hillary in the primary. Somehow they don’t realize Trump had a primary 100x harder and came out ok.
It's appearing more and more that they just want their preferred person to win without anyone taking a good look at them. You have these people saying to not let perfect being the enemy of good or "don't fall in love, fall in line" when this is the beginning of the primary season. This is when we're supposed to be more critical.
But are people going to look beyond simply 'he voted with Republicans'?
