This Tuesday is the election for Georgia's 6th. The GOS is very excited about this because a "progressive" is running.

On Wednesday, he and his supporters opened a new front aimed squarely at wooing conservatives to side with him.
Ossoff held a press conference at the state Capitol outlining his plan to cut $16 billion in federal spending.

And do you know what? It's working.

And the firm’s most conservative estimates say Ossoff captured at least 8 to 10 percent of the GOP’s votes in the primary, a critical slice given that Republicans comprised only a narrow majority of the electorate.

Last week the Democratic establishment managed to nominate another "progressive" Ralph Northam in Virginia.

For his part, Northam admitted to voting for George W. Bush, not once but twice for president. And in a 2013 article titled “Northam runs low-key campaign as conservative-tinted Democrat,” Northam is quoted in The Roanoke Times saying: “I don’t consider myself as a liberal. I consider myself as a moderate person. I think the less government, the better.”

Also last week "progressive" Phil Murphy won the nomination in New Jersey.

Powerful Republican fundraiser Gail B. Gordon, who said she has always voted Republican in gubernatorial contests both in New Jersey and her native Pennsylvania, will vote for Democrat Phil Murphy in the November General Election, she told InsiderNJ this afternoon.

Murphy who claims to have been disgraced governor Jon Corzine's friend for 30 year, shares a common background from Goldman Sachs.

“He seems like Corzine 2.0,” said Rich, who was supporting Sanders’s New Jersey campaign chairman, John Wisniewski. “Another Goldman Sachs banker, someone with a lot of money.”

Do you know who else shared a Goldman Sachs background? The Democratic Party nominee for South Carolina's 5th district, Archie Parnell.

Jolly ended with a memory of something he said Parnell once told him: “All my life, my adult life, I have helped these big corporations shelter their money. And I know where the money is.”

I'm confused why the Dems bother trying to get people elected.
It's expensive and time-consuming. What's the point?
It's not like the Dems have difference values, or covet different constituencies.

Why not just purchase those already in office, like NBA free-agents?
It'd probably be a whole lot cheaper, since they are there for the bribes anyway.
That's what it's all about anyway, right? Red team v. Blue team.
House of York v. House of Lancaster.
And if we simply dispense with the charade of "democracy" we can get down to some serious looting, not this inefficient incremental bullsh*t. It's not like the partisans on GOS will care, as long as their team is winning.