That’s not a fact. I don’t agree that Crowley was “very progressive”.
You haven’t presented any evidence that “resources” are being diverted, or will be diverted, or that fundraising will be worse, or whatever. This is a hypothesis.
This is another hypothesis and not factual in the least.
Hypotheses are not facts.
Yes – it says I prefer really good Democrats like AOC to meh Democrats like Crowley. This is my opinion, and I understand yours is different. But your opinion is not fact, and your hypotheses and predictions are not facts.
iiandyii, have you ever had a debate in good faith that you didn’t turn into “it depends on how you define is, is”?
BY all accounts he was a progressive liberal politician. He was replaced by an even MORE progressive liberal politician. Now whether one or the other is better IS an opinion, the above claim of Crowley being very/pretty/more than middle progressive can be objectively verified. So since Crowley wasn’t “very” progressive in your eyes. Define very.
Or don’t actually, I am not going down these same rabbit holes with you wanting to redefine terms to use as you see fit.
That’s such a minuscule part of this disagreement that I’m happy to concede it. That part really doesn’t matter, unless anyone is arguing that young progressives MUST NOT EVER challenge progressive Democrats, even in very blue districts. If that’s what someone’s arguing, then that’s an utterly ridiculous argument that I wholly reject. Primaries in blue districts are wonderful chances to see which Democrat can demonstrate the best skill and ability in getting progressives excited to vote for them.
I hold that AOC is very talented, and maybe extraordinary talented, and the party is hugely lucky that she’s a an elected Democrat. Certainly far luckier to have her than some random milquetoast old white guy progressive with little or no ambitions beyond staying a House Rep for the rest of his life.
But if you just want to take shots at me, I recommend you start a Pit thread.
Another couple of great reason for young progressives to challenge older progressives in blue districts:
Because politicians shouldn’t get to sit on their hands and never be challenged. This is a way to separate the cream – challenge Democrats, and if they can’t rise to the challenge of beating an unfunded unknown, kick them to the curb.
Because all else being equal, having a young progressive in an office is better than an old progressive, since that young progressive has a lot more chance to rise further – in other words, this maintains a stronger bench for the party.
Young progressives should absolutely be encouraged to run for office against older progressives in blue districts. There is no downside.
EDIT: I’ll also note that I have no problem with a primary challenge against AOC. If the challenger is better than AOC, then she’ll win. If she’s not, she’ll lose. We’ll see, and either way we have the candidate who performed better.
I don’t have a problem one with selecting the cream of the crop, but primarying an encumbent from your own party costs resources you wouldn’t otherwise spend (which you said was an opinion and disagreed with)
The opinion is that it necessarily costs more resources than it might lead to being created. A talented primary candidate might raise MORE money than the incumbent would have been able to. It’s a fact that some resources are likely to be expended, but it’s an opinion that this necessarily takes something away from the party’s efforts – it might lead to MORE resources for the party.
Thus any disagreement is still about opinion, not fact.
Wait. So you think it’s just a theory of mine that defending a safe incumbent from a primary challenger will take resources? That doesn’t seem like a reasonable statement.
This may have been the case in the past when incumbents could simply ignore these sort of primary challengers but now have to start taking the challenge seriously because of the lessons we learned from AOC’s election.
It’s not some wild ass guess that forcing an incumbent in a safe seat is going to expend resources. Calling it a hypothesis implies that this has never really been tested before. It’s not like noone has ever tried to primary someone before, we know it consumes resources. Resources that could be used elsewhere.
It’s not never but there are very few circumstances where I think primarying an incumbent in a safe seat is a good idea:
Where large portions of the party want the incumbent to resign for some reason or another.
Where the views of the incumbent has grown sufficiently apart from the views of the constituency that they no longer approximate one another.
This holds true whether it is a socialist democrat trying to primary a liberal or it is a moderate democrat trying to primary a liberal. It does NOTHING to see which fringe politicians has the best chops because their appeal does not extend much beyond a few districts. For every far left vote you gain with these socialists
So far all she has accomplished is mostly to draw ridicule and ire. But you may be right and she may be able to accomplish something meaningful if she can stop throwing grenades at her teammates.
She’s there now and she has backed away from some of her more destructive positions so I don’t think she needs to be removed. Lets give her a chance and see if she is able to fulfill the potential you see in her.
Maybe it will cost resources in the immediate sense, but it’s not factual that it will necessarily cost the party resources overall – the new candidate may be a better fundraiser, or get more energetic support, or whatever. So it’s an opinion that this necessarily costs the party resources, taking everything into account. Sometimes it might, but sometimes it might result in more resources (like in AOC’s case – she’s a far better fundraiser than Crowley).
I strongly disagree. I think primaries in safe districts are a great thing and should happen pretty much every time – let’s see who the most talented and skilled candidate is. I want to build a strong bench for the party – more Obamas and AOCs, and fewer go-nowheres like Crowley.
And raise tons of money and excitement, both of which matter, now and in the future.
A new candidate may also be a worse fundraiser or get less energetic support, or whatever. It’s really stretching to say that having primary battles MIGHT leave the party stronger because the winner MIGHT be a better fundraiser than the old one. But we know primary battles cost money.
So you think we would be better off if congressmen with 2 year terms more time and money defending their seats?
Well, I suppose in the case of AOC, I guess it may force her to either conform to the views of her constituency (which looks different from her donor base) or to lose her seat.
And she decided not to pay dues to the DCCC.
I hope she doesn’t expect any support from the team if she is not a team player.
She has created both positive and negative attention. I think the jury is still out on whether AOC is good for the party or not. I think it is likely that she will be good for the party based on her recent drift towards solidarity with the rest of the party.
In safe districts? Absolutely. Why not? They need the exercise. Sitting comfortably with no challenge doesn’t help the party. I want to build a bench of young, ambitious, and talented Democrats, not old, comfortable, lazy ones.