There have been times and places when winning the Democratic primary was tantamount to election because Republicans wouldn’t stand a chance in that district, and nobody else mattered even back then.
This happened back in the Solid South era of the pre-Civil-Rights Democratic Party, back when there were Southern Democrats who supported Jim Crow and the locals still considered the Republican Party to be the Party of Lincoln (spit) and wouldn’t piss on a Republican if they were on fire. For example, Alabama didn’t have a Republican governor or lieutenant governor from 1874 (the end of Reconstruction) to 1987 (the height of the Reagan Revolution and the Conservative Movement) so a governor who won the Democratic primary in those gubernatorial elections was in.
Anyway, it’s possible for a single political party to contain within it a whole political spectrum. At that point, different caucuses and factions within that party effectively become political parties, in the sense of being the organizations which coalesce around specific groups of policy positions, and the real elections are the primaries.
That’s how the system used to work through the Eighties - the parties largely overlapped on the left-right spectrum and issues could be resolved without demonization or childishness, not that it never happened. Congress was also full of people who had lived through, if not served in, wartime, when there was no question of the national interest coming before temporary partisan advantage. It was also full of career, non-term-limited people who had been there long enough to know how to make the system work, and didn’t have to spend all their spare time grubbing for campaign contributions. I’d like to think it can be that way again - but any disarmament has to be mutual, not unilateral.
The Eighties is when it broke down, with the Liberal Consensus disappearing in a fog of dog-whistles from the Republicans about how all those Blacks and gays were going to destroy our way of life. It was beginning to collapse in the 1970s, but the Conservative Movement destroyed it completely, and we’re still living with that.
The Senate is beyond brutal and even holding on to all of the current seats should be considered a win. However, we never know who’s going to get caught up in a scandal in the next couple of years. Winning as many governorships as possible could help should it be a GOP senator that gets caught up and that state has a Democrat for governor.
As far as time off to vote, it is a policy of my company to allow time off for voting. However, I’ve discovered this isn’t a hill to die on. One of the very few elections I’ve ever missed was a referendum on a sales tax increase. I knew pushing this issue with the manager I had at the time during an extremely busy day during the height of the recession wasn’t going to put me on the good side. And, I knew that measure was gong to pass easily.
That’s the template for Democrats running in deep red districts where Trump won by 20 points. There’s no reason to think that Democrats in “purple” districts would follow the same template. In fact, the primary process will probably make sure that won’t happen.
Hmm. Different up north. Employers here are required to give you three consecutive hours off on voting day. It’s an offence not give the time off and also an offence to dock pay for employees who take the time off to go vote.
One can argue that the Democrats’ aim was perfect in this race: A candidate any further left would have lost, so we got the absolute maximum possible amount of leftness. It’s like on “The Price is Right”, when your guess is one dollar below the actual price of the thousand-dollar item.
The one thing that can get annoying in the United States is that tend to have a lot of elections, especially in races that require a run off. That Alabama election? There were Republican and Democratic primaries, then a run off primary for the Republicans, then the final race between Moore and Jones. 3 elections to fill half of a Senate term. And, of course, most USA elections are held on a Tuesday.
I wouldn’t go to Bill Maher for political analysis.
He attacked the current Congress more than anything else (never a bad bet for someone running for a first term), Paul Ryan as Speaker and the GOP leader most of all, but certainly stated that he had no love for the current Democratic leadership (Pelosi) either. Trump was simply not the focus. Good choice as his true supporters staying on their collective asses as much as possible compared to Democratic support being enthused has been the key in these special election upsets. If the last Monmouth poll was predictive at all he got some votes from those who approved of Trump. Not many maybe but in that specific gerrymandered district they mattered.
Running as a change agent and as someone who is independent, willing to buck party, is a tried and true formula. No eek justified. He stated what I believe he feels is his honest truth: his mission in Congress will be to represent the interests of his district as he sees them and he does not see a House Speaker Pelosi as being the best choice to serve that goal. Other Democrats running in similar sorts of districts will likely also run similar sorts of campaigns and state that they believe the party needs new leadership almost (but not) as much as Congress needs different (non-GOP) leadership. A Democrat who runs in those districts who believes and states that Pelosi is great and that they will follow her will not win.
Of course some different districts will have Democrats running who also think Pelosi should go, but want her replaced with someone more progressive.
Assuming that House control does flip she may or may not be the new House leader. But while she likely will not be a majority’s first choice she may be one they can all live with.
FWIW I agree that she has in fact been quite effective in the leadership position. Not many can herd cats as well as she has. But that doe not mean that the cats all dig her.
That was not “analysis”, it was reportage. As accurate as could (it is hard to imagine how Maher could have creatively edited the material to distort the reality).
That was not “reportage”, it was an editorial, reacting to the fact that a Democratic candidate who has no love for Pelosi, who has no plan to support her as leader, who believes that she does not reflect what is in what he thinks is in the best interests of his district, made such clear.
Yes, Lamb distanced himself from Pelosi.
Pelosi is not loved by Blue Dogs. She is not loved by progressives. They are pretty united in disliking her I think because she’s made the tough decisions that have not been popular with any group of the party. Maher’s opinion that a Democrat in district with a 20 point GOP lean in which Pelosi is fairly reviled who has no love of Pelosi making it clear that such is the case is being “a pussy” is dumb.
Edited to make clear. I think Pelosi is a great leader and that the Democratic party does not require thinking so of its candidates or those who vote for its candidates.
I did not watch the entire Bill Maher rant. I have mostly not been in the mood for him lately. The central point – that Conor Lamb expressed dislike for her – was nonetheless reported at the beginning of the New Rule. In that sense, it was a valid source.
Yes that jumping off point is a factual statement that is hardly breaking news or :eek:worthy. Heck, it goes back to January.
Blue Dogs don’t like Pelosi, they are running in districts in which she is viewed very unfavorably (although Ryan possibly even more poorly), they don’t like being characterized as being handpicked by her or as her puppets, and they will not be in favor of her being the Speaker if the Ds get control.* Maher objects to that. Boo fuckin hoo.
*I suspect many will still end up voting for her as a compromise, least poor choice, but if there are enough of them they will mount a challenge first, as possibly may the hard progressive side.
I’d disagree. There are certainly progressives that don’t like her, but AFAICT many more are big fans of Nancy Smash! as she’s known in some corners of the lefty blogosphere.
OK, so worst case scenario (if it’s even a bad scenario at all), he ends up voting for some other Democrat as Speaker. But whoever it is, he’s going to vote for a Democrat.
Did he say he just wouldn’t vote for Pelosi for leader, or that he also wouldn’t vote for her in the House vote for the new Speaker? The former would be mostly symbolic unless there were a lot of others voting against her. The latter could induce deadlock if Democrats win a slim majority.
