That seems like a pretty reasonable stance to me. I also want Democrats in office who are “ideologically and demographically” aligned with their districts. Further, AFAICT, they haven’t announced any opposition to any Democrats in office as of the present.
EDIT: If you only meant to contrast this to LHoD’s post, then fair enough.
Well, there’s subtley there. If AOC wants to primary people who are out of step with their districts that leaves her a lot of wiggle room. She can be pretty left because her district is so. But let’s look at Doug Jones in Alabama. Should he be primaried by a progressive? Her statement says probably not. Ditto my own new congressman down here, Joe Cunningham. In SC-01 he’s what we can elect and we’ll be working to get him re-elected. But a hardcore progressive? There’d be no point.
That’s why I quoted his post.
But speaking of which, I have a feeling Omar is indeed vulnerable in the next primary. My gut tells me Minneapolis and the Somali immigrant community weren’t really looking to elect a lightning rod.
We’ll see. But I think much of this is way blown out of proportion, and very similar in general to the advocacy of many progressive Daily Kos style Democrats for years, likely because many bigots and bigot enablers on the right see her as a good target due to race and religion.
In the words of Marco Ramius, a little revolution now and then is a healthy thing. One of the biggest complaints from moderate/centrist/less passionate voters is that the two parties are both nearly identical, if not in ideology, then in actual policy, and that they are nearly calcified with career politicians. If the Young Turks want to bring in fresh blood, that’s not necessarily a bad thing.
As for Omar…meh. Speaking Before Thinking is practically becoming the national pastime in politics these days. The GOP have more or less embraced it. Why should I get my tits in a flutter because this one wears a hajib?
They don’t have much to be smug about right now. AOC is famous for her primary upset, but this did not work in most places they tried it. Bernie established a PAC to get progressives he endorsed nominated, but:
(1) In most cases, in swing districts targeted by the DNC as vulnerable to being flipped from red to blue, the DNC beat back Bernie’s group and got their mainstream candidates nominated instead;
(2) In the cases where his PAC did succeed, those progressive nominees mostly failed to beat their Republican opponents in the general election.
So it was a big effort and a *massive *failure. But they are undeterred. :smack:
I love this article, thanks! I am having a great time on Facebook, tagging friends who I see as in various wings and getting their feedback. (I was unable to identify anyone in the “moderate” or “conservative” wings.)
The Justice Democrats has announced plans to primary Henry Cuellar in 2020.
Thanks. That sounds good to me – if that report on Cuellar is accurate, I hope a progressive runs in that district.
Really? Moderate voters see these two parties as nearly identical?
Really?
No. No they do not.
And they are far from it.
Now in actual practice the nature of two divergent belief systems fighting for power, both deciding on how much to balance revving up their more extreme elements and appealing to the greater number that are not so engaged and not so extreme is split governance that slows down dramatic changes in either direction. Because while the typical voter doesn’t have average views the statistical average voter is in the middle and the extremes counter each other to some degrees. Whether that is a bug or a feature depends on which way the pendulum is swinging relative to where you want it to be. Right now I am happy that we have enough calcification that Trump’s disruptive agenda is a bit slowed down and that maybe we can pull it back some. Right now yea calcification!!
Will it shock you if I agree?
So here’s what I don’t get … well one of the many things but hey -
Deep Blue district and current representation out of touch. Why haven’t others more “in touch” with the district run before?
I’ve no love for a D who votes with Trump nearly as often as a reliable R does but not so sure that Leftists from not round thar are the best at assessing what is and is not “out of touch” for any specific district.
It’s a heavy Hispanic district. An R who is pro-life and for much of the religious right agenda but bucks Trump on the wall and most immigration issues might beat a Progressive. I could see them finding a religiously conservative Hispanic R to run …
Not saying that a primary challenge is a bad idea, just not assuming that safe Blue assessment is so sure a thing.
Probably lack of manpower and exposure. It takes either lots of money or lots of manpower to run a successful campaign. Progressives don’t take corporate PAC money, so they don’t have a lot of corporate money to work with. Other candidates (not progressives) who have a lot of corporate PAC money are the ones likely voting with the corporations, in tune with Trump.
The Justice Democrats provide the organization to get volunteers mobilized and some exposure on internet media. For instance, when one Justice Democrat loses their race, the volunteers for that campaign often help someone in another race.
The candidate still has to come from that area. They’re recruited for their public service in their community. They would know the specific needs of the community.
Wouldn’t it be better to spend all this time, energy and money to unseat a** GOP **congressman?
Depends on the district. No use throwing money at a hopeless cause.
And could be. Maybe is.
But is a rural predominantly Hispanic district really more accurately represented by a hard Progressive? Are those planks more in touch with their thoughts than a religious conservative who is against Trump on most immigration votes? (Current representation.)
Maybe but I wouldn’t assume so just because they’ve voted heavy D in the past.
Even with lots of organizational support and outside money it may a heavy lift.
What sort of breaks with progressive planks would you be willing to tolerate if you were donating?
Sure, but there are many districts which are not hopeless.
Frank Luntz, GOP pollster/messaging guru extraordinaire, appeared on PBS Newshour and—even though he was not asked about it— made a point of sticking up for “these Democratic women’s” rights to say whatever they like. That speaks volumes.
Not as much as many people seem to think IMHO. Indeed it almost certainly cost the Republicans a few seats( whether there was a net gain, I’m not sure ).
But more generally I wonder if conservatives and liberals as large groups respond identically to similar tactics. I suspect conservatives as a group are a little more likely to huddle up under ideological pressure and liberals are a bit more likely to splinter. No data to back that up - just a suspicion.
And Democrats are more ideologically diverse than Republicans are.
Posted in the GD thread:
Originally Posted by Jackmannii
*L…
In a WSJ column today by Elliot Kaufman, it’s noted that Omar was interviewed on a podcast by the left-wing Intercept website on Feb. 28, leading to this exchange:
“Was it a badly worded tweet (on Feb. 11) that you were apologizing for, or was it for being anti-Semitic, wittingly or unwittingly?”
Omar: “Absolutely not. I apologized for the way that my words made people feel.”
So much for an “unequivocal apology”.*"
This angers me. When I heard she had made a unequivocal apology I said that was good enuf, she just misspoke. But this is first class weaseling, so I agree, she needs to be primaried out.