Fluke or sign of things to come? Trump’s rhetoric in the Presidential didn’t seem to motivate latino voters, will his actual actions motivate them in the mid-terms?
I wouldn’t say “fluke” because she seems to have campaigned hard versus just stumbling into a win, but this is also the first notable “progressive insurgent” primary win out of a season that’s been going on for months. In fact, two days ago the story was about how, despite increased enthusiasm from Democratic voters, there really hadn’t been any sort of progressive reckoning. Right now it’s more of an interesting data point than indication of a trend despite the breathless stories today about how this is a “wake up call” or indicates some reorientation for the party.
Everyone knows I am anti-Sanders. I’m calling this a fluke based on the low turnout in a very heavily Democratic district. Plus, running on an anti-ICE platform is perfect with the endless news of family separation. Finally, voters can take a chance on a candidate much further to the left when you know you’re going to win in the general election and this is one of the most heavily Democratic districts in the country.
I can hope, once she’s elected, she’ll be a team player and not a bomb thrower.
It’s an overwhelmingly Latino district so it makes sense that the out of touch white incumbent is going to lose to a Latina who spent more time campaigning than he did.
People like being represented by people who look like them.
So it was a fluke that the white incumbent had a 20 year run?
Sounds like he didn’t bother showing up to campaign. But he threw a shit-ton of money at the race and hoped he could coast on name recognition.
I know everyone is surprised this morning at the results, but on paper, it seems this was inevitable. 1) Old white moderate vs. young latina in a majority-minority district. 2) He didn’t bother showing up in the district in the final days of the campaign. 3) Sounds like he spends more time focused on his leadership position than representing the district (i.e., from what I read, he pretty much lives in Virginia), 4) There was a debate that he didn’t bother showing up for but rather sent a surrogate to (a former NYC councilwoman); shows what he thinks of reaching out to his constituents. 5) Progressive district apparently didn’t want a moderate Congressman any more. 6) She campaigned really hard and had tight messaging.
Oh sure, he out-raised and out-spent her 10-1, but having someone to vote for that hits all the right demographic marks AND has a message that resonates with voters is more important than name recognition and money. Just ask Hillary Clinton. It’s also why I don’t think the 2020 candidate will necessarily be one of the “big names” everyone’s talking about now (Biden, Sanders, Harris, Warren, Booker, Gillibrand). It could be. But this race shows me that a mayor or little-known governor on the ticket isn’t gonna necessarily be an electoral disaster either. Message and demographics matter more than name recognition, “experience” and money.
That may depend on what you mean by “team” - the DNC’s, or Bernie’s?
So much for the argument that money wins elections.
Compromise means both sides of the issue coming together to enact the Republican agenda.
Not really. Plenty of Congressmen start off as nobodies. A bartender getting elected to the House doesn’t signal that the Presidential slot can be filled by any Shmoe.
Sanders developed a reputation of not playing well with others even early on when he was elected to the House. I don’t have time to dig up the article, but even Barney Frank was harsh on Sanders in his early days.
Ocasio-Cortez can become a purity pony, accomplishing nothing and spending her time giving interviews on independent left wing radio stations or giving speeches to an empty House. Or, she can buckle down and get to work, while fighting for what she believes and not take the perfect is the enemy of good stance. Taking the half loaf and then coming back to fight another day is always preferable than making every issue a hill to die on.
You know there’s another saying “good enough is the enemy of good”.
Never said it did.
OK, this race doesn’t show that a mayor or little-known governor on the 2020 Presidential ticket isn’t gonna necessarily be an electoral disaster.
My point was just because someone doesn’t have a certain job title or name recognition going into a campaign or even a shit-ton of money, doesn’t mean they’re going to be a disaster. Not to count someone out when they have a good message, can connect with voters and hit certain demographic markers.
Good lord, you’re still pretty much the most difficult person to have a conversation I’ve even encountered. Had I noticed this was your thread, I’d have never said anything. Sorry for posting.
In delicate words: I think it’s overreaching to draw conclusions about the 2020 Presidential campaign from a 2018 Democratic congressional primary.
While the pundits gotta pund, I think it’s ridiculous to assume that one low turnout primary election in a D +29 district tells us anything about 2020. As I constantly remind people, all Democratic primaries and caucuses for president allocate delegates proportionally, there are no winner take all states. Thus, a Trump can’t win a small plurality and amassed a massive delegate lead. The last true outsider to win the Democratic nomination was Carter in 1976 with far different rules.
I guess what I really wonder is whether this upset was because of a latino wave or a progressive/anti-establishment wave.
Will the rules be the same next time, though? I thought the status of superdelegates in 2020 was uncertain. If done away with, wouldn’t that remove an obstacle to an insurgency candidate?
According to who?