There’s been talk of reducing the role of superdelegates for 2020, which I think would be a mistake.
Interestingly, 2 years ago this time, every Bernie Bro was harassing superdelegates to get them to flip to Sanders.
I hope you don’t think that’s some kind of hypocrisy. Because I don’t personally think it’s very interesting that they were trying to get the rules to work for them.
The progressive wing is near half of the most politically active Democrats. That’s powerful in low turnout cycles; they are more likely to still vote when partywwide enthusiasm is low. Combined the total number of Democrats that identify their ideology as moderate or conservative still outnumber the party’s liberals. Increased enthusiasm across the entire party* during primaries can be a problem for progressives. The voters that are only coming out because of the increased enthusiasm are going to skew towards the center-left “establishment” majority.
Low turnout in this specific election may have helped the challenger buck the cycle’s trend.
-
- Which is a different case than a specific candidate appealing to and only increasing enthusiasm/turnout among their chunk of the party electorate. A common partywide goal, like opposing Trump, doesn’t really fit that scenario.
Arguing that superdelegates counter countermand the will of the people, and then attempting to use superdelegates to countermand the will of the people isn’t hypocrisy?
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
I think Howard Dean has been “most right” about Miss Ocasio-Cortez’s win:
She now has an image as a fighter; every Democrat needs to be a fighter. The 55+ Dems have spent their lifetimes doing the opposite of fighting; time to give the next generation their shot. From what I’ve seen, the under-25s in particular are perfectly willing and ready to fight for things.
It’d be better if they voted for things instead of just “fight” for them.
:rolleyes:
The fact that I’ve never heard that saying in my life until now, but have heard the other one a million times, indicates to me that there’s more truth in the other one. I mean, they’re both good expressions. But one of them is almost perfect, the other is barely good enough.
I don’t care who you are, that right there is funny shit.
Democratic voters motivated enough to vote in a Democratic primary vote for … a Democrat! Details at eleven.
Are you one of those who equates “socialist” with “Stalinist”? What “thrown bomb” are you worried about? Voting against the next tax cut for the rich??
Facile age bracketing annoys me (unless you replace “55+ Dems” with “some Dems in the 55-65 cohort” 
). I know some 70+ Dems who know more about political activism than nearly all “Millennials.” (I wouldn’t include myself in that group, but I was walking precincts—and even dodging teargas—before most Dopers were born.)
Among registered white voters born 1981-1996, there are 52% Dem/lean_Dem and 41% Rep/lean_Rep. Not a huge margin to pin our hopes on, though it’s all we got. :o
BTW, it is white Millennial women who tilt hugely for D; a large majority of white Millennial males support R. :eek:
This is in contrast to 2004 (when this cohort first appears in Pew Research tables); the D/R ↔ Female/Male correlation then was almost zero.
Yeah, the notion that age cohort demographics mean we are inevitably “destined” for a particular political direction has always struck me as a bit bubble-induced itself.
The two most prominent, on the national stage, “fighters” in the Democratic Party are Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, both of whom are in that older cohort.
She led a progressive campaign, supporting universal healthcare, tuition-free college, and criminal justice reform.
Obama spent his time onuniversal health care and it did not work well.
Tuition-free college means much higher taxes, only the very young voters would back that. Essentially great concept to stir up support among the young that is a pipe dream.
Criminal Justice Reform could mean a few things. If she means let people out early who did bad things…not such a good idea. But putting them to work on a release program for a while, maybe a good idea.
She sounds like a Bernie Sanders type. I think the older Democrats are on the way out anyway, they stand for little outside of being the party of No.
The lower working class might be thankful for raises from corporate tax cuts or historic low unemployment levels for minority groups, so it will be interesting to see if this group which heavily votes Democratic changes in smaller numbers to support to Republicans. A 3-5% change could be huge, nationally speaking.
It does mean that, policy-wise. People don’t all get hyper-reactionary as they get older. In fact, if I’m not mistaken, they tend to either keep the same views as they used to have or adapt them a bit to fit the changing consensus. So any given policy will be inevitably held by a large majority if young people grow up believing it.
Nor does it point to a change in any party’s futures because the parties can and will change their views to adapt as well, but that doesn’t mean that the country did not respond to shifting demographics, it just means that either new politicians cropped up to reflect the populace’s changing views, or existing politicians changed their views.
IF she is her own voice for progressive perspectives and for fighting the horrific policies that are currently being put in place together, rather than a Sanders proxy sowing divisiveness within the party, then her well publicized success can further energize portions of the party that need to turn out and who often do not.
That would be great!
Ramifications otherwise?
Only if one believes that that district is representative of the country. It is not, no more than one should over-extrapolate from Lamb’s victory in the PA 18 special election. There is room in the party for a variety of perspectives reflecting local voter moods and thoughts. So long as we can rally together around some shared values as well end of day, be the banner bearer be of one or the other wing.
She won because she worked hard and because the mood of the district has shifted over the years. I’d also say because Crowley forgot how to compete, but I don’t think he EVER knew how. As I understand it he never had any real competition in that district.
Considering she has already scrubbed her website of the unapproved anti war positions she claimed to have held, I have big doubts about how useful she will be. Apparently she wants to advance in the party and not be handicapped by anti war positions like Gabbard, Kucinich, etc.
I heard it attributed to low turnout. Which, if true, is good news for progressives in primaries and bad news for Democrats in general elections.
Regards,
Shodan
Low turnout in a D+29 district isn’t a gloom and doom sign for the Dems. Plus, New York has ridiculous elections, the primary for state offices aren’t held until September.
I heard the opposite, that turnout was significantly higher than comparable NY House primaries in recent years. But I’m trying to confirm, which is difficult since Crowley hasn’t been opposed in primaries in many years.
Did anybody notice the young woman who won New York’s 14th District? 
Morning Joe interviewed her. If I weren’t such a pessimist I’d ask one of you to lead us in singing ♫ Happy Days are here again! ♫
.