If it wasn’t a Republican year, I think Fetterman would easily defeat any of them (Oz, McCormick, Barnette). Having been attacked from the left, by his primary opponents, makes Fetterman electable in November
With all three Republicans, there are questions about how Pennsylvanian they are.
All three are associated with an extremist by the name of Donald Trump.
Fetterman the Everyman vs. McCormick hedge fund guy would be highly damaging for the latter.
As for Oz, he is a smooth talker, which AFAIK isn’t a proven electoral asset. Are many Pa. voters bigoted against a Muslim candidate? I don’t know, but he’s rich and strange and Fetterman is closer to normal than almost any normal politician.
Barnette? Refusal to pivot to the center might sink her. But I don’t see prior tweets, or a shaky resume, doing it. And Fetterman would have to treat her with respect, while he could go after the other two without fear.
So, I’m unconvinced that voting for Barnette is superior Democratic strategy, aside from morals qualms I have about the operation chaos approach.
This tells me that Barnette has some ability to pivot towards the center:
Would it be better, politically, to apologize for the tweet, rather than to lie? Maybe in Japan. (Not a slam against either American or Japanese political culture — they are different.)
As for electability, we already know that you can tell vile lies about Barack Obama and Muslims, separately and together, and win statewide in Pennsylvania (Trump 2016).
After years of claiming Barack Obama was a secret Muslim, it must be a strange experience to be running neck and neck with a real one.
Yes, it does vary. Hence, there are two terms for primaries.
A “closed” primary means you have to register with a party and can only vote on that party’s candidates. Many require you to change your registration some time in advance if you want to switch parties. When you register to vote in such a state there is generally a requirement or at the very least pressure to indicate which party you belong to, which is really annoying to people who actually want to be independents (it can also mean that if you don’t declare a party you can’t vote in the primary, only in the general election).
An “open” primary means anyone can vote for any party’s candidates. This can and does result in people sometimes voting on the other party’s slate of candidates.
And, as always in the US, each state has slightly different laws and rules.
I strongly support this and think it’s a feature, not a bug. If someone doesn’t want to identify as a Republican or a Democrat, that’s fine. But, you shouldn’t have a voice in how those parties select candidates.
Why? Is he a Republican operative, lobbyist, or pollster? Does he hold office as a Republican?
I’ve said it before on this forum, but I honestly don’t get loyalty to a political party. I’m a fan of the NY Giants, but if they were doing the football equivalent of what the MAGAs are doing, that would be the end of it. And, I get more enjoyment watching football than following politics (maybe not watching the Giants for the last few years…).
I’m registered as a Democrat and vote in the primaries, but I don’t consider being a registered Democrat as part of my psyche or sense of self. Maybe I’m odd that way.
But politics is different than sport. These people are going to be elected and affect our day to day lives. The Giants winning the Super Bowl doesn’t unless you’re part of the NFL
All the more reason to abandon the crazy politicians (if you think they’re crazy, of course). It makes it more important to leave behind loyalties to parties.
It’s a mess alright. And that editorial itself is a hot mess. For instance:
“There is no inherent virtue in supporting the policies that this board supports — but that’s not the point. The question isn’t how can more people agree with us, but how can this nation come to a place where we reach different conclusions and hold different opinions while operating from the same commonly shared set of facts? We don’t have an answer.”
That passage follows the editorial board’s expressed dismay at the anti-abortion rights position of Republican candidates. What they should have said was there is inherent virtue in supporting abortion rights - instead of jabbering about how candidates could possibly come to different conclusions while looking at “the same commonly shared set of facts”. Those “different conclusions” mean the Republican candidates are wrong.*
*as opposed to the view of many that Trump won the election, which goes beyond wrong into delusional territory.
Really? Can you explain how a state does something?
People elect the President. Their votes get grouped together based on what state they live in. And their votes get assigned different weight based on what state they live in.
The people (voters) do not elect the president, the electoral college (which is, admittedly, made of people, but not the people) does.
Technically, a state legislature can appoint the electoral college with no input from the voters altogether. That’s how it was done in many states in the early days, and there’s nothing legally stopping a state from going back to that system.
I understand how the system works. But when people say that states vote, they’re trying to draw attention away from the reality that we have a system that erases many people’s votes and gives people unequal votes. Those truths are unpleasant.
Don’t vote for clowns in primaries because “they can’t win a general election”. Too many of them have and do. In the final analysis Republicans will only abandon trumpism if it proves to be a losing electoral strategy. If you have a “Republican” year (which history says is likely) there’s enough voter ignorance to let some given percentage of mow-rons slide in just because they’ve got the right letter next to their names. Beat 'em in the primary and hope you’ve got one sane candidate in the bunch.