During the 2024 election, Democrats often worked to keep De la Cruz along with other left-wing third-party candidates such as Cornel West off of ballots,[11] while Republicans often intervened to keep De la Cruz and West on ballots.[11]
As I said above, Democrats are more subtle than Republicans but their thumb is on the scale, nonetheless. People who are not members of or active in an alternate party have no idea how difficult it is to get a candidate on the ballot, from President all the way down to city council member, so much so that despite radically different policies, several have joined together in a coalition for litigation purposes.
If there had been no 3rd party candidates in 2016, we might never have had trump. I would sometimes like all 3rd parties kept off the ballot- but only if I get wishes from a unicorn that poops soft serve ice cream.
So we can vote only for candidates you approve of. Got it.
In which swing state(s) would the alternate party vote have tipped the state into the Democrat camp, had every one of them voted for her rather than their preferred candidate?
Wisconsin was a near dead heat in 2004. (Kerry won it by a mere 11,000 votes.) But Obama carried it by comfortable margins in 2008 (415,000 votes) and 2012 (213,000 votes).
Then in 2016, Trump carried the Badger State by fewer than 23,000 votes. But his vote total was less than what Romney received in 2012 — yet Trump carried the state while Romney lost it by over 200,000 votes.
Third-party and independent hopefuls in Wisconsin drew 39,000 votes in 2012 but more than four times that number, 188,000 votes, four years later.
Now, pundits disagree on this, but I did say -MIGHT
But we are getting a bit far off of the OP, I see.
I did. After twenty years active in an alternate party ballot access is a sore point with me. Those who have not done so have no idea of the roadblocks the stale parties throw up so personalities decide elections, not issues. If you want to parcel out blame for Trump winning in 2016, consider the Democrats’ offering up the most hated woman in America. Deserved or not it was a big factor.
I think best case is a solid majority in the house, maybe 20 seats or so, and a slim majority in the senate, maybe 52/48 (obviously including Bernie and Angus King in the D column). This would include James Talarico winning in Texas.
Anyone the Democrats nominated in 2016 would have become the most hated person in America. Had Elizabeth Warren or Amy Klobuchar won the 2016 Democratic primary, they would have become the most hated woman in America. Just like John Kerry was the most hated man in America in 2004 (swift boats anyone?). That obviously changed after 2016, with Trump taking the title of “most hated” for the foreseeable future, but prior to that, from say 1994 (the Gingrich revolution) to 2016, whoever the Democratic POTUS or nominee for POTUS would inherit the title of “most hated”. The fact that the role fell to Hillary Clinton in 2016 is an accident of history, not a reflection of anything in particular about her that is worthy of being hated.
Winning control of both houses. If we can’t do that with all the bullshit that’s gone down over the past 2 years, then we may as well cash in our chips. It’s over.
Not “the Democrats”- the VOTERS. You know, we have clarified this over and over here in P&E. The DNC does not pick the candidates. And since she was picked by the voters, hardly the most hated.
Still the most hated, since almost all the Republican voters hated her, and up until then there really wasn’t the same hate on the part of Democratic voters towards Republican leaders. Obviously since then Trump holds that title, but in those pre-Trump days, the Republican voting public would have turned their hate on whoever the voters nominated to run on the Democratic ticket. It just so happened that in 2016 that was Hillary Clinton, but I suspect that had it been someone else, that person would have become the “most hated person in America” until Trump took the title.
ETA: Regarding the semantics, yes there are likely some number of people who voted for Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary who probably don’t consider themselves Democrats. But just because one is a voter rather than an elected office holder doesn’t exclude one from being considered a Democrat.
With all the success the GOP has seen with gerrymandering and SCOTUS gutting the Voting Rights Act I’m no longer as confident about taking back the House. At this point I think the Senate may be more achievable.
Of course. Had Jesus Himself become the candidate he would have been the most hated man, but Clinton went in with a history thanks to being First Lady. Warren and Klobuchar were not nearly as well known.
And the VOTERS were Republican? Those sneaky bastards.
And this discounts the DNC putting it’s thumb on the scale by keeping candidates it didn’t like off of the ballot.
Any good will she might have had by the one side was more than made up by the loathing of the other.
Didnt happen, and they cant do it. I mean, there was Bernie Sanders - who wasnt even a Democrat fercrickiessake.
And this has little to do with the midterms other than to reiterate- the DNC does not appoint candidates. The VOTERS select the candidates, not the party. In CA, for Governor, that is even more special, as the primary is non-partisan.
So, the DNC are saints and never, ever do anything nefarious. It’s those evil VOTERS who fucked things up, especially those VOTERS who fail to vote the way you want. Those VOTERS who vote for candidates who “sometimes” should be kept off of the ballot.
Who gets to decide what this sometimes is? You? The DNC? The RNC? A coalition of the two?. You conveniently ignored the link I supplied about the difficulties of getting a candidate on in the first. Until you have to say> you do why should I pay the slightest attentention to anything
“This site does not support a secure connections”. nope.
And, as I have said- the argument you are making doesnt fit into this thread. Maybe start a new one about the Eviiiils of the Democratic party- might I suggest the BBQ pit?
