Big Primary Wins for Socialists and Progressives Who Ran on 'Popular Demands That Were Deemed Impossible'
But way are they running as Democrats? Down with all Democrats! They should run as independents where they might get whopping 3% of the vote in the general election.
As a self-identified progressive independent, I stand on the sidelines applauding such developments. Here is to hoping that victory is yours come November! Where I live, I can only dream of having progressive candidates beyond local offices.
It’s fun to ignore data you don’t like and cherry pick data you do. Races where more moderate candidates won–corrupt DCCC at work against the people! Races where progressives won–the people rose up! It’s how we roll.
I wish the DSA would run their own party rather than running as Democrats. Bernie, formerly an independent, ran as a Democrat and lost because the Democratic Party Machine would not allow a real progressive to win. You can’t win by playing their game, they will crush you.
Socialism only works along with Planned Parenthood. If you include both, then you’re facing the reality of habitat overshoot and climate change on a finite planet.
If you ignore the latter, then you’re just fighting over scraps and rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
Summer Lee ran against a guy who has been in office for 20 years with virtually no challenge in the primaries. The voters finally had a choice and must have felt it was time for a change. I the big picture the Democrat Party has clearly decided to move toward the center. The DCCC is supporting a number of centrist candidates in conservative House districts. They typically do not support a ban on assault rifles but only more thorough background checks, support the ACA but not single payer health care, and say Nancy Pelosi is too far left to support has Democratic majority leader in the House. A number of these candidates have a military background and emphasize. And they seem to be doing well in the polls. The Democratic Party it appears wants to broaden its base and go after voters in the center, even center right. Most likely tension in the party will be increased if more politicians toward the center win their races but perhaps this will allow the Democrats to have a majority in the House. For those who do not like the Democratic establishment be prepared to like them less.
The center of what Lrx? For once, just explain what they are in the center of. The center of popular opinion on the issues? The center of bribes from the donors that control those running your party? Explain what you mean by “the center”.
Neat. If they say that gravity doesn’t exist, should we just concede the point? I mean, there is a logical retort to that, which is her fucking record in office, and the types of candidates she supports time and time again. There is her going on stage and bragging about raking in so many bribes and saying that people don’t want her party to change.
As I have asked you before, and you never have a logical response, if we give these “centrist” politicians power, what exactly will they do policy wise? If there is no structural change to anything, we will continue to see increased inequality, we will continue to see the costs of things outpace wage growth, we will continue to see crumbling infrastructure, rampant corruption. So, the party of yours, led by the “center” (of what?), gets power and what will they do with it? People like you are the death of democracy in this country.
And it is obvious that you are one of those parasites on the party that would rather see it remain the corrupt mess it is than democratize the party and have it move away from being controlled by big money donors.
KC, please present some “moderates” that aren’t reliant on big money donors. Explain what their solutions are to issues that clearly necessitate structural changes. The ACA was better than what preceded it, but it wasn’t sustainable and needed some big changes to be so. What do “moderates” offer to address that? Wages haven’t grown for most in decades, inequality and private debt have exploded. What is the “moderate” solution? What will “moderates” do to help us avoid the pending environmental crisis, which necessitates pretty radical changes? I could go on. You, as usual, seem to like to dismiss things you really can’t argue against. Are “moderates” reliant on large donors, are they determined to not change a system that has horrible outcomes for most people? And when it comes to the progressive candidates, are they reliant on interests that don’t want to structurally change things? Do they focus on policy, instead of 1990’s era platitudes? Do they provide actual solutions that structurally change what needs to structurally change?
You and Lrx basically think as this woman does: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/03/opinion/dccc-democratic-primaries-interference.html
If a woman goes hiking, should she wear high heels or nice dress shoes? Probably not a good idea, right? How about if that woman is going to a nice dinner where she might network? Would make more sense. You don’t wear high heel shoes or dress shoes for every event, you wear them when they make sense. If a Democratic Socialist wins a Democratic Primary, the left has a dog in the fight, and so do working people. The system is benefiting the rich and corporate interests, and all the data in the world clearly shows this. If the Democrat that wins is Dan Lipinski, then the left and working people don’t have a dog in the fight and it would make more sense to support a third party candidate. For you to argue that the Democratic Party should be a given at this point, or that there are no valid critiques of working within that party, given its record, given its corruption, then you can’t see very obvious things. People that dismiss leftist critiques of the Democratic Party have really weak arguments, so it is obnoxious to see those same people dismiss arguments, more than anything because they have no real response to those critiques. Sean Hannity does the same thing when he can’t respond with something of substance.
You do realize that things like likability, trust, and name recognition matter, right? There’s all kind of literature on this stuff. Progressives can be corrupt, or straight buffoons, while moderates can be great individuals. The opposite is true as well. But the people make the decision when they vote. In some districts (mine) the regularly-run progressive candidates get slaughtered, while a moderate Democrat nearly unseated the incumbent. Of course, the moderate was a popularly elected local sheriff with strong name recognition, clearly a corrupt asshole. The progressive who got stomped in 2016 was a local doctor with zero name recognition. But it’s all corruption when things don’t go our way, right?
No, not one bit in the long run. A person having a good sense of humor doesn’t do a fucking thing to create a more equitable or efficient healthcare system, doesn’t do a damn thing to raise wages or to raise the power of workers relative to capital, doesn’t do a thing to address the environmental crisis. It’s worthless as far as the impact it has on most people, infrastructure or the environment. So, that funny, charming person gets power, their policies do what they do, and half of people don’t bother showing up to vote as a result.
True, but “moderates”, by definition, won’t structurally change anything, because they are “moderate”. And who, looking at economic data, looking at the trajectory we are on environmentally, thinks things are okay and don’t need structural changes. Corruption is a defining feature with most “moderates”, not the case with people seeking to structurally change a corrupt, undemocratic and deeply inequitable system.
First off, there is no “our”. You and I aren’t on the same team. I don’t benefit like you do from those in charge of the state or national party, and neither do most others here. And, as I have said, it is almost always the case that “moderates” get lots of support from politicians and interests that don’t want to structurally change the system. Corruption is near universal with those people. I also don’t know where you live. If you live in a rich part of California, it wouldn’t surprise me at all that people near you think this system is just wonderful. You’d be spit at if you made the arguments you do here to poor people on the South Side of Chicago that are victims of this system. Now, go back to lecturing people that have been harmed by the policies of the “moderates” and those behind them, people with no power, and go back to providing cover for your buddies in charge of the party.
And by the way, this thread isn’t about things not going my way. It is an article about Democratic Socialists winning, and you are here per usual shitting on anyone happy about that.
Joan, don’t look now but discover is back with his/her elementary neo-Malthusianism.
Yeah, not bothering to respond. Notice a pattern though? He or she did the same thing in the thread about Biden, bragging about how much more moderate he was than Sanders. Same in another thread about Sanders critiquing the Democratic Party, and now here in a thread about democratic socialists winning. Whenever there is a thread on the left taking on the Democrats, here he or she comes to divert the conversation.
GOT HIM! Good shots!!!
Ya same as lrx.
Pelosi too far to the left!!! That’s really funny. Read her reaction to the Nebraska results:
But they did win running as Democrats. And now face a republican in the general. It is still easier to run as a democrat than a third party candidate. And the more progressives win within the DP, the better positioned the Left is within the party. We can only hope there is a tipping point and the establishment admits defeat and goes off into the woods to commune with Hillary.
You go Girl. Nice to unload to the clueless (my bad, the centrists) who are slowly but consistently sinking the ship we call America.
What is truly alarming is that it is centrists, and their ineffectual form of politics, is what that paves the way for full blown fascism. Perhaps, someone over in the DCCC or DNC should crack open a history book every once in a while.