More like the news reports on the day of the election. I read that there was a probability of both parties getting locked out in certain districts. Thankfully, the Dems have avoided that and will contest in all districts.
US Politics
- Thread starter Nick 0208 Ldn
- Start date
Will probably lose with ~40%. The last challenger got ~32%, but Cynthia (don't want to use that surname!) has a few more endorsements and recognition and (last I checked) better polling at this stage.
I've been following a few of the Dem primary results in terms of progressives. Mixed bag.
I think I can explain some of the bad results - Chicago, California, and (in Sept) New York. Where the party itself is established, it can put up barriers to reformers.
Concrete examples: in NY, you cannot vote in a party primary in September 2018 unless you registered to vote as a Democrat in Jan 2018. Even if you were a registered independent on Jan 1, you won't count. IIRC CN hadn't even announced in January, let alone organise registration. Meanwhile, the party and Cuomo have had decades to register people and know this stuff inside out. This deadline really hurt Bernie and will probably hurt her too.
In Chicago, there was a well-publicised race between an anti-abortion, anti-labour, anti-anything-good incumbent and the-opposite-of-that challenger in a very safe seat. The incumbent was endorsed not just by the party establishment but also by unions and womens' rights groups! After a bit of a shitstorm, about half the endorsements (all the reproductive rights groups and a few unions) flipped. He won on the day by a few hundred votes. How? Again, it's to do with the strength of the party organisation. It was an open primary so they campaigned in heavily Republican areas "to stop this commie menace", and were generally better when it came to ensuring turnout for their supporters. I know some people blamed open primaries for this, but I think the fundamental problem is that the left just can't match that level of organisation. (Btw the Republican challenger in that seat is a proper 1930s Nazi).
Finally, California had a totally disorganised and useless left - apparently the endorsement for one of the races was "not Feinstein" which doesn't help when the system demands that you pool your votes for a particular challenger. There were very few wins apart from a ballot measure about tenant rights in SF, where there was a coherent campaign.
OTOH, there have been very good wins in Pennsylvania, and I have no idea why. These are people to Bernie's left winning primaries and almost certain to win the general. Also Georgia. Again I don't know why.
Anyway, some good news from there, courtesy a progressive who won last year: https://theintercept.com/2018/03/20/larry-krasner-philadelphia-da/
Not so good, but many of the Sanders group backed candidates are not doing well
Is this about Dan Lipinski? Because if it is, you have no idea what you are talking about
Yea well, this is probably more realistic
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/06/2018-biggest-primary-takeaways-628596
It's a statistic, it can't be "realistic" or not. I don't have the 2017 numbers but I think they're about the same. The US left has been dormant for either 45 or 75 years depending on your definitions, so there's huge ground to make up. It hasn't been great or poor, it's okish.* Everything hinges on Bernie 2020.
Here is a source about my claim that Lipinski courted and won Trump voters (also includes the narrow margin of the election, <2%). Here is the source about the party, abortion activists, and unions backing Lipinski and some of them (but not some unions or the DCCC) switching to Newman. This is the GOP candidate. I was wrong about the "commie menace", it was the abortion stuff that was used to court Republicans.
*I think the model for success is the conservative movement as started by Buckley in the 50s which culminated with Reagan in the 80s and won a total victory with the rise of the DLC.
Last edited:
It's one thing to refuse to sell cakes with gay messages, it's another to refuse to sell to a gay couple. AFAIK the gay couple couldn't even discuss the design with him (where he could have made it clear, i.e. that it cannot have anything to do with gays) because he refused to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple. So it's clearly not a design-based objection, but a user-based one or a use-based one. I'd agree with the point that he could have made a design-based objection based on religious freedom. But not so much a user-based one.
You posted this earlier and I refuted it at the time coz I happen to live just miles away from lipinskis constituency. I'll post more in detail later but the guy never had the party backing.
Below are all the quotes that Jesus said about homosexuals:
Besides the fact that probability was completely wrong, so what?
Again, what is wrong with a party getting locked out of a specific election?
Why do you think the two parties have an entitled right to pre-select a candidate in every possible election?
If San Francisco is 8.5 liberals to every 1 conservative, why should Republicans get an unfair, artificial advantage?
I guess one problem might be what nearly happened in CA District 10 where despite Democrats amassing 44% of the primary vote the district was 1% shy of having two Republicans in the general, quite obviously disenfranchising half the electorate.
Probably a dumb question, but why is there only room for 2 candidates in the final election? Having more eliminates the potential disefranchisement of voters and gives a bit more room for diversity doesnt it?
https://www.facebook.com/corey.robin1/posts/1771169029615477
https://bostonreview.net/law-justice/lawrence-glickman-masterpiece-cakeshop
I love Corey Robin, his fb page always has the most interesting stuff.
Ok, your first says that the incumbent was endorsed by party establishment first and won through the strength of the party organization. You stated 'commie menace' and 'party organization' as facts but then backtracked a post later. At least to me, it is obvious that you had little idea on this race except reading a few articles on left-leaning sites and in my view, you are passing it off as a fact. I can only refute this particular case because I live literally 5 miles away from where this race took place. You have blamed 'party organization' for Lipinski's wins and how hard it is for progressives. Actually, the very opposite is true for this race. Newman had national-level endorsements and there was a hard campaign by many including DCCC leadership to ditch Lipinski. Dan Lipiniski is a Blue dog democrat who has been hated by everyone for a long time. He is hated by the 'establishment Democracts' too after he dumped on Obamacare. He didn't receive a lot of support from party organization at all. Lipinski also backed Bernie Sanders in 2016 because of his opposition to TPP.
Here are some links to give you another idea of how the election actually transpired.
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/12/16/dan-lipinski-conservative-democrat-election-299572
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/02/dan-lipinski-illinois-progressives-386090
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/25/lipinski-democrats-abortion-chicago-illinois-423431
You basically accused the party is putting up barriers for conservatives when his opponent received plenty of endorsement from national figures within the democratic party. Only AFL-CIO backed Lipinski but Newman had plenty of support from SIEU, NARAL, Emily's list etc. Blue dogs in the party pressurized DCCC to support Lipinski, but they backed away from endorsing Newman for a long time. You know well that the official position of DCCC is to always support incumbents. Both NARAL and SIEU lobbied DCCC heavily to delay endorsement if it comes to that. Nancy Pelosi and DCCC finally endorsed Lipinski with less than two weeks to vote and the support for Lipinski was lukewarm, to say the least. Even with DCCC support, many Obama aides who have considerable clout in Chicago actively campaigned for Newman because of his lack of support for Obamacare policies.
I personally think Our revolution is doing an important job in today's elections. They are pushing candidates to left-leaning positions. Cuomo won't have taken stances in some key issues if not for Cynthia Nixon. But does that mean that every district should have an Our Revolution backed candidate? I'm not sure. You claim closed primaries are hurting Cynthia Nixon in NY but open primary hurt Newman in Chicago. Progressives always claimed that Lipinski's district was heavily Democratic-leaning and any candidate put out by the Dems will automatically win. But they still lost to Dan Lipinski not only because of Trump voters voting for Dan Lipinski in open primary but also because there is a place for moderates (or in Lipinski's case a conservative running in a Democratic party). Over the last 6 months, I'm having a rethink of my position as a centrist in many of these issues, but I also think that you are being disingenuous to the extreme in blaming the 'Democratic party organization' for definite shortcomings on the progressive side of the party.
While I have disagreed with you, I've always taken your posts at face value in matters concerning US election, but I'm not sure it is true in this case.
I fail to see how that is a problem in any way and I don't see that as "disenfranchisement". That just sounds like monumental entitlement from the two political parties.
Its less"disenfranchisement" then when the 2nd place Democrat in San Francisco, Oakland or Berkeley is forced off the general ballot in favor of a Republican who is supported by far less voters than the 2nd place Democrat.
Its also ridiculous to call it disenfranchisement when people vote for candidates not political parties. For instance, Gavin Newsom would be my first choice for Governor. My very last choice would be Villaraigosa. Despite the fact they are both Democrats, Newsom is my favorite while Villar is my very last choice. I would prefer Republican, Libertarian, Green, Peace and Freedom and even Gary Coleman over Villaraigosa. Just because someone supports one Democrat does not automatically mean they support another Democrat.
That 10th District is pretty conservative. They have been represented by a Republican since 1995.
This is an area that if you drive past on the freeway you see signs like "Nancy Pelosi caused the Draught!"
The only reason that district went for Clinton was Trump hardcore anti-immigrant stance. They would have went for Jeb or Cruz over Hilary. Even hardcore conservatives in this region profit off illegal immigrant labor (farms, restaurants, hotels, etc) so they wouldn't vote for Trump. I would bet dollars to donuts that a lot of those voters might have voted for a Democrat as first choice but the incumbent might have been their second over another democrat especially that one Democrat that was defeated twice by the incumbent - he simply shouldn't have run and stepped aside but arrogance and ego didn't permit that.
Basically all I see is the will of the voters. If the voters of a district want two Democrats as their top two, then too bad for the republicans and vice versa.
And again, I fail to even see a positive benefit to even having political parties anymore in California. The trend is more and more Californians are declining to choose between the two. Going back to a mobster party primary would disenfranchise far more voters in every single election than the open primary system.
Last edited:
There is nothing wrong with a party getting locked out. I made the point about exploitation because of a tweet about the election in the 39th district. A "Democratic" candidate was suspected of being a plant as he had ample ties to the Republican candidate from the same district.
Am just thinking it would be easy to split votes if a Republican ran under the pretence of being a Democrat or vice versa. Now, like you said, Cali is very liberal and Democratic leaning. But, what if a district that strongly favours Dems has 5 Democratic candidates and just 2 Republican candidate? The Republican base will vote for the Republicans whereas the Democratic vote will be split 5 ways, thereby leaving a chance for both Republicans to get more votes. That tweet was what triggered the whole thought process and when I was following the election, I saw various reports about how both parties could gt locked out due to this.
Not sure why these "reports" keep getting brought up when I already pointed out they are completely pointless and irrelevant.
Because as you say at the start, there is nothing wrong with a party getting locked out. So not sure why this is even an issue to be reported upon. Yes both parties might get locked out. Great, that probably means the party in that district needs to improve or just disappear (my preference) because they are incompetent. I
Also it wouldn't happen the way you describe anyway. San Francisco is 84% liberal. 5 liberal candidates still get 16.8% of the vote whereas the two Republicans get 8% total split.
The 10th District has unique conditions that can't be generalized. Its a conservative rural-ish area where many Republicans also profit directly from illegal immigration. If two Republicans made the top two the only thing to really conclude is that in this unique voting paradigm two Republicans best represented the district. Plus, it didn't even happen anyway.
I take your point. Was just explaining my thought process on why I made the initial comment in the first place.
Fair enough. But I bring it up because I question the motives of this reporting. I mean you heard about District 10 , but did you hear reports of Districts 34 and 40 (Central LA) where Green party candidates got in the Top 2 and are now on the general ballot?
District 70 of the State Assembly (Long Beach) a Libertarian made it on instead of Republican which most likely better represents that population of economic conservatives but social liberals.
So I question the paranoia being spread in reports without the balanced information of how the open primary is working to better represent the people's interests and not the political party's interests.
http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-pol-ca-california-primary-election-results-2018/
@fishfingers15
I think primaries should generally be open. It can lead to some bad situations (like Newman), but so be it (like I said in that post). In 2016 the GOP had a lot more energy on their side in the primary and I think it helped during the general. Open primaries might help with that.
The Newman thing I first saw an article about in Dec last year, this one: https://theintercept.com/2017/12/12/illinois-democratic-primary-marie-newman-dan-lipinski/
At that time all unions (including SEIU), Planned Parenthood, and Emily's list(!) were supporting Lipinski. Most of these left him, but AFL-CIO remained. You've also noted how the DCCC and Pelosi finally decided to support him. I can't say about "lukewarm" but I'm guessing official party support matters.
I think OR has had some successes, but they've failed in most high-profile races (Newman or Laura Moser in Texas). Their big wins have mostly been surprises (Lee Carter and Larry Krasner).*You're right that Cuomo is talking better nowadays and that can be a credit to Cynthia Nixon but I have no idea what it will mean practically.
I actually think this success/failure has a lot to do with organisation too. DSA is much more left-wing than Bernie and Our Rev (and you'd expect they would have had an even tougher time), but they have a decent strike rate when they've fully supported a candidate. I think that is because they have a lot of volunteers willing to work unlike Our Rev. I know they helped Krasner a lot in his primary.
*Another endorsed candidate for Maryland governor - Ben Jealous - has gone from 3rd to 1st in polling when i checked just now, it was a race I had given up on. But he'll probably lose the general :/
I think primaries should generally be open. It can lead to some bad situations (like Newman), but so be it (like I said in that post). In 2016 the GOP had a lot more energy on their side in the primary and I think it helped during the general. Open primaries might help with that.
The Newman thing I first saw an article about in Dec last year, this one: https://theintercept.com/2017/12/12/illinois-democratic-primary-marie-newman-dan-lipinski/
At that time all unions (including SEIU), Planned Parenthood, and Emily's list(!) were supporting Lipinski. Most of these left him, but AFL-CIO remained. You've also noted how the DCCC and Pelosi finally decided to support him. I can't say about "lukewarm" but I'm guessing official party support matters.
I think OR has had some successes, but they've failed in most high-profile races (Newman or Laura Moser in Texas). Their big wins have mostly been surprises (Lee Carter and Larry Krasner).*You're right that Cuomo is talking better nowadays and that can be a credit to Cynthia Nixon but I have no idea what it will mean practically.
I actually think this success/failure has a lot to do with organisation too. DSA is much more left-wing than Bernie and Our Rev (and you'd expect they would have had an even tougher time), but they have a decent strike rate when they've fully supported a candidate. I think that is because they have a lot of volunteers willing to work unlike Our Rev. I know they helped Krasner a lot in his primary.
*Another endorsed candidate for Maryland governor - Ben Jealous - has gone from 3rd to 1st in polling when i checked just now, it was a race I had given up on. But he'll probably lose the general :/
I'm pretty sure that both Emily's list and PP both threw their support behind Newman in late December and I'm also pretty sure that Newman didn't lose to Lipinski just because of Trump voters. His district is heavily religious. They may be democratic leaning, but they are dem leaning and social conservative. I'd rather have Newman win than Lipinksi because what's the point of having a Democrat who votes with conservatives all the time, but that's another debate.
Obama wing (by extension the Clinton wing) was also against Lipinski. I just don't agree that the Democratic party somehow threw a wrench into the progressive campfire. They made it as hard as they could for an incumbent.
Dems gaining once again
Does anyone know what's going on here?
Bernie Sanders won’t endorse his son for Congress, citing “dynasty politics”
Sanders isn’t typically frugal with his endorsements, except for when it comes to Levi Sanders, his son, who’s running in New Hampshire.
Sincere or bad blood? He also refused to endorse his daughter who ran (and lost) for a small position in Vermont.
Bernie Sanders won’t endorse his son for Congress, citing “dynasty politics”
Sanders isn’t typically frugal with his endorsements, except for when it comes to Levi Sanders, his son, who’s running in New Hampshire.
Sincere or bad blood? He also refused to endorse his daughter who ran (and lost) for a small position in Vermont.
Probably sincere if he hasn't done it for either kid.
also basically sounds like he's having his cake and eating it
He probably doesn't want his kid to be tied to him and vice versa. For one, if Levi loses then it may reflect poorly on Bernie's own aspirations.
his son is also a crazy person
Mate, I think you are reading too much into the comments I made or maybe I misled you. My comment was solely based on the tweet about a possible rouge "Democrat". There was no spreading of paranoia or any negative motives behind the reporting. The reports were not about how Dems could get locked out of the whole elections, but mainly focused on a few districts, especially the Republican held ones like 39th, 48th, 49th etc.
And, I thought it was important because in the grand scheme of Nov 2018, it matters a lot. For Dems to take control of the House, they need each and every seat, and since California is very progressive (like you mentioned), it was important that they were in play in all the districts to improve their chances. And, I think Hillary did well in the Republican districts in the 2016 ballot, so the Dems were keen to not get locked out of such districts. The reporting was solely based on that and was not a negative reflection of the "jungle" primary system.
Just when I thought I’d reached peak Bernie fanboyness..
Damn he should have won in ‘16.
My apologies. My posts were not just informed by your posts but by things I was hearing on the radio, in airport bars, etc. I was hearing a common theme of misinformed reporting that was also echoed in your post. So sorry if it sounded like I was coming on too strong.
Just as example of what I mean, I hear you, people in airports, etc calling it a "jungle" primary but that even is actually incorrect.
A jungle election is technically is when you have one ballot and the winner takes all even without a majority of votes (just a plurality is needed). That was from my poli sci professor at Uni before the system changed in California.
That is different than an open primary where the top two advance to the general ballot and a majority is needed to win.
But since California switched its system, the way its reported, IMO, with the "jungle" word attached because that carries with it negative connotations. Its interesting to me how I watched the etymology change live due to the political parties not liking the open primary and thus trying to redefine it with a more negative sounding terminology.
No worries mate. No need to apologize either. I just assumed you were basing things of my posts, but I understand that you are used to seeing a lot more negative press being a local.
This is quite a swing from recent polls that suggested a tightening.
Nothing significant has happened in recent weeks?
I wonder if some of the goodwill Trump seemed to be receiving for the potential NK summit has largely worn off.