I'm not a professional politics-knower, but as a voter I just do not find the procedural 4D chess arguments people make with respect to whether someone "should" primary an elected official at all persuasive
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
This argument has never made sense to me. It’s a PRIMARY. A dem is going to win either way. Let’s vote for the one who we think will do the job the best and who aligns with your core values.
Yeah but the primary challenger said something critical about my team's leadership and current performance instead of being an outright fan, so they must be a wrecker.
The argument goes that primary challengers depress general election turnout. But that's far from a fact of nature. Really though The Democratic Party will often refuse to support a primary winner if they're further to the left than the incumbent they defeated.
That’s a pretty bad argument. A primary challenger might not increase voter turnout but it doesn’t depress it. In fact, depending upon the specific challenger and political climate, it can actually encourage voter turnout. I don’t care who party leadership supports, what matters is who WE support.
Every office-holder should have an opponent every time. Even in hopeless challenges, a challenge can raise good points an incumbent should respond to or adopt.
If they aren't trolling, the reason they believe so fiercely is because they don't understand their world and they're mad at the people who do. To them it looks like 'just believe us' works and they want that 'power' without following the same steps as those who understood took.
Agree. I also would like to point out the Schumer example where every single thing he does for damage control causes more explosions and sickness. The politik bubble can lead to reality detachment (even unwittingly).
What ppl in Arizona or a swing house district want may not be what the most leftist ppl want & they need to accept that- nationalizing a lot of local races is how you lose more power
Idgaf how "established" or "connected" you are. If you no longer represent the will of the constituency, you don't get to represent them. Camping out on a congressional/senate seat for 30 years doesn't somehow make you better suited for the job.
Every single incumbent should be primaried except the squad people and maybe like two other chill people. Otherwise if you’re in office you should face a primary and hopefully be removed. Top to bottom assault on all holding office.
Nevermind the fact that Dem strategists overly concerning themselves with 4d chess is what has made the party completely nonfunctional in the first place. Here in the real world we call it "analysis paralysis."
With our political system, it's always a good time to primary someone. That's the time to voice everything you think the current guy is doing wrong, and make them face the consequences.
Once it's the general election is the only time to shut up and support your party. And only until election day
If you can't convince voters to vote for you, that's your problem, not the voter's problem. People really need to remember in which direction power is supposed to flow.
If you get elected once then you are entitled to that office until you die even if it takes 5 decades. Nobody should every primary you because you're better than them and they are just young and stupid.
If you, an elected official, are facing an energetic primary challenger, perhaps you should take the opportunity to reflect on what you have not offered your constituents that lead them to seek change
I see one problem with that argument if we applied it to some prior primary and general elections. The constituents threw out some good people, and it was usually because of outside funding for the challenger. But there’s nothing wrong with outsiders challenging the elected in a democracy!
I mean, if almost all your peers in the party voted one way, but you and ten of your peers decided to vote how the entirety of the opposing party voted, well, I don't know why it's controversial to ask if you're in the right party.
If someone's record as an elected official is threadbare enough that just running against the official in a primary scares the official, then the official deserves to lose because they haven't been doing anything beneficial for their voters.
Yes but it isn't now and has never been about leadership. It's about power. We don't elect leaders, we elect the people we want to benefit from corruption, apparently.
Or making any effort whatsoever to train future torch bearers, instead of having to pry the torch from their literal cold dead hands like every single time
Yea - us plebs have a hard time understanding why our elected officials arent actually operating or fulfilling their duties to best support their constituents. We’ve become so accustomed to their lying and selfishness that we just accept it…
From what I've seen, instead of making campaign promises, the modern political landscape comprises solely of saying why their political opponent will sell your very soul for a half-filled Subway Sub Club Card from 1992.
I'm not either, but setting aside the "should" for a look at "why" makes me think this is for fundraising and clout. If you are picking a district you don't live in, wouldn't you pick one with a centrist you can run in contrast with?
Please join Rabbi Rothschild’s World Peace Discord: https://Discord.me/Rabbi Rabbi=Truman Show YouTube Live 24/7/365 3+ years. We dare you: type #ViralRabbi in any social media search. Data=Earth’s #1 resource. Rabbi=most data ever. Share to be a trillionaire! #RabbiRothschild
see, when the candidate loses to the more popular one in the republican party, the winner rewards the loser with power and influence. (see: marco rubio, etc)
you do NOT see this in the democratic party because the left flank wants things the democratic party does not want.
So, you want to play by the Republican playbook.
A terrible vision for the nation and millions of people. But ... UNITY.
🤔
Question. Then why don't you join them?
Democrats have been running and accepting large donations from people who wanted to preserve the liberal capitalist status quo. Their big, world historical error, was believing that a fringe left was a greater threat to that status quo than fascists on the right.
“Understanding how Washington works” is also something that can be provided by a consultant and/or a smaller number of elected officials. It’s not a policy and you don’t run 5000 candidates on it
Except the Democrats helped break it. Just go back to the mid 90's and relaxing rules that said how many outlets one company may own. Among other things.
Yup. Stability in politicians is in general more of a positive than a negative so backing the already elected in normal times make sense. In times of chaos and tipping points to even worse stuff like now, if they can't answer the moment they need to realize they can and will be replaced.
Power corrupts and the longer someone in power the higher the risk of corruption. But that is precisely the point as your Supreme Court has legalised bribery and corruption. The donors need to be reassured by a long history of doing their bidding.
I have a better suggestion: Hire an influencer and elect progressive people who can be effective legislators. "Vote for me because I'm young" just screams entitlement to me. We need more Jasmine Crocketts with solid experience and not the Left equivalent of Boebert.
If you think Kat is the lefts version of Boebert you have no idea who she is and what she’s done.
She’s an excellent researcher and communicator - exactly the kind of person we need.
Look. I'm fairly biased because I've watched a lot of her reporting over the last few years. I actually question if this is the right move vs some high level funders getting her more exposure on the streaming platforms where she has produced tremendous content.
The district has a year to decide.
Sorry is she selling dubious healthcare products on TikTok? The use of “influencer” as a blanket pejorative isn’t really meaningful. Are people not supposed to run if they haven’t been hand picked by the party apparatus? Didn’t do a congressional internship?
That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm not sure why'd you think that.
Part of being a politician is politics. The political environment is massively different from where it was 20 years ago or even 10. People who can't recognize it or effectively adapt should step aside.
When was the last time Congress has faced a constitutional crisis like this? Say she wins by substitution but the House remain a minority. What can she do within Congress to resist the GOP & Trump? And why doesn't she move to a red district instead?
I generally don't find any 4D chess arguments very convincing at all. They often seem to be predicated on the idea that voters shouldn't be trusted and should discount their own perceptions. Maybe true sometimes, but really not a good general principle.
Especially when public perception is used to abdicate public responsibility at the same time by a lot of members of that same group. We're seeing tons of Dem politicians throw trans citizens under the bus at the behest of some chart, but hate everything else that chart says at all times.
I don’t think they want to have to answer to their constituents any more than republicans do. They keep trying to tell us what we want instead of listening to us and now we’re in deep shit. Primary their asses.
You don’t need to be a professional politics-knower to see through that weak 4D chess mix! Voters got the RIGHT to bring the JUICE to the primary—no matter who’s in office!
If someone ain’t bringin’ the refreshment? BUST THROUGH that wall and challenge ‘em! That’s democracy, baby!
It seems to me that we all need to condense our calendars on this.
Seems if you can get a signature threshold or polling threshold or something to get on a ballot, six week primary, six week general election. Public money.
Disagree. She and the party establishment squandered the excitement they generated when they had Joe drop out by going to the right and running on convoluted and milquetoast policies.
AOC defeating Crowley didn't add a single Democratic seat in the House. But she certainly raised the profile of the Democratic party among younger voters. And I suspect Crowley wouldn't be rising to meet the current moment in the same way that AOC is.
I remember one beneficiary of gerrymandering defending his district boundaries on the ground the party promised him if he won election he'd never have to fight to keep his seat. Isn't he owed what they promised?
I just think it sets a dangerous precedent if elected officials can be replaced by a popular mandate from their voters at regular intervals. Really Orwellian stuff.
The party is critically inadequate, now. Their message doesn't excite people, and they lack the courage to fight for America even in a constitutional crisis.
They will change only through electoral signals. If those aren't from primaries, they'll be from generals.
How bout you fucking listen to why they had to avert a shutdown! Drumpf and Elmo Muck would have continued to chop and carve away at the federal government without any courts to tell them to knock it off!
But retards like you would still find a way to blame Schumer for all that!🖕😠🖕
Agreed! We want to have as much choice and as many voices as possible. Think how good you'd feel if you got primaried and won. Champagne is OK, sham democracy is not. Real choices.
Comments
If they did the job for those who voted them in, they wouldn't have any fear of losing that seat.
Too many people sit back and wait for someone else to oppose them.
Of course, you being an ignorant shit for brains, you'd have blamed Schumer for that too!
2) primary doesn’t mean you end up w/ a better option
3) it’s 1 thing to primary a safe blue another to do it to a swing seat which has much higher risk
4) local voters should choose candidates not ppl in NY or CA
What ppl in Arizona or a swing house district want may not be what the most leftist ppl want & they need to accept that- nationalizing a lot of local races is how you lose more power
Once it's the general election is the only time to shut up and support your party. And only until election day
See, there's your mistake, you believe voters get to have an opinion in a democracy, silly peasant, go back and work the fields, serf.
Your lord... sorry, *representative* has spoken.
A small taste of power, attention and money and they won’t let go.
They do leadership training sessions for local school board candidates across the state and have built a national network of operatives and officials.
Many Dems idea of succession is leaving the seat to their kid.
https://bsky.app/profile/premthakker.bsky.social/post/3ll52uaxsgk2c
glhf
Campaign like hell in the primaries!
But get behind whoever is the eventual nominee.
Politics is collective action.
#VoteBlueNoMatterWho
If someone runs as a primary challenger and isn't able to win an election, they lose.
Going to be real easy to track the bot accounts as these primary challengers get announced.
If you get the nomination, GREAT!!
If not, please SUPPORT THE EVENTUAL NOMINEE!!
Politics is collective action. Republicans know this, and it's why they have more unity.
you do NOT see this in the democratic party because the left flank wants things the democratic party does not want.
A terrible vision for the nation and millions of people. But ... UNITY.
🤔
Question. Then why don't you join them?
Check out my daily 🧵of editorial cartoons, pinned to my profile.
Cartoon by Daniel Boris @danboriscreates.bsky.social
1. The Democratic party HAS prioritized electing politicians who "understand how Washington works"; and
2. Well here we are, aren't we
To be fair, our media systems are really broken and they can't fix that. But that only goes so far.
I have a better suggestion: Hire an influencer and elect progressive people who can be effective legislators. "Vote for me because I'm young" just screams entitlement to me. We need more Jasmine Crocketts with solid experience and not the Left equivalent of Boebert.
She’s an excellent researcher and communicator - exactly the kind of person we need.
Not an Ivy League insider.
Not generational wealthy.
Not insulated from the effect of cruel policies .
The district has a year to decide.
“Okay!”
“No not you”
“😞”
Part of being a politician is politics. The political environment is massively different from where it was 20 years ago or even 10. People who can't recognize it or effectively adapt should step aside.
You don’t need to be a professional politics-knower to see through that weak 4D chess mix! Voters got the RIGHT to bring the JUICE to the primary—no matter who’s in office!
If someone ain’t bringin’ the refreshment? BUST THROUGH that wall and challenge ‘em! That’s democracy, baby!
Seems if you can get a signature threshold or polling threshold or something to get on a ballot, six week primary, six week general election. Public money.
In competitive districts, that means a better job at beating someone worse than either of you.
In noncompetitive districts, it means a better job of governing.
AOC defeating Crowley didn't add a single Democratic seat in the House. But she certainly raised the profile of the Democratic party among younger voters. And I suspect Crowley wouldn't be rising to meet the current moment in the same way that AOC is.
It's OK I listen to Steve Wilson
Overview superb.
AOC found out when she went up against Pelosi in the beginning
There’s a way to Enact change in our government
Either F it up like T & Leon
Or
Work within the confines of our constitutional republic
Period
#JustDoIt
The party is critically inadequate, now. Their message doesn't excite people, and they lack the courage to fight for America even in a constitutional crisis.
They will change only through electoral signals. If those aren't from primaries, they'll be from generals.
But retards like you would still find a way to blame Schumer for all that!🖕😠🖕