“More broadly, some critics of the strategy argue that the party’s assessments of which candidate is more electable are often flawed, and that intervening can do more harm than good by alienating progressive voters and activists whose enthusiasm is crucial to Democratic chances this fall.”
That is my concern in a nutshell. I am not confident that the aging Democratic leadership have the best sensitivity in those fingers they are holding up to check the wind direction.
Hoyer is right. We do need Democrats that can win. Except the Democrats he’s been choosing haven’t been winning.
This old democrat wants younger leadership.
Democracies, to survive, need choice; no matter the party candidates should not run unopposed.
The Republican Party establishment, the Democratic party establishment… birds of a feather.
But the success of the insurgent Trumper wing of the Republican party should give hope to those who want to see a real change. Once the “Outs” become the “Ins”, the old “Ins” want to get real friendly with the new bosses. Real friendly.
All it takes are a few wins by “non-endorsed” candidates, and watch how the rhetoric changes. And how fast.
Steny, you’ve been doing a stellar job at recruiting, prepping and raising money for those winning Dems. Keep it up!
Oh, and doesn’t Spankee reach out and whack the Reds he thinks can’t win? And he’s the guy Hoyer wants to emulate?
“Need a Democrat that can win” = Only Democrats who will vote for Nancy and me
Pelosi and Hoyer need to go.
By trying to shape the electorate to look a lot like the politicians who have been coming in second in a two candidate race for all of the last generation Hoyer is doing his dead level best to keep his Republican overlords in power. I believe that exactly what the money men funding the Democratic half of the Kabuki theater that American politics has become are demanding.
Because it’s so much easier to just impute bad faith rather than their merely being wrong.
For decades, the Democratic Party insisted that voters want a "centrist dem"; and that only a “centrist” can beat the batshit-crazy criminal repug party.
Result: we have a repug controlled congress, executive branch, and soon, judiciary.
Voters want a kickass liberal. Maybe even a Socialist like Bernie Sanders.
Again: the Dem Party refuses to admit this because they also are mostly funded and controled by Oligarchs (Kochs, Mercers, Oil corporations) themselves.
Discretely and delicately phrased.
How “Progressives” and liberals see each other:
How the right and the Russians see both:
If you want a Dem majority, then stop pushing centrist gop lite candidates. Gop will vote for real thing instead, and progressives will stay out as there is no choice
"We’re human beings.”
Now THERE’S a winning slogan for November!
“Interference”? Um, it’s called “common sense.” Fuck the purity scolds and other assorted unicorn-chasing asswipes who keep blowing up the Dems’ chances.
Good for Hoyer
I was afraid he was going to come up with some lame ass explanation. I would have gone a step further and told DFA etc. to go and f…k themselves. He owes them nothing.
For those who say the party has a poor record for winning, my question is as compared to what? The so called “progressives”? Their candidate lost the primary for president by double digits. Hell they couldn’t even defeat the hated DWS or get Ellison elected to DNC. They also tried and failed to get control of the CA Dem party, the largest in the country. They are the last people to lecture anyone on winning.
Really? No choice? No choice between a mere centrist and the now openly fascist extremists in the GOP and it will totally be the fault of those who “push centrist gop lite” candidates rather than the voters who couldn’t stomach a choice between someone who only agreed with them on 70-90% of the issues and someone who agreed with them on 0%?
In regards to ensuring a dem on the ballot after a jungle primary, then the Dem leadership should try and convince, for the good of the party, the outermost candidates to drop out on their own.
For dem only primaries where we are guaranteed a candidate in November then national committees should steer clear of giving preferential treatment in the primary. The local voters will give their choice.
Sure, they can recruit their preferred candidate to run, but money and support from the national committees should be avoided until the general.
This is not about purity from the more left or from the center left, it is simply that the point of the primary is to let those who actually vote, choose their candidate.
Certainly we’ve seen the blowback already with Moser in Illinois.
Not real progressives. They know there is more at stake.
That said the national folks should stop giving advantage to their candidates.