I see nothing wrong with any of these outcomes. Democrats need to stop being afraid to run apologetically on progressive ideas. They will win some races and lose others, but they would have anyway. It’s all about changing the national conversation and what’s considered acceptable political discourse. The Tea Party has been doing this for a decade; it’s our turn now.
Agree so much. So many voters say there’s nothing different between the two parties (not correct), so let’s give them a true choice.
Self-funding philanthropist Scott Wallace (D) also defeated Navy veteran Rachel Reddick (D) for the right to face Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA) this fall in a very swingy suburban Philadelphia district. Eastman, like Ashford, had previously been a Republican — a fact Wallace made sure voters knew with his bevy of campaign ads.
That’s odd - why would a candidate in Pennsylvania put out an ad against a candidate in Nebraska?
This article needs some editing.
Please, don’t quote “one national Democrat” without naming the person. There are “national Democrats” worthy of respect, and not. So what one such person says should not be newsworthy if we have no way to know who the opinion really comes from.
Well, be careful about wanting to be the Democrats’ Tea Party - that’s what helped to ruin the GOP. Otherwise I don’t have a problem with these outcomes or running strong liberal campaigns either.
Agreed. It sounds like Wallace is up for the challenge, because he has already pointed out that Fitzpatrick lived outside of the district for decades before getting elected, and that he tried to bequeath his seat to his brother.
“They will win some races and lose others”
Well, yeah, but you don’t win by losing. Getting back the majority is crucial - it matters more than pretty much anything else and matters WAY more than anything any individual member will say or do.
I’ll keep my fingers crossed. I just want us to start WINNING for a change.
I think the point is that the national party might not actually have the better crystal ball than the local voters who showed up for the primary.
The national party is a slow-rolling disaster. I’m sure we could spend all day counting the ways.
The last sentence of the fourth paragraph belongs in the third paragraph.
The national Democrats felt that other candidates were a better fir for these districts, that’s why they supported them. They weren’t supporting a “war” against progressives. Hopefully, those nominees will win, but in the Nebraska district, I doubt it. This is about having enough members in the House to organize the House. You can’t do that if you don’t win.
Some Democrats don’t want to win, that’s why they resented Bill Clinton. He knew how to win.
Hillary won as well (the most votes). It was the so-called progressives who voted for Jill Stein
And now representing the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party…
ETA. The previous home to FDR, HST, RFK etc.
Yes, us members of the Democratic Tea Party are a huge danger to love and healthcare everyone to death, just like the Republican’t Tea Party wants shoot and deport everyone to death. Thank you for playing The False Equivalency Game…
Well personally honey I wouldn’t care to own being a Tea Partier whether it was meant progressively or not, but as always YMMV.
“stridently progressive positions” – “strident” is always a diss. No one ever writes, “I admire her/him, she’s/he’s strident!” Being, for example, against pot prohibition is not “strident,” nor even particularly “progressive” – it’s favored by a majority of Americans. In any case, if you’re going to call everything progressive “strident,” the fairness doctrine requires all non-progressive positions to be labeled “mealy mouthed.”
Dear Cameron Joseph,
These three outcomes are not the same, and I think it’s a mistake to lump them all together in this way.
Sometimes you have a candidate who by virtue of experience (Ashford) or profile (Reddick) seems pitched right up the center for a general election win in a swing/difficult district. Other times, you have a right-wing Democrat who has no business being the nominee whatsoever – that’s Morganelli. Morganelli was not the best candidate to win the general election. It is better for the party to have a standard-bearer in that district (Wild) who actually stands for the core values of the party. Wild’s chances are better than Morganelli’s would have been, and she’ll be a better House member by far. Meanwhile, Wallace’s self-funding ability means he might well be as good or better a general election candidate than Reddick; it’s sort of apples and oranges, and hard to know.
The only one of these races that actually fits the storyline is the Nebraska district, where Eastman will have a tougher road than Ashford would have. But she still has a significant chance. I hope the DCCC will not write her off – the numbers suggest that they should not!
Well bless your heart, sweetie. “Tea Party” was your condescending description, not mine…
yeah, when I saw “stridently progressive,” I scrolled up to see if this was an AP article…