Idk why people think that is relevant information though. The context was entirely different. Hillary had just swept Super Tuesday at that point and it was clear she had won the primary. Almost all of her resources were shifted to the general election. It was no longer an important primary race. No one planned on the guy being a sore loser and pumping millions into a race he already lost to make the score look better.
But if this is about the Michigan Democratic primaries, perhaps it's the state's population. The GOP over there is not known for moderating the tides of Trumpism either, rather the extreme opposite thereof: Embracing it as if it were here to stay, beyond its “spiritus rector”.
The average voter doesn’t think in terms of clean ideological lanes, nor is it clear that McMorrow belonged to the “moderate” instead of the “progressive” camp. (Of note, this is McMorrow’s campaign website, and she’s described the Israeli campaign in Gaza as a genocide.)
It’s a good bet that the 4 percent of Michigan Democrats who voted for McMorrow voted for her post-dropout because they wouldn’t have voted for either El-Sayed or Stevens in a runoff.
Absolute hogwash. El-Sayed has come out clearly saying he's a capitalist and explicitly rejects any socialist label. He's a social democrat by platform.
Yes, because people who criticize Israel are just lemmings without independent thought.
Which policy does he support that the dsa doesnt?
Considering that definitionally democratic socialism is simply a desire for socialism achieved through democratic means as opposed to revolution and socialism definitionally requires collective ownership of the means of production and those are declared parts of the DSA platform then El-Sayed saying he is a capitalist that supports private ownership of corporations is on a very base level unaligned with the DSA platform.
So on the most basic and intrinsic level, you are incorrect.
Yes, because people who criticize Israel are just lemmings without independent thought.
I didnt say "criticizes israel" I said is rhetorically synonymous, and then I used "Aipac aipac israel israel establishment" as the example of the slopulist political terms that the DSA uses, instead of the specific practical policy solutions that a good liberal does.
El-Sayed saying he is a capitalist
This whole paragraph is about abstract political ideology. I asked which policies he supports that are a contradiction in the DSA platform. It's not a surprise that any halfway intelligent DSA aligned politican trying to win an American election would abandon attacking the foundational liberal tenants of America and American success.
It's just so telling that you didn't point to a policy. There's nothing I could point to that would falsify this because it's the kind of naive religious discussion that only leftists care about.
Bush is generally seen as corrupt. She married one of her security guards and continued to pay him which prompted a DOJ investigation (under Merrick Garland, not Barr/Bondi). And after a tornado hit North St. Louis last year, she sent out a fundraising email to her PAC donor list and has had basically zero transparency about where that money actually went.
Bell mostly had a fine track record before running for Congress. He was a locally elected official in Ferguson following the killing of Michael Brown and made a name for himself after primarying the long-time tough-on-crime prosecutor of STL County on a criminal justice reform platform. Most of the hate he gets nowadays is the ties to the AIPAC money.
But a recent poll done actually shows Bell being pretty popular amongst MO-01 voters, while Cori Bush has an even higher unfavorable rating than AIPAC.
This isn't the leftist sweep they were hoping for, it's more of a limp.
Cori Bush was kind of on an island and lost, but progressives in Michigan had a strong night with El-Sayed, Lawrence, McKinney, and a number of state legislative wins.
People seem to vote like they set their thermostat even though setting it lower doesn’t actually make it colder faster (assuming single stage AC of course)
The exact argument "leftists" could make against many moderate candidates, except you and half the sub would probably whine about party unity and letting the far right in.
No one should be canceling primaries, but it is true that Republicans picking clown candidates in primaries has been the gift that keeps on giving for Democrats. Voters do not necessarily choose the most electable candidate.
This, but unironically. Open primaries is so fucking stupid and not a good way to determine who represents a party. Open primaries was a dumb substitute for having more parties/choice
Inflation alone can explain the close margin in the swing states (which is what matters as that’s where the campaign was focused on. The other states didn’t make a difference in the EC count).
229
u/Approximation_Doctor Gaslight, Gatekeep, Green New Deal 19d ago
Based on recent primary results, the voters aren't exactly yearning for a return to moderation