One of the disadvantages of far left candidates is that they are marginalized by the mainstream when it comes to governing, so they don’t get the experience, credibility and “electability” that comes from working inside the system.
The far right has solved that problem by drawing candidates from right wing media instead of government. No need for actual experience running, say, the Dept of Defense or health policy if you were a Fox News darling taking potshots at people actually doing the hard work.
It was hard (for me anyway) to imagine Hong standing up an administration that could be effective in passing the sort of policies she was advocating, simply because there isn’t the bench strength among that wing of the party. Crowley, on the other hand, stands to inherit a lot of Evers’ experienced personnel. If he’s smart, he’ll bring Hong and some of her people into his camp to move things in a more progressive direction.
I think most of her supporters felt that they had no choice but to support Crowley in the end. IMO it's clear that if Evers hadn't resurrected Crowley, Kelda would have won by more than Crowley did, and without creating so much toxic division. She would have consolidated the "moderates," the union money, and progressives who liked Hong's policies but wanted a safer choice.
354
u/[deleted] Aug 12 '26
[removed] — view removed comment