Her defeat is another loss for progressives in a race defined by Democratic divisions over the war in Gaza, with pro-Israel groups pouring millions into a campaign to oust her from office.
Protest abstentions are better, but also simply too dangerous when Congress is more or less split 50/50. We’re yet again being held hostage by an inherently corrupt election process.
It definitely sends a signal, just the complete opposite one that protesting that way intends. Republicans getting more votes will be seen as a signal that the republican candidate was more popular and outperforming. It encourages people running there to act more like that republican
Mind you that the republicans are certainly going to have an even worse take on gaza
Edit: futher, a party looking at a primary moving the right followed by higher republican margins from a protest vote signals that the district as a whole might be moving to right
Edit2: to really hit the point, protest votes for republicans appear identical to full support of republicans. There is no “why I voted” short section at the ballot box, only number of votes
This is missing what I am saying:
Protest votes for republicans appear identical to fullthroated support for republicans. There is no “why I voted” short answer on the ballot
All it does is signal support the (also AIPAC backed) republicans
It will not be seen as a consequence of not choosing a progressive
If a republican wins there, you are absolutely not going to see progressive run in that seat. You will see more and more “centrists” run. The long term picture is worse
I don’t think you understand how politics and elections work.
If people on the flanks give their voting power to “Blue (or Red) no matter who”, you end up with the Clintons and Bushes of the world.
Parties have no incentive to actually do anything for their flanks.
When people on the flanks leverage their voting power effectively, you get MAGA and Justice Democrats.
Anyway, hope you learned something today. Otherwise, hope you have a nice day.
Let me get this straight. Are you seriously claiming that the MAGA crowd seized control of the GOP by protest voting for Democrats in the general elections?
Agreed, but also: if I were in their district (Bush or Bowman), I might even consider voting Republican out of spite.
Yes, AIPAC is to blame, but Democrats also need to grow a spine against AIPAC. They can’t just take progressive voters for granted.
Voting for republican as a protest only pushes things further to the right. It absolutely does not signal that you want to push the other way
Besides, AIPAC is a bipartisan organization, so the GOP candidate is also going to be a Zionist stooge.
Protest abstentions are better, but also simply too dangerous when Congress is more or less split 50/50. We’re yet again being held hostage by an inherently corrupt election process.
If the Democratic congressional candidate underperforms the Democratic presidential candidate, it definitely sends a signal.
Obviously, it only “sends a signal” if progressives say what they’re gonna do.
But it has a double whammy: Dems get a 2 vote difference when you switch.
It definitely sends a signal, just the complete opposite one that protesting that way intends. Republicans getting more votes will be seen as a signal that the republican candidate was more popular and outperforming. It encourages people running there to act more like that republican
Mind you that the republicans are certainly going to have an even worse take on gaza
Edit: futher, a party looking at a primary moving the right followed by higher republican margins from a protest vote signals that the district as a whole might be moving to right
Edit2: to really hit the point, protest votes for republicans appear identical to full support of republicans. There is no “why I voted” short section at the ballot box, only number of votes
You have to look at the bigger picture, not the short term issue.
If progressives want to be taken seriously, and if Americans want AIPAC out of politics, then there have to be consequences.
If Latimer and Bell hold on to the seat, corporate and AIPAC Democrats only learn that they can take progressives for granted.
If they lose their seat, they learn that they need progressive support to win.
Yeah, two years of a republican rep will suck. But it’s only two years.
This is missing what I am saying: Protest votes for republicans appear identical to fullthroated support for republicans. There is no “why I voted” short answer on the ballot
All it does is signal support the (also AIPAC backed) republicans
It will not be seen as a consequence of not choosing a progressive
If a republican wins there, you are absolutely not going to see progressive run in that seat. You will see more and more “centrists” run. The long term picture is worse
I don’t think you understand how politics and elections work.
If people on the flanks give their voting power to “Blue (or Red) no matter who”, you end up with the Clintons and Bushes of the world. Parties have no incentive to actually do anything for their flanks.
When people on the flanks leverage their voting power effectively, you get MAGA and Justice Democrats.
Anyway, hope you learned something today. Otherwise, hope you have a nice day.
Let me get this straight. Are you seriously claiming that the MAGA crowd seized control of the GOP by protest voting for Democrats in the general elections?
Ok, so basically what you’re saying is that you want democrats to vote red because.yiu also vote red. Glad we cleared that up. Go away.
What you are describing happens in primaries.
If you vote in the general for an R, oddly enough, politicians think you support the R ticket. Way to kneecap progressives guy.
Expecting Republicans to be on the correct side of Isreal is legit the dumbest thing I’ve read all week.
That’s a stupid fucking idea. “I don’t like the pizza toppings you ordered, so I’m going to punch myself in the testicles. That will show you.”