Local Elections

[Milkster]

AIPAC sucks but that guy also is the kind of guy who says shit like that and needs to learn when to shut up.

Idgaf which of them wins but at this point it would have been a lot better if one had given up.

If Abdul wins then it’ll fracture the coporate democratic faction.

[Byrthnoth]

It won't do shit, unfortunately.

He is currently running in the primary, and the general is also not a given, so there are three cases:
1. Loses primary, doesn't compete in general - left gets to claim he would have been the Messiah and AIPAC killed our chances
2. Wins primary, wins general - inevitably moderates to win the general and has materially the same positions as Haley in the Senate. His mouth noises about Israel are different but also won't matter because it doesn't look like it will be a 50/50 issue in Congress in the next six years. The best possible outcome is that he is a second good communicator like AOC.
3. Wins primary, loses general - The right will claim he didn't moderate enough and the left will claim he moderated too much, so either way his ass is grass. No one likes a loser. Republicans will be smug.


But no, in none of the outcomes does he break the corporate Democrat faction, whatever it is supposed to be. Best case is great, which is another AOC. For policy within the next six years, the best case isn't much better than Haley winning, though.

[Meresgi]

#4 Wins primary, wins general and actually sticks to his policies that he wants to push for that he's been talking about while also pointing out that Israel is a piece of shit. While not turning the tide potentially he's 1 more progressive voice and yet another showing that progressive dems with actual policies can win compared to Dems who suck off Netanyahu and think "speak like the hicks" and say "orange man bad" is the best way to win over the voting electorate still.

Hopefully if he does win, it at least gives the DNC a very very slight pause about trying to prop up Newsom or trying to hard to fight against a progressive agenda but not likely. Him winning over Haley is far better then her winning for long term health of Dems.

[Yabby]

It won't do shit, unfortunately.

But no, in none of the outcomes does he break the corporate Democrat faction, whatever it is supposed to be. Best case is great, which is another AOC. For policy within the next six years, the best case isn't much better than Haley winning, though.

I don't agree. Is this going to be the breaking point where Democrats finally see the writing on the wall and shift left the way their younger base wants? No. But I do think it keeps that shift moving, especially after what happened in New York. If Abdul wins, it also sends the message that a purple state is willing to elect a more progressive candidate. More importantly, it reinforces that campaigns built around what you can actually do for people are more effective than running on, "At least I'm not a Nazi," which is what it feels like 99% of the establishment Democrats are doing once again.

About 90% of the attack ads I'm seeing from Stevens aren't about why she's the better candidate or what she's actually going to do. They fall into one of two categories:

1. He disagreed with Gretchen Whitmer, so he must be sexist and hate women. I'm not exaggerating. That's essentially the message of the ad.
2. "We heard Republicans want to run against this guy, so you should vote for me instead." That's a pretty weak argument because it isn't running on anything of substance. And if Republicans truly wanted him to win the primary, why would they be loudly telling everyone that?

An Abdul victory wouldn't be as significant nationally as what happened in New York, but it would have a similar effect. It would put both Democratic and Republican establishments on notice that candidates without their backing can win primaries and elections. That's the kind of result that forces parties to adapt. Right now, the easy response is to dismiss New York by saying it's just an exceptionally liberal state. If Abdul wins, that talking point becomes much harder to make.

[Yabby]

Ok, now i really don't want her to win.

https://www.wcmu.org/local-regional-...s-second-event

Democratic Primary candidate Haley Stevens left her rally in Traverse City Friday after social media influencer and political activist Walter Masterson loudly questioned her association with the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee, also known as AIPAC.

Stevens was talking to locals and community members when the influencer, with more than 5 million followers on TikTok and Instagram, showed up and boisterously interrogated the U.S. Senate candidate about her campaign funding.

“Haley Stevens takes $46 million dollars in PAC money,” Masterson said. “That’s the kind of small-town values Michiganders love.”

The event at Right Brain Brewery was hosted with support from the Grand Traverse Democratic Party.

The current Michigan 11th Congressional District representative was escorted to her car by her campaign staff and swiftly left the scene, while Masterson stayed outside the car to shout about AIPAC.

Later that evening, she canceled her meet and greet with voters in Bay City because Masterson was in attendance.

"We did not feel that it was safe here given that there are protesters here," said Joetta Appiah, a spokesperson for the Stevens campaign.

What a little bitch.

[Salodin]

I'm sympathetic to y'all saying the establishment might learn a lesson if Abdul wins, and I'd rather the establishment lose on this one, but are y'all willing to admit maybe your plans or ideas are not electable if he does lose?

Or are you going to just double down and blame someone else for the loss like you're accusing establishment Dems of? The critique cuts both ways. Centrists have been screaming that these loses to progressives are only happening cause they're targeting very left areas, which is an absolutely true critique, and could possibly have strong evidence to support it based on the outcome of this general election if Abdul loses.

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

[Yabby]

are y'all willing to admit maybe your plans or ideas are not electable if he does lose?

Or are you going to just double down and blame someone else for the loss like you're accusing establishment Dems of?

I would admit it if I had actually seen it happen, but I haven't. If anything, New York suggests the opposite. Every serious attempt to elevate someone left of center has been resisted by the Democratic establishment. We won't know whether that approach can succeed in Michigan unless we actually try it.

Personally, I think he's the stronger candidate in both the primary and the general election. He's running on policies that appeal to people across the political spectrum when they're explained honestly instead of through the spin that's constantly attached to them.

And if you watched the debates, he absolutely dunks on Stevens every time.

I should also point out that the DSA has done a good job finding candidates who not only have the right message but also present themselves well.

This shouldn't matter, but appearances absolutely play a role in politics. Being attractive, or at least not off-putting, is a real advantage. I like AOC, but I can say with confidence that she wouldn't be where she is today if she looked like Stevens instead. Younger, more charismatic, and more attractive candidates simply connect better with the general public. That's part of what gets younger voters engaged, instead of watching two old, uninspiring candidates stand on stage making versions of the same argument.

[arus2001]

Far as I'm concerned, until "Is <candidate> a socialist?!" isn't being blasted in the media to fearmonger and discredit in continuation of boomer McCarthyism, you're never going to have an unbiased picture of what the electorate believes weighed against what the establishment shovels at them. Progressive policies tend to poll popularly, especially if you strip them of the buzzwords the right likes to spew to poison the concepts. Success also means not compromising on these agendas with people who want them to fail. That's basically been the big Dem flaw the past 4 decades because every inch given has been a mile reclaimed.

Regardless of whatever success a more progressive left does have, you're still going to have the strongholds that resist the message even as their states continue to decay while others thrive. It's a propaganda problem. It's an education problem. It's sure as hell a racism and xenophobia problem. You can even get some christian nationalism as a treat. Why the fuck anyone thinks what we've been doing the past few decades has been "working" when stuff is basically 3x as expensive as it was when I was a teen, pay hasn't kept up, workers' rights have been constantly eroded, retirement ages are being pushed back while financially even being able to do so becomes less likely, jobs continue to disappear to offshoring and tech advances, the entire health industry is a shitshow, corporations are fucking the housing market while landlords keep making rent out of reach, homelessness is criminalized, college is unaffordable assuming your career path even exists 4+ years later, women going to jail for getting abortions, and so on. This is the cumulative result of center-right/right-wing politics. I never voted for any of this shit and I doubt you guys did, either. It's simply political insanity to think yet another milquetoast establishment Dem candidate is the solution when all they've ever proven to be is a slight delay to the country's regression at best.

[Salodin]

You're passionate, I get it. And the left has been scoring some victories, small but victorious nonetheless.

But what really matters is a majority in Congress and the presidency. This election is a big put up or shut up moment, cause the environment has never been easier for outsiders to swoop in and win (which some already have). But if they miss the finish line? If that happens I hope y'all take a good look in the mirror and ask yourselves if your brand of politics is actually electable.

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

[Meresgi]

Watched a vid with "average voters" talking about Abdul and Stevens and one guy was talking about the "electable" candidate and how he was unsure and it's just like FUCKING VOTE FOR WHO YOU LIKE IN THE PRIMARY. You aren't a fucking political analyst, you don't need to vote for the one you "think" is gonna beat the GoP or some shit, just vote for the person you agree with and then go from there. Would I vote for Newsom over anyone else running for the Dem slot? Fuck no, fuck that guy. Would I vote for him come the election vs Vance or Trump 2028 Round 3? Yeah. Would I laugh when he loses like Kamala because he tried too hard to reach across the aisle and make friends with Fuentes and others? Yup!

[Yabby]

You're passionate, I get it. And the left has been scoring some victories, small but victorious nonetheless.

But what really matters is a majority in Congress and the presidency. This election is a big put up or shut up moment, cause the environment has never been easier for outsiders to swoop in and win (which some already have). But if they miss the finish line? If that happens I hope y'all take a good look in the mirror and ask yourselves if your brand of politics is actually electable.

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

As you said, it cuts both ways. If he ends up winning both, I'd ask you to reflect on what you've been saying as well.

This isn't directed at you specifically, but the number of people who think they're experts in politics and voter behavior reminds me of COVID, when everyone suddenly thought they were a virologist. If there's one thing Trump has shown, it's that the old assumptions about who's "electable" and who isn't don't necessarily apply anymore. Politics doesn't work the way it did in the '90s.

[Mrbeansman]

The two women candidates losing against the guy who mocked a disabled reporter and talked about grabbing women by the pussy should tell you everything about how progressive the typical voter is.

Sent from my SM-S942U using Tapatalk

[Meresgi]

The two women candidates losing against the guy who mocked a disabled reporter and talked about grabbing women by the pussy should tell you everything about how progressive the typical voter is.

Sent from my SM-S942U using Tapatalk

I mean the two women were establishment Dems who didn't have a single real policy between them. Granted I think had Biden actually not been a piece of shit and given Kamala the nom right at the start she may have actually pulled it together, but she listened to advisors and was so bland that the initial momentum for her faded out pretty fast. Remember she couldn't even win the primary. Trump 2016 I still firmly believe won due to him straight up lying to people, but at least addressing issues that people had in terms of job growth and everything else. 2024 Trump was lucky to have Kamala but also did the same thing were he just pointed to the economy and said "yeah it sucks" despite it being great for him and others who were killing in stocks. I mean he didn't ever really state anything policy wise either, but he did dip a toe into the "Yeah things suck for you poors, elect me and it will change"

[Emphasis]

Kamala also didn't go on Joe Rogan tho

[Kaslo]

Ya'll thinking a Dem could have outperformed that inflation rate is lul worthy

[Salodin]

AES won the primary.

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

[Yabby]

And the DCN better get behind him.

I'll say it again: if he can't win the general, I'll gladly eat my words. But if he does, I want people to stop pushing the idea that Democrats have to run to the middle to win. Michigan is a purple state, so if he wins here, it's the perfect litmus test that a more progressive candidate can be competitive with the right message.

[Salodin]

And the DCN better get behind him.

I'll say it again: if he can't win the general, I'll gladly eat my words. But if he does, I want people to stop pushing the idea that Democrats have to run to the middle to win. Michigan is a purple state, so if he wins here, it's the perfect litmus test that a more progressive candidate can be competitive with the right message.

They're already saying Michigan isn't a real purple state. Its mostly blue while narratives say Republicans have a chance when it's usually a low, outside chance of success.

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

[Yabby]

Didn't even win yet, and they're already trying to downgrade the accomplishment. Fucking state went to Trump. If that isn't a purple state, I don't know what is.

[Meresgi]

They're already saying Michigan isn't a real purple state. Its mostly blue while narratives say Republicans have a chance when it's usually a low, outside chance of success.

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

lol, they were all talking about how it was Purple and that's why AES shouldn't win and Stevens would be the best, oh but now its suddenly a super progressive state don't cha know.