Why are self-styled progressives already trying to depress voter turnout?

[MineralMan]

That's something I will never understand. Rather than unity in opposition to Republicans, we're seeing opposition to Democratic incumbents running in 2018. WTF is that about?

That's a rhetorical question, of course. I know the answer.

[theaocp]

1. They're called primaries.

It's pretty democratic. BTW, what IS the answer?

[MineralMan]

3. The Primaries are almost over.

We're having ours in Minnesota very soon. August is next week. I'm not talking about the primaries, anyhow. I'm talking about General Election turnout. The same people who spread gloom and doom in 2016 are at it again.

I'll leave you to think about the answer to my rhetorical question. It'll come to you, I'm sure.

[theaocp]

6. I hear you (sort of).

Incumbents need not be primaried. Otherwise, GE turnout will go down. I disagree 110%.

As for your rhetorical question, that's a trend I've noticed from some around here over the years. Perhaps you'd just like to say what you've got to say? It's simpler.

[MineralMan]

7. Perhaps not. For now, I'm just observing the GD thread list.

I hope others are, as well. It's looking very familiar, I think.

[mythology]

31. It's a way to imply something with "plausible deniability"

It's poor form in my opinion. If you have something to say, say it so it can be debated and discussed based on its own merits.

[dalton99a]

8. Interesting, indeed

It is hard not to notice. In other words, it isn't not hard not to notice, and it is not easy not to notice

Irregardless or regardless, GOTV!

[Hekate]

9. What's the answer, you ask? Ooo, I know I know....

When actual Hitler is in your actual White House and busily making lifetime appointments, if you don't want this horror show forever, you work on unity for our side.

The ship of state is sinking. This is not the time to rearrange the roster of people on our side, or "democratically" debate why the cook is serving Spam or why the junior officers ... Well, hell, do you get the point? Captain Queeg is NUTS.

You are asking this question as tho we have all the time in the world. We don't. But by all means, you go ahead and undermine my Congressional rep because she's not exciting, and ignore the fact that her GOP opponent promises to do everything he can to help Capt Queeg bash another hole in the hull.

[theaocp]

16. So, no primaries, then? n/t

[moriah]

20. I'd be totally happy with "no out of state money in contested primary races".

They should each have to run their campaigns against other Democrats with only money donated by in-state interests, and setting up Carey PACs like SwingLeft to accept the real money to help in the General -- though their current modus operandi in particular is to make money available immediately to incumbent Democrats because they're trying to increase the House, I'd be happy with a variation more themed SwingLeftLocally, where the money wasn't released even to an incumbent Dem until the primary.

But I'm a weirdo who witnessed first-hand the disaster primarying Blanche Lincoln with money from out of state helped create.

[Hekate]

38. That swooshing sound is the point going right over your head. nt

[theaocp]

41. You all sure don't like answering the question.

Why so uncomfortable?

[manor321]

2. Primaries?

I don't understand. You object to primaries?

After primaries, there should be rallying around the party. It isn't necessary beforehand.

[Honeycombe8]

46. Incumbents have an advantage at the general election polls.

The names are familiar, for one thing (that carries a lot of weight with voters, I've read...just that a voter recognizes the name gives a candidate a one-up in getting that vote).

The general public vote is different from a primary vote. Everyone in the primary is voting for a Democrat.

So it might hurt the general election. Of course, it might not.

[justhanginon]

4. Pretty sure I do too. Staying out of trouble, I will just leave it at that.

[MineralMan]

5. Yup.

There aren't a lot of primaries left, actually. That's not the goal, apparently. Spreading FUD is the goal, it seems to me.

[Hekate]

11. Ship of Fools sails again. smh

[mcar]

10. I hoped 2016 would have taught some a lesson

about actions that depress turnout. I'm seeing it didn't take.

[MineralMan]

13. Nope. No such luck. They're even reviving

the old "Third Way" shibboleth. Depressing the GE vote is the goal. It's intensely frustrating to see the same old crap being put forward again. I'm not amused.

[mcar]

36. I saw that "Turd Way" resurrection

[Power 2 the People]

12. We need to put the best candidates out there,incumbents or not

Joe Lieberman was once a Democratic incumbent. A rabid raccoon would have been a better choice.

[JCanete]

14. Why are you making shit up? We're seeing support for candidates running against incumbents, which

could bring democratic voters out. There should be unity in the GE. There should be a market-place of democratic ideas being tested against one another in the primary. How does this depress turnout? This is utter nonsense.

[MineralMan]

17. I remember. Very well.

Bye for now.

[JI7]

15. becsuse they aren't progressives. we saw how many who insisted

they were progressive and need to move to the left while attacking obama through his time in office and then Clinton had ended up supporting trump.

and many of these are the same ones that deny, dismiss. downplay the Russian attack on the elections.

[mtnsnake]

18. Please tell us who some of these "self-styled progressives" are that you are referring to

and please inform us as to what they are doing to depress voter turnout. Your post is a little on the ambiguous side.

[MineralMan]

19. Oh, I'll get a lot less ambiguous before long.

I promise.

[mtnsnake]

21. What's the point in waiting?

And how can there be any kind of constructive discussion if you're not willing to say who it is you're talking about or at least explaining how these "self-styled progressives" you're referring to are suppressing voter turnout? Who is it and how are they depressing voter turnout? How about giving us some examples of who and/or how, please.

[MineralMan]

23. I will post as I choose. I will post when I choose.

I will post what I choose.

I suggest you do the same.

[peggysue2]

22. Hahaha!

I believe we're on the same page on this issue, MM.

Eyes on the Prize for a massive November/Dem win. Because at this moment in history, it's the only thing that matters.

[MineralMan]

24. Yes! Absolutely!

[iscooterliberally]

25. "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good." - Ted Kennedy

Didn't he primary Jimmy Carter though? I guess no one is perfect.

[ProfessorGAC]

26. There Is A Strong "My Way Or The Highway" Element. . .

. . .to those posts. Incremental improvement is not an acceptable goal for those folks, i guess.

Given the current situation, simply getting a majority to put the brakes on stupid should be the one and only objective.

[FSogol]

30. One side wants to put the fire in the kitchen out, the other group is picking out furniture for the

dining room.

[Squinch]

32. That is my favorite description yet of the insanity of what we are seeing!

[ProfessorGAC]

34. An Apt Metaphor

Nice one!

[FSogol]

27. K & R. n/t

[oberliner]

28. Very good illustration of a loaded question

[MineralMan]

37. Gosh, thanks!

[Trust Buster]

29. They did not learn this very difficult lesson we are now living. Nothing has changed.

[bigtree]

33. fantastic greeting to these candidates' supporters

..."you're upsetting our apple cart."

This is the welcome these folks get for having the temerity to run as Democrats in a Democratic primary.

This is shameful.

Hysterical hogwash.

[brush]

42. MM mentioned in his OP the primarying of Dem incumbents.

Why change proven winners for another Dem when that time, effort and money could go to races where there is no sitting Dem?

Have at that with as many Democrats or Democratic Socialists who wants to jump in.

But IMO taking at least the House back is more big picture-wise now than battling against proven, sitting Democratic winners.

[bigtree]

43. he has his idea of who is a 'proven winner'

...completely discounting the prospect of the voters this challenger brings to the process, brings to our Democratic primary and ultimately, if these pols play their cards right, will fill out the votes needed in November.

All of this handwringing and animosity is what I find incredibly self-defeating. It's a sad defensive movement against these progressive candidates which will spread to their supporters, if they're not careful.

I'm just taking comfort in the hope that this isn't the strategy on the ground.

[brush]

44. Incumbents are proven winners. They've won before. Why sub them...

for people who aren't proven winners. Let those who have yet to win run in districts without Democratic incumbents'.

With trump doing daily damage to the country let's show some party loyalty and work big-picture and keep proven Dems in office and go all in helping primary challengers in districts where there are sitting, repug incumbents.

That's a total no-brainer.

Leave Dem winners in place, get repugs out and more Democrats or Democratic Socialists in place of repugs.

[DesertRat]

40. First post and you're bashing the DCCC?

Enjoy your stay.

[stonecutter357]

39. K&R !

[Gothmog]

45. I do not understand this either